| Page Range | 42771-43500 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 42944 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 42983 - Notice of Request for Information Regarding Health Care Standards for Quality | |
| 83 FR 42982 - Announcement for Public Meeting Regarding Health Care Standards for Quality | |
| 83 FR 42937 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 42939 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 42817 - The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks | |
| 83 FR 42859 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Contract Pilot and Aircraft Acceptance | |
| 83 FR 42861 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; National Poultry Improvement Plan | |
| 83 FR 42860 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Small Lots of Seeds Without Phytosanitary Certificates | |
| 83 FR 42969 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Disposal of Aeronautical Property at McGhee Tyson Airport, Alcoa, TN (TYS) | |
| 83 FR 42891 - Anacostia River Watershed: Data Solicitation in Support of Revising Total Maximum Daily Loads for Debris, Floatables, Trash | |
| 83 FR 42780 - Lignosulfonic Acid, Calcium, Comp. With 1,6 Hexanediamine Polymer With Guanidine Hydrochloride (1:1); Tolerance Exemption | |
| 83 FR 42818 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
| 83 FR 42892 - MERP Systems, Inc.; Transfer of Data | |
| 83 FR 42783 - Zinc Oxide; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
| 83 FR 42919 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
| 83 FR 42878 - Procurement List; Additions | |
| 83 FR 42882 - Procurement List; Proposed Deletions | |
| 83 FR 42881 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions | |
| 83 FR 42884 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 42776 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 230.4 to 215, Baton Rouge, LA | |
| 83 FR 42778 - Security Zone; Ohio River, Olmsted, IL | |
| 83 FR 42874 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Participant Letter of Interest | |
| 83 FR 42946 - Information Collection: NRC Form 244, “Registration Certificate-Use of Depleted Uranium Under General License” | |
| 83 FR 42868 - Award Competition for Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Center in the State of Alaska | |
| 83 FR 42874 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) Information Collection System | |
| 83 FR 42936 - Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 42948 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 42789 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2018-19 Season | |
| 83 FR 42981 - Art Advisory Panel-Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 42931 - Order of Succession for HUD Region X | |
| 83 FR 42883 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 42866 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2018-2020 Business Research and Development Surveys | |
| 83 FR 42771 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan | |
| 83 FR 42933 - Order of Succession for HUD Region IX | |
| 83 FR 42929 - Order of Succession for HUD Region VIII | |
| 83 FR 42933 - Order of Succession for HUD Region VII | |
| 83 FR 42931 - Order of Succession for HUD Region VI | |
| 83 FR 42930 - Order of Succession for HUD Region V | |
| 83 FR 42934 - Order of Succession for HUD Region IV | |
| 83 FR 42961 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 42935 - Order of Succession for HUD Region II | |
| 83 FR 42805 - Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Decreased Assessment Rate | |
| 83 FR 42948 - 60 Day Notice-Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 42962 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 42957 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 42958 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 42883 - Early Engagement Opportunity: Implementation of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 | |
| 83 FR 42893 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 42893 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 42932 - Order of Succession for HUD Region I | |
| 83 FR 42862 - Revision of the Land Management Plan for El Yunque National Forest | |
| 83 FR 42945 - Tennessee Valley Authority, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2 and 3, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 | |
| 83 FR 42895 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 42979 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 83 FR 42876 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops | |
| 83 FR 42802 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pollock in the Bering Sea Subarea | |
| 83 FR 42947 - New Postal Products | |
| 83 FR 42912 - Request for Nominations for the National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice | |
| 83 FR 42911 - Request for Nominations for the Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry | |
| 83 FR 42852 - Payment, Filing, and Service Procedures | |
| 83 FR 42890 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools and Revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plans (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 42889 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plan Requirements (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 42902 - Hematologic Malignancy and Oncologic Disease: Considerations for Use of Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials for Drug Product Development; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 42978 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 83 FR 42978 - Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 42940 - Office on Violence Against Women | |
| 83 FR 42868 - Foreign-Trade Zone 78-Nashville, Tennessee; Application for Subzone; Calsonic Kansei North America; Shelbyville and Lewisburg, Tennessee | |
| 83 FR 42894 - Proposed Information Collection Activity | |
| 83 FR 42981 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (“CISADA”) Reporting Requirements | |
| 83 FR 42892 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 42882 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 42920 - Notice of Issuance of Program Comment To Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties Within Rail Rights-of-Way | |
| 83 FR 42964 - Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy | |
| 83 FR 42887 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 42973 - Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 42885 - Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests; Georgia Power Company | |
| 83 FR 42947 - Hispanic Council on Federal Employment | |
| 83 FR 42886 - Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; White Cliffs Pipeline, LLC | |
| 83 FR 42888 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Garnet Wind, LLC | |
| 83 FR 42884 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Yavi Energy, LLC | |
| 83 FR 42889 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Pegasus Wind, LLC | |
| 83 FR 42888 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 42859 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Collect Information | |
| 83 FR 42863 - Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 42943 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection | |
| 83 FR 42904 - Designating Additions to the Current List of Tropical Diseases in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act | |
| 83 FR 42896 - Notice of Decision Not To Designate Pneumocystis Pneumonia as a Tropical Disease | |
| 83 FR 42807 - Organization; Definitions; Eligibility Criteria for Outside Directors | |
| 83 FR 42899 - Determination That PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
| 83 FR 42900 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3397 | |
| 83 FR 42903 - Site Visit Training Program for Office of Pharmaceutical Quality Staff; Information Available to Industry | |
| 83 FR 42968 - Request for Comments and Notice of Public Hearing Concerning China's Compliance With WTO Commitments | |
| 83 FR 42875 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; U.S. Fishermen Fishing in Russian Waters | |
| 83 FR 42876 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 42940 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Medical CBRN Defense Consortium | |
| 83 FR 42938 - Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 42865 - Meetings | |
| 83 FR 42940 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records | |
| 83 FR 42913 - Request for Information Regarding the 21st Century Cures Act Electronic Health Record Reporting Program | |
| 83 FR 42864 - Notice of Proposed Changes to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices for the Natural Resources Conservation Service | |
| 83 FR 42949 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.53, Certain Types of Orders Defined and Rule 6.53C, Complex Orders on the Hybrid System | |
| 83 FR 42954 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Codify the Definitions of the Protocols to Enter Quotes and Orders | |
| 83 FR 42959 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Independence Policy of the Board of Directors of the Exchange | |
| 83 FR 42910 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; The Secretary's Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children's Public Health System Assessment Surveys OMB No. 0906-0014-Revised | |
| 83 FR 42975 - Proposed Information Collections; Comment Request (No. 71) | |
| 83 FR 42966 - Request for Comments To Compile the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers | |
| 83 FR 42937 - Certain Fuel Pump Assemblies Having Vapor Separators and Components Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Finding Sole Respondent in Default; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 42866 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Maryland Advisory Committee; Correction | |
| 83 FR 42867 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 42944 - Tribal Protocol Manual | |
| 83 FR 42972 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel Real Summertime; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 42980 - Privacy Act of 1974 | |
| 83 FR 42815 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Maurice, IA | |
| 83 FR 42820 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Antiterrorism Training Requirements for Contractors (DFARS Case 2017-D034) | |
| 83 FR 42788 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Clause “Removal of Contractor's Employees” (DFARS Case 2018-D042) | |
| 83 FR 42826 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Modification of DFARS Clause “Transportation of Supplies by Sea” (DFARS Case 2018-D028) | |
| 83 FR 42828 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Restrictions on Acquisitions From Foreign Sources (DFARS Case 2017-D011) | |
| 83 FR 42850 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Exemption From Design-Build Selection Procedures (DFARS Case 2018-D011) | |
| 83 FR 42964 - Notification of United States-Chile Environment Affairs Council and Joint Commission on Environmental Cooperation Meetings | |
| 83 FR 42822 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Sunset of Provision Relating to the Procurement of Certain Goods (DFARS Case 2018-D007) | |
| 83 FR 42787 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of Independent Research and Development Technical Interchange (DFARS Case 2017-D041) | |
| 83 FR 42831 - Performance-Based Payments and Progress Payments (DFARS Case 2017-D019) | |
| 83 FR 42810 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 42812 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 42965 - Watco Holdings, Inc.-Continuance in Control Exemption-Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad, L.L.C. | |
| 83 FR 42966 - Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad, L.L.C.-Acquisition Exemption Containing Interchange Commitment-CSX Transportation, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 42893 - Public Building Service (PBS); Notice of Availability and Announcement of Meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, San Diego, California; Correction | |
| 83 FR 42963 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of California | |
| 83 FR 42963 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Colorado | |
| 83 FR 42971 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in Washington | |
| 83 FR 42970 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway Project in Colorado | |
| 83 FR 42774 - Redelegation Concerning International Prisoner Transfer Program | |
| 83 FR 42986 - The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-12-03 for certain Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines. AD 2017-12-03 required installing a software standard eligible for installation and precludes the use of electronic engine control (EEC) software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I. This AD requires installing a software standard eligible for installation and preclude the use of EEC software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I or SCN 27A. This AD was prompted by an unrecoverable engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD) after an ice crystal icing event. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 28, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT, 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759. It is also available on the internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-12-03, Amendment 39-18918 (82 FR 27411, June 15, 2017), (“AD 2017-12-03”). AD 2017-12-03 applied to certain PW PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
PW, Delta Air Lines (Delta), FedEx Express (FedEx), and United Airlines requested clarification to paragraph (h)(2), Installation Prohibition. FedEx reasoned that paragraph (h)(2) would prohibit installation of software standard earlier than SCN 27A in all EEC models, which includes models with 24K of memory.
We agree. The intent of this AD is not to prohibit installation of software standard earlier than SCN 27A into EEC models with 24K memory. We clarified paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to identify the EECs by part number (P/N) that are prohibited from installation with software earlier than SCN 27A.
Delta and FedEx requested that we change the compliance criteria from engine shop visit to EEC shop visit in paragraphs (g)(1), (2), and (3).
We disagree. Using engine shop visit as compliance criteria provides a rate of incorporation of the improved software standard that meets the safety objectives of this AD while not putting additional burden on the operators. We did not change this AD.
PW requested that we modify the Costs of Compliance for engines affected by this AD from an estimated 587 engines to 344 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We agree. We updated the Costs of Compliance to reflect that this AD affects an estimated 344 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
Delta and FedEx requested that we modify the Costs of Compliance to include the labor costs for removing the EEC from the airplane and reprogramming the EEC software. FedEx reasoned that the Costs of Compliance underestimated the labor costs for reprogramming the EEC software.
We partially agree. We agree that we underestimated the time to upgrade the EEC software as older hardware requires additional steps. We disagree with including the estimated time of removing the EEC from the engine because the upgrade is occurring at an already scheduled shop visit. The Costs of Compliance includes the cost of teardown and reprogramming the EEC software. We updated the Costs of Compliance to reflect more accurately the labor cost for these actions.
Delta requested that the software standard upgrades, as required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, be established as part of the extended operations (ETOPS) configuration requirements. Delta reasoned that this would be more effective than the proposed AD applicability in targeting aircraft that are operating in the Asia-Pacific region where weather conditions are most prevalent for ice crystal icing. Delta also requested that the list of engine serial numbers (ESNs) referenced in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, which defines the engines with the reduced compliance deadline, be updated to reflect the current list of engines operating in the Asia-Pacific region.
We disagree. Removing the reference to specific ESNs and making the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD as part of the ETOPS configuration requirements would make this AD applicable to all ETOPS engines. Operators that operate ETOPS flights outside the Asia-Pacific region would be mandated to the earlier compliance time unnecessarily. In addition, revising the ESN list to include additional engines would cause difficulties for operators in meeting the compliance times. We will review any Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) requests submitted to cover the regional risk to any operator's specific fleet. We did not change this AD.
Delta requested that we modify the “Actions Since AD 2017-12-03 Was Issued” and “Proposed AD Requirements” paragraphs to clarify that the software upgrades this AD requires apply to older EEC models but not to older engine models. These software upgrades were not available when AD 2017-12-03 was issued.
We disagree. We did not modify the “Actions Since AD 2017-12-03 Was Issued” and “Proposed AD Requirements” paragraphs because these paragraphs are not included in this final rule. We acknowledge in the Discussion paragraph that the software upgrades in this AD apply to older EEC models. We did not change this AD.
Delta requested that we replace the PW P/N in paragraphs (c)(2) and (g)(2) of this AD with the Hamilton Sundstrand (UTC Aerospace Systems) P/Ns. The Hamilton Sundstrand P/Ns are identified on the EEC data plate and are used in maintenance instructions.
We disagree. This AD applies to certain PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines and it is appropriate to use the design approval holders P/Ns for components installed on those engines. We did not change this AD.
FedEx requested that we modify the reference in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD from ESN to EEC S/Ns. FedEx reasoned that EECs are LRUs that can be rotated between engines. Tracking by EEC S/N would enhance engine operating reliability by ensuring that only compliant units are installed on engines operated in regions of interest.
We disagree. Since we are aware of ESNs subject to the unsafe conditions described by this AD action, we find that linking compliance to ESNs satisfies the safety objective of this AD. In addition, changing from ESNs to EEC S/Ns would cause difficulties for operators in meeting the compliance times. We did not change this AD.
FedEx requested that we extend the compliance end date, of July 1, 2024, to allow additional time to comply with the AD requirements and to be consistent with the seven-year compliance time set in AD 2017-12-03.
We disagree. The requirements in this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these engines and are based on several considerations including a risk analysis. The compliance times in this AD are necessary to meet the safety objectives of this AD. We did not change this AD.
The Air Line Pilots Association expressed support for the NPRM as written.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW2000 A73-170, dated July 14, 2016, and PW ASB PW2000 A73-171, dated March 24, 2017. The ASBs describe procedures for modifying or replacing the EEC.
We estimate that this AD affects 344 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(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),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 28, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2017-12-03, Amendment 39-18918 (82 FR 27411, June 15, 2017).
This AD applies to:
(1) All Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines with electronic engine control (EEC), model number EEC104-40 or EEC104-60, installed, with an EEC software standard earlier than SCN 5B/I; and
(2) All PW PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines with EEC, model number EEC104-1, with part numbers (P/Ns) 1B7484, 1B7486, 1B7984, or 1B7985, installed, with an EEC software standard earlier than SCN 27A.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7321, Fuel Control Turbine Engines.
This AD was prompted by an unrecoverable engine in-flight shutdown after an ice crystal icing event. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the high-pressure turbine and rotor seizure. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For an engine with an EEC model number EEC104-40 or EEC104-60 and a serial number (S/N) listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, upgrade any EEC software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I or replace the EEC with a part eligible for installation at the next engine shop visit, or before December 1, 2018, whichever occurs first.
(2) For an engine with an EEC model number EEC104-40 or EEC104-60 and an S/N not listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, upgrade any EEC software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I or replace the EEC with a part eligible for installation at the next engine shop visit, or before July 1, 2024, whichever occurs first.
(3) For an engine with an EEC model number EEC104-1 with P/N 1B7484, 1B7486, 1B7984, or 1B7985, upgrade any EEC software standards earlier than SCN 27A or replace the EEC with a part eligible for installation at the next engine shop visit, or before July 1, 2024, whichever occurs first.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install any software standard earlier than:
(1) SCN 5B/I into any EEC model number EEC104-40 or EEC104-60; or
(2) SCN 27A into any EEC model number EEC104-1 with P/N 1B7484, 1B7486, 1B7984, or 1B7985.
For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation of the engine without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT, 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
None.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
Current Department of Justice regulations delegate to the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division certain authorities of the Attorney General concerning transfer of offenders to or from foreign countries, including the authority to find
This rule is effective September 2, 2018, and is applicable beginning August 15, 2018.
Vaughn Ary, Director, Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20005; 202-514-0000.
This replacement of Directive 73 of the appendix to subpart K of part 0 is necessary due to the Criminal Division's decision to move the International Prisoner Transfer Unit from the Office of Enforcement Operations to the Office of International Affairs and to expand the number of officials authorized to find appropriate or inappropriate the transfer of offenders to or from a foreign country. Under current regulations, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division has re-delegated this authority to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General and to the Director of the Office of International Affairs. This final rule extends the re-delegation of this authority to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General in the Criminal Division and to the Director, the Deputy Directors, and the Associate Director supervising the International Prisoner Transfer Unit of the Office of International Affairs.
This rule is a rule of agency organization and relates to a matter relating to agency management and is therefore exempt from the requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in the effective date.
A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required to be prepared for this final rule because the Department was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter. 5 U.S.C. 604(a).
This action has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, section 1(b), The Principles of Regulation. This rule is limited to agency organization, management, and personnel as described in section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not a “regulation” or “rule” as defined by the order. Accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule 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, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This rule was drafted in accordance with the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
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 action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organizations and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(B). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Crime, Government employees, Law enforcement, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Prisoners.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 28, part 0, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-19.
By virtue of the authority vested in me by title 28, § 0.64-2, of the Code of Federal Regulations, the authority delegated to me by that section to exercise all of the power and authority vested in the Attorney General under Section 4102 of title 18, U.S. Code, which has not been delegated to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, including specifically the authority to find the transfer of offenders to or from a foreign country under a treaty as referred to in Public Law 95-44 appropriate or inappropriate, is hereby re-delegated to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General for the Criminal Division and to the Director, Deputy Directors, and the Associate Director supervising the International Prisoner Transfer Unit of the Office of International Affairs.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
By virtue of the authority vested in me by Title 28, Part 0.64-2, of the Code of Federal Regulations, the authority delegated to me by
Dated: August 15, 2018.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 230.4 to MM 215, above Head of Passes. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential safety hazards associated with the Big River Regional 2018 Paddle Board Race. Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. through noon on September 1, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Justin Maio, Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 225-298-5400, ext. 230, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by September 1, 2018, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the paddle board race and compromise public safety.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the paddle board race occurring over a fifteen and half mile stretch of the Lower Mississippi River will be a safety concern. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of life and vessels on the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 7:30 a.m. through noon on September 1, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River from MM 230.4 to MM 215, above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled paddle board race.
No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67, or through USCG Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge at 225-281-4789. All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) direct agencies to assess the 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
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (April 5, 2017).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The safety zone will prohibit entry on a fifteen and a half miles stretch of the Lower Mississippi River for four and a half hours on one morning. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry on a fifteen and a half mile stretch of the Lower Mississippi River for four and a half hours on one morning. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67, or through the Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge Officer of the Day at 225-281-4789.
(3) All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for the navigable waters within a half mile radius of Olmsted Lock and Dam located at mile marker 964.5 on the Ohio River. The security zone is needed to protect dignitaries, vessels, and waterfront facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature during a dignitary visit. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 6 a.m. through 5 p.m. on August 30, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Petty Officer, Gary Heflin, Marine Safety Unit Paducah Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 270-442-1621, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. It is impracticable because we must establish this security zone by August 30, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. The Coast Guard received minimal notice regarding the dignitary visit, which is customary for security purposes. The Coast Guard has determined that the security zone is needed to protect the visiting dignitaries, persons, and property. Providing notice would be contrary to the public interest as it would delay establishment of the security zone until after the dignitary visit and jeopardize the safety of the dignitaries, vessels, and waterfront facilities.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a dignitary visit on August 30, 2018, will be a security concern for the dignitaries, vessels, and waterfront facilities on the Ohio River near the Olmsted Lock and Dam. This rule is needed to protect the dignitaries, vessels, and waterfront facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature during the dignitary visit.
This rule establishes a temporary security zone from 6 a.m. through 5 p.m. on August 30, 2018. The security zone will cover all navigable waters within a half mile of Olmsted Lock and Dam, located at mile marker 964.5 on the Ohio River in Olmsted, IL. The duration of the security zone is intended to cover the period of the dignitary visit. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless granted permission by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned,
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) direct agencies to assess the 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (April 5, 2017).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the security zone. The security zone impacts a half mile radius around the Olmsted Lock and Dam for eleven hours on one afternoon. The Coast Guard will also issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative via VHF-FM Channel 16 or 502-779-5422.
(3) Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) number average molecular weight 4,500 to 7,000 when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Acadia Regulatory Consulting on behalf of Lidan, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) on food or feed commodities.
This regulation is effective August 24, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 23, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0520. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
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
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0520 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 23, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0520, by one of the following methods.
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
1. The polymer is a cationic polymer or it is reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in natural aquatic environments; however, the polymer is a solid material that is not soluble or dispersible in water and will be used only in the solid phase and is not excluded from exemption by other factors.
2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, and sulfur.
3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(6).
Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria: Specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e):
The polymer's number average MW of is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer and does not contain any reactive functional groups.
Thus, lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1).
For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) is 4,500 to 7,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1), EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.
Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1).
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.
This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
Although this action does not require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation amends an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of zinc oxide (CAS Reg. No. 1314-13-2) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest, to include use as a stabilizer, at a concentration not to exceed 15% by weight of the pesticide formulation. Nutrenare-AG, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an amended new use for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of zinc oxide when used in accordance with the limitations of the exemption.
This regulation is effective August 24, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 23, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0574, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0574 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 23, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0574, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for zinc oxide including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with zinc oxide follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable
Zinc (typically in the form of zinc salts and zinc oxide) is ubiquitous in the environment, is widely distributed in plants and animals, and occurs in the earth's crust at an average concentration of approximately 70 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Zinc is also an essential nutrient in the body and a normal part of metabolism in all living organisms. Zinc is recommended for nutritional use and exists naturally in food. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers zinc oxide as generally recognized as safe for use as a nutrient in foods.
Zinc oxide is one of several zinc salts the Agency has evaluated in reregistration and in registration review. The Agency's current risk assessment for zinc oxide relies heavily on the Agency's previous analysis, including the 2009 risk assessment, which is entitled “Summary of Human Health Effects Data for Zinc, Zinc Salts, and Zeolites Registration Review Decision Document” and is included in the zinc salts registration review docket at
The 2009 zinc salts risk assessment concluded that “The Agency has reviewed all toxicity studies submitted for the zinc salts and has determined that the toxicological database is sufficient. The Agency has not selected toxicological endpoints for zinc salts. The toxicological database for the zinc salts case is currently comprised of published and unpublished studies either submitted to the Agency or obtained directly from published open literature.” That risk assessment also referenced the Agency's Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Zinc Salts of August, 1992.
With regard to acute toxicity, the Agency's database includes information indicating that zinc oxide presents low to no acute toxicity. With regard to subchronic and chronic toxicity, the Agency has reviewed the scientific literature about zinc, which has been extensively researched as a natural component of the earth's crust and being widely distributed in plants and animals, an essential nutrient in the body and part of the metabolism of living things, and naturally occurring in foods.
For toxicological concerns, there are adequate toxicology studies in the zinc database to evaluate incidental oral exposures. As noted in the 2009 risk assessment, at high levels, oral exposure to zinc in animal studies may result in toxic effects such as pancreatic and renal lesions as well as histological alterations in the pituitary and adrenal glands. In general, the levels of zinc causing these toxicological effects occur at much higher dose levels than the level recommended for nutritional use and that is naturally available in food. The 2009 risk assessment noted that zinc compounds have not been classified as cancerous compounds.
As noted in the previous section, the 2009 risk assessment did not identify any toxicological endpoints of concern because of the ubiquity of zinc in the environment and presence in food, its role as an essential element, and FDA's consideration of zinc as GRAS for use as a nutrient in food. That assessment concluded that the toxicological effects seen in the database indicated effects at much higher levels than the level recommended for nutritional use and what is naturally found in food. To supplement those conclusions, the Agency considered the findings of the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board; the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies; and the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food (SCF).
The NAS, EFSA, and SCF have considered zinc in its role as an essential nutrient. These organizations have established upper limit intake levels for zinc. The NAS upper limit intake level for zinc is referred to as the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) and is defined as the highest level of daily nutrient intake that is likely to pose no risk of adverse health effects for almost all individuals. The NAS UL for zinc is 40 mg/day for adults. The EFSA and SCF Tolerable Upper Intake Level for zinc is 25 mg/day for adults. Both of these values are based on adverse effects associated with chronic intake of supplemental zinc, particularly those attributable to copper deficiency, with these adverse effects observed at zinc exposure levels in humans above 60 mg/day.
The NAS Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for zinc is based upon replacement of endogenous zinc loss in the body via normal metabolic processes and is established at 8 mg/day for women and 11 mg/day for men. (The EFSA Dietary Reference Values and the SCF Population Reference Intake are consistent with the NAS RDA, ranging from 7 mg/day to 12 mg/day for adults.) NAS also noted that the median intake of zinc from food in the United States was approximately 9 mg/day for women and 14 mg/day for men. The estimated worst-case dietary exposures to zinc from the use of zinc oxide as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest is 2 mg/day, a value significantly less than both the RDA and UL for zinc.
Because the Agency does not anticipate aggregate exposures to zinc oxide to approach the UL, it has not selected toxicological endpoints for zinc oxide for use in a quantitative risk assessment.
1.
Dietary exposure to zinc oxide can occur following ingestion of foods with residues from treated crops, animals or food contact surfaces. In addition, dietary exposure is expected from the presence of zinc oxide naturally occurring in foods and from use as a nutrient. Based on the insoluble nature of zinc oxide, use on food crops would not be expected to result in residues of zinc oxide in drinking water, although zinc may be present naturally in water at low concentrations.
2.
Zinc oxide may be used in pesticide products and non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the home. Based on the discussion above, a quantitative residential exposure assessment for zinc oxide was not conducted.
3.
EPA has not found zinc oxide to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and zinc oxide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
As part of its qualitative assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.
Exposures resulting from the use of zinc oxide as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest and the dietary exposure (expressed as median intake) of zinc from food, would be significantly less than the Tolerable Upper Intake Levels for zinc. Therefore, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure to residues of zinc oxide will not pose a risk to the U.S. population, including infants and children, and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to zinc oxide residues.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation. EPA is establishing limitations on the amount of zinc oxide that may be used as a stabilizer in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. These limitations will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136
Therefore, the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of zinc oxide when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 is amended to include use as a stabilizer, at a concentration not to exceed 15% by weight of the pesticide formulation.
This action amends an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” ((82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove a requirement for major contractors to have a technical interchange with the Government prior to generating independent research and development costs.
Effective August 24, 2018.
Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571-372-6093.
DoD is amending the DFARS to remove the text at DFARS 231.205-18(c)(iii)(C)(
The removal of this DFARS text supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the
This rule only removes an unneeded requirement in the DFARS that required a technical interchange between the Government and certain contractors. Therefore, the rule does not impose any new requirements on contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold and for commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.
Effective November 4, 2016, DFARS 231.205-18(c)(iii)(C)(
This requirement applies to major contractors seeking to include IR&D costs as part of their reimbursable costs under a contract. Major contractors are defined as those whose covered segments allocated a total of more than $11 million in IR&D and bid and proposal costs to covered contracts during the preceding fiscal year; therefore, small entities are not expected to meet the definition of a major contractor or to be impacted. IR&D costs are most commonly included in noncommercial, cost-type contracts that are subject to certified cost and pricing data and cost accounting standards. This rule removes the requirement for major contractors to have a technical interchange with the Government prior to generating IR&D costs. Removal of this requirement will result in freeing contractors to pursue IR&D projects without including the Government in those preliminary decisions.
DoD has performed a regulatory cost analysis on this rule. The following is a summary of the estimated public annualized cost savings, calculated in 2016 dollars at a 7-percent discount rate in perpetuity:
To access the full Regulatory Cost Analysis for this rule, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
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 is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This final rule is considered to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings can be found in section III. of this preamble.
The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at Title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because DoD is not issuing a new regulation; rather, this rule merely removes an obsolete requirement from the DFARS.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section V of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does apply; however, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0483, entitled “Independent Research and Development Technical Descriptions.” Repeal of this rule does not impact the IR&D reporting that continues to be required annually, when the IR&D project is completed, under OMB Control Number 0704-0483.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 231 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 chapter 1.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove a clause that is no longer necessary.
Effective August 24, 2018.
Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571-372-6093.
DoD is amending the DFARS to remove the DFARS clause 252.247-7006, Removal of Contractor's Employees, and the associated clause prescription at DFARS 247.270-4. The DFARS clause served as an agreement from the contractor to only use experienced, responsible, and capable people to perform the work under the stevedoring contract. The clause also advised the contractor that the contracting officer may require the contractor to remove from the job, employees who endanger persons or property or whose employment is inconsistent with the interest of military security.
The information conveyed in DFARS clause 252.247-7006 is directly related to performance of the work under a stevedoring contract. It is more appropriate to define what the Government considers an experienced, responsible, and capable employee to be in a performance work statement, not a contract clause, because those requirements may change depending on various factors of the work being performed. If the need to remove employees from performing under the contract exists, it should be identified in the performance work statement. The removal and replacement of employees directly relates to the contractor's ability to perform and staff the work under the contract. As such, this DFARS clause is unnecessary and can be removed.
The removal of this DFARS text supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the
This rule only removes obsolete DFARS clause 252.247-7006, Removal of Contractor's Employees. Therefore, the rule does not impose any new requirements on contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold and for commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 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. The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b). This rule is not a major rule as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This rule is not an E.O. 13771, Reducing and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because DoD is not issuing a new regulation; rather, this rule merely removes an obsolete requirement from the DFARS.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section VI. of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 247 and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
This rule prescribes special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands. This rule responds to tribal requests for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) recognition of their authority to regulate hunting under established guidelines. This rule allows the establishment of season bag limits and, thus, harvest at levels compatible with populations and habitat conditions.
This rule takes effect on August 24, 2018.
You may inspect comments received on the special hunting regulations and Tribal proposals during normal business hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Headquarters, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803, or at
Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; (703) 358-1967.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of July 3, 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703
In the May 23, 2018,
(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal members and nonmembers, with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and possession limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, the regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the March 10-September 1 closed season mandated by the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada.
In the August 3, 2017,
(1) Harvest anticipated under the requested regulations;
(2) Methods that would be employed to measure or monitor harvest (such as bag checks, mail questionnaires, etc.);
(3) Steps that would be taken to limit level of harvest, where it could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would adversely impact the migratory bird resource; and
(4) Tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory bird hunting regulations.
No action is required if a tribe wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which an Indian reservation is located. We have successfully used the guidelines since the 1985-86 hunting season. We finalized the guidelines beginning with the 1988-89 hunting season (August 18, 1988,
The final rule described here is the final in the series of proposed and final rulemaking documents for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2018-19 Season. This rule sets hunting seasons, hours, areas, and limits for migratory game bird species on reservations and ceded territories. This final rule is the culmination of the rulemaking process for the Tribal migratory game bird hunting seasons, which started with the August 3, 2017, proposed rule. This final rule sets the Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2018-19 Season.
Each year we publish various species status reports that provide detailed information on the status and harvest of migratory game birds, including information on the methodologies and results. These reports are available at the address indicated under
For the 2018-19 migratory bird hunting season, we proposed regulations for 30 Tribes or Indian groups that followed the 1985 guidelines and were considered appropriate for final rulemaking. However, at that time, we noted in the May 23 proposed rule that we were proposing seasons for six Tribes who have submitted proposals in past years but from whom we had not yet received proposals this year. We did not receive proposals from three of those Tribes and, therefore, have not included them in this final rule.
The comment period for the May 23 proposed rule closed on June 22, 2018. We received five comments on our May 23 proposed rule, which announced proposed seasons for migratory bird hunting by American Indian Tribes. Significant comments are addressed below.
The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) supported the proposed regulations and urged the timely approval and publishing of a final rule prior to the scheduled September 1, 2018, opening of the seasons.
Several individuals also provided comment. One commenter protested the entire migratory bird hunting regulations process and the killing of all migratory birds. Another commenter believed we should approve the proposed special migratory bird hunting Tribal seasons, while another believed we needed to publish the final tribal regulations prior to the season opening of September 1, 2018, unlike the previous year.
As we have stated over the last 7 years (76 FR 54676, September 1, 2011; 77 FR 54451, September 5, 2012; 78 FR 53218, August 28, 2013; 79 FR 52226, September 3, 2014; 80 FR 52663, September 1, 2015; 81 FR 62404, September 9, 2016; 83 FR 5037, February 5, 2018), the issue of allowing electronic calls and other electronic devices for migratory game bird hunting has been highly debated and highly controversial over the last 40 years, similar to other prohibited hunting methods. Electronic calls,
In our previous responses on this issue, we have also discussed information stemming from the use of electronic calls during the special light-goose seasons and our conclusions as to its applicability to most other waterfowl species. Given available evidence on the effectiveness of electronic calls, we continue to be concerned about the large biological uncertainty surrounding any widespread use of electronic calls. Additionally, given the fact that tribal waterfowl hunting covered by this rule would occur on ceded lands that are not in the ownership of the Tribes, we remain concerned that the use of electronic calls to take waterfowl could lead to confusion on the part of the public, wildlife-management agencies, and law enforcement officials in implementing the requirements of 50 CFR part 20. Further, similar to the impacts of baiting, we have some concerns on the uncertain zone of influence range from the use of electronic calls, which could potentially increase harvest from non-tribal hunters operating within areas where electronic calls are used during the dates of the general hunt. However, unlike baiting, once the electronic call is removed from an area, the attractant or lure is immediately removed with presumably little to no lingering effects.
Notwithstanding our above concerns, we understand and appreciate GLIFWC's position on this issue; their desire to increase tribal hunter opportunity, harvest, and participation; and the importance that GLIFWC has ascribed to these issues. GLIFWC has proposed a limited use of electronic calls under an experimental design with up to only 50 Tribal hunters wherein hunters would be required to obtain special permits and complete and submit a hunt diary for each hunt where electronic calls were used. Further, given GLIFWC's extremely limited current and expected waterfowl harvest (fewer than 3,000 ducks and 600 geese) and hunter participation (limited to 50 hunters), our concerns for any potential biological impacts are significantly lessened. Therefore, we agree with the tribes that much of the large uncertainty surrounding any widespread use of electronic calls could be potentially controlled, or significantly lessened, by this very modest experiment.
Thus, we are approving GLIFWC's limited experimental approach with the hope of gaining additional information and knowledge about the use of electronic calls and their effects on waterfowl. Ideally, this limited approach includes utilizing electronic calls both for Canada geese (where they may already be used in some instances) and new efforts for ducks. Important data related to tribal hunter interest, participation, effects on targeted species, and harvest needs are to be closely tracked and reported, as GLIFWC has agreed. We conclude that the experimental removal of the electronic call prohibition, with the proposed limited design, is consistent with helping address and answer some of our long-standing concerns, and thus we approve GLIFWC's proposal to allow the experimental use of electronic calls in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas for any open season for a 3-year experimental period.
Current regulations at 50 CFR part 20 do not allow the use of traps, nets, or snares to capture migratory game birds (see § 20.21(a)), and we are unaware of any current State regulations allowing the use of traps for the capture of resident game birds. While the use of traps or nets for birds is not generally considered a sport-hunting technique, we recognize that their use may be a customary and traditional hunting method by tribal members. Further, GLIFWC's netting and trapping proposal does not allow baiting (which could lead to concerns related to potential disease transmission) or the herding of waterfowl into traps when they are largely flightless, such as during the summer molt. Practices such as these would significantly increase our concerns. As such, and recognizing the importance GLIFWC has placed on this issue, we are not opposed to the trapping of migratory birds, especially given all the GLIFWC-proposed restrictions on their use and the fact that they will be monitored at all times. Thus, we agree with the GLIFWC proposal and conclude that the restrictions they have proposed are appropriate to begin a 3-year experimental evaluation.
Having taken into account the zones of temperature and the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of flight of migratory game birds, we conclude that the hunting seasons provided for herein are compatible with the current status of migratory bird populations and long-term population goals. Additionally, we are obligated to, and do, give serious consideration to all information received as public comment. We continue to conclude that the current Flyway-Council system of migratory bird management is one of the most longstanding, successful examples of State-Federal cooperative management since its establishment in 1952. Likewise, the establishment of special tribal migratory bird hunting regulations has been a successful Federal-Tribal partnership since 1988. However, as always, we continue to seek new ways to improve the process.
This final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because this final rule establishes annual harvest limits related to routine hunting or fishing.
The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
An economic analysis was prepared for the 2018-19 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion under
The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).
This rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• 1018-0019, “North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey” (expires 6/30/2021).
• 1018-0023, “Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20” (expires 8/31/2020). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.
• 1018-0171, “Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons, 50 CFR part 20” (expires 06/30/2021).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule will allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. We have consulted with Tribes affected by this rule.
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting, by its nature, operates under a time constraint as seasons must be established each year or hunting seasons remain closed. However, we intend that the public be provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we concluded were the longest periods possible for public comment and the most opportunities for
For the reasons cited above, we find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and these frameworks will take effect immediately upon publication.
Accordingly, with each participating Tribe having had an opportunity to participate in selecting the hunting seasons desired for its reservation or ceded territory on those species of migratory birds for which open seasons are now prescribed, and consideration having been given to all other relevant matters presented, certain sections of title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K, are hereby amended as set forth below.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, part 20, subchapter B, chapter I of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 703
Unless specifically provided for below, all of the regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 apply to the seasons listed herein.
(a)
(b)
1. While hunting waterfowl, a tribal member must carry on his/her person a valid Ceded Territory License.
2. Shooting hours for migratory birds are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset.
3. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Model Off-Reservation Code. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel Federal requirements in 50 CFR part 20 as to hunting methods, transportation, sale, exportation, and other conditions generally applicable to migratory bird hunting.
4. Band members in each zone will comply with State regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas.
5. There are no possession limits for migratory birds. For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession or custody of band members on ceded lands will be considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as having been taken on-reservation. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands will not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit.
(c)
(d)
The 2018-19 waterfowl hunting season regulations apply to all treaty areas (except where noted):
A. All tribal members are required to obtain a valid tribal waterfowl hunting permit.
B. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members are required to comply with tribal codes that are no less restrictive than the model ceded territory conservation codes approved by Federal courts in the
C. Particular regulations of note include:
1. Nontoxic shot is required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.
2. Tribal members in each zone must comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.
3. There are no possession limits, with the exception of 2 swans (in the aggregate) and 25 rails (in the aggregate). For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession and custody of tribal members on ceded lands are considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as taken on reservation lands. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands do not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit.
4. There are no shell limit restrictions.
5. Hunting hours are from 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset, except that, within the 1837 and 1842 ceded territories hunters may use non-mechanical nets or snares that are operated by hand to take those birds subject to an open hunting season at any time. Hunters shall be permitted to capture, without the aid of other devices (
6. An experimental application of electronic calls (e-calls) will be implemented in the 1837 and 1842 ceded territories. Up to 50 tribal hunters will be allowed to use e-calls. Individuals using e-calls will be required to obtain a special permit; they will be required to complete a hunt diary for each hunt where e-calls are used; and they will be required to submit the hunt diary to the Commission within two (2) weeks of the end of the season in order to be eligible to obtain an e-call permit for the following year. Required information will include the date, time and location of the hunt, number of hunters, the number of each species harvested per hunting event, if other hunters were in the area, any interactions with other hunters, and other information deemed appropriate. Diary results will be summarized and documented in a Commission report, which will be submitted to the Service. Barring unforeseen results, this experimental application would be replicated for 3 years, after which a full evaluation would be completed.
7. Within the 1837 and 1842 ceded territories, tribal members will be allowed to use non-mechanical, hand-operated nets (
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
A. All tribal members will be required to obtain a valid tribal resource card and 2018-19 hunting license.
B. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel all Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20. Shooting hours will be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
C. Particular regulations of note include:
(1) Nontoxic shot will be required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.
(2) Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.
D. Tribal members hunting in Michigan will comply with tribal codes that contain provisions parallel to Michigan law regarding duck blinds and decoys.
E. Possession limits are twice the daily bag limits.
(j)
(k)
(l) [Reserved]
(m)
All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 apply. The following restrictions also apply:
1. As per Makah Ordinance 44, only shotguns may be used to hunt any species of waterfowl. Additionally, shotguns must not be discharged within 300 feet of an occupied area.
2. Hunters must be eligible, enrolled Makah tribal members and must carry their Indian Treaty Fishing and Hunting Identification Card while hunting. No tags or permits are required to hunt waterfowl.
3. The use of live decoys and/or baiting to pursue any species of waterfowl is prohibited.
4. Only Service approved nontoxic shot is allowed; the use of lead shot is prohibited.
5. The use of dogs is permitted to hunt waterfowl.
6. Shooting hours for all species of waterfowl are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
7. Open hunting areas are: Makah Reservation except for designated wilderness areas and within one mile of the Cape Flattery and Shi-shi Trails. Off-Reservation Hunting Areas as specified in the General Hunting Regulations.
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
(v)
(w) [Reserved]
(x)
(y)
(z)
(aa)
(bb)
(cc)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating projected unused amounts of Bering Sea subarea pollock from the incidental catch allowance to the directed fisheries. This action is necessary to allow the 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock to be harvested.
Effective August 21, 2018, until 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2018.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2018 pollock incidental catch allowance in the Bering Sea subarea was established as 47,888 metric tons (mt) by the 2018 and 2019 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018), and as adjusted by reallocations (83 FR 9235, March 5, 2018), in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(
As of August 16, 2018, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that approximately 19,700 (mt) of pollock remain in the incidental catch allowance. Based on projected harvest rates of other groundfish species and the expected incidental catch of pollock in those fisheries, the Regional Administrator has determined that 2,500 mt of pollock specified in the incidental catch allowance will not be necessary as incidental catch. Therefore, NMFS is
Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A), Table 5 of the 2018 and 2019 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI are revised as follows:
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of projected unused amounts of Bering Sea subarea
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 679.20, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2018-19 and subsequent fiscal periods. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by September 24, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet:
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Part 906 (referred to as “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 Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of oranges and grapefruit operating within the area of production.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This proposed rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, Texas citrus handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate would be applicable to all assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2018-19 crop year and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
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. Such 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.
The Order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate from $0.02, the rate that was established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods, to $0.01 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled for the 2018-19 and subsequent fiscal periods. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate and utilizing funds from its authorized reserve in order to reduce the reserve balance. The reserve balance has been greater than the sum allowable under the Order, which is approximately equivalent to one year's operating expenses, since 2017. In 2017-18, the Committee was able to reduce its budget by more than $595,000 when an alternative funding source was found for
The Committee met on May 23, 2018, and unanimously recommended 2018-19 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.01 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. The itemized budgeted expenses, including $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses, are the same as the previous fiscal period. However, the proposed assessment rate of $0.01 is lower than the $0.02 rate currently in effect.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments of 7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons, and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve. Income derived from handler assessments, calculated at $75,000 (7.5 million × $0.01), along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $152,920. Funds in the reserve are estimated to be $287,295 at the end of the 2017-18 fiscal period. No additional funds can be added to the reserve until the balance drops below approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 906.35.
The assessment rate proposed in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2018-19 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
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 proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the 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 170 producers of oranges and grapefruit in the production area and 13 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to Committee data, the average price for Texas citrus during the 2016-17 season was approximately $16 per carton and total shipments were 7.6 million cartons. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers would have average annual receipts of greater than $7,500,000 ($16 per carton times 7.6 million cartons equals $121.6 million, divided by 13 equals $9.4 million per handler).
In addition, based on National Agricultural Statistics Service information, the weighted grower price for Texas citrus during the 2016-17 season was approximately $9.35 per carton. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, the number of producers and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers would have annual receipts of $418,000, which is less than $750,000 ($9.35 per carton times 7.6 million cartons equals $71.06 million, divided by 170 equals $418,000 per producer). Thus, the majority of handlers of Texas citrus may be classified as large entities, while the majority of producers may be classified as small entities.
This proposal would decrease the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2018-19 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.02 to $0.01 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of Texas citrus. The Committee unanimously recommended 2018-19 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.01 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent handled. The proposed assessment rate of $0.01 is $0.01 lower than the 2017-18 rate. The quantity of assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2018-19 fiscal period is estimated at 7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons. Thus, the $0.01 rate should provide $75,000 in assessment income (7.5 million × $0.01). Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2018-19 year include $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2017-18 were the same.
The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate and utilizing funds from its authorized reserve in order to reduce the reserve balance to bring it in line with the limitation under the Order of approximately one year's expenses.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee, and the Research Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these committees who reviewed the relative value of various activities to the Texas citrus industry. These committees determined that all program activities were adequately funded and essential to the functionality of the Order; thus, no alternate expenditure levels were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the Committee discussed alternatives of maintaining the current assessment rate of $0.02 and lowering the assessment rate to $0.015 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent. However, these alternatives were not recommended because the Committee determined that these assessment rates would not draw a sufficient amount of funds from the authorized reserve to bring the reserve fund total in line with Order requirements.
Based on these discussions and estimated shipments, the recommended assessment rate of $0.01 would provide $75,000 in assessment income. The Committee determined that assessment revenue, along with funds from the reserve and interest income, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2018-19 fiscal period.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates
This proposed rule would decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers and may also reduce the burden on producers.
The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the May 23, 2018, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.
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 OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result of this proposed rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. 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. 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.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2018, an assessment rate of $0.01 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent is established for oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
Farm Credit Administration.
Proposed rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, or our) is proposing to amend its regulations affecting the governance of Farm Credit System (System) institutions. The proposed rule would modify the existing outside director eligibility criteria by expanding the list of persons who would be excluded from nomination for an outside director's seat to ensure the independence of outside directors.
You may send comments on or before October 23, 2018.
We offer a variety of methods for you to submit your comments. For accuracy and efficiency reasons, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email or through the FCA's website. As facsimiles (fax) are difficult for us to process and achieve compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, we do not accept comments submitted by fax. Regardless of the method you use, please do not submit your comment multiple times via different methods. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Darius Hale, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, (703) 883-4165, TTY (703) 883-4056,
Nancy Tunis, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, (703) 883-4061, TTY (703) 883-4056,
The objectives of this proposed rule are to:
• Amend the eligibility criteria for outside director in § 611.220(a);
• Remove the definition of outside director in § 619.9235;
• Strengthen the safety and soundness of System institutions;
• Strengthen the independence of System institution boards; and
• Incorporate many of the best corporate governance practices for System institutions.
The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act),
Outside directors are appointed by stockholder-elected directors to provide independent perspective and expertise in appropriate areas. Outside directors achieve this by broadening the board's collective knowledge, enhancing the board's independence, and improving the board's ability to carry out its fiduciary duties to the System institution, stockholders and investors. Current FCA regulations, however, do not specify how far removed from the statutory prohibited relationships the outside director candidate must be to adequately fulfill the intended independent role of an outside director. This proposed rule seeks to clarify the eligibility requirements of an outside director to achieve the independence intended by the statutory requirements.
As a result of the proposed changes in eligibility criteria for outside directors in § 611.220, discussed below, we are proposing to add a new definition section in § 611.220 that would only apply to that section. The newly defined terms are meant to provide clarity on the meaning of the new outside director eligibility criteria.
The proposed rule would add
The proposed rule would add
The proposed rule would add
(1) Owns 5 percent or more of the equity in an entity;
(2) Owns, controls, or has the power to vote 5 percent or more of any class of voting securities of an entity; or
(3) Has the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management of policies of such entity. The new term
The proposed rule would add the new term
As a result of the proposed changes in eligibility criteria for an outside director in § 611.220, we are proposing to delete the definition of outside director in § 619.9235. The current definition in § 619.9235 is not consistent with the changes proposed in § 611.220, and it is unnecessary to duplicate the same language as is proposed in that section. Deleting § 619.9235 will provide clarity in who may serve as an outside director and will avoid redundancy.
We propose modifying the existing outside director eligibility criteria in § 611.220(a)
(1) Borrowers of the institution;
(2) Immediate family members of any director, officer, employee, agent, stockholder or borrower of a System institution; and
(3) Anyone who has a controlling interest in:
(i) An entity that borrows from a System institution; or
(ii) An affiliated organization of a System institution.
The purpose of expanding those individuals ineligible to serve in the outside director's role is to further strengthen the independence perspective on each System institution's board. Congress' intent on establishing the outside director role was to ensure an independent voice was brought to the boards of System institutions. As such, outside directors are only permitted to serve on the board of directors of one System institution or affiliated organization at a time.
To maintain that independent voice, current FCA regulations specify that a candidate for outside director should not be a stockholder of a System institution. However, the regulations do not specifically exclude a borrower from serving as an outside director. Borrowers may not necessarily be stockholders in a System institution. We believe that to be truly independent of a System institution when being vetted for an outside director's seat, all borrowers should be specifically excluded from consideration. This addition would capture those individuals who have signed a promissory note in a joint capacity (
To further ensure independence from System institutions, we propose excluding individuals from serving as an outside director if they have an immediate family member who is a director, officer, employee, agent, stockholder, or a borrower of a System institution. This would provide additional clarity to our existing rule as
We also propose that a person who has a controlling interest in an entity that borrows from a System institution or an affiliated organization of a System institution should not be eligible to serve as an outside director. Those persons who have a controlling stake in, or influence the decisions of, an entity should not be considered to serve as an outside director if that entity is a borrower of a System institution. A person who maintains a controlling interest in an entity who borrows from the System or in an affiliated organization does not have the independence meant to fill the outside director's role. The proposed rule would not limit employees of entity borrowers or affiliated organizations from consideration as an outside director. Instead, it aims to clarify that those persons who control or advance the financial or policy decisions of an entity, borrower, or affiliated organization must not be considered as an outside director because their controlling stake or position in the entity or affiliated organization could lessen their independence.
We believe that expanding the list of those excluded from outside director consideration will further improve the board's ability to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities to the System institution and its stockholders and investors. We do not believe that including additional eligibility criteria would adversely affect the board's ability to select a qualified candidate for an outside director seat.
System institutions would be required to comply with the changes in the eligibility criteria of outside directors at the next appointment of an outside director candidate after the effective date of the final rule. We invite your specific comments on the compliance timeframe if this rule becomes a final rule. If a later compliance date is suggested, please provide a specific burden that would be alleviated with any later compliance date.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Conflict of interests, Crime, Investigations, Rural areas.
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 611 and 619 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows:
Secs. 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.12, 1.13, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.21, 4.3A, 4.12, 4.12A, 4.15, 4.20, 4.21, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28A, 5.9, 5.17, 5.25, 7.0-7.13, 8.5(e) of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2020, 2021, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2091, 2092, 2093, 2121, 2122, 2123, 2124, 2128, 2129, 2130, 2142, 2154a, 2183, 2184, 2203, 2208, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2243, 2252, 2261, 2279a-2279f-1, 2279aa-5(e)); secs. 411 and 412 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1638; sec. 414 of Pub. L. 100-399, 102 Stat. 989, 1004.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Owns 5 percent or more of the equity in an entity;
(ii) Owns, controls, or has the power to vote 5 percent or more of any class of voting securities of an entity; or
(iii) Has the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management of policies of such entity.
(4)
(5)
(b)
(i) No candidate for an outside director position may be a director, officer, employee, agent, stockholder, or borrower of an institution in the Farm Credit System or be an immediate family member of any of the above. An outside director candidate or an immediate family member of such candidate must not have a controlling interest in:
(A) An entity that borrows from a System institution; or
(B) An affiliated organization of a System institution.
(ii) At any given time, an outside director is eligible to serve on the board of directors of only one Farm Credit System institution or affiliated organization.
(2)
(i) Each Farm Credit bank must have at least two outside directors.
(ii) Associations with total assets exceeding $500 million as of January 1 of each year must have no fewer than two outside directors on the board. However, this requirement does not apply if it causes the percent of stockholder-elected directors to be less than 75 percent of the board.
(iii) Associations with $500 million or less in total assets as of January 1 of each year must have at least one outside director.
(3)
(c)
Secs. 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.11, 2.12, 3.1, 3.2, 3.21, 4.9, 5.9, 5.17, 5.19, 7.0, 7.1, 7.6, 7.8 and 7.12 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2012, 2013, 2015, 2072, 2073, 2075, 2092, 2093, 2122, 2123, 2142, 2160, 2243, 2252, 2254, 2279a, 2279a-1, 2279b, 2279c-1, 2279f); sec. 514 of Pub. L. 102-552, 106 Stat. 4102.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, and FALCON 900EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracked reinforcing straps (doublers) on the ailerons of airplanes equipped with blended winglets. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the upper and lower reinforcing straps on the ailerons, and replacement if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 9, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Aviation Partners, Inc., 7299 Perimeter Road South, Seattle, WA 98108-3812; phone: 206-762-1171; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Michael Bumbaugh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3522; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received a report indicating that cracked reinforcing straps (doublers) were found on the ailerons of Dassault Aviation airplanes equipped with blended winglets installed in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST02188SE or STC ST02241SE. This condition is the result of hydrogen embrittlement in the reinforcing strap manufacturing process. If not addressed, this condition could lead to fatigue cracking of the ailerons and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.
We reviewed Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-001, Revision B, dated December 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures for detailed inspections for any signs of cracking of the external upper and lower reinforcing straps on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) ailerons.
We also reviewed Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacing the external upper and lower reinforcing straps on the LH and RH ailerons.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017, specifies salvaging and returning a damaged strap to Aviation Partners, Inc. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 70 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by October 9, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, and FALCON 900EX airplanes equipped with blended winglets installed in accordance with the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes: STC ST02241SE.
(2) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 and FALCON 900EX airplanes: STC ST02188SE.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Ailerons.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracked reinforcing straps (doublers) on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) ailerons of airplanes equipped with blended winglets. We are issuing this AD to address cracking of aileron reinforcing straps, which could lead to fatigue cracking of the ailerons and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 8 months or 400 flight hours (FH), whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8 months or 400 FH, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the upper and lower reinforcing straps of the LH and RH ailerons, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-001, Revision B, dated December 20, 2017. If any cracked aileron reinforcing strap is found, before further flight: Replace the reinforcing strap with a new part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017.
Replacement of any aileron reinforcing strap with a new part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that part only.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-001, dated March 3, 2017; or Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-001, Revision A, dated April 4, 2017.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the replacement specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, dated March 7, 2017.
(1) Although Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-001, Revision B, dated December 20, 2017; and Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017; specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(2) Although Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017, specifies salvaging and returning a damaged strap to Aviation Partners, Inc., this AD does not include that requirement.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael Bumbaugh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3522; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Aviation Partners, Inc., 7299 Perimeter Road South, Seattle, WA 98108-3812; phone: 206-762-1171; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A330-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by revisions to certain airworthiness limitation item (ALI) documents, which specify more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 9, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0034, dated February 5, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A330-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A330 and A340 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the A330 and A340 ALS document(s). The Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items are specified in ALS Part 1. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2014-0009 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-10-24, Amendment 39-18898 (82 FR 24035, May 25, 2017) (“AD 2017-10-24”)] to require the implementation of the instructions and airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 1 documents at Revision 07.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, improvement of safe life component selection and life extension campaigns resulted in life limitations changes, among others new or more restrictive life limitations, approved by EASA. Consequently, Airbus successively issued Revision 08 and Revision 09 of the A330 and A340 ALS Part 1, compiling all ALS Part 1 changes approved since previous Revision 07.
In addition, Airbus published Variation 9.2 to remove from ALS Part 1 some life limits connected to a deficiency in the fatigue performance of 300M high strength steel used in forgings. These life limits, applicable only for a specific batch of parts, are required by EASA AD 2017-0185.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0009, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the applicable ALS.
The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certain principle structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2017-10-24. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2017-10-24.
Airbus SAS has issued A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1, Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI), Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017. This service information describes SL-ALI for the landing gear.
Airbus SAS has also issued A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017, and A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Variation 9.3, dated November 29, 2017. This service information describes revised life limits for certain parts.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD does not include the Model A340 airplanes that are specified in the MCAI. Instead, we have added the MCAI to the required airworthiness actions list (RAAL) for the Model A340 airplanes.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new, more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitation requirements, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.”
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.
Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.
In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the
When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).
The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.
To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.
However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier AD.
This proposed AD therefore would apply to Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A330-300 series airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 105 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by October 9, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2017-10-24, Amendment 39-18898 (82 FR 24035, May 25, 2017) (“AD 2017-10-24”).
This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or an original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before November 29, 2017.
(1) Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(2) Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
(3) Airbus SAS Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by revisions to certain airworthiness limitation item (ALI)
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance times for accomplishing the tasks are at the applicable times specified in the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(1) Airbus SAS A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1, Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI), Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017.
(2) Airbus SAS A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017.
(3) Airbus SAS A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Variation 9.3, dated November 29, 2017.
Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2017-10-24.
After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2017-10-24 are not approved as AMOCs for this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0034, dated February 5, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sioux County Regional Airport, Maurice, IA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures developed at Sioux County Regional Airport, for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.
Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0671; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes 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,
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0671; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Sioux County Regional Airport, Maurice, IA, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures developed for the airport. This action would enhance safety and the management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 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 6.5-mile radius of Sioux County Regional Airport.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Announcement of public hearings.
EPA and NHTSA are announcing public hearings to be held for the joint proposed “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” (SAFE Vehicles Rule) issued on August 2, 2018. NHTSA will also accept comment on NHTSA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), available on NHTSA's website at
NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold three public hearings on the following dates: September 24, 2018 in Fresno, California; September 25, 2018 in Dearborn, Michigan; and September 26, 2018 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The hearings will start at 10 a.m. local time and continue until 5:00 p.m. or until everyone has had a chance to speak. If you would like to present oral testimony at one of these public hearings, please contact the person identified under
The September 24, 2018 hearing will be held at the The Grand 1401, 1401 Fulton Street, Fresno, California 93721. The September 25, 2018 hearing will be held at the Dearborn Inn, 20301 Oakwood Boulevard, Dearborn, Michigan 48124. The September 26, 2018 hearing will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel & Suites Pittsburgh Downtown, One Bigelow Square, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. The hearings will be held at sites accessible to individuals with disabilities.
If you would like to present oral testimony at a public hearing, please contact Kil-Jae Hong at NHTSA by the date specified under
Questions concerning the proposed rules should be addressed to NHTSA: James Tamm, Office of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 493-0515. EPA: Chris Lieske, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4584; fax number: (734) 214-4816; email address:
The purpose of the public hearings is to provide the public an opportunity to present oral comments regarding NHTSA and EPA's proposals for the SAFE Vehicles Rule. These hearings also offer an opportunity for the public to provide oral comments regarding NHTSA's Draft EIS, accompanying the proposed NHTSA fuel economy standards. The agencies will assume that all oral comments presented at the hearing are addressed to the joint proposed rules only, unless speakers specifically reference NHTSA's Draft EIS in oral or written testimony.
The SAFE Vehicles Rule, if finalized, would amend certain existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards, all covering model years 2021 through 2026. More specifically, NHTSA is proposing new CAFE standards for model years 2022 through 2026 and amending its 2021 model year CAFE standards because they are no longer maximum feasible standards, and EPA is proposing to amend its carbon dioxide emissions standards for model years 2021 through 2025 because they are no longer appropriate and reasonable in addition to establishing new standards for model year 2026. The preferred alternative is to retain the model year 2020 standards (specifically, the footprint target curves for passenger cars and light trucks) for both programs through model year 2026, but comment is sought on a range of alternatives discussed throughout this document. Compared to maintaining the post-2020 standards set forth in 2012, current estimates indicate that the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule would save over 500 billion dollars in societal costs and reduce highway fatalities by 12,700 lives (over the lifetimes of vehicles through MY 2029). U.S. fuel consumption would increase by about half a million barrels per day (2-3 percent of total daily consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration), emissions would increase by 7,400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2100, and would impact the global climate by 3/1000th of one degree Celsius by 2100, also when compared to the standards set forth in 2012.
The proposal for which EPA and NHTSA are holding the public hearings was signed on August 2, 2018 and the pre-publication version is available at the web pages listed above under
NHTSA and EPA will conduct the hearings informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of each hearing and keep the official record of each hearing open for 30 days to allow speakers to submit supplementary information to the dockets listed above. Panel members may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts directly with the court reporter.
Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearings. To be assured of consideration, written comments on the proposal must be received by the date indicated in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
1.
2.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement the requirement for contractors to complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 23, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2017-D034, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Kimberly Bass, telephone 571-372-6174.
DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to implement the antiterrorism training requirements for contractors provided in DoD Instruction (DoDI) O-2000.16, Volume 1, DoD Antiterrorism (AT) Program Implementation: DoD AT Standards (available at
This rule proposes a new DFARS subpart 204.7X, Antiterrorism Awareness Training, to address the requirement for covered contractors to complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training. The new subpart advises contracting officers of the training requirement, the authorized sources of training, and when training must be completed by contractors. This subpart also prescribes a new DFARS clause 252.204-7XXX, Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors, for use in all solicitations and contracts, including those for the acquisition of commercial items, when contractor personnel will require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation. The clause advises contractors of the training requirements, provides a reference to additional information and guidance available on the internet, and instructs contractors to include the clause in all subcontracts. Conforming changes are made to DFARS 212.301(f)(ii) to add the new clause to the list of contract clauses applicable to the acquisition of commercial items.
This rule proposes to create a new clause, DFARS 252.204-7XXX, Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors, to advise DoD contractors of the requirement for its employees (and those of its subcontractors, if applicable) to complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training within 30 days of requiring access and annually thereafter, if, as a condition of contract performance require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or a military installation. DoD plans to apply this clause to solicitations and contracts below the SAT and to the acquisition of commercial items, including COTS items (as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101). This is necessary in order to reach as wide an audience as possible to ensure contractor personnel who are required to have routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation are aware of this training requirement.
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 is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
This rule is not expected to 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
This action is necessary to implement the requirements of DoD Instruction O-2000.16, Volume 1, DoD Antiterrorism (AT) Program Implementation: DoD AT Standards, to ensure that contractors complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training.
The objective of this proposed rule is to ensure contractor personnel who, as a condition of contract performance, require routine physical access to a
It is expected that contracts that contain the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel, are contracts that would require contractor personnel to have routine physical access to Federally-controlled facilities or military installations. According to data available in the Electronic Data Access system, in fiscal year 2017, DoD awarded 137,106 contracts containing the clause at FAR 52.204-9 to 15,814 businesses, of which 10,837 (68.5 percent) were to small businesses. Common Access Cards (CAC) are issued to contractors who require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation. There are currently 507,665 contractors that hold CAC cards.
The impact is not expected to be significant, because current contractor employees who hold a CAC have already completed the requisite training and the cost of training new contractor personnel is at the expense of the Department. The time allotted for the training is approximately two hours per year. The training will provide safety awareness and precautionary measures that will benefit contractor personnel requiring routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facilities or military installations. This awareness not only benefits the contractor personnel, but also DoD civilians, military, and its assets.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2017-D034), in correspondence.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204, 212, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
This subpart provides policy and guidance related to antiterrorism awareness training for contractor personnel who require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation.
As used in this subpart—
It is DoD policy that—
(a) Contractor personnel who, as a condition of contract performance, require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation are required to complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training within 30 days of requiring access and annually thereafter.
(b) In accordance with Department of Defense Instruction O-2000.16, Volume 1, DoD Antiterrorism (AT) Program Implementation: DoD AT Standards, Level I antiterrorism awareness training may be completed—
(1) Through a DoD-sponsored and certified computer or web-based distance learning instruction for Level I antiterrorism awareness; or
(2) Under the instruction of a qualified Level I antiterrorism awareness instructor.
Include the clause at 252.204-7XXX, DoD Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, when contractor personnel require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation.
(f) * * *
(ii) * * *
(G) Use the clause at 252.204-7XXX, Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors, as prescribed in 204.7X03.
As prescribed in 204.7X03, use the following clause:
(a)
(b)
(1) Through a DoD-sponsored and certified computer or web-based distance learning instruction for Level I antiterrorism awareness; or
(2) Under the instruction of a Level I antiterrorism awareness instructor.
(c) Information and guidance pertaining DoD antiterrorism awareness training is
(d) The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (d), in subcontracts, including subcontracts for commercial items, when subcontractor performance requires routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 that repeals the Fiscal Year 2015 restrictions on the source of photovoltaic devices in contracts awarded by DoD that result in DoD ownership of photovoltaic devices by means other than DoD purchase of the photovoltaic devices as end products.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 23, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2018-D007, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.
DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to implement section 813(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. Section 813(b) repeals section 858 of the NDAA for FY 2015, effective October 1, 2018, but does not repeal section 846 of the NDAA for FY 2011. DoD published the final rule to implement section 858 under DFARS case 2015-D007 in the
Section 858 of the NDAA for FY 2015 did not contain specific language to rescind or supersede section 846 of the NDAA for FY 2011, which was first implemented in the DFARS by an interim rule under DFARS Case 2011-D046, published in the
Section 846 applies to contracts awarded by DoD, including energy savings performance contracts, utility energy service contracts, and private housing contracts, to the extent that such contracts result in ownership of photovoltaic devices by DoD. Section 846 further provides that DoD is deemed to own a photovoltaic device if the device is—
• Installed on DoD property or in a facility owned by DoD; and
• Reserved for the exclusive use of DOD for the full economic life of the device.
Section 858 substituted “or” for “and” in connecting the two conditions. Therefore, either one of the conditions would be sufficient to make the law applicable. By repealing section 858, the law does not apply unless both of the conditions are met. Although section 858 explicitly restricted applicability to the United States, that restriction is still equivalent to the section 846 applicability, because the Buy American statute invoked in section 846 does not apply overseas. Land leases are not addressed in this rule because land leases are outside the scope of the FAR and DFARS.
Section 846 requires that, with some exceptions, photovoltaic devices provided under covered contracts comply with the Buy American statute. The Buy American statute requires, for use inside the United States, that manufactured articles, materials and supplies be manufactured in the United States, substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States. When section 858 was enacted, it imposed basically the same requirement, requiring that any photovoltaic device installed under a covered contract be manufactured in the United States substantially all from articles, materials or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States, but no longer referenced the Buy American statute.
Because the requirement under section 858 was separated from the explicit application of the Buy American statute, the exceptions and waivers that apply to the Buy American statute no longer automatically applied to the restrictions of section 858, unless provided for and authorized by section 858. Now that section 858 has been repealed, the following exceptions are again applicable:
• Exceptions for domestic nonavailability and acquisitions in which the values of the photovoltaic devices does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold.
• Public interest determination. The Buy American statute provides for individual or class determinations that application of the Buy American statute is inconsistent with the public interest. Through public interest class determinations, DoD does not apply the Buy American statute to (1) qualifying country end products; or (2) U.S.-made end products, if the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement applies (
• Determination of unreasonable cost. Both the Buy American statute and section 858 allow a determination not to utilize a domestic product if the cost of the domestic product is unreasonable. With regard to determining that the cost of a domestic item is unreasonable, Executive Order 10582, Prescribing Uniform Procedures for Certain Determinations under the Buy-American Act, provides a methodology to determine unreasonable cost, using a minimum differential of 6 percent, but also provides that the head of an executive agency may determine that the use of a higher differential between the cost of materials of domestic origin and the cost of materials of foreign origin “is not unreasonable.” The then Secretary of Defense, Cyrus Vance, signed a memorandum on May 7, 1964, providing for application of a 50 percent differential under the Buy American statute. Therefore, DoD proposes to continue application of a 50 percent evaluation factor when determining whether the price of domestic photovoltaic devices is unreasonable when the estimated aggregate value of the photovoltaic devices to be utilized is less than $180,000 (the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement threshold). The application of an evaluation factor to foreign products to determine whether the price of domestic products is reasonable is not applicable when the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement applies, because there is a prohibition under that agreement to buying any products that are not designated, domestic, U.S.-made, or qualifying country products. DoD has waived the application of the Buy American statute to U.S.-made products so no evaluation factor is applicable.
• Exemption for commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1907 and determinations by the Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy, the component test of the Buy American statute does not apply to the acquisition of COTS items. This exemption no longer applied to photovoltaic devices utilized under section 858, but is now re-instated under section 846.
• Trade agreements or otherwise provided by law. The restrictions of both section 846 and section 858 are subject to the exceptions provided in the Trade Agreements Act or otherwise provided by law. The Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2501
This proposed rule essentially reinstates the DFARS regulations as they existed prior to publication of the final rule under DFARS Case 2015-D007 on November 20, 2015, except for—
• Baseline changes such as increased trade agreement thresholds and addition of new qualifying countries);
• Use of the term “micro-purchase threshold” rather than a specific dollar value, to provide more flexibility when the micro-purchase threshold increases;
• Retaining the explicit statement that these restrictions only apply in the United States; and
• Restructuring of the certifications in DFARS provision 252.225-7018. In each dollar range, the first paragraph is limited to a certification that the photovoltaic devices are domestic (or U.S.-made for paragraph (6)). This avoids the necessity of identifying the country of origin for such domestic or U.S.-made products.
This rule does not affect the applicability of DFARS clause 252.225-7017, Photovoltaic Devices, and DFARS provision 252.225-7018, Photovoltaic Devices—Certification. A determination was signed by the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, on October 13, 2011, to not apply the requirements of section 846 of the NDAA for FY 2011 to contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, but to apply the rule to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, including COTS items.
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 is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
DoD does not expect this proposed rule to 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,
This rule proposes to implement the repeal of section 858 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291), while retaining the requirements of section 846 of the NDAA for FY 2011, with regard to sources of contractor-purchased photovoltaic devices that become the property of DoD.
The objective of this rule is to revert to the regulations on photovoltaic devices that were in effect prior to superimposing the additional regulations required by section 858 on November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72599). By restoring the tie to the Buy American statute, this rule reinstates the Buy American exceptions for acquisitions below the micro-purchase threshold, nonavailabilty, unreasonable cost, and public interest, including the DoD class determinations that exempt U.S.-made and qualifying country photovoltaic devices from the requirement of the Buy American statute, as well as the Governmentwide determination that removes the component test for commercially-available off-the-shelf items.
This rule generally applies at the prime contract level to other than small entities. When purchasing renewable power generated via on-site photovoltaic devices, DoD can either purchase the photovoltaic devices and thereby own, operate, and maintain the devices for their full economic life (already covered in DFARS part 225 under standard Buy American statute/Trade Agreements regulations) or, for example, may do some variation of the following:
• Enter into an energy savings performance contract, which is a contracting method in which the contractor provides capital to facilitate energy conservation measures and maintains them in exchange for a portion of the energy savings generated. Under this arrangement, the Government would take title to the devices during contract performance or at the conclusion of the contract. For example, DoD uses either the master indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contract of the Department of Energy or the Army Corps of Engineers and awards task orders off one of those contracts. Generally, the same approved contractors are on each contract. Of the approved contractors, all except one are large businesses. There are subcontracting goals that each contractor has to meet, but the ultimate task order award is most often made to a large business.
• Enter into a power purchase agreement, also referred to as a utility service contract, for the purchase of the power output of photovoltaic devices that are installed on DoD land or buildings, but owned, operated, and maintained by the contractor. At the conclusion of the contract, DoD would either require the contractor to dismantle and remove the photovoltaic equipment or abandon the equipment in place. Prime contractors for this type of contract would generally be large businesses, based on the capital costs involved in these projects. However, many developers tend to subcontract out the majority of work to smaller companies.
There are approximately 80 manufacturers of photovoltaic devices. DoD does not currently have data available on whether any of the manufacturers of photovoltaic devices are small entities, because the Federal Procurement Data System does not collect such data on subcontractors.
There are no new reporting burdens under this rule. In fact, there is a de minimis reduction in burden, because no certification will be required if the value of the photovoltaic devices does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold, and identification of country of origin will no longer be required if the photovoltaic devices are domestic or U.S.-made. Contracting officers will no longer be required to do a determination and findings in order to allow utilization of qualifying country or U.S.-made photovoltaic devices or other foreign photovoltaic devices on the bases of unreasonable cost. Furthermore, since the prime contractors subject to this rule are other than small businesses, the existing reporting requirements do not impact small entities.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
DoD did not identify any significant alternatives that meet the requirements of the statute and would have less impact on small entities. The overall effect of this rule is deregulatory and it does not have significant impact on small entities.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2018-D007), in correspondence.
The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C chapter 35); however, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0229, entitled “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 225, Foreign Acquisition, and related clauses at DFARS 252.225.”
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 212, 225, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(f) * * *
(ix) * * *
(J) Use the clause at 252.225-7017, Photovoltaic Devices, as prescribed in 225.7017-4(a), to comply with section 846 of Public Law 111-383.
(K) Use the provision at 252.225-7018, Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate, as prescribed in 225.7017-4(b), to comply with section 846 of Public Law 111-383.
(1) Installed in the United States on DoD property or in a facility owned by DoD; and
(2) Reserved for the exclusive use of DoD in the United States for the full economic life of the device.
In accordance with section 846 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, photovoltaic devices provided under any covered contract shall comply with 41 U.S.C. chapter 83, Buy American, subject to the exceptions to that statute provided in the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501
DoD requires the contractor to utilize domestic photovoltaic devices in covered contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, with the following exceptions:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(a)(1) Use the clause at 252.225-7017, Photovoltaic Devices, in solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, for a contract expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold that may be a covered contract,
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(c) * * *
(1) More than the micro-purchase threshold but less than $25,000, then the Contractor shall utilize only domestic photovoltaic devices unless, in its offer, it specified utilization of qualifying country or other foreign photovoltaic devices in paragraph (d)(2) of the Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate provision of the solicitation;
(3) $80,317 or more but less than $100,000, then the Contractor shall utilize under this contract only domestic photovoltaic devices, unless, in its offer, it specified utilization of Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic devices (other than Bahrainian, Korean, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic devices), qualifying country photovoltaic devices, or other foreign photovoltaic devices in paragraph (d)(4) of the Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate provision of the solicitation. If the Contractor certified in its offer that it will utilize a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Korean, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device, then the Contractor shall utilize a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Korean, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device; or, at the Contractor's option, a domestic photovoltaic device;
(4) $100,000 or more but less than $180,000, then the Contractor shall utilize under this contract only domestic photovoltaic devices, unless, in its offer, it specified utilization of Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic devices (other than Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic devices), qualifying country photovoltaic devices, or other foreign photovoltaic devices in paragraph (d)(5) of the Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate provision of the solicitation. If the Contractor certified in its offer that it will utilize a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device, then the Contractor shall utilize a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device; or, at the Contractor's option, a domestic photovoltaic device; or
(5) $180,000 or more, then the Contractor shall utilize under this contract only U.S.-made, designated country, or qualifying country photovoltaic devices.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) If more than micro-purchase threshold but less than $180,000, then the Government will not accept an offer specifying the use of other foreign photovoltaic devices in paragraph (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(4)(ii), or (d)(5)(ii) of this provision, unless the offeror documents to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer that the price of the foreign photovoltaic device plus 50 percent is less than the price of a comparable domestic photovoltaic device.
(2) If $180,000 or more, then the Government will consider only offers that utilize photovoltaic devices that are U.S.-made, qualifying country, or designated country photovoltaic devices.
(d) * * *
(1) No photovoltaic devices will be utilized in performance of the contract, or such photovoltaic devices have an estimated value that does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold.
(2) If more than the micro-purchase threshold but less than $25,000—
(3) If $25,000 or more but less than $80,317—
(i) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a domestic photovoltaic device;
(ii) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a Canadian photovoltaic device or a qualifying country photovoltaic device
(iii) The foreign (other than Canadian or qualifying country) photovoltaic devices to be utilized in performance of the contract are the product of _____.
(4) If $80,317 or more but less than $100,000—
(i) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a domestic photovoltaic device;
(ii) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Korean, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device
(iii) The offered foreign photovoltaic devices (other than those from countries listed in paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this provision) are the product of _____.
(5) If $100,000 or more but less than $180,000—
(i) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a domestic photovoltaic device;
(ii) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device
(iii) The offered foreign photovoltaic devices (other than those from countries listed in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this provision) are the product of _____.
(6) If $180,000 or more, the Offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be used in performance of the contract is—
(i) A U.S.-made photovoltaic device; or
(ii) A designated country photovoltaic device or a qualifying country photovoltaic device.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to modify the text of an existing DFARS clause to include the text of another DFARS clause, in order to streamline instructions to contractors regarding notifications of transportation of supplies by sea.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 23, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2018-D028, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571-372-6093.
This rule proposes to modify DFARS clause 252.247-7023, Transportation of Supplies By Sea, to include the instructions currently specified in DFARS clause 252.247-7024, Notification of Supplies By Sea. Combining these clauses will result in DFARS clause 252.247-7024 being removed.
DFARS provision 252.247-7022, Representation of Extent of Transportation By Sea, is included in solicitations and requires an offeror to represent with its offer whether it anticipates that supplies will or will not be transported by sea in the performance of the contract.
DFARS clause 252.247-7023 is included in all contracts, except for those that directly purchase ocean transportation services, and provides contractors with terms and conditions that apply when transporting supplies by sea under the contract.
DFARS clause 252.247-7024, Notification of Transportation of
Since DFARS clause 252.247-7023 is included in all contracts, and DFARS clause 252.247-7024 is associated with the requirements of 252.247-7023, the text of the two clauses can be combined to help minimize the number of clauses contained in the contract, while still maintaining the intent of both clauses.
The modification of this DFARS text supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. The DoD Task Force reviewed the requirements of DFARS clause 252.247-7023 and 252.247-7024 and determined that the clauses could be combined.
A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the
This rule does not create any new provisions or clauses. This rule merely consolidates existing instructions regarding notifications of transportation of supplies by sea in a single DFARS clause.
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 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. The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b). This rule is not a major rule as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
DoD does not expect this proposed rule to 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 Department of Defense (DoD) is proposing to modify DFARS clause 252.247-7023, Transportation of Supplies By Sea, to include the instructions currently specified in DFARS clause 252.247-7024, Notification of Supplies By Sea. Combining these clauses will result in DFARS clause 252.247-7024 being removed.
The objective of this proposed rule is to streamline the instructions to contractors pertaining to the transportation of supplies by sea. The combination of these DFARS clauses supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force under Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.
Based on data available in the Federal Procurement Data System for fiscal year 2016, DoD awarded approximately 83,000 contract actions that included DFARS clause 252.247-7023 to 22,000 unique entities, of which approximately 39,000 awards (47 percent) were made to 15,000 unique small businesses entities (68 percent).
This proposed rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small businesses.
This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
There are no known significant alternative approaches to the proposed rule that would meet the proposed objectives.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities. DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2018-D028) in correspondence.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does apply; however, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0245, titled: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 247, Transportation and Related Clauses.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 212, 247, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
The additions read as follows:
(h) If the Contractor has indicated by the response to the solicitation provision, Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea, that it did not anticipate transporting by sea any supplies; however, after the award of this contract, the Contractor learns that supplies will be transported by sea, the Contractor—
(1) Shall notify the Contracting Officer of that fact; and
(2) Hereby agrees to comply with all the terms and conditions of this clause.
(h) If the Contractor has indicated by the response to the solicitation provision, Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea, that it did not anticipate transporting by sea any supplies; however, after the award of this contract, the Contractor learns that supplies will be transported by sea, the Contractor—
(1) Shall notify the Contracting Officer of that fact; and
(2) Hereby agrees to comply with all the terms and conditions of this clause.
(h) If the Contractor has indicated by the response to the solicitation provision, Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea, that it did not anticipate transporting by sea any supplies, but the contractor learns after the award of the contract that supplies will be transported by sea, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer of that fact.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 to apply domestic source requirements to acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold when acquiring athletic footwear to be furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces, and add Australia and the United Kingdom to the definition of the “National Technology and Industrial Base.”
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 23, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2017-D011, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.
DoD is proposing to amend the DFARS to implement the following two sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328):
Section 817 extends the domestic source requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2533a (the Berry Amendment) below the simplified acquisition threshold, when acquiring athletic footwear to be furnished to the members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces.
Section 881(b) amends 10 U.S.C. 2500(1) by adding Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United States and Canada as the countries within which the activities of the national technology and industrial base are conducted. 10 U.S.C. 2534, Miscellaneous Limitations on the Procurement of Goods Other Than United States Goods, requires that DoD only procure certain items if the manufacturer of the items is part of the national technology and industrial base.
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS as follows—
Amends DFARS 225.7002(a) to ensure that purchases of athletic footwear valued at or below the SAT are not exempt from the Berry Amendment (
Modifies the following DFARS sections, which implement the restrictions of 10 U.S.C. 2534, to allow acquisition of certain items from Australia and the United Kingdom:
• DFARS 225.7004, Restriction on acquisition of foreign buses.
• DFARS 225.7005, Restriction on certain chemical weapons antidote.
• DFARS 225.7006, Restriction on air circuit breakers for naval vessels.
• DFARS 252.225-7037, Evaluation of Offers for Air Circuit Breakers.
• DFARS 252.225-7038, Restriction on Acquisition of Air Circuit Breakers.
Purchases from the United Kingdom were already authorized in the provision and clause through annual waivers, which cover air circuit breakers and certain other naval vessel components.
In addition, this rule proposes to remove coverage at DFARS 225.7006-3(b) and 225.7006-4(a)(2) of the annual waiver for air circuit breakers for naval vessels from the United Kingdom, because waiver is no longer required.
This rule proposes to amend the applicability of existing DFARS solicitation provisions and contract clauses as follows:
• To implement section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2017, this rule proposes to extend use of DFARS clause 252.225-7012, Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities, to acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) when buying athletic footwear to be furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces. This clause is already prescribed for use in solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items.
• To implement section 881(b) of the NDAA for FY 2017, this rule proposes to modify the provision at DFARS 252.225-7037, Evaluation of Offers for Air Circuit Breakers, and the clause at DFARS 252.225-7038, Restriction on Acquisition of Air Circuit Breakers, to add Australia as a country from which items restricted by 10 U.S.C. 2534 may be purchased. This rule does not change the prescriptions for the use of this provision or clause, which are already required for use in solicitations and contracts for commercial items, including COTS items. The clause does not apply below the SAT.
41 U.S.C. 1905 governs the applicability of laws to contracts or subcontracts in amounts not greater than the SAT. It is intended to limit the applicability of laws to such contracts or subcontracts. 41 U.S.C. 1905 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt contracts or subcontracts at or below the SAT, the law will apply to them. The Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC), is the appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the FAR system of regulations.
41 U.S.C. 1906 governs the applicability of laws to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, and is intended to limit the applicability of laws to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items. 41 U.S.C. 1906 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the FAR Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt commercial item contracts, the provision of law will apply to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items. Likewise, 41 U.S.C. 1907 governs the applicability of laws to COTS items, with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy the decision authority to determine that it is in the best interest of the Government to apply a provision of law to acquisitions of COTS items in the FAR. The Director,
A determination under 41 U.S.C. 1905 is not required to prescribe DFARS 252.225-7012 for use in solicitations and contracts valued at or below the SAT, because section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2017 specifically states that DoD shall acquire athletic footwear that complies with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2533a “without regard to the applicability of any simplified acquisition threshold under chapter 137 of title 10 (or any other provision of law).”
A determination under 41 U.S.C. 1906 and 1907 is not required to apply the requirements of DFARS 252.225-7037 and 252.225-7038 to acquisitions for commercial items, including COTS items, because the statute that this provision and clause implements is not a covered statute subject to 41 U.S.C. 1905-1907. At the time of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) (Pub. L. 103-355), now codified in part at 41 U.S.C. 1905-1907, this provision and clause were a single clause, DFARS 252.225-7029, Restriction on Acquisition of Air Circuit Breakers, which implemented 10 U.S.C. 2534. Because 10 U.S.C. 2534 predated FASA, it was not subject to 41 U.S.C. 1905-1907. The DFARS clause 252.225-7029 was included on the initial list of statutes applicable to the acquisition of commercial items at DFARS 252.212-7001, incorporated in the DFARS by DFARS Case 95-D712 on November 30, 1995 (Defense Acquisition Circular 91-9).
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 is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
DoD does not expect this proposed rule to 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 reason for this rule is to implement sections 817 and 881(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328).
The objectives of the rule are as follows:
• To remove the exception to domestic source restriction of the Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. 2533a) for acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold when buying athletic footwear to be furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces, as required by section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2017.
• To allow acquisition of certain items from Australia and the United Kingdom, for which purchase is currently restricted to items from the United States or Canada, in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2534, as amended by section 881(b) of the NDAA for FY 2017.
This rule may apply to only a few small entities, because there are few sources that meet the domestic source requirements of the Berry Amendment with regard to athletic footwear. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) estimates a potential annual demand for approximately 200,000 to 250,000 pairs of athletic shoes to be delivered at the rate of approximately 27,500 pairs per month. In response to a request for information issued by DLA in December 2016, there were 5 responses from athletic footwear manufacturers, one of which was a small business. Small entities who are athletic shoe manufacturers could likely support portions of DoD's total requirements for athletic footwear. In addition, there are likely a number of domestic component suppliers who are small entities who would benefit from this new requirement as well. On the other hand, small entities that cannot provide athletic shoes that meet the domestic source requirements of the Berry Amendment, will no longer be able to compete for acquisition of athletic footwear at or below the simplified acquisition threshold that are for the purpose of providing athletic footwear to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces.
This rule will not apply to any small entities at the prime contract level, as there are only a few prime contractors for the restricted items, which are all U.S. firms that are other than small businesses. For the definition of “small business,” the Regulatory Flexibility Act refers to the Small Business Act, which in turn allows the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator to specify detailed definitions or standards (5 U.S.C. 601(3) and 15 U.S.C. 632(a)). The SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.105 discuss who is a small business: “(a)(1) Except for small agricultural cooperatives, a business concern eligible for assistance from SBA as a small business is a business entity organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor.” Therefore, if an item currently purchased from a U.S. entity that is other than a small business were to be purchased from an entity in the Australia or the United Kingdom, there could be an impact on a few small entities that are currently subcontractors to a U.S. prime contractor.
There are no projected reporting or recordkeeping requirements of this rule. The only compliance requirements are to furnish athletic footwear that complies with the Berry Amendment.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
By extending the restriction of the Berry Amendment to acquisitions that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, this rule may benefit small entities that can provide athletic footwear that is compliant with the Berry Amendment, because they may be more able to compete for smaller acquisitions.
DoD was unable to identify any alternatives that would meet the requirements of the statutes.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 225 and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(a) Acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, except for athletic footwear purchased by DoD for use by members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces (section 817 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328)).
The waiver criteria at 225.7008(a) apply to this restriction.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule; notice of meeting.
DoD is proposing to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which addresses the preference for performance-based payments, and to streamline the performance-based payment process. DoD is also proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to revise progress payments and performance-based payments policies for DoD contracts in order to increase its business effectiveness and efficiency as well as to provide an opportunity for both small and other than small entities to qualify for increased customary progress payment rates and maximum performance-based payment rates based on whether the offeror/contractor has met certain performance criteria.
DOD believes the proposed rule will eliminate the unintended consequences of not updating its contract financing policies (which, in turn will save hundreds of millions of dollars for the taxpayers), will improve contractor performance, and will distinguish and meaningfully recognize high performing companies and divisions of companies, as the case may be.
This rule proposes to relieve the administrative burden on contractors by deleting the current regulations relating to performance-based payments at DFARS subpart 232.10 and the associated clauses at DFARS 252.232-7012, Performance-Based Payments—Whole Contract Basis, and 252.232-7013, Performance-Based Payments—Deliverable Item Basis. This rule also removes the requirement to negotiate consideration due the Government for providing the contractor with the improved cash flow when utilizing performance-based payments.
In addition to the request for written comments on this proposed rule, DoD will hold a public meeting to hear the views of interested parties.
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Amy Williams, DPC/DARS, at 571-372-6106.
DoD is hosting a public meeting to obtain views of experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector regarding revising policies and procedures with regard to customary progress payment rates and maximum performance-based payment rates for DoD contracts.
(1) Company or organization name.
(2) Full name, valid email address, and telephone number of each person planning to attend, and whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. For each person, the Pentagon Force Protection Agency will send additional instructions to the email address provided at the time of registration in order for the individual to be approved for entry to the Mark Center.
(3) Name, title, organizational affiliation of presenter, if desiring to make a presentation, limited to a 5-minute presentation per company or organization. This limitation may be subject to adjustment, depending on the number of entities requesting to present, in order to ensure adequate time for discussion.
Once registered, attendees will be prompted by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency on building entry requirements.
One valid government-issued photo identification card (
Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 45 minutes early to accommodate security procedures. Public parking is not available at the Mark Center.
The TTY number for further information is: 1-800-877-8339. When the operator answers the call, let them know the agency is the Department of Defense; the point of contact is Daniel Weinstein at 571-372-6105.
The fundamental purpose of the rule change is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department of Defense in five domains while recognizing that its cash flow policy was outdated and costly to the tax payers. The five domains are:
• On Time or Accelerated Contract Deliveries;
• Contractor Quality;
• Contractor Business Systems;
• Increasing Contract Opportunities for Small Business and for the Blind and Severely Disabled; and
• Receipt of Timely Quality Proposals.
The present progress payment rate was established in an economic environment when interest rates were significantly higher than the historic lows that have been experienced over the past several years. As a result of the aforementioned, and because DoD desires to take an enterprise-wide view of contractor performance and to recognize and distinguish performance among the companies with which it deals, DoD is proposing to modify the customary progress payment rate for large businesses. DoD recognizes that small businesses do not have the borrowing power that large businesses have and, therefore, is not proposing a change to the basic customary progress payment for small business, which is 90 percent. In modifying the customary rate for large business, DoD is proposing to allow large and small business to achieve progress payment rates greater than the customary rates.
The goal would be that a significant majority of the large and small businesses would eventually meet the desired level of enterprise-wide performance.
In the case of large business, for progress payments, a two-step process:
1. Modify the customary progress payment rate to 50 percent (effectively updating the premises of the Defense
2. Establish opportunities for recognizing contractor behaviors that align themselves with the performance objectives established in the five business domains that are important to the DoD such that large business contractors could potentially increase the rate determined in Step 1 and receive progress payments that can be as high as 95 percent of contract cost. The increased customary progress payment rate will be established for each company or company division as the case may be.
The most comprehensive review of Government financing was the DFAIR study. One key recommendation from the DFAIR study was that
In the rule making process it is customary to analyze the impact of the proposed rule versus the status quo and that traditional analysis is included in the regulatory cost analysis (see section V. of this preamble). However, DoD has been providing financing in excess of that warranted based on the historically low interest rates in effect since 2008. By modifying the customary progress payment rate to 50 percent, it will result in savings hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers by eliminating an unintended consequence of the past practice associated with providing contract financing in excess of what was necessary. In the future, contractors will have the opportunity to earn increased contract financing benefit through improved performance.
DoD is proposing to amend DFARS parts 232, 242, and 252 to revise how contract financing, in the form of progress payments and performance-based payments, is calculated and determined for DoD contracts.
On December 1 of each year, a contractor, or higher-level owner of a contractor, may submit a representation as to which criteria it meets and request a higher customary progress payment rate. Based on the representation received, the Director of Defense Pricing and Contracting will determine the appropriate customary progress payment rate for the following calendar year, and that data will be entered into the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) by December 31.
If a contractor fails to submit by the December 1 deadline, then the rate for that contractor in CBAR will be 50 percent if the offeror is other than a small business and 90 percent if the offeror is a small business, unless the rate is 25 percent as provided in DFARS 232.501-1(a)(ii). If the offeror subsequently submits a representation after the December 1 deadline, any increase in rates will not be effective in CBAR until 30 days after submission.
The rate may be adjusted at any time during the year if it is subsequently determined that the representation provided by a contractor was not accurate.
DoD proposes to amend DFARS 232.1004 to remove the procedures for analysis of proposed performance-based payments using the performance-based payments analysis tool, and also removes the requirement that the contractor provide consideration to the Government, if the performance-based payments payment schedule will be more favorable to the contractor than customary progress payments. The current solicitation provisions at DFARS 252.232-7012 and 252.232-7013 are no longer required and will be removed, thus reducing burden on contractors.
This rule proposes to amend the clause at DFARS 252.232-7004, DoD Progress Payment Rates, and adds a new provision at DFARS 252.232-70YY, DoD Maximum Performance-Based Payment Rates. DFARS 252.232-7004 is used with FAR clause 52.232-16, Progress Payments, and DFARS 252.232-70YY is used with FAR provision 52.232-28, Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments. The FAR provision and clause are not prescribed for use in contracts for the acquisition of commercial items or for acquisitions at or below the SAT. The DFARS provision and clause, therefore, will not be applied to commercial items or to contact actions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold.
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to implement changes to the progress payment and performance-based payment policies for DoD contracts by amending the section on customary progress payment rates at DFARS 232.501-1; adding new procedures for performance-based payments at 232.1003; amending the clause at 252.232-7004, DoD Customary Progress Payment Rates, and adding a new provision at 252.232-70YY, DoD Maximum Performance-Based Payment Rates. This rule also proposes to delete the clauses at DFARS 252.232-7012, Performance-Based Payments—Whole Contract Basis, and 252.232-7013, Performance-Based Payments—Deliverable Item Basis.
This rule will impact all offerors/contractors (large or small) seeking DoD contracts that offer progress payments or performance-based payments. Although there are added costs associated with submission of an annual representation, the contractors/offerors that can meet the criteria will qualify for substantial savings on interest payments, due to increased Government financing.
The expected benefits are that the modified approach to the establishment of a performance-based cash flow environment will enable DoD to take an enterprise-wide view of contractor performance and to recognize and distinguish performance among the companies with which it deals. The goal would be that a significant majority of the large and small businesses would eventually meet the desired level of enterprise-wide performance. As a result of the improved industrial performance, DOD's efficiency and effectiveness will be improved thereby increasing the lethality of its fighting force and positively reforming DOD's business practices.
To access the complete Regulatory Cost Analysis, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
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 is an economically significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This proposed rule is subject to E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, because this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. If finalized as proposed, this rule would be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. The E.O. 13771 status will be informed by public comment, so please share any data and/or analysis that would relate to the rule's potential to be considered a deregulatory action. Details on the expected costs and benefits can be found in section V of this preamble.
DoD expects that this proposed rule may 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
This rule revises progress payments and performance-based payments policies for DoD contracts, basing the payment rate on whether the offeror/contractor has met certain performance criteria. This rule also implements section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, which modifies 10 U.S.C. 2301(b) to address preference for performance-based payments.
The objective of this rule is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of DoD in five domains: on time or accelerated contract deliveries, contractor quality, contractor business systems, increasing contract opportunities for small businesses and for the blind and severely disables, and receipt of timely quality proposals. The statutory basis is 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 10 U.S.C. 2301(b).
This rule will apply to small entities that receive either progress payments or performance-based payments for
The rule provides an opportunity to submit a representation as to whether a small entity meets certain performance criteria, in order to obtain higher progress payments or performance-based payments. DoD estimates that the professional skill set necessary to prepare the representation annually will approximate 25 percent at the journeyman level, 60 percent at the senior level, and 15 percent at the executive/attorney level. DoD estimates an average of 13 hours per response from small entities. The rule also removes a burden of approximately one hour per entity, associated with paragraph (b) of DFARS subpart 32.10 and the associated clauses at DFARS 252.232-7012 and 252.232-7013, which this rule proposes to delete.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
DoD did not identify any significant alternatives that would meet the objectives of the rule. However, the rule provides certain advantages for small entities as the basic customary progress payment rate for small entities remains at 90 percent, with possible increase up to 95 percent. So, small entities can continue to get the same rate, even if they do not submit a representation or meet the criteria. Small entities are only asked to represent with regard to three criteria: timely delivery or performance, contractor quality, and contractor business systems.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2017-D019), in correspondence.
The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Accordingly, DoD has submitted a request for approval of a revised information collection requirement 0704-0359, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 232, Contract Financing, and associated clauses at DFARS 252.232, to the Office of Management and Budget.
1. Public reporting burden for the collection of information proposed by this DFARS case 2017-D019 is estimated to average 28.8 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
The annual reporting burden estimated as follows:
2. In addition, this information collection includes a pre-existing burden related to DFARS clause 252.232-7007 (800 hours, 1 response per respondent, 800 responses, 1 hour per response, for a total of 8,000 hours). Therefore, the total burden for 0704-0359, rounded, is as follows:
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or email
Public comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the DFARS, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. Williams, OUSD (A&S) DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, or email
This rule also affects the information collection requirements at DFARS subpart 232.10 (and associated clauses at DFARS 252.232-7012 and 252.232-7013, currently approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0359. This rule proposes to remove these requirements.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 232, 242, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(a) Except for undefinitized contract actions as provided at FAR 32.501-1(d), in lieu of the customary progress payment rates specified at FAR 32.501-1(a), the customary progress payment rates for DoD solicitations issued on or after January 1, 2019, and resultant contracts, including contracts that contain foreign military sales (FMS) requirements, are 50 percent for other than small businesses and 90 percent for small businesses, unless a different rate is specified for the contractor in the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) at
(i) Contractors can qualify for an increased customary progress payment rate of up to 95 percent, based on the following criteria:
(A) Other than small businesses:
(B) Small businesses:
(ii) However, if a contractor or any of its principals has within the preceding Government fiscal year been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against the contractor or any of its principals for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property, the contractor will not be eligible for any of the above incentives and the customary progress payment rate will be 25 percent for that contractor.
(iii)(A) On or before December 1 of each year, except as provided in paragraph (a)(ii) of this section, a contractor, or a higher-level owner of a contractor, may submit to
(
(
(
(B) The representation is required to be executed by a person authorized to sign for the entity submitting the representation and must at a minimum include—
(
(
(
(iv) Based on the representation received, the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, will determine the appropriate customary progress payment rate(s) for the following calendar year. DoD will enter the customary progress payment rate(s) into CBAR by December 31.
(v) If a contractor fails to submit by the December 1 deadline, then the rate for that contractor in CBAR will be 50 percent if the contractor is other than a small business and 90 percent if the contractor is a small business, unless the rate is 25 percent as provided in (a)(ii) of this section. If the contractor subsequently submits a representation after the December 1 deadline, any increase in rates will not be effective in CBAR until 30 days after submission.
(vi) The rate(s) may be adjusted at any time during the year if the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, subsequently determines that the representation provided by a contractor was not accurate.
(b) Use the clause at 252.232-7004, DoD Customary Progress Payment Rates, in solicitations and contracts that include FAR 52.232-16. Do not use Alternate I of FAR 52.232-16.
(b)
(i) If the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, subsequently determines that the representation in accordance with 232.501-1(a) is inaccurate, the progress payment rate in CBAR will be adjusted.
(ii) See also 242.7502(c).
(a) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2307(b)(2), performance-based payments shall not be conditioned upon costs incurred in contract performance, but on the achievement of performance outcomes.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b)
(2) In lieu of the 90 percent maximum rate specified in the FAR for performance-based payments, the maximum rates for DoD performance-based payments in solicitations issued on or after January 1, 2019, are 50 percent for other than small businesses and 90 percent for small businesses, unless a different rate is specified for the offeror in the Contract Business Analysis Repository
(A) Offerors can qualify for an increased maximum performance-based payment rate of up to 95 percent, based on the following criteria:
(
(
(B) However, if an offeror or any of its principals has within the preceding Government fiscal year been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against the offeror or any of its principals for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property, the offeror will not be eligible for any of the above incentives and the maximum performance-based payment rate will be 25 percent for that offeror.
(C)(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(D) Based on the representation received, the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, will determine the appropriate maximum performance-based payment rate(s) for the following calendar year. DoD will enter the maximum performance-based payment rate(s) into CBAR by December 31.
(E) If an offeror fails to submit by the December 1 deadline, then the rate for that offeror in CBAR will be 50 percent if the offeror is other than a small business and 90 percent if the offeror is a small business, unless the rate is 25 percent as provided in (b)(2)(B) of this section. If the offeror subsequently submits a representation after the December 1 deadline, any increase in
(F) The rate(s) may be adjusted at any time during the year if the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, subsequently determines that the representation provided by an offeror was not accurate.
(S-70)
Use the provision 252.232-70YY, DoD Maximum Performance-Based Payment Rates, in solicitations that include FAR 52.232-28, Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments.
(a) Government personnel performing contract administration duties outlined in FAR 42.302(a) and this paragraph issue a corrective action request when contractual noncompliance is independently identified. The Defense Contract Management Agency had identified four levels of corrective action requests.
(i) Level I is issued for noncompliances that are minor in nature, are promptly corrected by the contractor, and present no need for root cause determination or further preventive action.
(ii) Level II is issued for noncompliances that are not promptly correctable and warrant root cause analysis and preventive action, or need action by the contractor to determine if other product/services are affected.
(iii) Level III is issued to the contractor's management responsible for the company or business segment to call attention to a serious noncompliance, a significant deficiency pursuant to 252.242-7005(b), a failure to respond to a lower level corrective action request, or to remedy recurring noncompliance.
(iv) Level IV is issued to the contractor's segment or corporate management and when the contractual noncompliance(s) is of a serious nature or when a Level III corrective action request has been ineffective.
(v) For additional information on corrective action requests, see PGI 242.302(a).
(b) * * *
(1) In accordance with agency procedures, identify one or more covered contracts containing the clause at 252.242-7005, Contractor Business Systems, from which payments will be withheld, except that, if a contract includes the clause 252.232-7004, DoD Customary Progress Payments, or the provision 252.232-70YY, DoD Maximum Performance-Based Payments, the contracting officer shall not withhold progress payments or performance based payments from that contract unless the contractor is receiving progress payments or performance-based payments under the contract at a rate specified in Contract Business Analysis Repository that includes the 10 percent incentive based on having acceptable business systems without significant deficiencies (see 232.501-1(a)). * * *
As prescribed in 232.502-4-70(b), use the following clause:
(a) The Progress Payments clause of this contract is modified to change each mention of the progress payment rate and liquidation rate in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(6), and (b) to 50 percent if the Contractor is other than a small business and 90 percent if the Contractor is a small business, unless a different rate is specified for the Contractor in the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) at
(b) If the Contractor has a satisfactory record of performance, the Contractor can qualify for an increased customary progress payment rate of up to 95 percent, based on the following criteria:
(1) If the Contractor is other than a small business:
(2) If the Contractor is a small business:
(c) However, if the Contractor or any of its principals has within the preceding Government fiscal year been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against the Contractor or any of its principals for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property, the Contractor will not be eligible for any of the above incentives and the customary progress payment rate will be 25 percent.
(d)(1) On December 1 of each year, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this clause, the Contractor, or a higher-level owner of the Contractor, may submit to
(i) If a representation is made on behalf of multiple business segments, the representation shall address the criteria in paragraph (b) of this clause for each business segment for which higher customary progress payment rates are requested. Business segments that meet the same criteria may be grouped together.
(ii) If the size status of the Contractor varies dependent upon the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of the acquisition, the Contractor may submit a representation and request for a higher customary progress payment rate that addresses the rates for both a small business and an other than small business.
(iii) A separate representation is not required to also request a higher maximum performance-based payment rate (see DFARS 232.1004(b)(2)).
(2) The representation shall be executed by a person authorized to sign for the entity submitting the representation and shall at a minimum include—
(i) The unique entity identifier and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s) of the Contractor;
(ii) The size status of the Contractor (small, other than small, or varies dependent upon the NAICS code of the acquisition); and
(iii) Identification of the criteria for which the Contractor is requesting increase in the customary progress payment rate for the following calendar year. It is not necessary to submit supporting data with the representation, but the Contractor is required to provide such data upon request.
(3) The template in paragraph (h) of this clause may be used for the submission of the request and representation.
(e) Based on the representation received, the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, will determine the appropriate customary progress payment rate(s) for the following calendar year. DoD will enter the customary progress payment rate(s) into CBAR by December 31.
(f) If the Contractor fails to submit by the December 1 deadline, then the rate for the Contractor in CBAR will be 50 percent if the Contractor is other than a small business and 90 percent if the Contractor is a small business, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this clause. If the Contractor subsequently submits a representation after the December 1 deadline, any increase in rates will not be effective in CBAR until 30 days after submission.
(g) The rate(s) may be adjusted at any time during the year if the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, subsequently determines that the representation provided by a contractor was not accurate.
(h)
As prescribed in 232.1005-70, use the following provision:
(a) The Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments provision in this solicitation is modified to change the maximum performance-based payment rate in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of that provision to 50 percent if the Offeror is other than small business and 90 percent if the Offeror is a small business, unless a different rate is specified for the Offeror in the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) at
(b) If the Offeror has a satisfactory record of performance, the Offeror can qualify for an increased maximum performance-based payment rate of up to 95 percent, based on the following criteria:
(1) If the Offeror is other than small business:
(2) If the Offeror is a small business:
(c) However, if the Offeror or any of its principals has within the preceding Government fiscal year been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against the Offeror or any of its principals for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property, the Offeror will not be eligible for any of the above incentives and the maximum performance-based payment rate will be 25 percent.
(d)(1) On December 1 of each year, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this provision, the Offeror, or a higher-level owner of the Offeror, may submit to
(i) If a representation is made on behalf of multiple business segments, the representation shall address the criteria in paragraph (b) of this provision for each business segment for which higher customary progress payment rates are requested. Business segments that meet the same criteria may be grouped together.
(ii) If the size status of the Offeror varies dependent upon the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of the acquisition, the Offeror may submit a representation and request for a higher customary progress payment rate that addresses the rates for both a small business and an other than small business.
(iii) A separate representation is not required to also request a higher customary progress payment rate (see DFARS 232.501-1(a)).
(2) The representation shall be executed by a person authorized to sign for the entity submitting the representation and shall at a minimum include—
(i) The unique entity identifier and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s) of the Offeror;
(ii) The size status of the Offeror (small, other than small, or varies dependent upon the NAICS code of the acquisition); and
(iii) Identification of the criteria for which the Offeror is requesting increased maximum performance-based payment rate for the following calendar year. It is not necessary to submit supporting data with the representation, but the Offeror shall provide such data upon request.
(3) The template in paragraph (h) of this clause may be used for the submission of this request and representation.
(e) Based on the representation received, the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, will determine the appropriate maximum performance-based payment rate(s) for the following calendar year. DoD will enter the maximum performance-based payment rate(s) into CBAR by December 31.
(f) If the Offeror fails to submit by the December 1 deadline, then the rate for the Offeror in CBAR will be 50 percent if the Offeror is other than a small business and 90 percent if the Offeror is a small business, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this provision. If the Offeror subsequently submits a representation after the December 1 deadline, any increase in rates will not be effective in CBAR until 30 days after submission.
(g) The rate(s) may be adjusted at any time during the year if the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, subsequently determines that the representation provided by the Offeror was not accurate.
(h)
(e) The requirements in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this clause regarding withholding of amounts due from progress payments and performance-based payments do not apply unless the Contractor is receiving progress payments or performance-based payments under this contract at a rate specified in CBAR that includes the 10 percent incentive based on having acceptable business systems without significant deficiencies.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 that allows for more than five offerors on solicitations issued using two-phase design-build selection procedures for indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts that exceed $4 million.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 23, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2018-D011, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Heather Kitchens, telephone 571-372-6104.
This rule proposes to revise the DFARS to implement section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Pub. L. 115-91). Section 823 amends 10 U.S.C. 2305a to allow for more than the maximum number of five offerors when a solicitation is issued using two-phase design-build selection procedures for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract that exceeds $4 million.
Prior to the amendments made by section 823, 10 U.S.C. 2305a required the head of the contracting activity to approve the contracting officer's justification that it is in the best interest of the Government to exceed the maximum number of five offerors that may be selected to submit phase-two proposals, if certain conditions apply. Section 823 eliminates the requirement for such a justification when the solicitation is for an IDIQ contract that exceeds $4 million.
The two-phase design-build selection procedures authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2305a are implemented at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3. The statutory requirement for a contracting officer to justify exceeding the maximum number of five offerors is implemented at FAR 36.303-1(a)(4). This rule proposes to implement section 823 by adding a new DFARS section 236.303-1(a)(4), to be used in lieu of the procedures at FAR 36.303-1(a)(4). The new DFARS section implements 10 U.S.C. 2305a, as amended by section 823, by providing—
• The new authority to exceed the five offeror maximum when the solicitation is for an IDIQ contract that exceeds $4 million;
• The authority to exceed the five offeror maximum when the contracting officer's decision is approved by the head of the contracting activity when the solicitation is for a contract that exceeds $4 million; and
• A statement that the number of offerors is at the contracting officer's discretion when the solicitation is for a contract that does not exceed $4 million.
This rule does not propose to create any new provisions or clauses or impact any existing provisions or clauses.
Executive Order (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 is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
DoD does not expect this proposed rule to 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
This rule proposes to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFARS) to implement section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 (Pub. L. 115-91). Section 823 amends 10 U.S.C. 2305a to allow contracting officers to exceed the maximum number of five offerors for solicitations issued using two-phase design-build selection procedures for indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts that exceed $4 million.
The objective of this rule is to implement the statutory changes to the two-phase design-build selection procedures by adding a new DFARS section 236.303-1(a)(4), to be used in lieu of Federal Acquisition Regulation 23.303-1(a)(4). The new DFARS section provides—
• The new authority to exceed the five offeror maximum when the solicitation is for an IDIQ contract that exceeds $4 million;
• The authority to exceed the five offeror maximum when the contracting officer's decision is approved by the head of the contracting activity when the solicitation is for a contract that exceeds $4 million; and
• A statement that the number of offerors is at the contracting officer's discretion when the solicitation is for a contract that does not exceed $4 million.
The legal basis for this rule is section 823 of the NDAA for FY 2018.
Based on FY 2017 data from the Federal Procurement Data System, DoD issued approximately 499 new awards for construction exceeding $4 million, to include IDIQ contracts, purchase orders, and orders under basic ordering agreements. Of the 499 new awards for construction, approximately 305 awards were made to 252 unique small businesses entities.
This proposed rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small entities. However, this rule may create additional opportunities for small entities, because the rule allows the maximum number of offerors selected to submit phase-two proposals to exceed five, when the solicitation is for an IDIQ contract valued at greater than $4 million, without requiring additional justification or approval.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
There are no known significant alternative approaches to the proposed rule that would meet the requirements of the applicable statute.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2018-D011), in correspondence.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR 236 is proposed to be amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(4) In lieu of the requirements at FAR 36.303-1(a)(4)—
(i) If the contract value exceeds $4 million, the maximum number of offerors specified in the solicitation that are to be selected to submit phase-two proposals shall not exceed five, unless—
(A) The solicitation is issued for an indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contract for design-build construction; or
(B) The head of the contracting activity, delegable to a level no lower than the senior contracting official within the contracting activity, approves the contracting officer's decision with respect to an individual solicitation, that a maximum number greater than five is in the best interest of the Government and is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the two-phase selection procedures. The decision shall be documented in the contract file (10 U.S.C 2305a(d)).
(ii) If the contract value is at or below $4 million, the maximum number of offerors specified in the solicitation that are to be selected to submit phase-two proposals is at the discretion of the contracting officer.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) proposes to modify its rules pertaining to certain payment, filing, and service procedures. Many of these rules are outdated and do not reflect current technology. As explained in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the Board proposes updating its regulations relating to methods of payment, filing procedures, electronic service of Board decisions, and fees for copying, printing, and related services. The proposed updates are intended to promote increased use of electronic filing and payment systems and result in cost savings to both the Board and the public, while enhancing the accessibility of information relating to proceedings and functions of the Board.
Comments are due by September 24, 2018.
Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions found on the Board's website at “
Sarah Fancher, (202) 245-0355. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
The Board proposes to modify and update its rules pertaining to certain payment, filing, and service procedures. The Board proposes to update these rules pursuant to a recommendation of its Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF), which was established to comply with the spirit of Executive Order 13,777. The RRTF's mission is to identify Board rules and practices that are burdensome, unnecessary, or outdated and to recommend how they should be addressed.
Currently, the Board's generally applicable regulation on filing fees provides that fees may be paid in one of the following manners: By billing account, check, money order, or credit card. 49 CFR 1002.2(a). That regulation further provides that, except as specified in section 1002.2, all filing fees are payable at the time and place that the document is tendered for filing. 49 CFR 1002.2(a)(1).
The Board proposes two modifications to its generally applicable filing fee regulation at 49 CFR 1002.2. First, the Board proposes to add an electronic payment option at 49 CFR 1002.2(a). The electronic payment option would be a convenient and quick method for the payment of fees to the Board and would facilitate increased use of electronic filing (e-filing) as described below in the discussion of filing procedures.
The Board would implement electronic payment through
Second, the Board proposes to eliminate the options of using billing accounts and making payments by credit card directly to the Board, although, as noted, parties will still be able to make credit card payments using
The Board currently accepts payments associated with recordations of security interests
The Board's regulations also establish the method of payment for filing water carrier tariffs and contract summaries. Specifically, the tariff or contract summary must be accompanied by the filing fee, the account number to be billed, or the credit card to be charged. 49 CFR 1312.4(a)(2)(iii), section 1313.4(a)(3)(iii);
The Board proposes to make changes to these regulations to correspond to the changes described above that are being proposed for section 1002.2. The proposed regulations would eliminate the option of and references to billing accounts and payment by credit card directly to the Board, and would add an option of electronic billing through
The Board is also proposing changes to increase the use of e-filing. The Board's current filing procedures for pleadings, found at 49 CFR 1104.1 and described in more detail on the Board's website,
Under the proposal, e-filing would be permitted for all pleadings and recordations (100 megabytes or less). The proposed rules at section 1002.2(a) would require that any fees associated with e-filings be paid electronically, allowing the Board to confirm payment via its electronic payment processer when it receives an e-filing. These modifications would eliminate the need to require paper filings for initial pleadings and fee-related pleadings that are e-filed. The proposed rules at section 1104.1 would also be revised to reflect that change, and would direct filers to the Board's website for details regarding permissible formats, acceptable signature formats, and other information. However, the Board would continue to require that large filings in excess of 100 megabytes be filed in paper form at this time. The Board may also require alternative filing procedures in particular cases.
To utilize e-filing, a filer would first pay any required fee via electronic payment on the
E-filing would not be mandatory, but parties making paper filings would be encouraged to also use the Board's electronic payment processor. Paper filers using the electronic payment processing option should note the transaction number they receive from
Although many practitioners already make use of the Board's e-filing system, these proposed changes are intended to promote increased use of e-filing and result in cost savings to both practitioners and the Board.
Because the paper filing option would still be available, the Board also proposes to modify its requirements for paper filers to reduce the burden on those filers. The Board's general provision on copies, found at 49 CFR 1104.3(a), requires 10 copies of paper filings, unless otherwise specifically directed by another Board regulation. Various other provisions of the regulations require a different number of copies.
The Board also proposes to modify its regulations at 49 CFR 1104.3(b) which governs electronic submissions accompanying paper filings. First, the Board proposes to modify the regulations to eliminate the requirement that electronic versions of pleadings that are 20 or more pages be submitted on compact discs or 3.5-inch floppy diskettes.
With the same objective of updating and streamlining Board procedures, the Board also proposes new procedures regarding service of decisions.
Under this proposal, parties that provide an email address to the Board when making a filing would be deemed to have consented to e-service of decisions in one of two ways. First, a party making an e-filing in a proceeding would also be consenting to e-service in that proceeding. The email address(es) provided in the required field in the e-filing form would be included on the service list on behalf of that party for the proceeding. This field in the e-filing form would allow an e-filer to enter multiple email addresses on behalf of that party as e-service recipients. Second, a party who makes a paper filing and includes an email address(es) on such filings would also be deemed to consent to e-service in the proceeding in which the filing was made unless the party opts out. The Board would send such paper filers a letter informing them that the email address(es) on the filing would be used on the service list unless the filer opts out, and verifying that the email address(es) provided is correct.
The email addresses used by the Board for e-service would be listed on the public service list for each proceeding. Filers should be aware, however, that, at this time, consent for e-service would be proceeding-specific and not filer-specific. Thus, the inclusion of an email address on one service list would not mean that the email address will automatically appear on a service list for a different proceeding in which they are participating.
The Board would continue to send paper copies of Board decisions as a backup to e-service during the early stages of e-service implementation. The Board expects that this transitional dual service period would last for up to three months after the effective date of any final rule.
The Board would treat proceedings that are open at the time the rule becomes effective as follows. Email addresses that were previously provided by service list participants when filing (including when e-filing) would not automatically be used for e-service. However, consistent with the procedures explained above, after the effective date of this rule, a party's email address would be added to the e-service list if the party: (1) Utilizes e-filing, or (2) does not opt out of e-service after making a paper filing that includes an email address.
The Board is proposing to update and clarify its fees for copying, printing, and related services found at 49 CFR 1002.1. These changes would reduce costs to the public, simplify the fees and associated accounting of such fees, and update obsolete or incorrect references.
The proposed regulations would reduce the charge for copying and printing tariffs, reports, and other public documents at 49 CFR 1002.1(d) from $1.50 per letter or legal size exposure with a $7.50 minimum to $0.25 per letter or legal size exposure. There would be no charge for the first 100 pages of copying or printing, which would be consistent with current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations at section 1002.1(g) that exclude charges for the first 100 pages for certain categories of users.
In addition, the Board is proposing to eliminate current 49 CFR 1002.1(f) and (g)(8), governing search and copying services requiring computer processing, which are obsolete and outdated.
Because these proposed revisions relate to rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice, they are not subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requiring notice and opportunity for public comment.
1. Comments are due by September 24, 2018.
2. Notice of this decision will be published in the
3. This decision is effective on its date of service.
Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers, Freedom of information.
Sunshine Act.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Waste treatment and disposal.
Administrative practice and procedure, Motor carriers.
Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods, Pipelines, Railroads.
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Forests and forest products, Railroads.
By the Board, Board Member Begeman and Miller.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend parts 1002, 1012, 1104, 1110, 1111, 1113, 1130, 1132, 1150, 1152, 1155, 1182, 1244, 1312, and 1313 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
(d) Copies or computer printouts of tariffs, reports, and other public documents, at the rate of $.25 per letter or legal size exposure, only after the first 100 pages, with a minimum charge of $7.50. Copies of electronic records, audiovisual materials, or other forms of data are available at the actual cost of duplication or transcription.
(f) * * *
(7) The fee for copies or computer printouts shall be $.25 per letter or legal size exposure, with a minimum charge of $7.50. Copies of electronic records, audiovisual materials, or other forms of data are available at the actual cost of duplication or transcription.
(g) Fees for services described in paragraph (a) through (f) of this section may be paid by check, money order, or through the Board's electronic payment system in accordance with 49 CFR 1002.2(a)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
(a)(2) Filing fees for all e-filings must be paid on the Board's electronic payment system found on the Board's website. Filing fees for other filings may be paid by the electronic payment system, but will also be accepted payable to the Surface Transportation Board, by check payable in United States currency drawn upon funds deposited in a United States or foreign bank or other financial institution, money order payable in United States currency.
(b) Any filing that is not accompanied by the appropriate filing fee or a request for waiver of the fee is deficient. If a filer requests a fee waiver but does not submit the appropriate fee, the filing is held for processing until a determination has been made on the fee waiver request. If the filer requests a fee waiver and submits the appropriate fee, the filing is accepted and the Board refunds the fee or a portion thereof if the fee waiver is ultimately granted.
(a) The Board will entertain petitions requesting either the opening of a meeting proposed to be closed to the public or the closing of a meeting proposed to be open to the public. In the case of a meeting of the Board, or a Division or committee of the Board, a petition shall be filed.
(e) Unless otherwise directed by the Board, persons filing pleadings and documents with the Board have the option of electronically filing (e-filing) pleadings and documents instead of filing paper copies. Details regarding file size limitations, permissible formats, procedures to be followed, acceptable signature formats, and other pertinent information are available on the Board's website,
(a) The executed original of a paper pleading or document permitted or required to be filed under this subchapter, including correspondence, must be furnished for the use of the Board. Textual submissions of 20 or more pages must be accompanied by an electronic version. Details regarding electronic submissions, including evidence, workpapers, and other pertinent information are available on the Board's website,
(b) The Board may, at its discretion, request paper copies of a pleading, document, or paper filed or e-filed with the Board. Any such copies must be clear and legible. Appropriate notes or other indications shall be used so that matters shown in color on the original, but in black and white on the copies, will be accurately identified on all copies.
(c) * * *
(1) Be submitted to the Chief, Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, Washington DC;
* * * The complaint should be filed with the Board together with an acknowledgment of service by the persons served or proof of service in the form of a statement of the date and manner of service, of the names of the persons served, and of the addresses to which the papers were mailed or at which they were delivered, certified by the person who made service.
(c)
(e)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(f) * * * Any petition for reconsideration should be filed with the Board.
The revisions read as follows:
(c)
(a) The application shall be filed with the Chief, Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings, Washington, DC 20423-0001. The application shall bear the date and signature and shall be complete in itself. The applicable filing fee must be paid by check, money order, or through the Board's electronic payment system (see 49 CFR part 1002). If the
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) Replies or rebuttal to written comments and protests shall be filed and served by applicants no later than 60 days after the filing of the application.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The applicability and administration of the Trails Act [16 U.S.C. 1247(d)] in abandonment proceedings under 49 U.S.C. 10903 (and abandonment exemption proceedings), issued pursuant to delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1011.7(a)(2)(iv) and (v), will be acted on by the entire Board as set forth at 49 CFR 1011.2(a)(7). Any appeals, and replies to appeals, under this section must be filed with the Board.
(4)
(6)
(7) * * *
(i) The filing of a petition to reopen shall not stay the effect of a prior action. Any petition to stay must be filed with the Board.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 10707, 11144, 11145.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) The filing fee enclosed (pursuant to 49 CFR 1002.2(a)); and
(iv) The transmittal number if the filer utilizes transmittal numbers.
(a) * * *
(7)
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget regulations, this notice announces the request of the Agricultural Research Service, permission to collect information from North Dakota landowners in nine counties, to gain their
Comments on this notice must be received by October 23, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to David Toledo, Research Rangeland Management Specialist, USDA, ARS, 1701 10th Avenue SW, P.O. Box 459, Mandan North, Dakota 58554. Submit electronic comments to:
David Toledo, Research Rangeland Management Specialist. Phone: 701-667-3063 or Fax: 701-667-3054.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the 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 the collection of information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology. Comments should be sent to the address listed in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the use of contract pilots and aircraft in Plant Protection and Quarantine domestic, emergency, and biological control programs.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on contract pilot and aircraft acceptance, contact Mr. Richard Johnson, National Policy Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 26, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2109. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
As part of this mission, APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program responds to introductions of plant pests with eradication, suppression, or containment through various programs in cooperation with State departments of agriculture and other government agencies. These programs may include the aerial application of treatments to control plant pests.
APHIS contracts for these services and, prior to any aerial applications, requests certain information from the contractors and/or contract pilots to ensure that the work will be done according to specifications. Among other things, APHIS asks to see the aircraft registration, the aircraft's airworthiness certificate, the pilot's license, the pilot's medical certification, the pilot's proof of flight review, the pilot's pesticide applicator's license, and the aircraft logbook. Information from these documents and aircraft inspection results are consolidated by APHIS for signature by the APHIS official and the contractor or contract pilot, indicating acceptance of the pilot and aircraft for the job.
APHIS is revising the title of this information collection from PPQ Form 816, Contract Pilot and Aircraft Acceptance to Contract Pilot and Aircraft Acceptance to better represent this information collection.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of small lots of seeds into the United States without phytosanitary certificates.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations related to the importation of small lots of seeds into the United States without phytosanitary certificates, contact Mr. Joseph Corpuz, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2068. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
These regulations allow small lots of seed to be imported into the United States under an import permit with specific conditions as an alternative to a phytosanitary certificate requirement. These conditions include packet and shipment labeling and marking and port of arrival notification. Noncompliant imported lots may be confined at the port of entry while the importer responds to and acts on a Government-issued emergency action notification.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the National Poultry Improvement Plan.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the National Poultry Improvement Plan, contact Dr. Denise Heard, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094; (770) 922-3496. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
To administer the NPIP, APHIS requires a number of activities that include memoranda of understanding; summaries of flock, slaughter plant, and other poultry business participation in NPIP; flock inspection and check testing reports; hatchery inspections; requests for salmonella serotyping; requests for compartment and component registration; requests for component removal; component audits; and auditor applications. They also include flock selecting and testing reports; reports and summaries of sales of hatching eggs, chicks, and poults; reports and investigations of salmonella isolations
The information collection and recordkeeping activities described above represent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 0579-0007, National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), and OMB control number 0579-0445, National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxiliary Provisions. After OMB approves this combined information collection package (0579-0007), APHIS will retire OMB control number 0579-0445.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of the opportunity to object to the Revised Land Management Plan for El Yunque National Forest prior to approval.
El Yunque National Forest, located in Puerto Rico, has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), a Revised Land Management Plan and a Draft Record of Decision (ROD). This notice is to inform the public that a 60-day period is being initiated where individuals or entities with specific concerns on El Yunque's Revised Land Management Plan and its associated FEIS may file an objection for a Forest Service review prior to the approval of the Revised Land Management Plan.
El Yunque's Revised Land Management Plan, FEIS, Draft ROD, and other supporting information, will be available for review at
A legal notice of the initiation of the 60-day objection period is also being published in El Yunque National Forest's newspaper of record, which is
Copies of the Revised Land Mangement Plan for El Yunque National Forest, the FEIS, and the Draft ROD can be obtained online at:
• Supervisor's Office, Rd. PR 191 Int. 988, Km. 4.4, Bo. Barcelona, Palmer, PR 00721 (Telephone: 787-888-1880); or by mailing a request to:
• Forest Supervisor's Office, HC 01 Box 13490, Rio Grande, PR 00745. Objections must be submitted to the Reviewing Officer:
• Regional Forester, USDA—Forest Service, Attn: Objection Reviewing Officer, 1720 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309 (Telephone: 404-347-4177; Fax: 404-347-4821).
Objections may be submitted electronically at
Note that the office hours for submitting a hand-delivered objection are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted in a commonly used format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf) or Microsoft Word® (.doc or .docx).
Pedro Rios, Forest Planning Staff Officer, El Yunque National Forest at 787-888-1880. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (Eastern time), Monday through Friday.
The Forest Service, Southern Region, El Yunque National Forest, has prepared a Revised Land Mangement Plan, FEIS, and a Draft ROD. This notice is to inform the public that a 60-day period is being initiated where individuals or entities with specific concerns on El Yunque's Revised Land Management Plan and its associated FEIS and Draft ROD, may file an objection for a Forest Service review prior to the approval of the Revised Land Management Plan.
The publication date of the legal notice in El Yunque National Forest's newspaper of record,
The objection process under 36 CFR 219 subpart B, provides an opportunity for members of the public who have participated in the planning process for El Yunque National Forest to have any unresolved concerns reviewed by the Forest Service prior to a final decision by the Responsible Official. Only those who provided substantive formal
The Forest Service will accept mailed, emailed, faxed, and hand-delivered objections concerning the Revised Land Management Plan and associated FEIS for 60 calendar days following the date of the publication of the legal notice of this objection period in the newspaper of record,
Objections must be submitted to the Reviewing Officer, who will be the Regional Forester for the Southern Region, at the address shown in the
An objection must include the following (36 CFR 219.54(c)):
(1) The objector's name and address along with a telephone number or email address, if available. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an objection, the Forest Service will attempt to verify the identity of the objector to confirm objection eligibility;
(2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the objection);
(3) Identification of the lead objector, when multiple names are listed on an objection. The Forest Service will communicate to all parties to an objection through the lead objector. Verification of the identity of the lead objector must also be provided if requested;
(4) The name of the plan revision being objected to, and the name and title of the Responsible Official;
(5) A statement of the issues and/or parts of the plan revision to which the objection applies;
(6) A concise statement explaining the objection and suggesting how the proposed plan decision may be improved. If the objector believes that the plan revision is inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy, an explanation should be included;
(7) A statement that demonstrates the link between the objector's prior substantive formal comments and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment; and
(8) All documents referenced in the objection (a bibliography is not sufficient), except that the following need not be provided:
a. All or any part of a Federal law or regulation,
b. Forest Service Directive System documents and land management plans or other published Forest Service documents,
c. Documents referenced by the Forest Service in the planning documentation related to the proposal subject to objection, and
d. Formal comments previously provided to the Forest Service by the objector during the plan revision comment period.
The responsible official for the revision of the Land Management Plan for El Yunque National Forest is Sharon Wallace, Forest Supervisor, El Yunque National Forest, HC 01 Box 13490, Rio Grande, PR 00745.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intent of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection to comply with a mandate in the 2014 Farm Bill. (. . . the Secretary of Agriculture should recognize the threat feral swine pose to the domestic swine population and the entire agriculture industry . . .).
Comments on this notice must be received by October 23, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0256, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kevin L. Barnes, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-2707. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at
On April 2, 2014 the USDA kicked off a national effort to reduce the devastating damage caused by feral swine. In 2015, the benchmark survey was conducted in 11 States (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas) to measure the amount of damage feral hogs caused to specific crops in these states. The target population within these states consisted of farm operations who have historically produced one or
In 2017, this survey was conducted in the following 13 States: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas, to measure the damage to livestock that is associated with the presence of feral swine. These States were chosen because they had high feral swine densities and a significant presence of cattle, hogs, sheep and/or goats. The findings from this survey are scheduled to be submitted for publication around the end of September 2018.
In 2019, the survey will be conducted in 12 States: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. The operators in 11 of the States will be selected from operations that recently produced hay/haylage, tree nuts, melons, sugar cane, sweet potatoes, or cotton. In California, operators will be selected from operations that produced hay/haylage, tree nuts, grapes, sod, carrots, lettuce, or strawberries.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services' (WS) National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) is the only Federal research organization devoted exclusively to resolving conflicts between people and wildlife through the development of effective, selective, and socially responsible methods, tools, and techniques. As increased urbanization leads to a loss of traditional wildlife habitat, the potential for conflicts between people and wildlife increases. Such conflicts can take many forms, including property and natural resource damage, human health and safety concerns, and disease transmission among wildlife, livestock, and humans.
Free-ranging populations of feral swine exist in at least 35 states, and the nationwide population is estimated at approximately 5 million animals. Feral swine damage pastures, agricultural crops, lawns, landscaping, and natural areas due to feeding, rooting, wallowing, grazing, and trampling activities. Feral swine are reservoirs of many diseases and act as a host to parasites that can negatively impact agricultural animals, especially swine.
Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
NASS will be utilizing several pieces of publicity and informational materials to encourage respondents to participate in this important survey. NASS will conduct the survey initially by mail with phone follow-up for non-response.
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of availability of proposed changes to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices (NHCP) for public review and comment.
Notice is hereby given of the intention of NRCS to issue a series of revised conservation practice standards in the NHCP. These standards include Combustion System Improvement (Code 372), Dust Control on Unpaved Roads and Surfaces (Code 373), Integrated Pest Management (Code 595), Nutrient Management (Code 590), Pesticide Mitigation (Code 594), Subsurface Drain (Code 606), Waste Facility Closure (Code 360), and Wildlife Habitat Planting (Code 420).
NRCS State Conservationists who choose to adopt these practices in their States will incorporate them into Section IV of their respective electronic Field Office Technical Guide. These practices may be used in conservation systems that treat highly erodible land (HEL) or on land determined to be a
These revisions shall be applicable as of August 24, 2018.
Comments should be submitted, identified by Docket Number NRCS-2018-0005, using any of the following methods:
•
•
NRCS will post all comments on
Mr. Bill Reck, National Environmental Engineer, Conservation Engineering Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue Southwest, South Building, Room 6136, Washington, DC 20250.
Electronic copies of the proposed revised standards are available through
The amount of the proposed changes varies considerably for each of the conservation practice standards addressed in this notice. To fully understand the proposed changes, individuals are encouraged to compare these changes with each standard's current version, which can be found at
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Notice of meetings.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings in Washington, DC, Thursday through Friday, September 6-7, 2018 at the times and location listed below.
The schedule of events is as follows:
Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.
For further information regarding the meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272-0010 (voice); (202) 272-0054 (TTY).
In lieu of its regularly scheduled Board meeting, the Access Board plans to hold a special event celebrating 50 years of the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA). Guest presentations include Judith E. Heumann from the Ford Foundation and federal agencies that issue accessibility standards under the ABA. Registration for this event is not required and members of the public are invited to join the celebration and a reception that follows. This event will be live streamed with captioning. More information about the ABA Anniversary can be found at:
All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the ABA anniversary event and committee meetings.
Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see
You may view the Friday, September 7, 2018 ABA event through a live webcast from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. at:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Correction: Announcement of meeting.
The Commission on Civil Rights published a document August 14, 2018, announcing an upcoming Maryland Advisory Committee. The document contained incorrect address to the meeting.
Barbara de La Viez, DFO, at
In the
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written or on-line comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Michael Flaherty, U.S. Census Bureau, HQ-6H149, 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Suitland, MD 20746, (301) 763-7699 (or via the internet at
The U.S. Census Bureau, with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), plans to conduct the Business Research and Development Survey (BRDS) for the 2018-2020 survey years. The BRDS covers all domestic, non-farm, for-profit businesses with at least 10 paid employees. The BRDS provides the only comprehensive data on Research and Development (R&D) costs and detailed expenses by type and industry.
The Census Bureau has conducted an R&D survey since 1957, collecting primarily financial information on the systematic work companies undertake to discover new knowledge or use existing knowledge to develop new or improved goods and services.
Beginning in 2018, the BRDS will collect new data about R&D on artificial intelligence and geographic detail of companies' R&D workforce. There is increasing interest among domestic policy-makers and in the international community, as well as among U.S. researchers in academia, government and industry, for more data on artificial intelligence. Domestic and foreign geographic information for R&D workforce will address Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) requests on inputs for enhanced estimation and evaluation of gross domestic product by state, foreign direct investment in the U.S., and U.S. direct investment abroad.
The 2018-2020 BRDS will continue to collect the following types of information:
• R&D expense based on accepted accounting standards.
• Worldwide R&D of domestic companies.
• Business segment detail.
• R&D-related capital expenditures.
• Detailed data about the R&D workforce.
• R&D strategy and data on the potential impact of R&D on the market.
• R&D directed to application areas of particular national interest.
• Data measuring intellectual property protection activities and technology transfer.
Domestic and foreign researchers in academia, business, and government analyze and cite data from the BRDS. Among the federal government users are the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). BEA includes R&D in the system of national accounts that measures the economic well-being of the country. BRDS data are key inputs into these accounts, which feed into the calculation of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The
The BRDS will follow a primarily electronic collection strategy. The BRD-1 form will be available on the website to assist respondents with gathering the required data prior to reporting online. Paper forms will also be sent to respondents upon request, however no paper forms will be included in initial mail packets. The online survey automatically skips questions that do not apply [based on previous responses] and checks for common errors. Links to detailed question-by-question instructions will be embedded in the electronic instrument. Excel spreadsheets are available to facilitate the electronic collection of information from various areas of the companies. Respondents have the capability to download the spreadsheets from the Census Bureau's website. A consolidator spreadsheet is also available to assist companies that need to gather information from business units and then compile the information into one company report.
The due date will be six weeks after mail out.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection 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 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, grantee of FTZ 78, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Calsonic Kansei North America, located in Shelbyville and Lewisburg, Tennessee. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 15, 2018.
The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 3, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 18, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Department of Commerce (DoC).
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).
NIST invites applications from eligible organizations in connection with NIST's funding of an MEP cooperative agreement for the operation of an MEP Center in the State of Alaska in the amount identified in the Funding Availability section of this notice. NIST anticipates awarding one (1) cooperative agreement for the State of Alaska. The objective of this announcement by the MEP Program is to provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small and medium-sized manufacturers within the State of Alaska. The selected organization will become part of the MEP National Network
Electronic applications must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Oct. 23, 2018. Paper applications will not be accepted. Applications received after the deadline will not be reviewed or considered. The approximate start date for awards under this notice and the corresponding NOFO is expected to be January 1, 2019.
Applications must be submitted electronically through
Administrative, budget, cost-sharing, and eligibility questions and other programmatic questions should be directed to Mike Simpson at Tel: (301) 975-6147 or Wiza Lequin at Tel: (301) 975-4395; Email:
The MEP National Network is a unique public-private partnership that delivers comprehensive, proven solutions to U.S. manufacturers, fueling growth and advancing U.S. manufacturing.
Focused on helping small and medium-sized manufacturers generate business results and thrive in today's technology-driven economy, the MEP National Network comprises the NIST MEP, the 51 MEP Centers located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, and over 1,300 trusted advisors and experts at more than 400 MEP service locations, providing any U.S. manufacturer with access to resources they need to succeed.
The MEP National Network's strength is in its partnerships. Through its collaborations at the federal, state and local level, MEP Centers work with manufacturers to develop new products and customers, expand and diversify markets, adopt new technology, and enhance value within supply chains. The MEP Program serves as a bridge to other organizations and federal research labs that share the mission of enhancing the manufacturing community.
In 2017, the MEP National Network connected with 26,313 manufacturers, leading to $12.6 billion in sales, $1.7 billion in cost savings, $3.5 billion in new client investments, and helping to create and retain more than 100,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs.
The MEP program is not a Federal research and development program. It is not the intent of the program that awardees will perform systematic research.
To learn more about the MEP program, please go to
Applicants may propose annual Federal funding amounts that are different from the anticipated annual Federal funding amount set forth in the above table, provided that the total amount of Federal funding being requested by an applicant does not exceed the total amount of Federal funding for the five-year award period as set forth in the above table. For example, if the anticipated annual Federal funding amount for an MEP Center is $500,000 and the total Federal funding amount for the five-year award period is $2,500,000, an applicant may propose Federal funding amounts greater, less than, or equal to $500,000 for any year or years of the award, so long as the total amount of Federal funding being requested by the applicant for the entire five-year award period does not exceed $2,500,000.
A recipient will be required to attend a kick-off conference, which will be held within 30 days post start date of award, to help ensure that the MEP Center operator has a clear understanding of the program and its components. The kick-off conference will take place at NIST MEP headquarters in Gaithersburg, MD, during which time NIST will: (1) Orient MEP Center key personnel to the MEP program; (2) explain program and financial reporting requirements and procedures; (3) identify available resources that can enhance the capabilities of the MEP Center; and (4) negotiate and develop a detailed three-year operating plan with the recipient. NIST MEP anticipates an additional set of site visits at the MEP Center and/or telephonic meetings with the recipient to finalize the three-year operating plan.
The kick-off conference will take up to approximately three days and must be attended by the MEP Center Director, along with up to two additional MEP Center employees. Applicants must include travel and related costs for the kick-off conference as part of the budget for year one (1), and these costs should be reflected in the SF-424A form. (See Section IV.2.a.(2). of the corresponding NOFO). These costs must also be reflected in the budget table and budget narrative for Year 1, which is submitted as part of the budget summary tables and budget narratives section of the Technical Proposal. (See Section IV.2.a.(6).(e). of the corresponding NOFO). Representatives from key subrecipients and other key strategic partners may attend the kick-off conference with the prior written approval of the Grants Officer. Applicants proposing to have key subrecipients and/or other key strategic partners attend the kick-off conference should clearly indicate that fact as part of the budget narrative for year one of the project.
NIST MEP typically organizes network-wide meetings several times a year to share best practices, new and emerging trends, and additional topics of interest. These meetings are rotated throughout the United States and typically involve 3-4 days of resource time and associated travel costs for each meeting.
Applicants must include travel and related costs for approximately two (2) MEP network-wide meetings in each of the five (5) project years (2 meetings per year; 10 total meetings over five-year award period). These costs must be reflected in the MEP Budget Summary form (see Section IV.2.a.(2). of the corresponding NOFO). These costs must be reflected in the budget summary tables and budget narratives for each of the project's five (5) years, which are submitted in the budget summary tables and budget narratives section of the Technical Proposal. (See Section IV.2.a.(6).(e). of the corresponding NOFO). A budget summary table and narrative template for Year 1 and budget summary table for Years 2-5 is available on the MEP website,
Non-Federal cost sharing is that portion of the project costs not borne by the Federal Government. The applicant's share of the MEP Center expenses may include cash, services, and third-party in-kind contributions, as described at 2 CFR 200.306. The source and detailed rationale of the cost share, including cash, full- and part-time personnel, and in-kind donations, must be documented in the budget tables and budget narratives submitted with the application and will be considered as part of the review under the evaluation criterion found in Section V.1.c.ii. of the corresponding NOFO.
Recipients must meet the minimum non-Federal cost share requirements for each year of the award, with each such year being distinct and unique for cost-share purposes. Cost-share cannot be “carried” forward from one year to the next under this program. For purposes of the MEP program, “program income” (as defined in 2 CFR 200.80, as applicable) generated by an MEP Center may be used by a recipient towards the required non-Federal cost share under an MEP award.
As with the Federal share, any proposed costs included as non-Federal cost sharing must be an allowable/eligible cost under this program and under the Federal cost principles set forth in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E. Non-Federal cost sharing incorporated into the budget of an approved MEP cooperative agreement is subject to audit in the same general manner as Federal award funds. See 2 CFR part 200, subpart F.
As set forth in Section IV.2.a.(7) of the corresponding NOFO, a letter of commitment is required from an authorized representative of the applicant, stating the total amount of cost share to be contributed by the applicant towards the proposed MEP Center. Letters of commitment for all other third-party sources of non-Federal cost sharing identified in a proposal are not required but are strongly encouraged.
• Incorporates the market analysis described in the criterion set forth in paragraph a.ii.(1) below and Section V.1.a.ii.(1). of the corresponding NOFO to inform strategies, products and services;
• defines a strategy for delivering services that balances market penetration with impact and revenue generation, addressing the needs of manufacturers, with an emphasis on the small and medium-sized manufacturers;
• defines the Center's existing and/or proposed roles and relationships with other entities in the State's manufacturing ecosystem, including State, regional, and local agencies, economic development organizations and educational institutions such as universities and community or technical colleges, industry associations, and other appropriate entities;
• plans to engage with other entities in Statewide and/or regional advanced manufacturing initiatives; and
• supports achievements of the MEP mission and objectives while also satisfying the interests of other stakeholders, investors, and partners.
• Segmentation of company size, geography, and industry priorities including some consideration of rural, start-up (a manufacturing establishment that has been in operation for five years or less) and/or very small manufacturers as appropriate to the state;
• alignment with state and/or regional initiatives; and
• other important factors identified by the applicant.
• Leverage new manufacturing technologies, techniques and processes usable by small and medium-sized manufacturers through technology diffusion and transfer; and,
• support a stronger training and education ecosystem in support of manufacturing workforce needs in the state.
• Identify, reach and provide proposed services to key market segments and individual manufacturers described above;
• work with a manufacturer's leadership in strategic discussions related to new technologies, new products and new markets; and
• leverage the applicant's past experience in working with small and medium-sized manufacturers as a basis for future programmatic success.
• Quality and extent of the applicant's stated goals, milestones and outcomes described by operating year (year 1, year 2, etc.);
• applicant's utilization of client-based business results important to
• depth of the proposed methodology for program management and internal evaluation likely to ensure effective operations and oversight for meeting program and service delivery objectives.
• Proposed key personnel have the appropriate experience and education in manufacturing, outreach, program management and partnership development to support achievements of the MEP mission and objectives;
• proposed management structure and organizational roles are aligned to plan, direct, monitor, organize and control the monetary resources of the proposed center to achieve its business objectives (Refer to Section I.4. of the corresponding NOFO);
• proposed organizational structure flows logically from the specified approach to the market and products and service offerings; and
• proposed field staff structure sufficiently supports the geographic concentrations and industry targets for the region.
• Proposed Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and its operations are complete, appropriate and will meet the program's objectives at the time of award, or, if such an Oversight Board or Advisory Committee does not exist at the time of application or is not expected to meet these requirements at the time of award, the extent to which the proposed plan for developing and implementing such an Oversight Board or Advisory Committee within 90 days of award start date (expected to be January 1, 2019) is feasible. (Refer to Section I.3. of the corresponding NOFO).
• Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and Governance is engaged with overseeing and guiding the Center and supports its own development through a schedule of regular meetings, and processes ensuring Oversight Board or Advisory Committee involvement in strategic planning, recruitment, selection and retention of board members, board assessment practices and board development initiatives (Refer to Section I.3. of the corresponding NOFO).
• The proposed financial plan is aligned to support the execution of the proposed Center's strategy and business model over the five (5) year project plan;
• the proposed projections for income and expenditures are appropriate for the scale of services that are to be delivered by the proposed Center and the service delivery model envisioned within the context of the overall financial model over the five (5) year project plan;
• a reasonable ramp-up or scale-up scope and budget has the Center fully operational by the 4th year of the project; and
• the proposal's narrative for each of the budgeted items explains the rationale for each of the budgeted items, including assumptions the applicant used in budgeting for the Center.
• Applicant clearly describes the total level of cost share and detailed rationale of the cost share, including cash and in-kind, in their proposed budget.
• applicant's funding commitments for cost share are documented by letters of support from the applicant, proposed sub-recipients and any other partners identified and meet the basic matching requirements of the program;
• applicant's cost share meets basic requirements of allowability, allocability and reasonableness under applicable federal costs principles set forth in 2 CFR 200, subpart E; and
• the overall proposed financial plan is sufficiently robust and diversified so as to support the long-term sustainability of the Center throughout the five (5) years of the project plan.
a. The availability of Federal funds;
b. The type and percentage of funding and in-kind commitment from other sources, such as 3rd party In-Kind.
c. Relevance of the proposed project to MEP program goals and policy objectives;
d. Reviewers' evaluations, including technical comments;
e. The geographical diversity and extent of the service area;
f. Whether the project duplicates other projects funded by DoC or by other Federal agencies; and
g. Whether the application complements or supports other Administration priorities, or projects supported by DoC or other Federal agencies, such as but not limited to the Manufacturing USA.
Proposals, reports, documents and other information related to applications submitted to NIST and/or relating to financial assistance awards issued by NIST will be reviewed and considered by Federal employees, Federal agents and contractors, and/or by non-Federal personnel who enter into or are subject to appropriate confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements covering such information.
Applicants whose applications receive an average score of 70 or higher out of 100 will be deemed finalists. If deemed necessary, finalists will be invited to participate with reviewers in a conference call and/or a video conference, and/or finalists will be invited to participate in a site visit that will be conducted by the same reviewers at the applicant's location. In any event, if there are two (2) or more finalists within a state, conference calls, video conferences or site visits will be conducted with each finalist. Finalists will be reviewed and evaluated, and reviewers may revise their assigned numeric scores based on the evaluation criteria (
Fundable, Outstanding (91-100 points);
Fundable, Very Good (81-90 points);
Fundable (70-80 points); or
Unfundable (0-69 points).
For decision-making purposes, applications receiving the same adjectival rating will be considered to have an equivalent ranking, although their technical review scores, while comparable, may not necessarily be the same.
The Selecting Official is the Director of NIST MEP or her designee. The Selecting Official makes the final recommendation to the NIST Grants Officer regarding the funding of applications under this notice and the corresponding NOFO. The Selecting Official shall be provided all applications, all the scores and technical assessments of the reviewers, and all information obtained from the applicants during the evaluation, review and negotiation processes.
The Selecting Official will generally select and recommend the most meritorious application for an award based on the adjectival rankings and/or one or more of the seven (7) selection factors described in the Selection Factors section of this notice and Section V.3. of the corresponding NOFO. The Selecting Official retains the discretion to select and recommend an application out of rank order (
As part of the overall review and selection process, NIST reserves the right to request that applicants provide pre-award clarifications and/or to enter into pre-award negotiations with applicants relative to programmatic, financial or other aspects of an application, such as but not limited to the revision or removal of proposed budget costs, or the modification of proposed MEP Center activities, work plans or program goals and objectives. In this regard, NIST may request that applicants provide supplemental information required by the Agency prior to award. NIST also reserves the right to reject an application where information is uncovered that raises a reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of the applicant. The final approval of selected applications and issuance of awards will be by the NIST Grants Officer. The award decisions of the NIST Grants Officer are final.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the 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 requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Debbie Mowatt, 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850 or
In order to fulfill its core mission, the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) publishes announcements in the
Upon request, submitters are provided with questions in an electronic document that can be filled in, signed, and submitted via mail or electronic mail.
NIST invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection 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 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Bethany Hackett, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140; phone: (301) 975-6113; email:
This is a request to extend the expiration date of this currently approved information collection. This information is collected from all testing or calibration laboratories that apply for NVLAP accreditation. Applicants provide the minimum information necessary for NVLAP to evaluate the competency of laboratories to carry out specific tests or calibrations or types of tests or calibrations. The collection is mandated by 15 CFR 285.
Each new or renewal applicant laboratory electronically submits its application for NVLAP accreditation through a self-service, web-based portal called the “NVLAP Interactive Web System” (NIWS). This method of collection also gives applicant laboratories the ability to upload document files needed to support the application process and to maintain their own profile information.
NIST invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection 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 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Elizabethann Mencher, (301) 427-8362 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
Regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart J, govern U.S. fishing in the Economic Zone of the Russian Federation. Russian authorities may permit U.S. fishermen to fish for allocations of surplus stocks in the Russian Economic Zone. Permit application information is sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for transmission to Russia. If Russian authorities issue a permit, the vessel owner or operator must submit a permit abstract report to NMFS, and also report 24 hours before leaving the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for the Russian Economic Zone and 24 hours before re-entering the U.S. EEZ after being in the Russian Economic Zone.
The permit application information is used by Russian authorities to determine whether to issue a permit. NMFS uses the other information to help ensure compliance with Russian and U.S. fishery management regulations.
Paper forms are used for applications. Submission of copies of permits, vessel abstract reports, and departure and return messages are provided by fax.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
NOAA asks people who operate ground receiving stations that receive data from NOAA satellites to complete a questionnaire about the types of data received, its use, the equipment involved, and similar subjects. Members of NOAA's Direct Broadcast User Groups are asked follow-up questions. The data obtained are used by NOAA for short-term operations and long-term planning. Collection of this data assists us in complying with the terms of our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the World Meteorological Organization: United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on area of common interest (2008).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops.
Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in October, November, and December of 2018. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and who have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Additional free workshops will be conducted during 2019 and will be announced in a future notice.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on October 18, November 15, and December 12, 2018. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on October 1, October 4, November 13, November 15, December 3, and December 13, 2018. See
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Somerville, MA; Mount Pleasant, SC; and Largo, FL. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Manahawkin, NJ; Largo, FL; Port Saint Lucie, FL; Kenner, LA; Kitty Hawk, NC; and Ronkonkoma, NY. See
Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399.
The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding the Atlantic Shark ID and Safe Handling, Release, and ID workshops are posted on the internet at:
Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Thus, certificates that were initially issued in 2015 will be expiring in 2018. Approximately 148 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2008.
Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person
1. October 18, 2018, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Quality Inn, 23 Cummings Street, Somerville, MA 02145.
2. November 15, 2018, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 1104 Isle of Palms Connector, Mount Pleasant, SC 29464.
3. December 12, 2018, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 100 East Bay Drive, Largo, FL 33770.
To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:
• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.
• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.
Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Certificates issued in 2015 will be expiring in 2018. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 286 free Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.
In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.
1. October 1, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.
2. October 4, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 210 Seminole Boulevard, Largo, FL 33774.
3. November 13, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 10120 South U.S. Highway 1, Port Saint Lucie, FL 34952.
4. November 15, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Hotel, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.
5. December 3, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 North Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.
6. December 13, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Marriott Courtyard, 5000 Express Drive South, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779.
To register for a scheduled Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158. Pre-registration is highly recommended, but not required.
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:
• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.
• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.
• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.
The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish, and prohibited sharks. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species and prohibited sharks will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species and prohibited sharks, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds products and service to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 4/27/2018 (83 FR 82), 5/3/2018 (83 FR 86), 6/8/2018 (83 FR 111), 6/15/2018 (83 FR 116), and 7/27/2018 (83 FR 145), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:
The Commission's regulation, 41 CFR 51-1.2, states “Federal Prison Industries, Inc. has priority, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 4124, over nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities in furnishing commodities for sale to the Government. All or a portion of the Government's requirement for a commodity for which Federal Prison Industries, Inc. has exercised its priority may be added to the Procurement List. However, such addition is made with the understanding that
Accordingly, as required by 41 CFR 51-3.3(d), NIB “obtain(ed) a decision from Federal Prison Industries on the exercise or waiver of its priority” and consistent with 41 CFR 51-3.3(e), provided a copy of the decision to the Commission.
In this case, FPI initially exercised its priority and denied the waiver, and stated this in its public comment to the Commission. FPI however had subsequently issued a partial waiver to NIB, by email dated on June 15, 2018, stating, “After careful consideration, FPI will waive the coverall for a period of two years (6/2018—6/2020).”
The Commission's regulation, 41 CFR 51-1.2, states “Federal Prison Industries, Inc. has priority, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 4124, over nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities in furnishing commodities for sale to the Government. All or a portion of the Government's requirement for a commodity for which Federal Prison Industries, Inc. has exercised its priority may be added to the Procurement List. However, such addition is made with the understanding that
Accordingly, as required in 41 CFR 51-3.3(d), NIB “obtain(ed) a decision
In this case, FPI initially exercised its priority and denied the waiver, as it stated in its public comment to the Commission. Subsequent to that decision, FPI issued a partial waiver to NIB, signed and dated July 1, 2018, stating, “FPI will waive this item for 12 months (7/1/2018—6/30/2019).”
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Notice, correction.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published a document in the
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117.
In the
Comments must be received on or before: September 16, 2018.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product listed below from nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete products and services from the Procurement List that was previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before: September 23, 2018.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 24, 2018.
Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), in OMB, within 30 days of this notice's publication by either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by “OMB Control No. 3038-0033.”
•
•
A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) by any of the following methods. The copies should refer to “OMB Control No. 3038-0033.”
•
• By Hand Delivery/Courier to the same address; or
• Through the Commission's website at
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Robert Schwartz, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 416-5958; email:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. On June 6, 2018, the Commission published in the
Department of the Army, DoD.
30-day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 24, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
DoD announces an early engagement opportunity regarding implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 within the acquisition regulations.
Early inputs should be submitted in writing via the Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DARS) website shown below. The website will be updated when early inputs will no longer be accepted.
Submit early inputs via the DARS website at
Send inquiries via email to
DoD is providing an opportunity for the public to provide early inputs on implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 within the acquisition regulations. The public is invited to submit early inputs on sections of the NDAA for FY 2019 via the DARS website at
Office of the Chief Management Officer (CMO), DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 23, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, ATTN: Mark E. Ryan or email
These forms collect information from applicants, former supervisors, character references and other law enforcement agencies that the applicants have applied to.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Yavi Energy, 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
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 10, 2018.
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 5 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 electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website 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
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402 and (b) the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Georgia Power as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Georgia Power filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
Register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by November 5, 2018.
p. We intend to prepare an environmental assessment (EA). Nevertheless, the meetings listed below will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or an Environmental Impact Statement is issued by the Commission.
Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the times and places noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an Environmental Site Review (site visit) of the project on Friday, September 14, 2018, consisting of facility tours from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and boat tours from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. All participants should meet at the Jackson Land Management Office located at 180 Dam Road, Jackson, Georgia 30233. Participants must notify Courtenay O'Mara at
At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.
The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed in the public records of the project.
Take notice that on August 16, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2017), White Cliffs Pipeline, L.L.C. (White Cliff), filed a declaratory order petition seeking approval of certain terms and conditions of service for White Cliffs' portion of a joint project to provide pipeline transportation of natural gas liquids (NGL) from receipt points in Weld County, Colorado to the NGL marketing hub of Mont Belvieu, Texas. The joint project is being undertaken in conjunction with DCP Wattenberg Pipeline, LLC and DCP Southern Hills Pipeline, LLC (the DCP Parties), all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Garnet Wind, 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 10, 2018.
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 5 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 electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website 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 Pegasus Wind, 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 10, 2018.
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 5 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 electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website 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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plans (EPA ICR No. 1630.13, OMB Control No. 2050-0135) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 24, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0105 to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Troy Swackhammer, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-1966; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available, in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools and Revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plans (EPA ICR No. 1365.11, OMB Control No. 2070-0091). This is a request to renew the approval of an existing ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2018. EPA received six comments in response to the previously provided public review opportunity issued in the
Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0319, to both EPA and OMB as follows:
• To EPA online using
• To OMB via email to
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Brandon Mullings, Environmental Assistance Division, 7408M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4826; email address:
Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR parts 763, Subpart E). Respondents may claim all or part of a document confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Solicitation for data.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking readily available data and information on debris, floatables, and/or trash (hereafter referred to as “trash”) in the Anacostia River watershed for use in the development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL). The Anacostia River watershed covers portions of the District of Columbia and Prince George's and Montgomery Counties in Maryland. A map of the Anacostia River watershed is available from EPA Region 3's website at:
Data submissions to EPA must be received by, or postmarked on or before, October 23, 2018.
Data submissions should be sent to Ms. Jillian Adair, Water Protection Division (3WP30), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, or by electronic mail to
For additional information, contact Jillian Adair at (215) 814-5713 or
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that each State identify those waters (called “water quality-limited segments”) for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain State water quality standards and for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) must be prepared. A TMDL is an estimate of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate without violating water quality standards. This total load includes pollutants that come from end-of-pipe dischargers, stormwater runoff, surface runoff from non-permitted areas (
On September 21, 2010, EPA approved a trash TMDL for the Anacostia River submitted jointly by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and the District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE). The TMDL report can be accessed at:
On September 19, 2016, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking vacatur of EPA's approval [Civil Action No. 16-1861 (JDB)]. The Court ruled in favor of NRDC on March 30, 2018 and directed EPA to develop or approve replacement TMDLs. In light of the Court's Order, EPA is working with MDE and DOEE to determine the appropriate direction to take with developing new or revised TMDLs. An evaluation of data that has become available since approval of the original TMDLs will provide valuable insights into this determination.
EPA would appreciate your assistance in obtaining all readily available data and other information that would benefit the development of TMDLs for trash impairments in the Anacostia River watershed. Please consider these points in responding to this solicitation:
• Any studies, surveys or other statistically significant information on the quantities of trash that would interfere with the general population's use and enjoyment of the river for purposes such as swimming, boating and fishing. This data call is not intended as a user survey, and accordingly, EPA is not seeking the subjective views of individuals at this time.
• Documents or datasets that provide information regarding water quality conditions and sources associated with quantities of trash in the water. Potentially relevant data sources include: trash monitoring data, trash clean-up data, trash remediation project data, municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) annual reports, etc. EPA is also interested in any other information data providers believe might be relevant.
• Trash data can be accounted for through measurements of weight, volume, count, or other appropriate measure. While EPA acknowledges that photographs may document the presence of trash, photographs are less useful for quantifying trash. Accordingly, EPA discourages submission of photographs as a method of quantifying trash extent and impairment.
• Please limit data submissions to only the waterbodies within the Anacostia River watershed for the period of August 2009 through present. If data collection efforts are currently underway, EPA would also appreciate an accounting of what is being collected and when it may become publicly available.
• Data and reports delivered in electronic format are preferred, as available. Specifically, datasets in Excel
• Information regarding sampling methodologies, design, conditions (
• Please include names, contacts, and affiliations with your data submission.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces that pesticide related information submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) by the submitter, will be transferred to MERP Systems, Inc. in accordance with the CBI regulations. MERP Systems, Inc. has been awarded multiple contracts to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable MERP Systems, Inc. to fulfill the obligations of the contract.
MERP Systems, Inc. will be given access to this information on or before August 29, 2018.
William Northern, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-6478 email address:
This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0563, is available at
The Contractor shall perform activities in the PWS that are organized into four (4) main categories: Task Activity 1 is related to overall project management; Task Activity 2 is related to information about pesticide products, including the receipt of applications for regulatory action, the results of EPA registration decisions affecting individual products and pesticide uses and reports of incidents involving the use of pesticide products; Task Activity 3 is related to information about pesticide studies, position papers, analyses and the administrative records resulting from the decision processes themselves; and Task Activity 4 is related to updating OPP's PRISM Label Use Information System (LUIS) which is an automated pesticide information system that contains a summary of the legal uses of registered pesticide products.
The contractor shall:
• Capture data that supports regulatory applications, decisions, incident reports, and Personally Identifiable Information (PII), etc.;
• Provide processing, indexing support and shredding/destruction of studies and other technical documents of archival significance; and
• Make every effort to adopt to changing environments in technology, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Homeland Security, Presidential Directives, and EPA Management Directives, of which, changes could be in the areas of technology, regulations, information systems. process adaptations. coordination with other agencies, coordination with other Agency contractors. Government furnished equipment and/or software, facilities and security requirements, shall remain within the tasks activities herein.
These contracts involve no subcontractors.
OPP has determined that the contracts described in this document involve work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be made under this contract. These evaluations may be
Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under FIFRA sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 and under FFDCA sections 408 and 409.
In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the contracts with MERP Systems, Inc., prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified in these contracts; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the
7 U.S.C. 136
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 11, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 19, 2018.
1.
Public Building Service (PBS), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of Availability and Announcement of Meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, San Diego, California; Correction.
GSA published a notice in the
Osmahn Kadri, Portfolio Management Division, Public Buildings Service, GSA at 415-522-3617. Please cite Notice-PBS-2018-06; Correction.
In the notice FR Doc. 2018-17211 published in the
On page 39753, first sentence of the paragraph under the Dates section, remove “Thursday, August 9th” and add “Wednesday, September 5,” in its place.
On page 39753, third sentence of the paragraph under the Dates section,
On pages 39753 and 39754, first sentence of the second paragraph under the
On page 39754, second sentence of the paragraph under the Public Meeting section, remove “August 31, 2018” and add Tuesday, October 9th, 2018 in its place.
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation; ACF; HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is proposing to collect data for a new round of the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES).
Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
Similar to FACES 2014-2018, in 2019, two parallel studies will commence. FACES 2019 focuses on Head Start Regions I through X (which are geographically based); AI/AN (American Indian and Alaska Native) FACES 2019 focuses on Region XI (which funds Head Start programs that serve federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes). Both studies will provide data on a set of key indicators for Head Start programs. In fall 2019 and spring 2020, FACES will assess the school readiness skills of 2,400 Head Start children in Regions I-X (FACES 2019) and 800 children in Region XI (AI/AN FACES 2019), survey their parents, and ask their Head Start teachers to rate children's social and emotional skills. This sample will be drawn from 60 programs in Regions I-X and 22 programs in Region XI. In spring 2020, classroom observations of sampled programs will occur. In Regions I-X, the number of programs will increase from the 60 that are used to collect data on children's school readiness outcomes to 180 for the purpose of conducting observations in 720 Head Start classrooms. In Region XI, the program sample will remain at 22, and approximately 80 Head Start classroom observations will take place. Program director, center director, and teacher surveys will also be conducted in spring 2020 in Regions I-XI. In spring 2022, program level data collection will be repeated in Regions I-X only. FACES 2019 also features a “Core Plus” design, with the above activities reflecting the Core data, with the potential of “Plus” studies to inform emerging programmatic questions. If any Plus studies are conducted, they will be conducted within the Core sample and will be included in a future
Previous
Sampling of children and classrooms for FACES starts with site visits to 157 Head Start centers (120 for FACES 2019 and 37 for AI/AN FACES 2019) in fall 2019. Field enrollment specialists (FES) will request a list of all Head Start-funded classrooms from Head Start staffNext, for each selected classroom, the FES will request enrollment information for each child enrolled. Data collection will then start with site visits in fall 2019 to 82 Head Start programs (60 for FACES 2019 and 22 for AI/AN FACES 2019) to directly assess the school readiness skills of 3,200 children (2,400 for FACES 2019 and 800 for AI/AN FACES 2019) sampled for FACES and whose parents agree to participate. Parents of sampled children will complete surveys on the Web or by telephone about their children and family background. Head Start teachers will rate each sampled child (approximately 10 children per classroom) using the Web or paper- and pencil forms. These activities will occur a second time in spring 2020. When the FACES 2019 program sample size increases to 180 programs in the spring, the methods of data collection for this phase will feature classroom sampling and site visitors conducting observations of the quality of classrooms. Head Start program directors, center directors, and teachers will complete surveys about themselves and the services and instruction at Head Start. The purpose of the FACES data collection is to support the 2007 reauthorization of the Head Start program (Pub. L. 110-134), which calls for periodic assessments of Head Start's quality and effectiveness.
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
ACF cannot reasonably comply with the normal clearance procedures because the use of normal clearance procedures is reasonably likely to prevent the collection of needed information in a timely manner. Complying with the normal clearance procedures would delay or disrupt ORR's ability to expand the background checks in order to more comprehensively evaluate the suitability of potential sponsors of unaccompanied alien children, and to ensure safe and appropriate placement of children. The information collection is essential to the mission of the agency.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency), in response to suggestions submitted to Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0567, has analyzed whether
August 24, 2018.
Submit electronic comments on additional diseases suggested for designation to
Katherine Schumann, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6242, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1300,
Section 524 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n), which was added by section 1102 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), uses a PRV incentive to encourage the development of new drugs, including biologics, for prevention and treatment of certain diseases that, in the aggregate, affect millions of people throughout the world. Further information about the tropical disease PRV program can be found in guidance for industry “Tropical Disease Priority Review Vouchers” (81 FR 69537, October 6, 2016, available at
In August 2015, FDA published a final order (80 FR 50559, August 20, 2015) (final order) designating Chagas disease and neurocysticercosis as tropical diseases. That final order also sets forth FDA's interpretation of the statutory criteria for tropical disease designation and expands the list of tropical diseases under section 524(a)(3)(R) of the FD&C Act, which authorizes the FDA to designate by order “[a]ny other infectious disease for which there is no significant market in developed nations and that disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations” as a tropical disease.
FDA has applied its August 2015 criteria as set forth in the final order to analyze whether PCP meets the statutory criteria for addition to the tropical disease list. As discussed below, the Agency has determined that PCP does not meet the statutory criteria for designation as a “tropical disease” and thus will not add it to the list of tropical diseases whose applications may be eligible for a priority review voucher.
FDA has considered all diseases submitted to the public docket (FDA-2008-N-0567) between August 20, 2015, and June 20, 2018, as potential additions to the list of tropical diseases under section 524 of the FD&C Act, under the docket review process explained on the Agency's website (see
In developed nations, a sizable market exists for PCP prophylaxis drugs. The prevalence of stage-3 AIDS by year end 2014 in the United States (
Regarding treatment of PCP, the incidence of PCP has declined substantially with widespread use of PCP prophylaxis and anti-retroviral therapy (ART) (see,
In contrast to HIV-positive patients, the incidence of PCP in non-HIV patients is rising in some areas (see,
Current clinical guidelines recommend chemoprophylaxis against primary PCP for HIV infected persons with a CD4 cell count <200 cells/µL or a history of oral candidiasis (Ref. 14). As indicated above, the prevalence of stage-3 HIV infection (
In summary, a sizable market in developed nations exists for drugs indicated for prevention of PCP. At present, FDA is unaware of any significant funding by military, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), or any other United States Government sources for drug development targeting treatment of or prophylaxis against PCP.
Although no disability-adjusted life year (DALY) data were found to distinguish the disease burden of PCP in developing versus developed countries, it is noted that PCP occurs frequently among HIV-infected patients in many parts of the developing world. In addition, the prevalence of HIV-infected persons with PCP ranges from 24 percent (42/177) in Mexico (Ref. 15) to 55 percent in Thailand (Ref. 16). A Brazilian study found 55 percent (15/27) of HIV-infected persons with respiratory symptoms had PCP (Ref. 17).
Studies estimating the burden of fungal infections in different countries suggest low total yearly number of PCP cases in Belgium (n = 120), in contrast, for example, to 9,600 cases among HIV-infected people in Tanzania in 2012 (Refs. 18 and 19). In Uganda, the frequency of PCP among HIV-infected patients hospitalized with suspected pneumonia who had negative sputum acid-fast bacilli smears and underwent bronchoscopy decreased from nearly 40 percent of bronchoscopies between 1999 and 2000 to less than ten percent between 2007 and 2008 (Ref. 20). However, it is estimated that there are approximately 800 HIV-positive adults with PCP annually and up to 42,000 children with PCP annually in Uganda (Ref. 21). In Vietnam, the prevalence of PCP was 608 cases in 2012, 1149 cases per year in Senegal and 990 cases yearly in Nepal (HIV positive individuals) (Refs. 22, 23, 24). In Ukraine, 13.5 per 100,000 individuals develop PCP annually (Ref. 25).
High rates of anti-
PCP has been reported to be a leading cause of death in HIV-infected infants, responsible for at least one quarter of all pneumonia deaths in HIV-infected infants (Ref. 30). A recent review found PCP to be one of the factors strongly associated with mortality from acute lower respiratory infections in children under five years of age in low-income economies, lower-middle-income economies, and upper-middle-income economies (referred to as low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)), with odds ratio of 95 percent confidence interval of 4.79, 2.67-8.61 (Ref. 31). However, the incidence of PCP in infants and children in developed countries has decreased because PCP prophylaxis has been initiated in all neonates born to HIV-positive mothers (Refs. 32 and 33).
The HIV epidemic imposes a particular burden on women and children, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa where women account for approximately 57 percent of all people living with HIV (Ref. 34). In 2012, there were an estimated 260,000 newly infected children in LMICs (id.). Children with HIV are more likely to face gaps in access to HIV treatment. In 2012, approximately 34 percent of children had access to HIV treatment versus approximately 64 percent for adults (id.). Since PCP is the most prevalent in persons infected with HIV (Ref. 1) and HIV disproportionately impacts women and children, it is reasonable to conclude that PCP also disproportionately affects these populations.
PCP has not been designated by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a neglected tropical disease (Ref. 35).
In sum, although PCP disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations, it is an infectious disease for which there is a significant market in developed nations for drugs indicated for prevention of PCP. Based on the information reviewed, FDA has determined that PCP does not meet the statutory criteria for a tropical disease in section 524 of the FD&C Act.
FDA's current determination regarding PCP does not preclude interested persons from requesting its consideration in the future. To facilitate the consideration of future additions to the list, FDA established a public docket (see
This notice reiterates the “open” status of the previously established public docket through which interested persons may submit requests for additional diseases to be added to the list of tropical diseases that FDA has found to meet the criteria in section 524(a)(3)(S) of the FD&C Act. Such a request for information is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Specifically, “[f]acts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the
The following references have been placed on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 milligrams (mg)/100 milliliters (mL); dextrose, 5 grams (g)/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to these drug products, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to these products as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
Heather A. Dorsey, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6219, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) is the subject of NDA 017390, held by Baxter Healthcare Corp., and initially approved on February 1, 1979. PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) is the subject of NDA 017451, held by Baxter Healthcare Corp., and initially approved on February 2, 1979. PLASMA LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% is indicated as a source of water, electrolytes, and calories or as an alkalinizing agent. PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% is indicated as a source of water, electrolytes, and calories, or as an alkalinizing agent.
PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE
Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, submitted two citizen petitions dated March 2, 2018 (Docket No. FDA-2018-P-0964), and March 5, 2018 (Docket No. FDA-2018-P-0967), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petitions and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that these drug products were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that these drug products were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to these drug products may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by October 23, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comment on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Under the prescription drug user fee provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (sections 735 and 736 (21 U.S.C. 379g and 379h)), as amended, FDA has the authority to assess and collect user fees for certain drug and biologics license applications (BLAs). Under this authority, pharmaceutical companies pay a fee for certain new human drug applications (NDAs) and BLAs submitted to the Agency for review. Because the submission of prescription drug user fees concurrently with applications is required, review of an application by FDA cannot begin until the fee is submitted. The Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, Form FDA 3397, is designed to provide the minimum necessary information to determine whether a fee is required for review of an application, to determine the amount of the fee required, and to account for and track user fees. The form provides a cross-reference of the fee submitted for an application by using a unique number tracking system. The information collected is used by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) to initiate the administrative screening of NDAs and BLAs.
Respondents to this collection of information are drug and biologics manufacturers that submit NDAs and BLAs. Based on FDA's database system for fiscal year (FY) 2017, there are an estimated 155 manufacturers of products subject to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (Pub. L. 105-115), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-52.)
The total number of annual responses is based on the number of application submissions received by FDA in FY 2017. CDER received 250 annual responses that included the following submissions: 218 NDAs and 32 BLAs. CBER received 12 BLAs. The estimated hours per response are based on past FDA experience with the various submissions.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall decrease of 1,724 hours and a corresponding decrease of 3,448 responses. We attribute this program change to the restructuring of the Prescription Drug Use Fee Program fees. The FD&C Act, as amended by the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017 (PDUFA VI), authorizes FDA to collect application fees for certain applications for the review of human drug and biological products and discontinued the supplement fee. This resulted in the removal of supplements from the Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, therefore reducing the burden for this collection of information.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Hematologic Malignancy and Oncologic Disease: Considerations for Use of Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials for Drug Product Development.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to industry regarding the use of placebos and blinding in randomized controlled clinical trials in development programs for drug or biological products for the treatment of hematologic malignancies and oncologic diseases regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 23, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Julia Beaver, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2100, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-0489; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Hematologic Malignancy and Oncologic Disease: Considerations for Use of Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials for Drug Product Development.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to industry regarding the use of placebos and blinding in randomized controlled clinical trials in development programs for drug or biological products for the treatment of hematologic malignancies and oncologic diseases regulated by CDER and CBER.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the use of placebos and blinding in randomized controlled clinical trials for drug product development for hematologic malignancy and oncologic disease. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
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 collection of information in 21 CFR part 312 (Investigational New Drug Application) has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 (Protection of Human Subjects: Informed Consent; Institutional Review Boards) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the Fiscal Year 2019 CDER Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ) Staff Experiential Learning Site Visit Program. The purpose of this document is to invite pharmaceutical companies interested in participating in this program to submit a site visit proposal to CDER's OPQ.
Submit either an electronic or written proposal to participate in this program by November 23, 2018. See section IV of this document for information on what to include in such proposals.
Janet Wilson, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4642, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-3969, email:
A critical part of the commitment by CDER to make safe and effective high-quality drugs available to the American public is gaining an understanding of all aspects of a drug's development and commercial life cycle, including the variety of drug manufacturing operations. To support this commitment, CDER has initiated various training and development programs including the FY2019 Experiential Learning Site Visit program. This site visit program is designed to offer experiential and firsthand learning opportunities that will provide OPQ staff with a better understanding of the pharmaceutical industry and its operations, as well as the challenges that impact a drug's developmental program and commercial life cycle. The goal of these visits is to enhance OPQ staff exposure to the drug development and manufacturing processes in industry; therefore, a tour of pharmaceutical company facilities, including manufacturing and laboratory operations, is an integral part of the experience.
In this site visit program, groups on average of 15 to 20 OPQ staff—who have experience in a variety of backgrounds, including science, medicine, statistics, manufacturing, engineering, testing, and project management—will observe operations of commercial manufacturing, pilot plants (if applicable), and testing over a 1- to 2-day period. To facilitate the learning process for OPQ staff, overview presentations by industry related to drug development, manufacturing and testing may be included.
OPQ encourages companies engaging in the development and manufacturing of both active pharmaceutical ingredients (small and large molecules) and drug products to respond. Please note that this site visit program is not intended to supplement or replace a regulatory inspection,
OPQ staff participating in this program will benefit by gaining a better understanding of current industry practices, processes, and procedures. Participating sites will have an opportunity to showcase their technologies and their actual manufacturing and testing facilities.
Although observation of all aspects of drug development and production would be beneficial to OPQ staff, OPQ has identified a number of areas of particular interest to its staff. The following list identifies some examples of these areas but is not intended to be exhaustive, mutually exclusive, or to limit industry response:
Selection of potential facilities will be based on the priorities developed for OPQ staff training, the facility's current compliance status with FDA, and in consultation with the appropriate FDA district office. All travel expenses associated with this program will be the responsibility of OPQ; therefore, selection will be based on the availability of funds and resources for the fiscal year. OPQ will not provide financial compensation to the pharmaceutical site as part of this program.
Companies interested in offering a site visit or learning more about this site visit program should respond by submitting a proposal directly to Janet Wilson (see
• A contact person,
• Site visit location(s),
• Facility Establishment Identifier and Data Universal Numbering System numbers, as applicable,
• Maximum number of FDA staff that can be accommodated during a site visit (maximum of 20),
• A proposed agenda outlining the learning objectives and associated activities for the site visit,
• Maximum number of site visits (no more than 2) that your site would be willing to host by the close of the government fiscal year, September 30, 2019, and
• Proposed dates for each site visit (
Please note that the requested proposed agenda will be reviewed to determine the educational benefit to OPQ in conducting the visit, and selected sites may be asked to refine the agenda to maximize the educational benefit. After a site is selected, OPQ will communicate with the contact person for the site to determine the actual dates for the visit.
Proposals submitted without this minimum information will not be considered. Based on response rate and type of responses, OPQ may or may not consider alternative pathways to meeting our training goals.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) to award priority review vouchers (PRVs) to tropical disease product applicants when the applications meet certain criteria. The FD&C Act lists the diseases that are considered tropical diseases for purposes of obtaining PRVs and provides for Agency expansion of that list to include other diseases that satisfy the definition of “tropical diseases” as set forth in the FD&C Act. The Agency has determined that chikungunya virus disease, Lassa fever, rabies, and cryptococcal meningitis satisfy this definition and is therefore adding them to the list of designated tropical diseases whose product applications may result in the award of PRVs. Sponsors submitting certain drug or biological product applications for the prevention or treatment of chikungunya virus disease, Lassa fever, rabies, and cryptococcal meningitis may be eligible to receive a PRV if such applications are approved by FDA.
This order is effective August 24, 2018.
Submit electronic comments on additional diseases suggested for designation to
Katherine Schumann, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6242, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1300,
Section 524 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n), which was added by section 1102 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, uses a PRV incentive to encourage the development of new drugs for prevention and treatment of certain diseases that, in the aggregate, affect millions of people throughout the world. Further information about the tropical disease PRV program can be found in guidance for industry “Tropical Disease Priority Review Vouchers” (81 FR 69537, October 6, 2016, available at
On August 20, 2015, FDA published a final order (80 FR 50559) (final order) designating Chagas disease and neurocysticercosis as tropical diseases. That final order also sets forth FDA's interpretation of the statutory criteria for tropical disease designation and expands the list of tropical diseases under section 524(a)(3)(S) of the FD&C Act, which authorizes FDA to designate by order “[a]ny other infectious disease for which there is no significant market in developed nations and that disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations” as a tropical disease.
In this document, FDA has applied its August 2015 criteria as set forth in the final order to analyze whether Chikungunya virus disease, Lassa fever, rabies, and cryptococcal meningitis meet the statutory criteria for addition to the tropical disease list.
FDA has considered all diseases submitted to the public docket (FDA-2008-N-0567) between August 20, 2015, and June 20, 2018, as potential additions to the list of tropical diseases under section 524 of the FD&C Act, pursuant to the docket review process explained on the Agency's website (see
FDA's rationale for adding these diseases to the list is discussed in the analyses that follow.
Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) is an arbovirus transmitted by
There is no approved antiviral treatment for CHIKV in the United States or anywhere else in the world (Refs. 5 and 6). Therapeutic management largely aims to relieve pain and inflammation and limit the loss of mobility and physical fitness through the use of analgesic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. There is no approved CHIKV vaccine (Ref. 6).
CHIKV disease occurs rarely in developed nations (Ref. 1). Outbreaks of CHIKV primarily occur in poor tropical regions where uncontrolled breeding of
Based on the epidemiology of reported CHIKV cases, the market for vaccines in developed nations such as the United States would largely comprise travelers at risk of CHIKV infection and military populations. These markets are unlikely to provide sufficient incentive to encourage development of products to treat or prevent CHIKV infection. Although a limited number of locally transmitted cases have recently been reported in U.S. territories, the disease is not currently considered endemic in those areas. Whether those populations could broaden the market for products to treat or prevent CHIKV infection in the future is unknown. CHIKV drug development is not significantly funded by U.S. Government sources, and CHIKV is not among the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) list of potential bioterrorism agents.
Poor populations in tropical environments experience the primary burden of CHIKV disease because they are disproportionally exposed to its mosquito vectors (Ref. 7). Arboviral diseases disproportionally affect low-income urban and rural populations through increased mosquito exposure due to poor housing, lack of sanitation infrastructure, and outdoor occupations such as animal husbandry (Refs. 7 and 12). Large-scale and systematic insecticide mosquito control programs, once considered a public health priority throughout the world due to yellow fever virus, were largely dismantled due to diminishing resources and are therefore not available in most developing nations (Ref. 13).
Although CHIKV infection is rarely fatal, CHIKV sequelae have a major impact on productivity and economics in developing nations (Ref. 7). CHIKV outbreaks are often explosively large, with high attack rates and high rates of symptomatic disease (Refs. 1 and 3). An outbreak in India in 2006 involved more than 1.3 million suspected cases and was associated with more than 25,000 Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost (Ref. 14). A meta-analysis of 38 published studies confined to cases occurring in 2005 estimated that CHIKV led to up to 1 million years of healthy life lost and 1.5 million DALYs lost (Ref. 15).
Neonates are particularly vulnerable to serious complications of CHIKV infection. Among neonates born 1 day
The elderly and individuals with chronic comorbid conditions are also susceptible to life-threatening CHIKV disease (Refs. 3 and 16). A case series of 65 patients admitted to intensive care units with confirmed CHIKV in Martinique and Guadeloupe found that most patients were older than 50, and 83 percent of patients had preexisting comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease (Ref. 16). Upon admission, 57 percent required mechanical ventilation, 46 percent had shock requiring vasoactive drugs, 31 percent required renal replacement therapy, and 27 percent died (Ref. 16).
The World Health Organization (WHO) has designated Chikungunya as a Neglected Tropical Disease (Ref. 17).
Given the factors described above, FDA has determined that CHIKV disease meets both statutory criteria of “no significant market in developed nations” and “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations.” Therefore, FDA is designating CHIKV disease as a tropical disease under section 524 of the FD&C Act.
Lassa fever (LF) is an acute viral infection caused by Lassa virus, a single-stranded ribonucleic acid virus belonging to the arenavirus family. LF is endemic in parts of West Africa (Benin, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria), but probably exists in other West African countries where the animal vector for Lassa virus is distributed. Most Lassa virus infections (~80 percent) are mild or asymptomatic. In the remaining 20 percent of Lassa virus infections, the disease may progress to more severe symptoms that include respiratory distress, bleeding, shock, multiorgan system failure, and death. Involvement of the central nervous system may also occur with tremors, encephalitis, or hearing loss (Ref. 18).
The overall mortality rate of all Lassa virus infections is approximately 1 percent. However, the mortality rate in hospitalized patients is about 15 to 20 percent (Ref. 19). The most common complication of Lassa virus infection is sensorineural hearing loss. About one-third of hospitalized patients develop hearing loss; in most of these patients, hearing loss is permanent. Sensorineural hearing loss may also occur in patients with mild or asymptomatic disease (Ref. 20).
Currently, there are no FDA-approved drugs for prophylaxis or treatment of LF. In the absence of vaccine that protects against LF, disease prevention relies on good community hygiene to avert rodents from entering homes.
LF does not occur in developed countries, except for a few imported cases. Characteristically, since 1969, only six cases of LF have been documented in travelers returning to the United States (not including convalescent patients) (Ref. 21). Thus, LF appears to meet the criteria of not having a significant direct market in developed countries.
FDA is also unaware of evidence of a significant indirect market for LF products. Lassa virus, like other hemorrhagic viruses, has been categorized as a Category A pathogen by CDC (Refs. 22 to 24). Category A pathogens are considered a threat to public health and are viewed as potential biological weapons threat agents. Therefore, if a drug against a Category A pathogen is developed, it could have an indirect market if stockpiled as a medical countermeasure for the U.S. Government. At present, however, FDA is unaware of any significant funding by the military, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or any other U.S. Government sources for drug development targeting treatment or prophylaxis against LF. Further, Lassa virus is not listed as a high-priority threat in the 2017 Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) Strategy and Implementation Plan (Ref. 25).
LF is exclusively endemic in some West African countries. LF cases identified in areas where LF is not endemic have occurred rarely and are usually imported by persons returning from West Africa. Every year, Lassa virus is estimated to cause 100,000 to 300,000 infections in West Africa, with approximately 5,000 deaths (Refs. 19 and 21). All countries where LF is known to be endemic (Benin, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria) are classified by the World Bank as either low income (gross national income per capita of $1,045 or less) or lower-middle income (gross national income per capita of $1,046-$4,125). Further, the incidence of LF in endemic countries is much higher among the poorest rural populations (Ref. 26). The characteristics of the disease (high morbidity and mortality) indicate a potentially significant DALY impact, although a comprehensive literature search failed to identify any DALY data.
LF causes serious disease and death in both sexes and in all age groups, including children. The mortality rate is much higher for women in their third trimester of pregnancy. Spontaneous abortion is also a serious complication of Lassa virus infection, with a 95 percent mortality in fetuses of pregnant women (Refs. 21 and 26).
LF has not been designated by WHO as a neglected tropical disease. However, a panel of scientists and public health experts convened by WHO met in Geneva on December 8 and 9, 2015, to prioritize the top 5 to 10 emerging pathogens likely to cause severe outbreaks in the near future and for which few or no medical countermeasures exist. LF was one out of the nine diseases included in the initial list that need research and development preparedness to help control future outbreaks (Refs. 26 and 27).
Given the factors described above, FDA has determined that LF meets both statutory criteria of “no significant market in developed nations” and “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations.” Therefore, FDA is designating Lassa fever as a tropical disease under section 524 of the FD&C Act.
Human rabies infection is caused by the rabies virus, which typically enters the body through animal bite wounds or by direct contact of the virus with the body's mucosal or respiratory surfaces. Virtually all patients with human rabies infection ultimately progress to coma followed by death, although rare recoveries have been reported (Ref. 28).
As rabies is almost always fatal, post-exposure prophylaxis is recommended after suspected or proven exposure to rabies virus. Post-exposure rabies prophylaxis (PEP) should include wound cleansing, infiltration of rabies immunoglobulin into and around the wound, and vaccination with cell culture rabies vaccines (Ref. 29). Pre-exposure prophylaxis, consisting of
In developed nations, wild animals (
Using pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis can prevent human rabies infection. Christian, et al. reported an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 vaccine doses used annually in the United States for pre-exposure vaccination of critical personnel engaged in occupational activities with a risk for rabies exposure, and a separate survey estimated 6,600 vaccine doses required each year to vaccinate approximately 2,200 veterinary students (Ref. 34).
The United States does not have a national reporting system for use of rabies PEP; therefore, the accurate usage information is unknown. The CDC states an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 PEP treatments are administered annually in the United States, yielding an incidence of 0.01 to 0.02 percent using 2015 U.S. Census Bureau population estimate data (Refs. 35 and 36). Christian, et al. reported that between 2006 and 2008, the annual U.S. national average PEP use was estimated at 23,415 courses (range: 10,645-35,845), with an average annual rate of PEP administration for 16 states and NYC of 8.46/100,000 persons (range: 1.14-18.89/100,000 persons) (Ref. 34). The available data regarding pre-exposure and post-exposure rabies prophylaxis in the United States suggests that the population for whom rabies vaccines and human rabies immunoglobulin products are used is below 0.1 percent of the population, supporting the conclusion that there is no significant market for preventing human rabies infection in developed nations.
Between 2006 and 2011, there were 12 human rabies cases reported in Europe, of which 6 were imported (Refs. 37 and 38). In the United States and Puerto Rico, 37 persons have been diagnosed with human rabies since 2003, including 11 cases (30 percent) with exposure occurring outside of the United States and its territories and 5 cases (14 percent) acquired from organ or tissue transplantation (Ref. 33). Although a specific prevalence is not reported, the rarity of human rabies infection in the United States is well below 0.1 percent of the population. A direct market for products to treat symptomatic rabies would therefore be small.
The Joint Regulation on Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases Army Regulation 40-562 provides general guidance on rabies prevention recommendations for military personnel (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard) (Ref. 39). Nevertheless, FDA is unaware of evidence suggesting any sizable government or other indirect market for rabies virus products.
Although rabies is present in all continents except Antarctica, more than 95 percent of human deaths occur in Asia and Africa. WHO has designated rabies virus as a Neglected Tropical Disease (Ref. 17). It considers rabies a neglected disease of poor and vulnerable populations and reports the majority of deaths (84 percent) occur in rural areas (Ref. 31). In contrast to rabies epidemiology in developed nations, domestic dogs account for 99 percent of human rabies cases globally. Children in particular are at risk for human rabies infection: 40 percent of people bitten by suspected rabid animals are less than 15 years of age (Ref. 40).
Human rabies infection is a preventable disease, and the overwhelming majority of rabies deaths result from the lack of recommended PEP administration following suspected rabies exposure (Ref. 39). The annual number of human rabies deaths worldwide estimated in 2010 ranged from 26,400 (95 percent confidence interval 15,200-45,200) to 61,000 (95 percent CI 37,000-86,000) using different statistical approaches (Ref. 31). Using these data, DALYs for human rabies are estimated at 1.9 million (95 percent CI, 1.3-2.6 million) (id.). In developing countries, licensed purified cell culture and embryonated egg-based rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin for rabies PEP are neither readily available (due to shortages) nor accessible (distance to medical centers, affordability) (Refs. 39 and 40). The average cost of rabies PEP is reported to be US $40 in Africa and US $49 in Asia, which greatly exceeds the average daily income estimated at US $1-$2 per person (Ref. 40).
Given the factors described above, FDA has determined that rabies meets both the statutory criteria of “no significant market in developed nations” and “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations.” Therefore, FDA is designating rabies as a tropical disease under section 524 of the FD&C Act.
Cryptococcal infection typically occurs by inhalation of the fungi into the lungs. In immunocompromised individuals, the resulting pulmonary infection frequently spreads to the central nervous system, causing meningitis (Ref. 43). The primary recommended treatment of CM in developed countries includes a 2-week induction phase with amphotericin B and oral flucytosine, followed by long-term maintenance therapy with oral fluconazole (Ref. 44). In resource-limited nations, oral fluconazole is often the only therapeutic option available. Poor access to care and limited availability of standard antifungal therapy for patients with CM result in
Immunocompromised patients are typically the most vulnerable population to develop serious manifestations from infection with
Clinical practice guidelines for the management of cryptococcal disease do not routinely recommend primary antifungal prophylaxis for cryptococcosis in HIV-infected patients in the United States and Europe. This recommendation is based on the relative infrequency of cryptococcal disease, lack of survival benefits, potential for drug-drug interactions, creation of direct antifungal drug resistance, medication compliance, and costs. Routine primary prophylaxis for cryptococcosis is also not currently recommended in transplant recipients (Ref. 44).
The emergence of
Therefore, in the United States and other developed countries, there does not appear to be a significant market for developing new drugs or vaccines for the treatment or prevention of CM. Additionally, given the low incidence of CM and the low risk of infection to immunocompetent individuals, it is unlikely that antifungal therapies specifically directed against CM will become a national stockpiling priority in the foreseeable future.
CM is not currently designated by WHO as a Neglected Tropical Disease (Ref. 17). Additionally, no DALY data were found to distinguish the disease burden of CM in developing versus developed countries. However, the incidence of CM is high in developing countries due to limited access to antiretroviral therapy to treat HIV infection (Ref. 42). Annually, there are approximately 1 million cases of CM worldwide in patients with HIV/AIDS and 625,000 deaths (Ref. 46). Approximately 75 percent of these infections are in sub-Saharan Africa (id.). The case fatality rate for CM patients living in sub-Saharan Africa is 35 to 65 percent, compared to a 10- to 20-percent case fatality rate in most developed nations (Ref. 51).
The HIV epidemic imposes a particular burden on women and children, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa where women account for approximately 57 percent of all people living with HIV (Ref. 52). In 2012, there were an estimated 260,000 newly infected children in low- and middle-income countries (id.). Children with HIV are more likely to face gaps in access to HIV treatment. For example, in 2012, approximately 34 percent of children had access to HIV treatment versus approximately 64 percent for adults (id.). As CM is most prevalent in persons infected with HIV and HIV disproportionately impacts women and children, it is reasonable to conclude that CM also disproportionately affects these populations.
Given the factors described above, FDA has determined that CM meets both statutory criteria of “no significant market in developed nations” and “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations.” Therefore, FDA is designating cryptococcal meningitis as a tropical disease under section 524 of the FD&C Act.
The purpose of this order is to add diseases to the list of tropical diseases that FDA has found to meet the criteria in section 524(a)(3)(S) of the FD&C Act. By expanding the list with this order, FDA does not mean to preclude the addition of other diseases to this list in the future. Interested persons may submit requests for additional diseases to be added to the list to the public docket established by FDA for this purpose (see
This final order reiterates the “open” status of the previously established public docket through which interested persons may submit requests for additional diseases to be added to the list of tropical diseases that FDA has found to meet the criteria in section 524(a)(3)(S) of the FD&C Act. Such a request for information is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Specifically, “[f]acts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the
The following references are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than September 24, 2018.
Submit your comments to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa Wright-Solomon, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
The Committee was established under Section 1111 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 300b-10, as amended in the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2014. The Committee is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The purpose of the Committee is to provide the Secretary with recommendations, advice, and technical information regarding the most appropriate application of technologies, policies, guidelines, and standards for: (a) Effectively reducing morbidity and mortality in newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders; and (b) enhancing the ability of state and local health agencies to provide for newborn and child screening, counseling, and health care services for newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders. Specifically, the Committee makes systematic evidence-based recommendations on newborn screening for conditions that have the potential to change the health outcomes for newborns.
The Committee tasks an external workgroup to conduct systematic evidence-based reviews for conditions being considered for addition to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel, and their corresponding newborn screening test(s), confirmatory test(s), and treatment(s). Reviews also include an analysis of the benefits and harms of newborn screening for a selected condition at a population level and an assessment of state public health newborn screening programs' ability to implement the screening of a new condition.
HRSA published the 60-day notice on June 5, 2018 (FR Doc. 2018-12019). There were no comments received during the 60-day comment period. The survey tools have been revised to streamline responses to decrease the burden on the respondents, provide clarity with regard to what is being asked, ensure the survey can accommodate different types of conditions that may be nominated in the future, and offer additional response options. To accomplish this, questions were deleted, consolidated, reordered, and new questions were added to address gaps in information identified by those who have completed the survey and utilized the survey results.
The data gathered will inform the Committee on the following: (1) Feasibility of implementing population-based screening for the target condition; (2) readiness of state newborn screening programs to adopt screening for the condition; (3) identify gaps in feasibility or readiness to screen for the condition; and (4) identify areas of technical assistance and resources needed to facilitate screening for conditions with low feasibility or readiness.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of request for nominations.
HRSA is requesting nominations to fill vacancies on the Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry (ACTPCMD). The ACTPCMD is authorized by Section 749 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act. The Advisory Committee is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees, and applies to the extent that the provisions of FACA do not conflict with the requirements of PHS Act Section 749.
HRSA will receive nominations on a continuous basis.
Written nominations for membership can be submitted by mail to Advisory Council Operations, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, Room 11W45C, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 or sent by email to
Kennita R. Carter, MD, Designated Federal Official, ACTPCMD at 301-945-3505 or email
The ACTPCMD provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary), the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on matters concerning policy, program development, and other matters of significance concerning the medicine and dentistry activities under Section 747 of the PHS Act, as it existed upon the enactment of Section 749 of the PHS Act in 1998. In addition, the ACTPCMD develops, publishes, and implements performance measures and longitudinal evaluations for programs under Part C of Title VII of the PHS Act, as well as recommends appropriation levels for programs under this part. Meetings are held twice a year.
Specifically, HRSA is requesting nominations for voting members of the ACTPCMD representing allopathic medicine, osteopathic medicine, family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, physician assistant, general dentistry, pediatric dentistry, public health dentistry, dental hygiene, advanced practice nurse programs, and other health professionals engaged in primary care or oral health interprofessional training. Among these nominations, students, residents, or fellows representing allopathic
In making such appointments, the Secretary shall ensure a fair balance between the health professions, that at least 75 percent of the members of the ACTPCMD are health professionals, a broad geographic of representation of members, and a balance between urban and rural members. Members shall be appointed based on their competence, interest, and knowledge of the mission of the profession involved. As required by PHS Act section 749(b)(3), the Secretary will also ensure the adequate representation of women and minorities.
HHS will consider nominations of all qualified individuals with the areas of subject matter expertise noted above. Individuals may nominate themselves or other individuals. Professional associations and organizations may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership. Nominations shall state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the ACTPCMD and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude the ACTPCMD membership. Potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning financial interests, consultancies, research grants, and/or contracts that might be affected by recommendations of the ACTPCMD to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest.
A nomination package should include the following information for each nominee:
(1) A letter of nomination from an employer, a colleague, or a professional organization stating the name, affiliation, and contact information for the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
(2) A letter of interest from the nominee stating the reasons they would like to serve on the ACTPCMD;
(3) A biographical sketch of the nominee, a copy of his/her curriculum vitae, and his/her contact information (address, daytime telephone number, and email address); and
(4) The name, address, daytime telephone number, and email address at which the nominator can be contacted.
Nominations will be considered as vacancies occur on the ACTPCMD. If you submitted a nomination more than three years ago, please resubmit an updated nomination to be considered for committee vacancies.
HHS strives to ensure that the membership of HHS federal advisory committees are balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. The Department encourages nominations of qualified candidates from all groups and locations. Appointment to the ACTPCMD shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of request for nominations.
HRSA is requesting nominations to fill vacancies on the National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice (NACNEP). The NACNEP is authorized by Section 851 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. The Advisory Council is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees, and applies to the extent that the provisions of FACA do not conflict with the requirements of PHS Act Section 851.
HRSA will receive nominations on a continuous basis.
Written nominations for membership can be submitted to Advisory Council Operations, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11W45C, Rockville, Maryland 20857 or sent by email to
Tracy L. Gray, MBA, MS, RN, Designated Federal Official, NACNEP, by phone at 301-443-3346 or by email at
The NACNEP provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary), the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concerning policy matters arising in the administration of the activities under Title VIII of the PHS Act, as amended, including the range of issues related to the nurse workforce, nursing education, and nursing practice improvement. The Council annually prepares and submits a report describing the activities of the Advisory Council including its findings and recommendations made by the council concerning the activities under this title. Meetings are held twice a year.
Specifically, HRSA is requesting nominations for voting members of the NACNEP representing leading authorities in the various fields of nursing, higher and secondary education, and associate degree schools of nursing; representatives of advanced education nursing groups (such as nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and nurse anesthetists); hospitals and other institutions and organizations which provide nursing services; practicing professional nurses; the general public; and full-time students enrolled in schools of nursing.
In making such appointments, the Secretary shall ensure a fair balance between the nursing professions, a broad geographic representation of members, and a balance between urban and rural members. Members shall be appointed based on their competence, interest, and knowledge of the mission of the profession involved. As required by PHS Act section 851(b)(3), the Secretary shall ensure the adequate representation of minorities. The majority of the NACNEP members shall be nurses.
HHS will consider nominations of all qualified individuals with the areas of subject matter expertise noted above. Individuals may nominate themselves or other individuals. Professional associations and organizations may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership. Nominations shall state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the NACNEP and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude the NACNEP membership. Potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning financial interests, consultancies, research grants, and/or contracts that might be affected by recommendations of the NACNEP to
A nomination package should include the following information for each nominee:
(1) A letter of nomination from an employer, a colleague, or a professional organization stating the name, affiliation, and contact information for the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
(2) A letter of interest from the nominee stating the reasons they would like to serve on the NACNEP;
(3) A biographical sketch of the nominee, a copy of his/her curriculum vitae, and his/her contact information (address, daytime telephone number, and email address); and
(4) The name, address, daytime telephone number, and email address at which the nominator can be contacted.
Nominations will be considered as vacancies occur on the NACNEP. If you submitted a nomination more than four years ago, please resubmit an updated nomination to be considered for council vacancies.
HHS strives to ensure that the membership of HHS federal advisory committees are balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. The Department encourages nominations of qualified candidates from all groups and locations. Appointment to the NACNEP shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), HHS.
Request for information.
This request for information (RFI) seeks input from the public regarding the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Reporting Program established as Section 4002 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) codified Section 3009A in Title XXX of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). This RFI is a first step toward implementing the statute. Its responses will be used to inform subsequent discussions among stakeholders and future work toward the development of reporting criteria under the EHR Reporting Program.
To be assured consideration, written or electronic comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on October 17, 2018.
The public should address written comments on the proposed system of records to
•
•
•
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document at Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 330 C Street SW, Room 7033A, Washington, DC 20201. Contact Michael Wittie, listed below, to arrange for inspection.
Michael Wittie, Office of Policy, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 202-690-7151,
The Secretary has delegated authority to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) to carry out the provisions of sections 4002(a) and 4002(c) of the Cures Act. Section 4002(a) creates PHSA section 3001(c)(5)(D) and instructs the Secretary to “require, as a condition of certification and maintenance of certification” that health IT developers satisfy certain requirements, including submitting “reporting criteria in accordance with section 3009A(b).” Section 4002(c) creates PHSA Section 3009A and requires the Secretary to develop an “Electronic Health Record Reporting Program” (EHR Reporting Program or Program). Section 3009A also calls on the Secretary to lead a public, transparent process to establish the “reporting criteria” associated with the EHR Reporting Program. Section 3009A directs the Secretary to award
The Cures Act requires the EHR Reporting Program's reporting criteria to address the following five categories: Security; interoperability; usability and user-centered design; conformance to certification testing; and other categories, as appropriate to measure the performance of certified EHR technology. The Cures Act also suggests several other categories for consideration, including, but not limited to: Enabling users to order and view results of laboratory tests, imaging tests, and other diagnostic tests; exchanging data with clinical registries; accessing and exchanging data from medical devices, health information exchanges, and other health care providers; accessing and exchanging data held by federal, state, and local agencies.
For the purposes of this RFI, we have focused our questions on the five mandatory categories from the Cures Act. However, the public is welcome to comment on any of the additional categories noted by the Cures Act (please consult section 3009A(a)(3)(B)).
The ONC Health IT Certification Program provides a process to support certifying health information technology (health IT) to the appropriate standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria that have been adopted by the Secretary.
This RFI includes two main sections for public comment:
•
•
In reviewing the RFI questions, commenters should consider existing sources of information about health IT products. Commenters should also consider how reporting criteria for different stakeholders could be constructed based on their differing perspectives, especially, for example, since health IT developers will be required to respond to reporting criteria for their product(s) in order to maintain the product's certification. To prevent duplication of efforts, commenters should consider what other information is lacking from the existing sources about health IT products and what the reporting criteria under the EHR Reporting Program could uniquely contribute.
Overall, we seek input about reporting criteria that will be used to:
• Show distinct, measurable differences between products;
• Describe the functionalities of health IT products varying by the setting where implemented (
• Provide timely and reliable information in ways not unduly burdensome to users or to small and start-up developers;
• Comparatively inform acquisition,
• Support analysis for industry trends with respect to interoperability and other types of user experiences.
ONC is especially interested in feedback targeting users in ambulatory and small practice settings, where providers typically do not have substantial time and resources to conduct broad market research. To reduce data collection burden, ONC also seeks input on the availability and applicability of existing data sources that could be used to report on this information (
In 2016, ONC released the
ONC is interested in stakeholders' input on currently existing sources of health IT comparison data as well as gaps in such information since the EHR Compare Report release.
• Please identify any sources of health IT comparison information that were not in the EHR Compare Report that would be helpful as potential reporting criteria are considered. In addition, please comment on whether any of the sources of health IT comparison information that were available at the time of the EHR Compare Report have changed notably or are no longer available.
• Which, if any, of these sources are particularly relevant or should be considered as they relate to certified health IT for ambulatory and small practice settings?
Given the wide range of data that is reported to HHS and other agencies, we seek to avoid duplicate reporting through the EHR Reporting Program. We are interested in stakeholders' input on information already available from health IT acquisition decision makers and users who report to Federal programs that could be re-used and factored into the EHR Reporting Program. We are particularly interested in any data reported by providers participating in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) programs since they can be considered verified users of certified health IT.
• What, if any, types of information reported by providers as part of their participation in HHS programs would be useful for the EHR Reporting Program (
• What data reported to State agencies (
User-reported data can help assess interoperability,
• What types of reporting criteria should developers of certified health IT report about their certified health IT products:
○ That would be important to use in identifying trends, assessing interoperability and successful exchange of health care information, and supporting assessment of user experiences?
○ That would be valuable to those acquiring health IT in making health IT acquisition, upgrade, or customization decisions that best support end users' needs?
• What types of reporting criteria for health care providers, patients, and other users of certified health IT products would be most useful in making technology acquisition, upgrade, or customization decisions to best support end users' needs?
• What kinds of user-reported information are health IT acquisition decision makers using now; how are they used in comparing systems; and do they remain relevant today?
• What types of reporting criteria would be useful to obtain from both developers and end users to inform health IT comparisons? What about these types of reporting criteria makes them particularly amenable to reporting from both the developer and end user perspective?
The Cures Act calls for collecting EHR Reporting Program reporting criteria information from health care providers, patients, and other users of certified EHR technology, as well as from developers. As addressed in the EHR Compare Report, there are currently private sector resources where users can provide and view reviews of health IT products. However, the resources may be improved upon because they are not comprehensive, reflective of verified users' views, nor accessible and affordable to all.
ONC is interested in input about what user-submitted information would make the EHR Reporting Program a valuable addition to the existing landscape of market research and analysis. ONC is also interested in feedback on what factors might influence end users' decisions to report more easily.
• How can data be collected without creating or increasing burden on providers?
• What recommendations do stakeholders have to improve the timeliness of the data so there are not significant lags between its collection and publication?
• Describe the value, if any, in an EHR Reporting Program function that would display reviews from existing sources, or provided a current list with hyperlinks to access them.
• Discuss the benefits and limitations of requiring users be verified before submitting reviews. What should be required for such verification?
• Which reporting criteria are applicable generally across all providers? What reporting criteria would require customization across different provider types and specialties, including small practices and those in underserved areas?
• For what settings (
• How helpful are qualitative user reviews (such as `star ratings' or Likert scales) compared to objective reports (
• How could HHS encourage clinicians, patients, and other users to share their experiences with certified health IT?
• Which particular reporting mechanisms, if any, should be avoided?
The Cures Act requires that health IT developers report information on certified health IT as a condition of certification and maintenance of certification under the ONC Health IT Certification Program. A common set of criteria reported by health IT developers could help acquisition decision makers compare across products to make more informed decisions that best support end users' needs. Such reporting criteria could also be used to establish a consistent set of metrics to provide a baseline and identify trends over time in key focus areas associated with health IT use and interoperability.
However, there may be information that uniform reporting criteria may not adequately reflect, particularly in health IT targeted towards smaller or specialized settings with specific needs. A mixed approach that blends common and optional sets of reporting criteria may better address the needs of providers and developers of varying sizes and settings.
• If you have used the certified health IT product data available on the ONC Certified Health IT Products List (CHPL) to compare products (
• Would a common set of criteria reported on by all developers of certified health IT, or a mixed approach blending common and optional sets of criteria, be more effective as we implement the EHR Reporting Program?
• What developer-reported criteria are particularly relevant, or not relevant, to health IT users and acquisition decision makers in the ambulatory and small practice settings?
• Which criteria topics might be especially burdensome or difficult for a small or new developer to report on?
• What types of criteria might introduce bias (
• In what ways can different health IT deployment architectures be accommodated? For instance, are there certain types of criteria that cloud-based
The Cures Act requires the following categories to be addressed when it comes to EHR Reporting Program reporting criteria. Please consult the end of this RFI section for specific questions on the many other reporting criteria categories suggested by the Cures Act.
• Security;
• Usability and user-centered design;
• Interoperability;
• Conformance to certification testing; and
• Other categories, as appropriate to measure the performance of certified EHR technology.
• What categories of reporting criteria are end users most interested in (
The ONC Health IT Certification Program supports the privacy and security of electronic health information by establishing a detailed set of requirements that health IT developers must meet for their products to be certified to the Privacy and Security certification criteria. Implementation of these capabilities can also help certified health IT users meet certain Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance requirements.
• What reporting criteria could provide information on meaningful differences between products in the ease and effectiveness that they enable end users to meet their security and privacy needs?
• Describe other useful security and privacy features or functions that a certified health IT product may offer beyond those required by HIPAA and the ONC Health IT Certification Program, such as functions related to requirements under 42 CFR part 2.
What information about a certified health IT product's security and privacy capabilities and performance have acquisition decision makers used to inform decisions about acquisitions, upgrades, or use to best support end users' needs? How has that information helped inform decision-making? What other information would be useful in comparing certified health IT products on security and privacy (
Usability centers on the extent to which a system supports a user to efficiently and effectively achieve their desired goals.
User-Centered Design (UCD) is a type of development process that can improve system usability. UCD considers users' needs during each stage of system design and development, and is designed to lead to more usable end products. To have their products certified, health IT developers must attest that they employed a UCD process and report the results of usability testing on certain technical functions. The results—including measures such as time to perform certain tasks, the number of individuals used in the testing, and Likert scale scores that rate usability of the technical functions—are available on the CHPL.
An important method for evaluating the usability of health IT products is through an analysis of information from users' experiences and data in real-world settings. Recent studies
With qualitative assessments being a key part of assessing usability, subjective user assessments are complementary to quantitative measures, such as time to perform tasks. Information about the source of reviews, such as if a reviewer has actually used the system, their setting, specialty, and background (
• How can the usability results currently available in the CHPL best be used to assist in comparisons between certified health IT products?
• Describe the availability and feasibility of common frameworks or standard scores from established usability assessment tools that would allow acquisition decision makers to compare usability of systems.
• Discuss the merits and risks of seeking a common set of measures for the purpose of real world testing that health IT developers could use to compare usability of systems. What specific types of data from current users would reflect how well the certified health IT product:
○ Supports the cognitive work of clinical users (
○ Reflects the ability of implementers to make customization and
• What usability assessment data, if available, are less resource intensive than traditional measures (
• Comment on the feasibility and applicability of usability measures created from audit log data. How would health IT acquisition decision makers use this information to improve their system acquisition, upgrade, and customization decisions to best support end users' needs?
○ Who should report audit log data and by what mechanism?
• How feasible would it be to implement usage monitoring tools (
The Cures Act defines interoperability as: “(A) enables the secure exchange of electronic health information with, and use of electronic health information from, other health information technology without special effort on the part of the user; (B) allows for complete access, exchange, and use of all electronically accessible health information for authorized use under applicable State or Federal law; and (C) does not constitute information blocking.”
The EHR Compare Report identified product integration as a potential means to assess interoperability and proposed federal and private sector strategies to address it. The National Quality Forum's
Two existing data sources with many Medicare providers are the Inpatient Hospital Promoting Interoperability Program and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), which include measures related to health information exchange and interoperability.
Industry reports (such as those listed in Appendix 3 of the EHR Compare Report), which typically involve provider surveys, serve as another data source to assess interoperability. However, the applicability of these reports may be limited to larger providers and health systems and may not necessarily reflect the experiences or needs of small practices and all settings (
• Please comment on the usefulness of product integration as a primary means of assessing interoperability (as proposed in the EHR Compare Report).
• What other domains of interoperability (beyond those already identified and referenced above) would be useful for comparative purposes?
• Of the data sources described in this RFI, which data sources would be useful for measuring the interoperability performance of certified health IT products?
○ Comment on whether State Medicaid agencies would be able to share detailed attestation-level data for the purpose of developing reports at a more detailed level, such as by health IT product. If so, how would this information be useful to compare performance on interoperability across health IT products?
○ How helpful would CMS program data (
• What other data sources and measures could be used to compare performance on interoperability across certified health IT products?
Health IT that has been submitted by a health IT developer for certification and successfully tested and certified is listed in the CHPL,
ONC-prepared materials to support certification testing, such as the 2015 Edition Test Method, are intended to be read and understood with the express purpose of evaluating the health IT's functional capabilities that have been submitted for certification in a controlled environment, but are not determinative of the full scope of the health IT's capabilities, such as in a production environment,
As part of maintaining certification and ensuring ongoing conformance to certification testing, ONC-Authorized Certification Bodies (ONC-ACB) perform surveillance of health IT products and verify that the certified health IT also conforms in the production environment (
If a certified health IT product does not demonstrate the functionality required by its certification, the certified health IT product is considered non-conforming and then listed and detailed as non-conforming on the CHPL.
• What additional information about certified health IT's conformance to the certification testing (beyond what is currently available on the CHPL) would be useful for comparison purposes? What mechanisms or approaches could be considered to obtain such data? What barriers might exist for developers and/or end users in reporting on such data?
The Cures Act lists other possible categories for the EHR Reporting Program related to certified health IT product performance, including:
• Enabling the user to order and view the results of laboratory tests, imaging tests, and other diagnostic tests;
• Submitting, editing, and retrieving data from registries, such as clinician-led clinical data registries;
• Accessing and exchanging information and data from and through health information exchanges;
• Accessing and exchanging information and data from medical devices;
• Accessing and exchanging information and data held by Federal, State, and local agencies and other applicable entities useful to a health care provider or other applicable user in the furtherance of patient care;
• Accessing and exchanging information from other health care providers or applicable users;
• Accessing and exchanging patient generated information;
• Providing the patient or an authorized designee with a complete copy of their health information from an electronic health record in a computable format; and
• Providing accurate patient information for the correct patient, including exchanging such information, and avoiding the duplication of patients records.
• How should the above categories be prioritized for inclusion/exclusion in the EHR Reporting Program, and why? What other criteria would be helpful for comparative purposes to best support end users' needs (
• What data sources could be used to compare performance on these categories across certified health IT products?
• Please comment on different types of information, or measures, in this area that would be useful to acquisition, upgrade, and customization decisions in the ambulatory setting as opposed to inpatient settings?
In addition to the other categories listed in the Cures Act, the EHR Compare Report identified gaps in information related to the domains of cost transparency, quality metrics, and population health. The cost transparency domain includes base, subscription, and transaction costs, as well as peer reviews regarding price expectations, which could also allow acquisition decision makers to make more informed acquisition, upgrade, and customization decisions to best support end users' needs.
• Please comment on the usefulness and feasibility of including criteria on quality reporting and population health in the EHR Reporting Program. What criteria should be considered to assess health IT performance in generating quality measures, reporting quality measures, and the functions required for supporting population health analytics (
• What data sources, if any, are available to assess certified health IT product capabilities and performance in collecting, generating, and reporting on quality measures, and the ability to export multiple records for population health analytics? Are these data sources publicly available?
• Please comment on other categories, if any, besides those listed in this RFI that should be considered to be included in the EHR Reporting Program. Why should these be included, and what data sources exist to report on performance for the suggested categories?
The focus of this RFI is on the information needs of health IT end users in ambulatory and small practice settings, as these groups report challenges accessing relevant information at affordable costs to help them compare certified health IT. However, ONC is aware that there are also gaps in the availability of information that hospitals and health systems need.
• Please describe the types of comparative information about certified health IT hospitals and health systems currently use (
• What types of comparative information about certified health IT, if any, are specifically useful to hospitals and health systems, as opposed to ambulatory or small practices? What types of information could be collected or reported that would be helpful to both hospitals and health systems and to ambulatory and smaller providers?
• Please comment on how an EHR Reporting Program could best reflect the information needed for hospitals and health systems, ambulatory and smaller provider settings, and overlapping information in developing summary reports or comparison tools.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
ONC typically receives a large public response to its published
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Vince Contreras, Ph.D., 240-669-2823;
Technology description follows.
Researchers at the Vaccine Research Center (VRC) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases created immunogenic PIV fusion (F) glycoproteins for types 1,2,3 and 4 (hPIV1, hPIV2, hPIV3 and hPIV4) that have been modified to stabilize the prefusion conformation.
These stabilized prefusion F immunogens, especially hPIV3, induced high titer neutralizing responses in mice and rhesus macaques, and should thus serve as promising candidates for the prevention of PIV infection in humans.
This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
• hPIV vaccines for people of all ages;
• Specific focus on the elderly and young children.
• Use as a multivalent hPIV vaccine;
• Use in combination with influenza or RSV vaccine compositions;
• hPIV3 neutralizing titers induced in both mice and rhesus macaques were substantially higher than the highest PIV3 neutralizing titers observed in a cohort of over 100 humans.
•
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Program Comment issued to exempt consideration of effects to rail properties within rail rights-of-way.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) issued a Program Comment to exempt consideration of effects to rail properties within rail rights-of-way at the request of the U.S. Department of Transportation to accelerate the review of these undertakings under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and to meet the requirement of Section 11504 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. The Program Comment can be used by any federal agency with responsibility to consider the effects of undertakings within rail rights-of-way. Federal agencies using the Program Comment may fulfill their Section 106 responsibilities for the relevant undertakings by implementing the terms of this comment, which include identifying those activities that meet the conditions in Appendix A and opting into the process to identify excluded historic rail properties and seek further streamlining of the review process under the property-based approach.
The Program Comment was issued by the ACHP on August 17, 2018.
Address all questions concerning the Program Comment to Kelly Y. Fanizzo, Office of General Counsel, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 401 F Street NW, Suite 308, Washington, DC 20001-2637. You may submit questions through electronic mail to:
Kelly Y. Fanizzo, (202) 517-0193,
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), as amended, 54 U.S.C. 306108 (“Section 106”), requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of undertakings they carry out, license, permit, or fund to historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertakings. The ACHP has issued the regulations that set forth the process through which federal agencies comply with these responsibilities. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800 (“Section 106 regulations”).
Under Section 800.14(e) of those regulations, federal agencies can request the ACHP to issue a “Program Comment” on a particular category of undertakings in lieu of conducting reviews for each individual undertaking in the category. An agency can meet its Section 106 responsibilities with regard to the effects of those undertakings by implementing an applicable Program Comment that has been issued by the ACHP.
At the request of the U.S. Department of Transportation (“USDOT”), the ACHP has issued a Program Comment that provides new efficiencies in the Section 106 review for undertakings with the potential to affect historic rail properties within railroad and rail transit rights-of-way (“rail ROW”). Section 11504 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (“FAST Act”) (49 U.S.C. 24202), enacted on December 4, 2015, mandated the development of a Section 106 exemption for “railroad rights-of-way.” The FAST Act required that “the Secretary [of the USDOT] shall submit a proposed exemption of railroad rights-of-way from the review under section 306108 of title 54 to the [ACHP] for consideration, consistent with the exemption for interstate highways approved on March 10, 2005 (70 FR 11928).” The FAST Act continued that, “Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Secretary submits the proposed exemption . . . to the Council, the Council shall issue a final exemption of railroad rights-of-way from review under chapter 3061 of title 54 consistent with the exemption for interstate highways approved on March 10, 2005 (70 FR 11928).” While the Section 106 regulations provide the process and criteria for development of program alternatives, the FAST Act modified the timeframe and directed agency actions.
The ACHP worked closely with the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”), the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”), the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”), and the Office of Policy Development, Strategic Planning, and Performance within the Office of the Secretary, USDOT (“OST-P”); representatives from the railroad and rail transit industries; and historic preservation stakeholders to develop the final Section 106 program alternative for rail ROW. The ACHP communicated extensively with the staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (“Senate Committee”) as well in developing this program alternative. The ACHP recommended incorporating the originally proposed exemption within a Program Comment to better achieve the intent and purpose of the FAST Act and meet the needs of the various stakeholders.
The Program Comment is the product of consultation and careful review. The USDOT and FRA conducted outreach on the preliminary exemption concept and early drafts prior to submitting a formal request to the ACHP in July 2017. The ACHP in turn published the draft Program Comment in the
The Program Comment is comprised of two major parts: (1) An activity-based approach, and (2) a property-based approach. The activity-based approach provides a list of activities in Appendix A for which, when the specific conditions are met, no further Section 106 review is required. Based on the past experience of USDOT Operating Administrations (“USDOT OAs”), undertakings limited to the activities specified in Appendix A have typically resulted in effects to historic properties that are either minimal or not adverse. The property-based approach establishes a process whereby project sponsors can opt to work with the relevant USDOT OA and stakeholders to develop a list of excluded historic rail properties that would remain subject to Section 106 review, and exempt from
The Program Comment does not apply to undertakings that are located within or would affect historic properties located on tribal lands; undertakings consisting of activities not included in Appendix A and that may affect an excluded historic rail property designated by USDOT; undertakings that could affect historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, or districts that do not have a demonstrable relationship to the function and operation of a railroad or rail transit system; undertakings that could affect archaeological sites located in undisturbed portions of rail ROW, regardless of whether the sites are associated with railroads or rail transit systems; and undertakings that could affect historic properties of religious and cultural significance to federally recognized Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. There is no sunset clause in the Program Comment; however, there will be regular program review and evaluations between the USDOT and the ACHP to ensure its proper implementation.
The USDOT conducted outreach between 2016-2018 with a variety of stakeholders, including State Historic Preservation Officers (“SHPOs”), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (“THPOs”), Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, national historic preservation organizations, national railroad and rail transit associations, state departments of transportation, and railroad and rail transit companies, regarding development of the Program Comment; this included webinars; conference calls and in-person meetings to address concerns of specific stakeholders; presentations at national transportation conferences, and sharing and seeking informal comments on early drafts. The ACHP published the draft Program Comment in the
The comments raised several procedural and substantive issues, including the following: Questioning the consistency of the draft Program Comment with the interstate highway exemption as required by the FAST ACT; clarifying the types of historic properties that may be covered by the Program Comment including historic properties of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, and archaeological sites; clarifying the SHPOs' and THPOs' roles regarding the development of the excluded historic properties lists; questioning the potential conflict of the Program Comment's requirements with Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act; monitoring the accountability of the project sponsor in appropriately applying the Program Comment; asking about the need for a dispute resolution provision; clarifying and defining specific terminology; specifying annual reporting requirements; questioning the types of activities that should or should not be exempt from Section 106 review under Appendix A; and questioning the types of activities in Appendix A that should be subject to review or supervision by an individual meeting the Secretary of the Interior's (“SOI”) Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeologists or Architectural Historians.
In response to the comments received to the November 2017 publication, the ACHP and USDOT made several revisions to the Program Comment. The exclusion for historic properties of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and archaeological sites was clarified. The ACHP and USDOT also clarified how the USDOT would publish implementing guidance to provide further detail regarding the identification and evaluation of excluded historic rail properties. The Program Comment incorporates dispute resolution provisions, additional clarification or removal of specific terms and definitions, and a revised list of activities in Appendix A.
The ACHP and USDOT hosted meetings and invited representatives of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (“NCSHPO”), the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and the railroad and rail transit industries in February and May 2018. These meetings continued discussions about the draft Program Comment and in particular, addressed the list of activities to be included in Appendix A and determining which activities should require supervision of SOI-qualified personnel, and the process for establishing the lists of excluded historic rail properties and the scope of the exemption under the property-based approach. Draft versions of Appendix A and the property-based approach were circulated for additional review and comment following the May meeting. By the June 4, 2018, comment response date, the ACHP and USDOT received a total of 128 additional comments from 16 commenters: 11 SHPOs, including NCSHPO; 4 industry representatives; and 1 historic preservation stakeholder.
The SHPOs provided several general comments and many specific comments on both the revised draft Appendix A and the property-based approach. Some questioned the broad scope of the Program Comment; however, due to the requirements of the FAST Act, the two-part approach has been retained in the final version as the ACHP and USDOT believe it represents the best way to achieve the intent and purpose of the statutory mandate.
Many SHPOs asked for annual reporting in the Program Comment. The Program Comment was initially revised to clarify an annual reporting requirement as well as the information that agencies must include in such reports. Several SHPOs asked that an expiration date be included in the Program Comment. While the sunset clause and reporting requirement have been removed, as noted in the discussion of additional comments below, the revised Program Comment requires a regular evaluation be conducted (within one year of issuance and every two years thereafter) to ensure the effective operation of the Program Comment and that its terms are being met. The lack of an expiration date and process for regular evaluations is consistent with the interstate highway exemption.
Many SHPOs asked for a dispute resolution process both in the decision-making under Appendix A and the development of the excluded historic property lists. The Program Comment
One SHPO remarked that it would like to see more checks and balances in the Program Comment to ensure effects to historic properties are minimal or not adverse. The Program Comment has been revised to incorporate the comments received into the list of activities in Appendix A and to incorporate SHPO and tribal involvement in the development of the excluded historic property lists. The Program Comment includes activities that may adversely affect historic properties and is not limited to the conditions imposed on exemptions per 36 CFR 800.14(c). In response to a concern that this approach is contrary to the NHPA and other preservation laws, the ACHP and USDOT believe the Program Comment, with its two-part approach, strikes the right balance to achieve the requirements of the FAST Act and is consistent with the interstate highway exemption. Further, one SHPO recommended that traditional cultural properties also be listed as a property type to be excluded from the terms of the Program Comment. The applicability of the Program Comment is consistent with that of the interstate highway exemption in that it does not modify the Section 106 review of effects to non-rail properties, historic properties of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, or to archaeological sites located in undisturbed locations. Because the Program Comment specifies that it does not apply to, and Section 106 continues to apply to these properties, the ACHP determined it was not necessary to specify that traditional cultural properties are not covered by the Program Comment.
Finally, a concern was again raised regarding the coordination or impact of this Program Comment on a federal agency's Section 4f requirement. The Program Comment does not modify in any way USDOT's responsibility to comply with Section 4f or an agency's or project sponsor's responsibility to comply with any other applicable federal, state, or local legal requirement. In regard to discovery situations of non-rail historic properties, all relevant laws, for example those related to treatment of human remains, continue to apply.
In response to many comments, the introduction and applicability section of Appendix A was revised and clarified. Most SHPOs suggested specific edits to the list of activities and conditions in Appendix A. A number of SHPOs suggested that SOI-qualified professionals review additional activities or asked that specific activities be removed from the Appendix. Other SHPOs asked to be more involved in the Appendix A process and to be provided an opportunity to review any activity that requires SOI-qualified professional's involvement. Changes were made to many individual activities, such as certain work done to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act, replacement of light fixtures in public spaces, and the addition of lanes and road widening for at-grade crossings within a National Register-eligible or listed historic district. In other cases, the ACHP and USDOT believe the activities and conditions in Appendix A work to reasonably ensure the activities would have minimal or no adverse effect on historic properties. The Program Comment includes an objection process in cases where there is a concern that an adverse effect is occurring or occurred, and the regular program evaluations would provide an additional opportunity to assess the implementation of Appendix A.
SHPOs raised a concern that the use of in-kind replacement might result in a loss of integrity to a historic district. Further, one SHPO said no loss of a character-defining feature should be exempted from Section 106 review. The ACHP and USDOT believe Appendix A allows for a measured balance of preservation and greater efficiency by exempting consideration of effects under Section 106 for those activities that would likely result in minimal or no adverse effect to historic properties.
Some SHPOs asked how federal agencies and project sponsors without SOI-qualified professionals on staff would determine whether the proposed activity had the potential to affect archaeological sites in undisturbed locations. In response, a definition of “previous disturbance” was added to the definitions section of the Program Comment to better clarify for all users the scope of the Program Comment. In addition, many ground disturbing activities in Appendix A require the involvement of an SOI-qualified professional.
NCSHPO, and all of the commenting SHPOs, expressed concern with the lack of SHPO and other stakeholder involvement in the development of the excluded historic property lists. Further, several expressed concern regarding the sources of information that project sponsors would be instructed to consult in developing their initial proposed list as well as the timeline for any SHPO or tribal review of draft lists. In response, the Program Comment was revised to require SHPO and tribal notification by project sponsors in the initial development of the proposed lists and by USDOT in determining the final lists. The USDOT is required to seek public review and comment on each proposed list, and may also require a project sponsor to conduct additional evaluation, including field surveys, or prepare documentation to show how it identified historic properties. It is the USDOT who makes the final decision regarding the list of excluded historic rail properties following the outlined process, not the project sponsor. Additional information regarding USDOT's coordination with project sponsors during the development of the excluded historic property lists, recommended outreach to knowledgeable stakeholders, and the timelines for SHPO and tribal review will be provided in the implementing guidance.
Some SHPOs were concerned with the resource-specific approach that is allowed under the property-based approach. Part of this concern was that it may allow inadvertent effects to other historic properties by its misapplication or by a lack of knowledge about other historic properties that may be present within an undertaking's area of potential effects. Further, one SHPO asked how the context and significance of rail properties that may extend beyond a specific study area would be evaluated. As noted above, the Program Comment now includes a requirement for SHPO and tribal notification and a request for input in the development of the excluded historic property lists. The intent is for the determination of each study area to be meaningful and cognizant of the rail line's or rail transit system's historic context. The Program Comment also includes a regular evaluation requirement to allow the ACHP, USDOT, and other stakeholders
Further, commenters expressed concern about potential unintended or unknown adverse effects, including visual effects, to archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties. Consistent with the interstate highway exemption, the Program Comment does not apply to non-rail historic properties and any archaeological site of any nature in undisturbed locations. Section 106 review to consider the effects to these types of historic properties would still need to occur, even if specific activities or effects to certain rail properties would be streamlined under the terms of the Program Comment.
There was some confusion as to whether the criteria for including a rail property on the excluded property list was just an assessment of its National Register eligibility or whether such evaluation only considered rail properties significant at the national level. On a related point, one SHPO said it appeared the duties of the SHPO regarding developing and maintaining lists of eligible and listed historic properties were being given to the USDOT. The excluded historic property lists only refer to the applicability of the Program Comment, not to any particular property's eligibility for the National Register. The Program Comment is not intended to modify the process for determining properties eligible for listing on the National Register. While there is reference to a property's significance, properties significant at the state and local level may also be considered for inclusion in the excluded historic property lists. The same criteria for developing the lists of excluded historic properties was used in the interstate highway exemption, and per the requirement of the FAST Act, this Program Comment is consistent with that approach. In response to a concern raised about any change to the process of de-listing a property from the National Register, the relevant text has been deleted.
There was also a question whether the term “non-rail” historic property should be more clearly defined. In response, the ACHP and USDOT reviewed the definition of rail historic property and believe it is clear, including any temporal association. The use of these terms relates to the mandate of the FAST Act to exempt effects within rail ROW.
Many SHPOs requested that any surveys be done by SOI-qualified professionals and more generally, that project sponsors be required to use SOI-qualified professionals in proposing excluded historic rail properties. USDOT may require a project sponsor to conduct additional evaluation, including field surveys, and prepare documentation to show how it identified historic properties. SHPOs also raised a question about whether the property-based approach would allow for a loss of integrity to historic districts due to cumulative effects. The Program Comment has been revised to require specific opportunities for SHPO and tribal involvement in the development of the excluded historic property lists. It is also important to note that the Program Comment does not apply to consideration of effects to any non-rail historic properties.
Many SHPOs noted concern about the level of detail to be provided in the implementing guidance as well as a concern with the lack of required consultation with SHPOs and other parties by the USDOT and the ACHP in developing the guidance. In response, more details were added in the Program Comment to the description of the content of the guidance. Further, this approach models the approach taken in the interstate highway exemption by USDOT to develop implementing guidance to assist in the implementation of the program alternative.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation endorsed the comments provided by the Colorado SHPO as well as provided a few additional points. They asked that revisions be made to clarify the continued applicability of Section 4f and National Environmental Policy Act to undertakings that may be subject to the Program Comment, and that SOI-qualified personnel be involved in additional activities in Appendix A. They asked that a dispute resolution process be added to Appendix A as well. Finally, they expressed concern about the level of detail to be included in the implementing guidance document and the lack of consultation with SHPOs and other parties in its development. These comments reflect points raised and addressed in the discussion above.
Four industry representatives provided comments on the drafts of Appendix A and the property-based approach shared with stakeholders in May 2018 (the American Public Transportation Association, Amtrak, the Association of American Railroads [AAR] and American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association collectively). They reiterated previous concerns that this draft was not consistent with the interstate highway exemption and did not do enough to effectively streamline the review process for undertakings within rail ROW. However, Amtrak said the Program Comment would enhance its ability to perform crucial maintenance and enhancement projects in a timely manner. As noted above, the ACHP and USDOT believe this two-part Program Comment meets the statutory requirement to exempt the consideration of effects within rail ROW consistent with the interstate highway exemption. The industry representatives asked that the sunset clause be deleted from the draft, and it has been removed and replaced with regular evaluations. They expressed concern over the reporting requirement as being too burdensome under Appendix A. The reporting requirement was initially revised to be an annual report. Finally, the industry representatives noted concern over the title of the “excluded” historic property lists, and revisions were made to the section headings to clarify the applicability and context for these lists.
After making the edits noted above, USDOT submitted a revised final draft Program Comment to the ACHP on June 25, 2018. The ACHP made further revisions and circulated this draft to its council members and industry representatives for an informal review. In response, AAR and the Senate Committee staff asked for additional changes to the Program Comment, and in particular, asked the ACHP to remove the reporting requirement as it was still seen as overly burdensome on industry. The final version of the Program Comment does not include any annual reporting requirement but requires more frequent program evaluations and requires USDOT OAs to review their use and application of the Program Comment.
The following is the text of the Program Comment as issued by the ACHP:
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 54 U.S.C. 306108 (“Section 106”), requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertakings. The ACHP has issued
Under section 800.14(e) of the Section 106 regulations, agencies can request the ACHP to provide a program comment on a particular category of undertakings in lieu of conducting separate reviews of each individual undertaking under such category, as set forth in 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7. Federal agencies can satisfy their Section 106 responsibilities with regard to the effects of undertakings on rail properties located in railroad and rail transit rights-of-way (“rail ROW”) by following this program comment and the steps set forth therein.
The ACHP is issuing this program comment to exempt consideration of effects under Section 106 to rail properties located within rail ROW. This program comment has been developed in accordance with Section 11504 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (“FAST Act”) (49 U.S.C. 24202), which mandated the development of a Section 106 exemption for “railroad rights-of-way.” More specifically, it required the Secretary of Transportation to submit a proposed exemption to the ACHP for consideration, and for the ACHP to issue a final exemption not later than 180 days after the date of receipt of the U.S. Department of Transportation's (“USDOT”) submittal.
This program comment establishes two methods to meet the statutory directive: An activities-based approach and a property-based approach. The activities-based approach described in section III exempts from Section 106 review the activities listed in Appendix A, “Exempted Activities List,” provided the conditions outlined therein are met. Those activities involve maintenance, repair, and upgrades to rail properties that are necessary to ensure the safe and efficient operation of freight, intercity passenger, commuter rail, and rail transit operations. While those activities may over time alter various historic elements within rail ROW, these changes are likely to be minimal or not adverse and are necessary to continue meeting the transportation needs of the nation. The property-based approach described in section IV provides an optional process for identifying excluded historic rail properties that are subject to Section 106 review, while exempting consideration of effects to other rail properties.
If a federal agency responsible for carrying out, licensing, permitting, or assisting an undertaking with the potential to affect historic rail properties meets the terms of this program comment, its Section 106 responsibility to take into accounts those effects will be satisfied.
1. The program comment applies to undertakings that may affect rail properties located within rail ROW. Any federal agency responsible for an undertaking located within rail ROW may utilize this program comment to satisfy its Section 106 responsibilities for those undertakings.
2. Under the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, codified at 23 U.S.C. 327, a state may assume the Secretary of Transportation's responsibilities to comply with Section 106 for certain projects or classes of projects. In such cases, the state may rely on this program comment to fulfill its Section 106 responsibilities.
3. Where a program alternative developed pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14, such as a statewide programmatic agreement, delegates Section 106 responsibility to another entity, that entity may also utilize the terms of this program comment for relevant undertakings as applicable. This program comment does not supersede or modify any existing program alternatives, including existing executed programmatic agreements. In cases when this program comment and one or more other program alternatives apply to a proposed undertaking, the federal agency has discretion to determine which program alternative to follow.
1. This program comment does not apply to, and the federal agency must comply with the requirements of 36 CFR part 800, or adhere to the terms of an applicable program alternative executed pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14, for the following:
a. Undertakings within rail ROW in the following situations:
i. Undertakings that are located within or would affect historic properties located on tribal lands;
ii. Undertakings consisting of activities not included in Appendix A and that may affect an excluded historic rail property designated by USDOT pursuant to section IV;
iii. Undertakings that could affect historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, or districts that do not have a demonstrable relationship to the function and operation of a railroad or rail transit system;
iv. Undertakings that could affect archaeological sites located in undisturbed portions of rail ROW, regardless of whether the sites are associated with railroads or rail transit systems. An archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications (“SOI-qualified professional”) may assist in identifying undisturbed soils; and
v. Undertakings that could affect historic properties of religious and cultural significance to federally recognized Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations (“NHOs”).
b. Undertakings that are not within rail ROW. For undertakings for which the area of potential effects (“APE”) is partially within but extends beyond rail ROW, this program comment applies only to the portions of the undertaking within rail ROW. Federal agencies must consider potential effects to properties adjacent to rail ROW that could be affected by the undertaking, including noise or vibration effects or changes to a historic property's setting.
2. If an unanticipated discovery of a non-rail historic property, archaeological site of any nature, or human remains, or an unanticipated adverse effect on a previously identified non-rail historic property is made during the implementation of an exempted activity listed in Appendix A, the Section 106 requirements at 36 CFR 800.13 and/or applicable burial law, as appropriate depending on the nature of the resource, apply because effects to such resources are not covered by this program comment. At minimum, the Project Sponsor must cease all work in the affected area, secure the area, and notify the federal agency within 72 hours. The federal agency will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), federally recognized Indian tribes, NHOs, and any other stakeholders as appropriate, to determine the appropriate course of action. If an undertaking involves multiple exempted activities listed in Appendix A, those that do not involve or affect the non-rail resource, as determined by the federal agency, may continue. The Project Sponsor must comply with any applicable state and/or local law regarding the resource.
C. This program comment does not alter the requirements of any applicable easements, covenants, and/or state or local historic preservation ordinances. Other federal and state laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act also remain applicable, as appropriate.
A. Undertakings to maintain, improve, or upgrade rail properties located in rail ROW that are limited to the activities specified in Appendix A are exempt from the requirements of Section 106 because their effects on historic rail properties are foreseeable and likely to be minimal or not adverse. The activities included in Appendix A are exempt from further Section 106 review regardless of whether the rail properties affected are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places or whether the activities may affect an excluded historic rail property as designated by USDOT pursuant to section IV.
B. If a SHPO, a federally recognized Indian tribe, or an NHO believe an undertaking carried out under Appendix A is adversely affecting or has adversely affected a historic rail property, the SHPO, Indian tribe, or NHO may notify the federal agency responsible for the undertaking of its concern. The federal agency will promptly investigate the concern within 72 hours of the notification. The federal agency will then determine the appropriate course of action, in consultation with the Project Sponsor, SHPO, Indian tribe, NHO, and other stakeholders, as appropriate.
Project Sponsors may opt to collaborate with a USDOT Operating Administration (“OA”) to designate excluded historic rail properties within a defined study area, as described in section IV.A, for which the federal agency must comply with requirements of Section 106 for undertakings that have the potential to affect those properties. Once a USDOT OA formally excludes historic rail properties within a study area, consideration of effects to all other evaluated rail properties within that study area shall be exempt from Section 106
1. A Project Sponsor that opts to follow the property-based approach to identify excluded historic rail properties must follow the steps outlined below, in accordance with the implementing guidance. To provide maximum flexibility and utility in this process, a Project Sponsor can opt-in on its preferred timeline.
a. A Project Sponsor must clearly define the study area,
b. A Project Sponsor may choose to evaluate for designation as excluded historic rail properties either (i) all rail properties in the defined study area, or (ii) a particular property type or types, such as rail bridges, stations and depots, tunnels, etc. within the defined study area.
c. A Project Sponsor's evaluation efforts should also be informed by a variety of available and existing information, including historic context studies, local and state inventories, surveys and evaluations; railroad company records (
d. A Project Sponsor must submit to the USDOT OA the rail properties it proposes be designated as excluded historic rail properties, along with a summary of its evaluation efforts including whether it evaluated all rail properties within the study area or only a certain type(s) of rail property, in accordance with the implementing guidance.
2. Once a Project Sponsor submits a proposal to designate excluded historic rail properties for a study area to the USDOT OA, the USDOT OA will take the following actions to review and designate excluded historic rail properties:
a. The USDOT OA will review each proposal received from a Project Sponsor in accordance with the implementing guidance. The USDOT OA shall notify and request the input of the SHPO(s), Indian tribes, and/or NHOs when reviewing a Project Sponsor's proposal. The USDOT OA will have the discretion to require a Project Sponsor to conduct additional evaluation and/or provide additional documentation to demonstrate that the Project Sponsor made a reasonable effort to identify potential excluded rail properties. Following its review of a Project Sponsor's proposal, the USDOT OA will make the proposed list, modified as necessary based on its review and any consultation or additional evaluation or documentation, available for public review and comment, and will consider input from interested parties and the public before designating the excluded historic rail properties within a study area. The USDOT OA may seek input from the ACHP, including advice regarding resolution of any objections or concerns from commenters, before making such designations. The USDOT may, as needed, consult with the Keeper of the National Register to resolve questions or disagreements about the National Register eligibility of any rail properties.
b. The USDOT OA will designate excluded historic rail properties within a study area within 12 months of receipt of a Project Sponsor's adequately supported proposal, in accordance with the implementing guidance.
c. USDOT will publish and periodically update the list of designated excluded historic rail properties on its website (
1. All undertakings that may affect USDOT-designated excluded historic rail properties are subject to Section 106. However, undertakings that include activities listed in Appendix A require no further Section 106 review regardless of the rail property that would be affected, including excluded historic rail properties.
2. Once a USDOT OA designates excluded historic rail properties within a study area and the list is published on the USDOT website, consideration of effects to all other evaluated rail properties within that study area are exempt from Section 106 review. If a Project Sponsor chooses to evaluate only a specific rail property type, rather than all historic properties, within a study area, then consideration of effects to rail properties other than the type evaluated remain subject to Section 106.
1. Within nine months of the ACHP's issuance of the final Program Comment, USDOT, in coordination with the ACHP and other federal agencies who may have an interest in utilizing the Program Comment, will publish guidance for implementing the property-based approach.
2. The guidance will: Provide further instruction and examples for evaluating rail properties for potential designation as excluded historic rail properties to remain subject to Section 106; describe the process by which a Project Sponsor may propose excluded historic rail properties to a USDOT OA, including early coordination between the Project Sponsor and the USDOT OA; establish timeframes for USDOT OA review of proposals and designation of excluded historic rail properties; and establish public involvement methods.
Any terms not defined below shall follow the definitions in the NHPA, 54 U.S.C. 300301-300321, and in 36 CFR parts 60 and 800.
A. “Area of potential effects” is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d) and means the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.
B. “Excluded historic rail properties” means those historic properties that illustrate the history of the development of the nation's railroads or rail transit systems and:
1. Are at least 50 years old, possess national significance, and meet the National Register eligibility criteria as defined in 36 CFR 60.4;
2. are less than 50 years old, possess national significance, meet the National Register eligibility criteria, and are of exceptional importance;
3. were listed in the National Register, or determined eligible for the National Register by the Keeper pursuant to 36 CFR part 63, prior to the effective date of the Program Comment and retain eligibility as determined by the USDOT OA; or
4. are at least 50 years old and meet the National Register eligibility criteria at the state or local level of significance, as determined by the USDOT OA.
C. “Historic property” is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l) and means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of religious and cultural importance to a federally recognized Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that meet the National Register criteria.
D. “In-kind” means that new materials used in repairs or replacements match the material being repaired or replaced in design, color, texture, other visual properties, and, where possible, materials. For more information, see The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, at
E. “National significance” means a historic property that is eligible or listed in the National Register and either:
1. designated as a National Historic Landmark;
2. designated as a Historical Civil Engineering Landmark;
3. listed as nationally significant in its nomination or listing in the National Register; or
4. determined by a USDOT OA to have significance at the national level.
F. “Project Sponsor” means an entity such as a state, tribal or local government, joint venture, railroad commission, compact authority, port authority, transit agency or authority, or private company that is eligible to receive federal financial assistance (
G. “Rail properties” means infrastructure located within rail ROW that has a demonstrable relationship to the past or current function and operation of a railroad or rail transit system, including but not limited to: Rails and tracks, ties, ballast, rail beds, signal and communication systems, switches, overhead catenary systems, signage, traction power substations, passenger stations/depots and associated infrastructure and utilities, freight transfer facilities, boarding areas and platforms, boarding platform shelters and canopies, bridges, culverts, tunnels, retaining walls, ancillary facilities, ventilation structures, equipment maintenance and storage facilities, railyards and rail transit yards, parking lots and parking structures, landscaping, passenger walkways, and security and safety fencing. Rail properties may also include a section of a railroad or rail transit line. The definition does not include properties with no demonstrable relationship to the function and operation of a railroad or rail transit system, such as: adjacent residential, commercial or municipal buildings; or property unrelated to existing or former railroads and rail transit lines that is proposed to be used for new rail infrastructure.
H. “Railroad and Rail Transit Rights-of-Way” means the land and infrastructure that have been developed for existing or former intercity passenger rail, freight rail, rail transit operations, or that are maintained for the purpose of such operations. Rail ROW includes current and/or former railroad or rail transit lines regardless of current ownership and whether there is rail service operating on the railroad or rail transit line. It includes property that was previously developed for railroad or rail transit use even though the infrastructure has been modified or removed, and the property may lack visual evidence of previous railroad or rail transit use. It does not include land that was never developed for railroad or rail transit use. Rail ROW includes and may be identifiable by the presence of infrastructure that has a demonstrable relationship to the past or current function and operation of a railroad or rail transit system that commonly includes but is not limited to the rail properties specified in the definition above.
I. “Section 106” means Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108.
J. “Study area” means the portion of rail ROW identified for the purposes of the evaluation under the property-based approach described in section IV. It may be delineated by: location (
K. “Undertaking” is defined at 36 CFR 800.16(y) and means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; and those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval.
L. “Undisturbed portions of rail ROW” means soils that have not been physically impacted by previous construction or other ground disturbing activities such as grading. Undisturbed soils may occur below the depth of previously disturbed soils or fill.
M. “USDOT OA” means the United States Department of Transportation's Operating Administrations, including the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”), the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Highway Administration.
The activities-based approach to exempting consideration of effects under Section 106, as described in section III, shall go into effect on the date the program comment is issued by the ACHP. At that time, federal agencies may immediately utilize the list of exempted activities in Appendix A. This includes undertakings that have not yet been initiated and undertakings for which the Section 106 review process is underway but not completed.
The property-based approach to exempting consideration of effects under Section 106, as described in section IV, shall go into effect on the date USDOT publishes the implementing guidance in accordance with section IV.C.
Within one year of the issuance of this program comment, and every two years thereafter, the USDOT OAs and the ACHP shall evaluate the ongoing effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of this program comment. The USDOT OAs shall review their use and application of the program comment, and may invite transportation stakeholders to participate in this review as appropriate.
The ACHP may amend this program comment after consulting with the USDOT OAs and other relevant federal agencies, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Offices (“NCSHPO”), National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (“NATHPO”), tribal representatives, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and representatives from the railroad and rail transit industry, as appropriate. The ACHP will publish a notice in the
The ACHP may withdraw this program comment, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(e)(6), by publication of a notice in the
A. The federal agency is responsible for determining if an undertaking is covered by one or more activities in the Exempted Activities List. At its discretion, the federal agency may require the Project Sponsor to provide relevant documentation, such as plans, photographs, or materials specifications, so that the federal agency can determine whether the Exempted Activities List applies.
B. Whenever possible, historic materials must be repaired rather than replaced. At its discretion, the federal agency may require the Project Sponsor to provide written justification explaining why repair is not feasible. In cases where existing historic materials are beyond repair, replacement must be carried out in-kind as defined below.
C. Several of the activities in the Exempted Activities List require that the work be “in-kind.” For purposes of this program comment, “in-kind” means that new materials used in repairs or replacements match the material being repaired or replaced in design, color, texture, other visual properties, and, where possible, materials. For more information, see The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, at
D. Certain activities, as specified in the Exempted Activities List, require that the federal agency and Project Sponsor ensure the work is performed by or under the supervision of individuals that meet the SOI's Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History, Architecture, and/or Historic Architecture (see 36 CFR Appendix A to part 61), as appropriate, and must be performed in accordance with the SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (
E. The Exempted Activities List does not apply to archaeological sites of any nature located within undisturbed portions of rail ROW. Therefore, if an exempted activity would cause ground disturbance in undisturbed portions of the rail ROW, the federal agency is responsible for complying with Section 106 regarding consideration of potential effects to archaeological sites before approving the undertaking.
F. The Exempted Activities List does not apply to non-railroad or rail transit related
G. If an unanticipated discovery of a non-rail historic property, archaeological site of any nature, or human remains, or an unanticipated adverse effect on a previously identified non-rail historic property is made during the implementation of an activity on the Exempted Activities List, the Section 106 requirements at 36 CFR 800.13 and/or applicable burial law, as appropriate depending on the nature of the resource, apply because effects to such resources are not covered by this program comment. At minimum, the Project Sponsor must cease all work in and secure the area and notify the federal agency within 72 hours. The federal agency will consult with SHPO, federally recognized Indian tribes, NHOs, and other stakeholders as appropriate, to determine the appropriate course of action. The Project Sponsor must comply with any applicable state or local law regarding the resource. If an undertaking involves multiple activities on the Exempted Activities List, those that do not involve or affect the non-rail resource, as determined by the federal agency, may continue.
H. The Project Sponsor must comply with the requirements of any applicable easements, covenants, and/or state or local historic preservation ordinances. Other federal and state laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act also remain applicable to activities exempted from Section 106, as appropriate.
1. Track and trackbed maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrades within the existing footprint (
2. Reinstallation of double tracking on a currently single-tracked line that had historically been double-tracked.
1. In-kind maintenance and repair of bridges and tunnels.
2. In-kind replacement of bridge hardware and mechanical and electrical components (
3. Maintenance or repair of tunnel ventilation structures and associated equipment (
4. Replacement of tunnel ventilation structures that are not located within a previously identified historic district.
5. Replacement of tunnel ventilation structures that are located and publicly visible within a previously identified historic district, provided the replaced structures are substantially the same size as or smaller than the existing structures and are visually compatible with the surrounding built environment.
6. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of tunnel emergency egress hatchways.
7. Maintenance, installation, repair, or replacement of lighting, signal and communications systems, railings, and other safety- and security-related equipment or elements located within the interiors of tunnels.
8. Removal or replacement of any bridge or tunnel material or added-on element that is not part of the original construction.
9. Actions to strengthen or repair deteriorating non-character defining structural components of bridges that are intended to maintain their useful life and safe use and that do not substantially alter the bridge from its existing appearance.
10. The following activity must be performed or supervised by an SOI-qualified professional: In-kind replacement of character-defining structural or non-structural components of a bridge superstructure or substructure that do not diminish the overall integrity of the bridge. This does not include demolition of a bridge and replacement with an entirely new structure.
1. Modifications (
2. Maintenance or repair of escalators, elevators, or stairs. Repair of decorative (
3. Cleaning, painting, or refinishing of surfaces with a like color and where the products or methods used would not damage the original surface.
4. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of fire or security alarm or fire suppression systems, physical access controls, security cameras, wireless internet, and similar safety, security, or computer equipment and devices.
5. Installation of new fire or security alarm or fire suppression systems, physical access controls, security cameras, wireless internet, and similar safety, security, or computer equipment and devices, except within publicly accessible areas of stations or depots. Such new installations must, to the extent feasible and when appropriate, use a minimally obtrusive design; match the color of surrounding paint, wall coverings, finishes, etc.; avoid damaging or removing historic fabric; be attached to non-historic fabric; be concealed within existing enclosures or conduit or behind walls and ceilings; be co-located with existing similar modern equipment, etc.
6. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of HVAC or electrical systems.
7. Installation of new HVAC or electrical systems, except within publicly accessible areas of stations or depots. Such new installations must, to the extent feasible and when appropriate, use a minimally obtrusive design; match the color of surrounding paint, wall coverings, finishes, etc.; avoid damaging or removing historic fabric; be attached to non-historic fabric; be concealed within existing enclosures or conduit or behind walls and ceilings; be co-located with existing similar modern equipment, etc.
8. Minor ADA improvements at passenger stations that do not damage, cover, alter, or remove character-defining architectural spaces, features, or finishes. Examples include the installation of restroom stalls/partitions, hardware and fixtures such as grab bars, tilt frame mirrors, and sinks and toilets; tactile warning strips on floors, passenger walkways, and platforms; cane detectors; sidewalk curb cuts; automatic door openers; and handrails.
9. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of previously installed ADA elements.
10. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of pumps, air compressors, or fueling stations.
11. Removal of mechanical equipment inside railroad and rail transit facilities not visible to the public. Examples include relay panels, switchgear, and track diagram boards. If the equipment to be removed includes obsolete or outdated technology, the Project Sponsor must contact the SHPO, railroad museums or railroad historical societies, museums, educational institutions, or similar entities to determine if there is an entity that may be interested in purchasing or receiving the equipment as a donation, as appropriate. The Project Sponsor must demonstrate to the federal agency that it has made a good faith effort to contact such parties prior to removal and disposition of such equipment.
12. Addition of new mechanical equipment in basements, beneath platforms, in designated mechanical equipment areas, or in areas that are otherwise out of public view.
13. Paving, painting, or striping of existing parking surfaces.
14. In-kind maintenance or repair of platform boarding canopies and supports.
15. In-kind maintenance or repair of architecturally distinctive light poles and fixtures.
16. State-of-good-repair (“SOGR”) activities not included elsewhere in this section that are necessary to keep a station, depot, or other railroad or rail transit building inhabitable and safe, as required by applicable federal or municipal fire, life safety, or health codes or standards, and in transportation-related use that meet the following conditions:
a. Maintenance and repair activities that affect character-defining architectural
b. SOGR activities do not include demolition, decommissioning, or mothballing of railroad or rail transit buildings that are not in use, or reconfiguring the interior spaces of passenger stations for a new use (
17. Maintenance, repair, or replacement activities that are not included elsewhere on this list and involve non-character-defining non-structural elements, features, systems, hardware, and fixtures in the interior or on the exterior of non-station railroad or rail transit buildings.
18. In-kind maintenance or repair of original architectural features in the interior or on the exterior of passenger stations (
19. In-kind maintenance or repair of character-defining signage (
20. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of non-character defining signage (
21. The following activities must be performed or supervised by an SOI-qualified professional:
a. Replacement of character defining escalators, elevators, or stairs, and decorative elements related thereto.
b. ADA improvements at passenger stations that involve the modification or removal of character-defining features such as stairs, floors, ceilings, doors, windows, roofs, platform boarding canopies and supports, benches/seating, or ticket counters; or that involve the addition of new ramps, stairs, escalators, elevators, wheelchair lifts, wheelchair lift enclosures, station identifier and wayfinding signage, and public information display systems (“PIDS”).
c. SOGR activities that include replacement of character-defining architectural features or otherwise require substantial rehabilitation to address deteriorated conditions. As previously indicated, SOGR activities do not include demolition, decommissioning, or mothballing of railroad or rail transit buildings that are not in use, or reconfiguring the interior spaces of passenger stations for a new use (
d. Installation of new fire or security alarm or fire suppression systems, physical access controls, security cameras, wireless internet, and similar safety, security, or computer equipment and devices within publicly accessible areas of stations or depots.
e. Installation of new HVAC or electrical systems within publicly accessible areas of stations or depots.
f. Replacement of platform boarding canopies and supports.
g. Replacement of architecturally distinctive light poles and fixtures.
h. Replacement of original architectural features in the interior or on the exterior of passenger stations (
i. Replacement of character-defining signage (
1. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of component parts of signal, communications, catenary, electric power systems, or other mechanical equipment that retains the visual appearance of the existing infrastructure. This includes replacement of individual signal masts or transmission lines, but does not include demolition and replacement of an entire catenary system or signal bridge.
2. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of radio base stations.
3. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of the mechanical components of traction power substations,
4. In-kind maintenance or repair of signal bungalows, signal houses, control houses, instrument houses, and structures of similar function.
5. Installation, repair, or replacement of communications equipment on locomotives and rolling stock that are actively used for intercity passenger rail, rail transit, or freight rail. This does not apply to historic trains used for tourism.
6. The following activities must be performed or supervised by an SOI-qualified professional:
a. Replacement of signal bungalows, signal houses, control houses, instrument houses, and structures of similar function.
1. Maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation of at-grade railroad and rail transit crossings including installation of railroad and rail transit crossing signs, signals, gates, warning devices and signage, highway traffic signal preemption, road markings, paving and resurfacing, and similar safety improvements.
2. Replacement of at-grade railroad and rail transit crossings on existing railroads, rail transit lines, and roadways, including components such as crossing signs, signals, gates, warning devices and signage, highway traffic signal pre-emption, road markings, paving and resurfacing, and similar safety features.
3. Expansion of sidewalks, constructed with common concrete or asphalt methods, along the sides of an existing at-grade railroad or rail transit crossing.
4. In-kind maintenance or repair of grade-separated crossings of other transportation modes (highways, local roads, pedestrian underpasses).
5. In-kind rehabilitation or replacement of grade-separated crossings of other transportation modes (highways, local roads, pedestrian underpasses). This does not include modifications to existing grade separation structures (
6. Addition of lanes, turning lanes, road widening, and pavement markings at existing at-grade crossings when the crossing does not involve an individual National Register-listed or known historic roadway or a roadway that is a contributing resource to a National Register-listed or known historic district.
7. Construction of curbs, gutters, or sidewalks adjacent to existing roadway at existing at-grade crossings when the crossing does not involve an individual National Register-listed or eligible roadway or a roadway that is a contributing resource to a National Register-listed or eligible historic district.
8. The following activities must be performed or supervised by an SOI-qualified professional:
a. Addition of lanes, turning lanes, road widening, and pavement markings at existing at-grade crossings when the crossing involves an individual National Register-listed or eligible roadway or a roadway that is a contributing resource to a National Register-listed or eligible historic district.
b. Construction of curbs, gutters, or sidewalks adjacent to existing roadway at existing at-grade crossings when the crossing involves an individual National Register-listed or eligible roadway or a roadway that is a contributing resource to a National Register-listed or eligible historic district.
1. Maintenance, repair, replacement, or installation of the following security and intrusion prevention devices adjacent to tracks or in railyards or rail transit yards: Security cameras, closed captioned television (“CCTV”) systems, light poles and fixtures, bollards, emergency call boxes, access card readers, and warning signage.
2. Maintenance, repair, replacement, or installation of security and safety fencing, guardrails, and similar intrusion prevention and fall protection measures.
3. Maintenance, repair, replacement, or installation of safety equipment/fall protection equipment on rail bridges, signal bridges, or other non-station structures for the protection of rail workers or the public. Examples include railings, walkways, gates, tie-off safety cables, anchors, and warning signage.
4. Maintenance, repair, replacement, or installation of wayside detection devices.
5. Maintenance, repair, replacement, or installation of bridge clearance/strike beams.
1. Placement of riprap and similar bank stabilization methods to prevent erosion affecting bridges and waterways.
2. Erosion control through slide and slope corrections.
3. Rock removal and re-stabilization activities such as scaling and bolting.
4. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of pre-cast concrete, cast iron, and corrugated metal culverts that lack stone or brick headwalls. This does not include culverts such as those built by the Civilian
5. Expansion through horizontal elongation of pre-cast concrete, cast iron, and corrugated metal culverts that lack stone or brick headwalls for the purpose of improved drainage.
6. Embankment stabilization or the re-establishment of ditch profiles.
7. Corrections to drainage slopes, ditches, and pipes to alleviate improper drainage or changing alluvial patterns.
8. In-kind maintenance, repair, or replacement of retaining walls. Replacements must be substantially the same size and appearance as existing.
9. In-kind maintenance or repair of stone or brick culvert headwalls and wingwalls.
10. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of culvert headwalls and wingwalls constructed of concrete.
11. Maintenance, repair, or alterations to the interiors of culverts and related drainage pathways.
12. The following activities must be performed or supervised by an SOI-qualified professional:
a. Replacement of stone or brick culvert headwalls and wingwalls.
b. Vertical extension of stone or brick culvert headwalls using in-kind materials and design compatible with existing.
1. Removal or abatement of environmental hazards such as asbestos, treated wood, and lead or heavy-metal coatings and paintings. Activities that replace coatings, paint, flooring materials, etc. must be of the same color and appearance as the materials that have been removed or abated.
2. Removal of contaminated ballast, sub-ballast, subgrade, and soils.
1. Establishment of quiet zones, including the installation of required warning devices and additional safety measures installed at grade crossings that do not entail closing of existing roadways.
2. Increased frequency of train or rail transit operations that do not result in noise or vibration impacts. The lead federal agency may, at its discretion, require a noise and vibration study be prepared by a qualified subject matter expert before approving the undertaking.
3. Temporary storage of rail cars or rail transit cars on active rail lines.
4. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of noise barriers. If a replaced noise barrier is to be located and publicly visible within a National Register-listed or eligible historic district, it must be substantially the same size as or smaller than existing and be visually compatible with the surrounding built environment.
1. In-kind replacement of landscaping.
2. Mowing, seeding/reseeding, planting, tree trimming, brush removal, or other similar groundcover maintenance activities.
3. Maintenance of access roads and lay-down areas.
1. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of above-ground and underground utilities (
2. Maintenance, repair, replacement, or installation of utility lines and conduit inside tunnels that does not involve affixing new equipment to the exterior face of tunnel portals.
3. Affixing conduit, repeaters, antennae, and similar small-scale equipment on the exterior masonry face of tunnel portals where the color of the equipment matches the existing masonry in order to limit its visibility and does not damage the masonry construction.
1. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of existing bicycle lanes, pedestrian walkways, shared use paths (
2. Adding lanes to existing shared use paths or other trails constructed with common materials.
3. Adding at-grade crossings for pedestrians and bicycle facilities, shared use paths, or other trails.
4. Maintenance, repair, replacement, or installation of bicycle aid stations, bicycle racks, and bicycle storage sheds, and similar amenities. Installation of new bicycle storage structures must be visually compatible with the surrounding building environment when located adjacent to historic passenger stations or within National Register-listed or eligible historic districts.
5. Maintenance, repair, replacement, or installation of information kiosks or displays, wayfinding signage, and similar amenities for pedestrian, bicyclists, or other path or trail users.
6. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of curbs, gutters, or sidewalks constructed with common materials.
For any of the activities listed below, the federal agency shall require the work be performed by or under the supervision of an SOI-qualified professional, based on the scope of work and location of a specific proposal. As with all activities in this Exempted Activities List, but especially important for construction/installation of new railroad or Rail Transit infrastructure, consideration must be given to the potential for effects to non-rail properties within or adjacent to the rail ROW.
1. Minor new construction and installation of railroad or rail transit infrastructure that is compatible with the scale, size, and type of existing rail infrastructure, such as buildings for housing telecommunications equipment, signal instruments, and similar equipment; storage buildings that house landscaping or maintenance of way equipment or specialty vehicles for track repairs or inspections; locomotive and train or rail transit car service and inspection facilities; trailers or temporary structures for housing rail personnel; fueling stations; underground utilities; overhead utilities, transmission lines, and communications poles, and signage. This does not include substantial new construction, such as construction of new passenger stations, railyards or rail transit yards, or tunnels, or demolition of existing structures.
2. Construction of new at-grade crossings.
3. Construction of new erosion control, drainage, or stormwater management infrastructure, such as culverts or retaining walls.
36 CFR 800.14(e).
Office of Field Policy and Management, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, designates the Order of Succession for the Denver Regional Office and its Field Offices (Region VIII). This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for HUD Region VIII.
August 17, 2018.
John B. Shumway, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 9262, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202-402-5190 (this is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office, the following officials within each Office and those officials specified by Office location are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Regional Counsel;
c. Multifamily Housing Asset Management Division Director/Satellite Office Coordinator;
d. Director, Denver Single Family Homeownership Center.
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Director, Helena Field Office.
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Director, Fargo Field Office.
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Director, Sioux Falls Field Office.
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Director, Salt Lake City Field Office.
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Director, Helena Field Office.
This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region VIII.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Office of Field Policy and Management, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, designates the Order of Succession for the Chicago Regional Office and its Field Offices (Region V). This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for HUD Region V.
August 17, 2018.
John B. Shumway, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 9262, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202-402-5190 (this is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Chicago Regional Office and its Field Offices when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator or Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d). This publication supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region V. Accordingly, the Assistant Deputy Secretary, for Field Policy and Management designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office, the following officials within each Office and those officials specified by Office location are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Regional Counsel;
c. Director, Multifamily Housing Midwest Regional Center;
d. Director, Office of Community Planning and Development;
e. Regional Director, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
f. Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing.
a. Director, Office of Community Planning and Development;
b. FHEO Program Center Director.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Multifamily Housing Asset Management Division Director/Satellite Office Coordinator;
c. Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Office of Community Planning and Development;
c. Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing.
a. Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing;
b. Director, Office of Community Planning and Development;
c. Branch Chief, Multifamily Housing Asset Management Division.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing;
c. Multifamily Housing Asset Management Division Director/Satellite Office. Coordinator.
This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region V.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Office of Field Policy and Management, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, designates the Order of Succession for the Seattle Regional Office and its Field Offices (Region X). This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for HUD Region X.
August 17, 2018.
John B. Shumway, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 9262, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202-402-5190 (this is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Seattle Regional Office and its Field Offices when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator or Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d). This publication supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region X. Accordingly, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator or the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office, the following officials within each Office and those officials specified by Office location are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Regional Counsel;
c. Regional Director, Community Planning and Development;
d. Administrator, NW Office of Native American Programs.
a. Director, Community Planning and Development;
b. Director, Public Housing.
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Regional Counsel.
a. Director, Community Planning and Development;
b. Administrator, Alaska Office of Native American Programs.
This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for HUD Region X.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Office of Field Policy and Management, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, designates the Order of Succession for the Fort Worth Regional Office and its Field Offices (Region VI). This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for HUD Region VI.
August 17, 2018.
John B. Shumway, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 9262, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202-402-5190 (this is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary, for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Fort Worth Regional Office and its Field Offices when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator or Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345- 3349d). This publication supersedes all
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office, the following officials within each Office are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Regional Counsel;
c. Regional Director, Multifamily Housing Southwest Region;
d. Director, Public and Indian Housing.
a. Director, Community Planning and Development;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing.
a. Regional Director, Public and Indian Housing;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing;
c. Director, Community Planning and Development;
d. Director, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Senior Management Analyst, Field Policy and Management.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Senior Management Analyst, Field Policy and Management;
b. Supervisory Housing Program Specialist, Single Family Housing.
This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region VI.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Office of Field Policy and Management, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, designates the Order of Succession for the Boston Regional Office and its Field Offices (Region I). This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for HUD Region I.
August 17, 2018.
John B. Shumway, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 9262, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202-402-5190 (this is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Boston Regional Office and its Field Offices when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator or Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d). This publication supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region I. Accordingly, the Assistant Deputy Secretary designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office, the following officials within each Office and those officials specified by Office location are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Regional Counsel;
c. Director, Community Planning and Development;
d. Multifamily Housing Asset Management Division Director/Satellite Office Coordinator.
a. Director, Community Planning and Development;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing;
c. Branch Chief, Multifamily Housing Asset Management Division.
a. Deputy Regional Administrator.
a. Deputy Regional Administrator.
a. Director, Bangor Field Office;
b. Director, Manchester Field Office.
a. Director, Burlington Field Office;
b. Director, Manchester Field Office.
This Order of Succession supersedes all prior Orders of Succession for HUD Region I.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Office of Field Policy and Management, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Deputy Secretary, for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, designates the Order of Succession for the Kansas City Regional Office and its Field Offices (Region VII). This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for HUD Region VII.
August 17, 2018.
John B. Shumway, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 9262, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202-402-5190 (this is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Kansas City Regional Office and its Field Offices when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator or Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d). This publication supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region VII. Accordingly, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office, the following officials within each Office and those officials specified by Office location are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Regional Counsel;
c. Deputy Regional Counsel;
d. Director, Public and Indian Housing.
a. Director, Public and Indian Housing;
b. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Chief Counsel.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing.
This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region VII.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Office of Field Policy and Management, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, designates the Order of Succession for the San Francisco Regional office and its Field Offices (Region IX). This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for HUD Region IX.
August 17, 2018.
John B. Shumway, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 9262, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202-402-5190 (this is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the San Francisco Regional Office and its Field Offices when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator or Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d). This publication supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region IX. Accordingly, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when by reason of
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Regional Counsel;
c. Director, Public and Indian Housing;
d. Director, Multifamily Housing West Regional Center.
a. Director, Community Planning and Development;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing;
c. Deputy Regional Administrator.
a. Director, Reno Field Office;
b. Deputy Regional Administrator.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing;
c. Deputy Regional Administrator.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing;
c. Deputy Regional Administrator.
a. Director, Las Vegas Field Office;
b. Deputy Regional Administrator.
a. Director, Los Angeles Field Office;
b. Director, Home Ownership Center;
c. Deputy Regional Administrator.
This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region IX.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Office of Field Policy and Management, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, designates the Order of Succession for the Atlanta Regional Office and its Field Offices (Region IV). This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession or HUD Region IV.
August 17, 2018.
John B. Shumway, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 9262, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202-402-5190 (this is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Atlanta Regional Office and its Field Offices when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator or Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d). This publication supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region IV. Accordingly, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office, the following officials within each Office and those officials specified by Office location are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Regional Counsel;
c. Director, Atlanta Homeownership Center;
d. Director, Multifamily Housing Southeast Regional Center.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Director, Community Planning and Development;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Director, Public and Indian Housing.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Community Planning and Development.
This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region IV.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Office of Field Policy and Management, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, designates the Order of Succession for the New York Regional Office and its Field Offices (Region II). This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region II.
August 17, 2018.
John B. Shumway, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 9262, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202-402-5190 (this is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the New York Regional Office and its Field Offices when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator or Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345- 3349d). This publication supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for Region II. Accordingly, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Regional Administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office, the following officials within each Office and those officials specified by Office location are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Regional Counsel;
c. Director, Multifamily Housing Northeast Regional Center;
d. Director, Public and Indian Housing.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing;
c. Director, Community Planning and Development;
d. Deputy Regional Administrator.
a. Director, Albany Financial Operations Center;
b. Division Director, Albany Financial Operations Center;
c. Deputy Regional Administrator.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Community Planning and Development;
c. Deputy Regional Administrator.
This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for HUD Region II.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Office of Field Policy and Management, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Office of Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, designates the Order of Succession for the Philadelphia Regional Office and its Field Offices (Region III). This Order of Succession supersedes all prior Orders of Succession for HUD Region III.
August 17, 2018.
John B. Shumway, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 9262, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202- 402-5190 (this is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Philadelphia Regional Office and its Field Offices when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator or Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office the Regional Administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Field Office Directors are not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of their Office, the following officials within each Office and those officials specified by Office location are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
a. Deputy Regional Administrator;
b. Regional Counsel;
c. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Multifamily Housing Asset Management Division Director/Satellite Office Coordinator.
a. Deputy Regional Administrator.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Community Planning and Development.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Deputy Regional Administrator.
a. Chief Counsel;
b. Director, Public and Indian Housing.
a. Deputy Regional Administrator.
This Order of Succession supersedes all previous Orders of Succession for HUD Region III.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination on Section 337 Violation and a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, should the Commission find a violation. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to Commission rules.
Cathy Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“Section 337”) provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: (1) A limited exclusion order (“LEO”) against certain magnetic tape cartridges and components thereof, which are imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by Respondents Fujifilm Holdings Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Fujifilm Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Fujifilm Media Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Kanagawa, Japan; Fujifilm Holdings America Corporation of Valhalla, NY; and Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A., Inc. of Bedford, MA (collectively “Fujifilm” or “Respondents”); and (2) a cease and desist order (“CDO”) against Respondents.
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). In addition, members of the public are hereby invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on August 17, 2018. Comments should address whether issuance of the LEO and CDO in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainants, their licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainants, complainants' licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the LEO and CDO would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions from the public must be filed no later than by close of business on Friday, September 21, 2018.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1058”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
August 29, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-584 and 731-TA-1382 (Final) (Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by September 17, 2018.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
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 (Order No. 6) finding the sole respondent, Wenzhou Jushang (JS) Performance Parts Co. Ltd. of Wenzhou, China, in default. The Commission requests written submissions, under the schedule set forth below, on remedy, bonding, and the public interest.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. 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 under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), on March 2, 2018, based on a complaint filed by Carter Fuel Systems, LLC of Logansport, IN (“Complainant”). 83
The complaint and notice of investigation were served on JSP on May 4, 2018.
On June 6, 2018, Complainant filed a motion for an order to show cause directing respondent JSP to demonstrate why it should not be found in default for failing to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation, or otherwise participate in the investigation. Complainant did not state in its motion that it intended to seek a general exclusion order. JSP did not file a response.
On June 22, 2018, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued Order No. 6, ordering JSP to show why it should not be found in default. No response was filed.
On July 23, 2018, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 7), finding JSP in default under Commission Rule 210.16 (19 CFR 210.16). No party petitioned for review of the ID, and the Commission has determined not to review it.
Section 337(g)(1) (35 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission Rule 210.16(c) (19 CFR 210.16(c)) authorize the Commission to order relief against a respondent found in default, unless, after considering the public interest, it finds that such relief should not issue.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue a cease and desist order that could result in Respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background,
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist order would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1101”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry.
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). In addition, members of the public are hereby invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on August 17, 2018. Comments should address whether issuance of an limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions from the public must be filed no later than by close of business on September 25, 2018.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1059”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
August 31, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-1396 (Final) (Forged Steel Fittings from Taiwan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by September 14, 2018.
5.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on August 3, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, Novici Biotech LLC, Vacaville, CA; GigaGen Inc., San Francisco, CA; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Public Health Vaccines, LLC, Cambridge, MA; Kaleo, Inc., Richmond, VA; Sequoia Consulting Group, LLC, Solana Beach, CA; Inflammatix Inc., Burlingame, CA; Nano Terra, Inc., Cambridge, MA; Tech62, Fairfax, VA; Universal Stabilization Technologies, Inc., San Diego, CA; Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, AL; Adapt Pharma, Inc., Radnor, PA; Talis Biomedical Corporation, Chicago, IL; University of Maryland, College Park, MD; Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Plymouth Meeting, PA; Spectral Platforms, Monrovia, CA; BDO USA LLP, Mclean, VA; PharmaJet, Golden, CO; Consegna Pharma Inc., Pittsburgh, PA; and Tiba Biotech LLC, Cambridge, MA, have been added as parties to this venture.
Also, MaxCyte, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD; Shield Analysis Technology, LLC, Manassas, VA; Kineta, Inc., Seattle, WA; and Pertaton (previously Harris Corp), Herndon, VA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MCDC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 13, 2015, MCDC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 14, 2018. A notice was published in the
Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice
Notice of Charter renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. App.2), and Title IX of the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005), the Attorney General has determined that the renewal of the Task Force on Research on Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women (hereinafter “the Task Force”) is necessary and in the public interest and will provide information that will assist the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to develop and implement a program of research on violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women, including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and murder. The program of research will evaluate the effectiveness of the Federal, state, and tribal response to violence against Indian women and will propose recommendations to improve these responses. Title IX of VAWA 2005 also required the Attorney General to establish a Task Force to assist NIJ with development of the research study and the implementation of the recommendations. The Attorney General, acting through the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, originally established the Task Force on March 31, 2008. The Charter to renew the Task Force was filed with Congress on July 20, 2018. The Task Force is comprised of representatives from national tribal domestic violence and sexual assault nonprofit organizations, tribal governments, and national tribal organizations. Task Force members, with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, shall serve without compensation. The Director of the Office on Violence Against Women shall serve as the Designated Federal officer for the Task Force.
Sheriann C. Moore, Deputy Director for Tribal Affairs, Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice, 145 N Street NE, Suite 10W.121, Washington, DC 20530.
Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice.
Notice of a new system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, notice is hereby given that the Criminal Division, a component within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ or Department), has established a new system of records titled “Gambling Device Registration System Records,” JUSTICE/CRM-030. The Criminal Division proposes to establish this system of records to manage gambling device registration forms in accordance with the Gambling Devices Act of 1962.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is effective upon publication, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the routine uses, as described below. Please submit any comments by September 24, 2018.
The public, OMB, and Congress are invited to submit any comments by mail to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20530; by facsimile at 202-307-0693; or by email at
Amanda Marchand Jones, Chief, FOIA/PA Unit, Criminal Division, Suite 1127, 1301 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530; phone at (202) 616-0307; facsimile at (202) 514-6117.
The Gambling Devices Act of 1962, 15 U.S.C. 1171-1178, requires any person or entity engaged in activities involving gambling devices, their subassemblies, or constituent parts, to register annually with the Attorney General. Registration
The Criminal Division's Gambling Device Registration System will primarily maintain these registration records. Specifically, the Gambling Device Registration System will: Centralize, control, track, and maintain gambling device registration records maintained by the Department and required by the Gambling Devices Act of 1962; serve as the public interface for registrants to submit or renew gambling device registrations; allow the Criminal Division, Office of Enforcement Operations, to validate the information against previous submissions; and serve as the official record of the registration on behalf of the Attorney General.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department has provided a report to OMB and Congress on this new system of records.
Gambling Device Registration System Records, JUSTICE/CRM-030
Unclassified.
Access to these electronic records may occur from all Department locations that the Criminal Division operates or that support Criminal Division operations, including but not limited to, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530. Some or all system information may also be duplicated at other locations where the Department has granted direct access to support Criminal Division operations, system backup, emergency preparedness, and/or continuity of operations. To determine the location of particular Gambling Device Registration System records, contact the system manager using the contact information listed in the “SYSTEM MANAGER(S)” paragraph, below.
Director, Office of Enforcement Operations, Criminal Division, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530; telephone: 202-514-6809; email:
Gambling Devices Act of 1962, 15 U.S.C. 1171-1178; 28 CFR part 3, Gambling Devices.
The purpose of this system of records is to: centralize, control, track, and maintain registration records maintained by the Department and required by the Gambling Devices Act of 1962; serve as the public interface for registrants to submit or renew gambling device registrations; allow the Criminal Division, Office of Enforcement Operations, to validate the information against previous submissions; and serve as the official record of the registration on behalf of the Attorney General.
The Gambling Device Registration System collects and maintains information on the owner, agent, and/or corporate officers who are engaged in: manufacturing gambling devices, if the activities of such business in any way affect interstate or foreign commerce; repairing, reconditioning, buying, selling, leasing, using, or making available for use by others any gambling device, if in such business he or she sells, ships, or delivers any such device knowing that it will be introduced into interstate or foreign commerce; or repairing, reconditioning, buying, selling, leasing, using, or making available for use by others any gambling device, if in such business he or she buys or receives any such device knowing that it has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
This system of records will also collect and maintain audit log information on the DOJ employees who access the Gambling Device Registration System.
The Gambling Device Registration System contains gambling device information, information regarding the individual person, agency, or corporation that owns and/or registers the gambling device, and DOJ employee information. Such information includes, but is not limited to:
(A) The gambling device registrant's name and any trade name under which the registrant does business, and if a company or corporation, the names and titles of the principal officers;
(B) The address of the place of business of the registrant in any state or possession of the United States;
(C) The address in a state or a possession of the United States where records and supporting documentation statutorily required to be maintained by the registrant may be viewed;
(D) Each gambling activity in which the registrant intends to engage during the calendar year;
(E) Information collected to effectuate necessary communications with the registrant or historical record-keeping, including: name of the agent/owner completing the form; contact phone number for the registrant; and contact email address for the registrant;
(F) Effective date of the registration;
(G) Confirmation letter date for the registration;
(H) Previous registrations by the same registrant;
(I) Department of Justice Records Number (DJ Number), which also serves as a Registrant Number and is assigned by the System; and
(J) Audit log, access, and user activity information from system users.
Records contained in this system of records are derived from information provided directly by the owner, agent, and/or corporate officers who register devices in accordance with the Gambling Devices Act of 1962, or from the DOJ employee or device that accesses the Gambling Device Registration System.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system of records may be disclosed as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) under the circumstances or for the purposes described below, to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected:
(A) To any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether Federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international) where the information is relevant to the recipient entity's law enforcement responsibilities.
(B) 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.
(C) To complainants and/or victims to the extent necessary to provide such persons with information and explanations concerning the progress and/or results of the investigation or case arising from the matters of which they complained and/or of which they were a victim.
(D) To any person or entity that the Department of Justice has reason to believe possesses information regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, to the extent deemed to be necessary by the Department of Justice in order to elicit such information or cooperation from the recipient for use in the performance of an authorized activity.
(E) In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the Department of Justice 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.
(F) To an actual or potential party to litigation or the party's authorized representative for the purpose of negotiation or discussion of such matters as settlement, plea bargaining, or informal discovery proceedings.
(G) 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.
(H) 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.
(I) To designated officers and employees of state, local, territorial, or tribal law enforcement or detention agencies in connection with the hiring or continued employment of an employee or contractor, where the employee or contractor would occupy or occupies a position of public trust as a law enforcement officer or detention officer having direct contact with the public or with prisoners or detainees, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the recipient agency's decision.
(J) To appropriate officials and employees of a Federal agency or entity that requires information 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.
(K) To a former employee of the Department for purposes of: responding to an official inquiry by a Federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Department 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.
(L) 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.
(M) 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.
(N) To the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(O) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; 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 breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(P) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach, or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(Q) To any agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing authorized audit or oversight operations of the Criminal Division and meeting related reporting requirements.
(R) To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute or treaty.
Records are maintained in both hard copy and electronic format. Hard-copy, paper format records are stored in filing cabinets in a secure room. Electronic data records are stored in electronic media via a configuration of client/servers and personal computers. Records are stored in accordance with applicable executive orders, statutes, and agency implementing regulations.
Files and automated data are retrieved by name of a registrant, trade name under which the registrant does business, the names and title(s) of the principal officer(s) of a registrant corporation, or the assigned DJ Number.
Records in this system are retained and disposed of in accordance with the schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States, Job Number N1-060-08-012.
Both electronic and paper records are safeguarded in accordance with appropriate laws, rules, and policies, including Department and Criminal Division policies. The records are protected by physical security methods and dissemination/access controls. Direct access is controlled and limited to approved personnel with an official need for access to perform their duties. Paper files are stored: (1) In a secure room with controlled access; (2) in locked file cabinets; and/or (3) in other appropriate GSA approved security containers. Information systems and
All requests for access to records must be in writing and should be addressed to the Criminal Division, FOIA/PA Unit, Suite 1127, 1301 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, or emailed to
Although no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the FOIA/Privacy Act Mail Referral Unit, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530.
More information regarding the Department's procedures for accessing records in accordance with the Privacy Act can be found at 28 CFR part 16 Subpart D, “Protection of Privacy and Access to Individual Records Under the Privacy Act of 1974.”
Individuals seeking to contest or amend records maintained in this system of records must direct their requests to the address indicated in the “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES” paragraph, above. All requests to contest or amend records must be in writing and the request should be clearly marked “Privacy Act Amendment Request.” All requests must state clearly and concisely what record is being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the record. Some information may be exempt from the amendment provisions as described in the “EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM” paragraph, below. An individual who is the subject of a record in this system of records may contest or amend those records that are not exempt. A determination of whether a record is exempt from the amendment provisions will be made after a request is received.
More information regarding the Department's procedures for amending or contesting records in accordance with the Privacy Act can be found at 28 CFR 16.46, “Requests for Amendment or Correction of Records.”
Individuals may be notified if a record in this system of records pertains to them. Notification requests should utilize the same procedures as those identified in the “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES” paragraph, above.
None.
None.
Security and Emergency Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Security and Emergency Planning Staff (SEPS), 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 23, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Dorianna Rice, Security and Emergency Planning Staff, 145 N Street NE, Suite 2W.507, Washington, DC 20530.
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:
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Individuals who are contractors for the Department of Justice or who are processed for access to classified information by the Department of Justice.
5.
a. Department-wide population covered by the requirement to self-report information in the forms listed in Sections 2a and 2b is estimated at 35,000. It is estimated that only three percent (1,050) will actually need to self-report.
b. Department-wide population covered by the requirement to report information in the forms listed in Sections 2c through 2l is estimated to less than 500.
c. Amount of time estimated for an average reported is less than ten minutes.
6.
The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy (CS), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Tuesday, August 28, 2018, from 5:00-6:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. An audio link will be available for the public. Members of the public must contact the Board Office to request the public audio link by sending an email to
Open.
Chair's opening remarks; consideration of a potential vision statement for NSF.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Kathy Jacquart, 703-292-7000,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing NUREG-2173, “Tribal Protocol Manual,” which: Facilitates effective consultations and interactions between the NRC and Native American Tribes related to activities within the scope of the NRC's jurisdiction; explains that Tribes are unique governmental entities and are not extensions of State or local governments; assists NRC management and staff in recognizing these distinctions and creates a more open and productive working relationship with Native American Tribal governments; and supplements the NRC staff's working knowledge by providing Tribal outreach, experience, and practical guidance to NRC personnel who have had limited interactions with Native American Tribes.
This NUREG is effective on August 24, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0235 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
James Firth, telephone: 301-415-6628, email:
On October 12, 2012, the NRC published a notice in the
On January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2402), the NRC issued its “Tribal Policy Statement.” The “Tribal Protocol Manual” has been revised to be consistent with the “Tribal Policy Statement” and to reflect changes made in response to public comments.
In response to public comments and the NRC's work on the “Tribal Policy Statement,” the agency is revising the definition of “consultation.” In the “Tribal Protocol Manual” (p. 16), “consultation” is now defined as “meaningful and timely discussion with Tribal governments on NRC regulatory actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes and those regulatory actions for which Tribal consultation is required under Federal statute. The NRC's Tribal consultation allows Indian Tribes the opportunity to provide input on regulatory actions with Tribal implications and those where Tribal consultation is required, and is different from the outreach and public comment periods.”
The NRC revised the “Tribal Protocol Manual” to better address the unique relationship between the United States Government and Tribes and how the NRC exercises its trust responsibility. The NRC also made changes to the historical account of the Federal-Tribal relationship; specifically, the “Tribal Protocol Manual” now includes a general discussion that addresses the contributions of Treaties, policy, law, court decisions, and Executive Orders to Federal Indian law.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated July 6, 2018, for proposed amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68, DPR-77 and DPR-79, and Facility Operating License Nos.
August 24, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0045 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Andrew Hon, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8480, email:
The NRC has granted the request of Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) to withdraw its June 15, 2018, application (ADAMS Accession No. ML18169A222) for proposed amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, located in Limestone County, Alabama, DPR-77 and DPR-79 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, located in Hamilton County, Tennessee, and Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, located in Rhee County, Tennessee.
The proposed amendments would have revised the implementation date of Tennessee Valley Authority's emergency action level schemes based on the Nuclear Energy Institute document NEI 99-01, Revision 6, “Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,” from July 3, 2018, to November 3, 2018.
This proposed amendment request was noticed in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled NRC Form 244, “Registration Certificate—Use of Depleted Uranium Under General License.”
Submit comments by October 23, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0036 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0036 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
Announcement of meeting.
The Hispanic Council on Federal Employment (Council) meeting will be held on at the following time and location shown below. The Council is an advisory committee composed of representatives from Hispanic organizations and senior Government officials. Along with its other responsibilities, the Council shall advise the Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on matters involving the recruitment, hiring, and advancement of Hispanics in the Federal workforce. The Council is chaired by the Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
September 25, 2018 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E St. NW, Washington, DC 20415, Executive Conference Room.
Allison Wise, Program Director, Diversity and Inclusion, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E St. NW, Suite 7439-I, Washington, DC 20415. Phone (202) 606-8462, FAX (202) 606-6012 or email at
The meeting is open to the public. Please contact the U.S. Office of Personnel Management if you wish to present material to the Council at any of the meetings. The manner and time prescribed for presentations may be limited, depending upon the number of parties that express interest in presenting information.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 21, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form N-Q (17 CFR 249.332 and 274.130) is a reporting form used by registered management investment companies, other than small business investment companies registered on Form N-5 (“funds”), under Section 30(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
We estimate that there are 11,960 funds required to file reports on Form N-Q. Based on staff experience and conversations with industry representatives, we estimate that it takes approximately 26 hours per fund to prepare reports on Form N-Q annually. Accordingly, we estimate that the total annual burden associated with Form N Q is 310,960 hours (26 hours per fund × 11,960 funds) per year.
The estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the cost of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under Form N-Q is mandatory. The information provided by the form is not kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.53 (Certain Types of Orders Defined) and Rule 6.53C (Complex Orders on the Hybrid System) to add Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) with Stock Order functionality.
One or more of the following order types may be made available on a class-by-class basis. Certain order types may not be made available for all Exchange systems. The classes and/or systems for which the order types shall be available will be as provided in the Rules, as the context may indicate, or as otherwise specified via Regulatory Circular.
(a)-(t) No Change.
(u) Qualified Contingent Cross Order: A qualified contingent cross
(i)-(ii) No Change.
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01-.05 No Change.
.06 Special Provisions Applicable to Stock-Option Orders: Stock-option orders may be executed against other automated stock-option orders. Stock-option orders will not be legged against the individual component legs, except as provided in paragraph (d) below, and leg orders will not be generated pursuant to paragraph (c)(iv) of this Rule for stock-option orders.
(a)-(f) No Change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
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 offer QCC with Stock Order functionality to Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”). QCC with Stock Order functionality facilitates the execution of the stock component of qualified contingent trades (“QCTs”). Specifically, a QCC with Stock Order is a QCC order entered with a stock component to be communicated to a designated broker-dealer for execution. QCC with Stock Orders will assist TPHs in maintaining compliance with rules regarding the execution of the stock components of QCTs, and help maintain an audit trail for surveillance of TPHs for compliance with such rules. Currently, although the Exchange offers QCC order functionality, it does not facilitate electronic communication of the stock component of QCC orders for execution. The proposed rule change provides TPHs with the option to electronically submit the stock component of QCC orders to the Exchange, and describes how the Exchange will electronically communicate the stock component to a designated broker-dealer for execution on behalf of TPHs.
A QCC order is comprised of an originating order to buy or sell at least 1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a QCT,
Since QCC orders represent one component of a QCT, each QCC order must be paired with a stock order. When a TPH enters a QCC order, the TPH is responsible for executing the associated stock component of the QCT within a reasonable period of time after the QCC order is executed. The Exchange conducts surveillance of TPHs to ensure that TPHs execute the stock component of a QCT at or near the same time as the options component. While the Exchange does not specify how the TPH should go about executing the stock component of the trade, this process is often manual and is therefore a compliance risk for TPHs if they do not execute the stock component within a reasonable time period of execution of the options component. Thus, the Exchange is proposing to offer QCC with Stock Order functionality, pursuant to which the Exchange will automatically communicate the stock component of a QCT to a designated broker-dealer for execution in connection with the execution of a QCC order on the Exchange. This functionality will reduce the compliance burden on TPHs by providing an automated means of executing the stock component of a QCT, and also will provide benefits for the Exchange's surveillance by providing an audit trail for the execution of the stock component. QCC with Stock Orders can be entered by TPHs through a front-end order and execution management system or through a TPH's own electronic connection to the Exchange.
QCC with Stock Orders will be available to all TPHs on a voluntary basis.
• Enter a net price for the stock and option components. Net-priced QCC with Stock Orders reduce the chance that TPHs will miss the market since the Exchange will calculate a price for the stock and options components that honors the net price of the package and
• give up a Clearing TPH in accordance with Rule 6.21. Pursuant to Rule 6.21, a TPH must give up a Clearing TPH it previously identified to the Exchange as Designated Give Up for that TPH for all orders it submits to the Exchange. This is currently required for all stock-option orders pursuant to Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .06(a); and
• designate a specific broker-dealer to which the stock components will be communicated, which broker-dealer the Exchange must have identified as having connectivity to electronically communicate the stock components of QCC with Stock Orders to stock trading venues and with which the TPH must have entered into a brokerage agreement (the “designated broker-dealer”). The Exchange will have no financial arrangements with any broker-dealer it has identified with respect to communicating stock orders to them.
Current Exchange fees applicable to stock-option orders will apply to the stock component of QCC with Stock Orders.
If the option component of a QCC with Stock Order satisfies the conditions of Rule 6.53(u) upon entry, the System executes the order in accordance with Rule 6.45(a) (which describes how simple option orders execute) or 6.53C(c) (which describes how complex orders execute). However, the Exchange does not immediately send the TPH a trade execution report for this option execution.
Although the option component (which is a QCC order) of a QCC with Stock Order is eligible for automatic execution, it is possible that the option component order may not be executable based on market prices at the time the order is entered (
As noted above, if the option component executes, the System then automatically communicates the stock component to the designated broker-dealer for execution. If the System receives an execution report for the stock component of a QCC with Stock Order from the designated broker-dealer, the Exchange sends the TPH the trade execution report for the QCC with Stock Order, including execution information for both the stock and option components. However, if the System receives a report from the designated broker-dealer that the stock component of the QCC with Stock Order cannot execute,
Currently, whenever a stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of a stock-option order or whenever the stock leg cannot execute, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or on an Exchange Official's own motion in accordance with the Rules.
Additionally, the Exchange believes this automatic nullification will reduce any compliance risk for the TPH associated with execution of a QCC order and lack of execution of a stock order at or near the same time.
Example 1:
A TPH submits a QCC with Stock Order buying 1,000 puts and 100,000 shares of stock with a net price of $101.50. A QCC order is entered on the Exchange and executed at a price of $1.50. The Exchange reports this trade to OPRA. The Exchange routes the stock component to an Exchange-designed broker-dealer at a price of $100. The Exchange receives a trade execution report from the designated broker-dealer that the stock component executed at $100, and sends a trade execution report for both components of the QCC with Stock Order to the TPH.
Example 2:
A TPH submits a QCC with Stock Order buying 1,000 puts and 100,000 shares of stock with a net price of $101.50. A QCC order is entered on the Exchange and executed at a price of $1.50. The Exchange reports this trade to OPRA. The Exchange routes the stock component to an Exchange-designed broker-dealer at a price of $100. The Exchange receives a report from the designated broker-dealer that the stock component did not execute. The Exchange nullifies the option component trade, and sends a report to the TPH of the reason for the nullification.
Example 3:
A TPH submits a QCC with Stock Order buying 1,000 puts and 100,000 shares of stock with a net price of 101.01. A QCC order is entered on the Exchange at a price of $1.01. Because the QCC order is at the same price as a priority customer order resting on the Exchange, the Exchange cancels the QCC with Stock Order.
At a time following the effective and operative date of this rule change, the Exchange will announce the availability of QCC with Stock Orders via Exchange Notice.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it will provide TPHs with optional functionality to facilitate the stock component of a QCT. The QCC with Stock Order is an optional piece of functionality offered to TPHs to communicate the stock component of a QCT to a designated broker-dealer for execution. A TPH that does not wish to use QCC with Stock Order functionality can continue to execute a QCT by entering a QCC order on the Exchange and separately executing the stock component of the QCT [sic] another venue, as it may do today. A TPH can also build its own technology to electronically communicate the stock component of any QCT to a broker-dealer for execution.
QCC with Stock Orders reduce TPHs' compliance burden because it allows for the automatic submission of the stock component of a QCT in connection with the execution of the options component(s) as a QCC order on the Exchange. QCC with Stock Order functionality also provides benefits to the Exchange by establishing an audit trail for the execution of the stock component of a QCT within a reasonable period of time after the execution of the QCC order. The proposed rule change further reduces TPHs' compliance risk by providing that the Exchange will, in addition to cancelling the stock component if the option component cannot execute, nullify any option component execution when the stock component does not execute without a request from the TPH. Nullification of the option trade is consistent with the requirement that a TPH must execute the stock component of a QCT within a reasonable period of time after executing the option component on the Exchange as a QCC order. The proposed rule change simply eliminates the requirement that one party to the transaction request nullification of the option component trade before the Exchange nullifies the option trade, because such nullification is consistent with the definitions of QCC orders and QCT. The proposed rule change merely automates a process that TPHs can manually do today. As noted above, to qualify as a QCT, the execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all
The Exchange conducts surveillance to ensure a TPH executes the stock component of a QCT, which will also apply to QCC with Stock Orders, if the option component executed. As a result, if the stock component does not execute when initially submitted to a stock trading venue by the designated broker-dealer, a TPH may be subject to compliance risk if it does not execute the stock component within a reasonable time period of the execution of the option component. The proposed rule change reduces this compliance risk for TPHs. The Exchange therefore believes the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, protects investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to require a TPH to submit a QCC with Stock Order with a net price will also perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and protect investors, because a net price will reduce the chance that TPHs will miss the market since the Exchange will calculate a price for the stock and options components that honors the net price of the package and current market prices, if possible. As noted above, a TPH that wants to enter a net price for the stock and option components can execute a QCT by entering a QCC order on the Exchange and separately executing the stock component of the QCT another venue, as it may do today. As noted above, submission of a QCC with Stock Order is consistent with the use of QCTs.
Additionally, the proposed functionality is similar to functionality offered by another options exchange
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. QCC with Stock Orders facilitate TPHs' compliance with the requirements associated with executing QCC orders on the Exchange, and are not designed to impose any unnecessary burden on competition. QCC with Stock Order functionality is available to TPHs on a voluntary basis, and TPHs are not required to use QCC with Stock Orders when executing QCTs. The proposed rule change has no impact on TPHs that elect to execute QCTs without using QCC with Stock Order functionality. Those TPHs may continue to execute QCTS in the same manner as they do today by entering a QCC order on the Exchange and separately executing the stock component of the QCT another venue. A TPH can also build its own technology to electronically communicate the stock component of any QCT to a broker-dealer for execution. For TPHs that elect to use QCC with Stock Order functionality to execute QCTs, the proposed rule change reduces those TPHs' compliance burdens to satisfy their obligation to execute the related stock component of the QCT within a reasonable period of time after the QCC order is executed on the Exchange, as this functionality provides an automated means for satisfying this obligation.
QCC with Stock Orders are available to all TPHs either through a front-end order and execution management system or through a TPH's own electronic connection to the Exchange. Additionally, the proposed functionality is similar to functionality offered by another options exchange
The Exchange neither solicited nor received 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, 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) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
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 email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt new rule text within The Nasdaq Options Market LLC Rules at Chapter VI, Section 21. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to codify the definitions of the current protocols that Participants can use to enter quotes and orders on the Exchange and introduce a new protocol.
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 Exchange proposes to adopt new rule text at Chapter VI, Section 21 to codify the Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”) and Specialized Quote Feed (“SQF”) protocols. The Exchange proposes to adopt a new protocol and name it “Ouch to Trade Options” (“OTTO”) and rename and amend the current OTTO protocol on NOM as “Quote Using Orders” or “QUO”.
The Exchange notes it has two protocols today, SQF and proposed to be renamed QUO (formerly known as OTTO), that NOM Market Makers can use to meet their quoting obligations. All quotes on SQF are counted toward market making obligations. While a NOM Market Maker may enter an Immediate-or-Cancel Order through SQF this order does not rest on the Exchange's order book and therefore does not count toward quoting
The Exchange proposes to title proposed new Section 21 as “Order and Quote Protocols” and codify descriptions of the various current and new protocols that Participants may use to enter quotes and orders on NOM. Proposed new section (a) to Chapter VI, Section 21 would be entitled “Entry and Display of Orders and Quotes.” Proposed new Chapter VI, Section 21(a) would provide, “Participants may enter orders and quotes into the System as specified below.” The Exchange proposes to add a section Chapter VI, Section 21(a)(i) which states, “The Exchange offers Participants the following protocols for entering orders and quotes respectively.” Each protocol will be explained in greater detail below.
This protocol is not memorialized within the Exchange's Rulebook, however rule changes describing FIX were filed previously.
This protocol is not memorialized within the Exchange's Rulebook, however rule changes describing SQF were filed previously.
SQF is an interface that allows Market Makers to connect, send, and receive messages related to quotes and Immediate-or-Cancel Orders into and from the Exchange. Features include the following: (1) Options symbol directory messages (e.g underlying instruments); (2) system event messages (
The Exchange believes that this information provides a more thorough description of SQF.
Today, the Exchange offers a protocol named “Ouch to Trade Options” or “OTTO.” The Exchange has filed a description of the current OTTO in prior rule changes stating OTTO is a protocol which permits the transmission of orders to the Exchange by a Participant.
The Exchange proposes to rename the current OTTO as “Quote Using Orders” or “QUO” and amend the protocol by restricting it to NOM Market Makers only because this protocol is predominately utilized by NOM Market Makers. Further, the Exchange is offering non-Market Makers the new OTTO protocol, described below, which some Participants, who are also members of ISE, GEMX and MRX,
The Exchange proposes to introduce a new interface similar to OTTO offered on affiliated markets which would be available to all NOM Participants (Market Makers and non-Market Makers). In order to bring conformance to the protocols across its affiliated markets, the Exchange proposes to name the new interface “Ouch to Trade Options” or “OTTO” similar to the other markets.
The Exchange proposes to rename the current OTTO to QUO and introduce the new OTTO protocol in Q4. The Exchange would issue an Options Trader Alert announcing the date on which these protocols would be available.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it codifies the current FIX and SQF protocols used to connect to the Exchange's System. With respect to these protocols in particular, the Exchange believes that including a description of the various order entry protocols into the Rulebook will benefit Participants by increasing transparency around the operation of the Exchange. Furthermore, the proposed descriptions of all protocols in one rule will reflect information available on these protocols, and will be harmonized with language to be included in the rules of its affiliated exchanges to the extent that the protocols operate in the same manner.
With respect to the renamed and amended QUO protocol the Exchange believes that restricting it to NOM Market Makers and further expanding the description of the protocol is consistent with the Act because the Exchange is also proposing to add a new protocol on NOM which would be available to all Participants. NOM is restricting QUO to Market Makers because it is already predominately utilized by Market Makers today. The Exchange is offering non-Market Makers the new OTTO protocol, which some Participants, who are also members of ISE, GEMX and MRX, utilize today. The Exchange also notes QUO users will be subject to certain quote protections specified in Chapter VI, Section 18(c) which are specific to NOM Market Makers and would otherwise not apply to non-Market Makers. The amended definition will provide greater transparency concerning this protocol which is in use today.
Adopting a new protocol and naming it OTTO will bring greater conformance to the protocols across Nasdaq affiliated markets. The Exchange believes that the new proprietary protocol will offers Participants a range of important features including the ability to submit orders other than through FIX, while continuing to perform functions necessary to manage trading on the Exchange. The proposed new OTTO offers all NOM Participants the ability to send orders, similar to QUO. The new OTTO is intended to continue to permit non-Market Makers to have a protocol similar to the QUO (formerly OTTO) protocol offered on NOM today. The functionality offered on new OTTO mirrors the protocols offered on ISE, GEMX and MRX. The Exchange desires to conform its protocols across Nasdaq affiliated markets. The Exchange believes adopting and codifying this protocol will increase transparency to the Participants. The Exchange also notes that today this protocol is offered on ISE, GEMX and MRX.
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. As explained above, the Exchange is codifying the quote and order entry protocols for FIX, SQF, renamed QUO and the new OTTO. Participants utilize the FIX, SQF and current OTTO protocols to connect to the Exchange's System. The Exchange will offer a new OTTO protocol and rename current OTTO to QUO. The Exchange does not believe that codifying these existing and new protocols in the Rulebook will have any competitive impact.
The Exchange does not believe limiting QUO to only Market Makers presents an undue burden on competition because, today, this protocol is predominately utilized by Market Makers. The Exchange is offering non-Market Makers the new OTTO protocol which some Participants, who are also members of ISE, GEMX and MRX, utilize today. The Exchange also notes QUO users will be subject to certain quote protections specified in Chapter VI, Section 18(c) which are specific to NOM Market Makers and would otherwise not apply to non-Market Makers.
Locating all the protocol descriptions within a single rule and adding context around each protocol will increase transparency around the operation of the Exchange without having any impact on inter-market or intra-market competition. All market participants have the ability to subscribe to the protocols for order entry. The quoting protocols are limited to the market participants who are permitted by rule to quote on NOM, but the function is uniformly available to these eligible participants. Further, adopting OTTO will provide market participants with additional choices in selecting an order protocol other than FIX. Market Makers will be able to utilize either SQF or QUO to comply with quoting obligations. Every market participant will have more than one protocol available to utilize.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
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, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
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.
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Section 22(e) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-22(e)] (“Act”) generally prohibits funds, including money market funds, from suspending the right of redemption, and from postponing the payment or satisfaction upon redemption of any redeemable security for more than seven days. The provision was designed to prevent funds and their investment advisers from interfering with the redemption rights of shareholders for improper purposes, such as the preservation of management fees. Although section 22(e) permits funds to postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption for up to seven days, it does not permit funds to suspend the right of redemption for any amount of time, absent certain specified circumstances or a Commission order.
Rule 22e-3 under the Act [17 CFR 270.22e-3] exempts money market funds from section 22(e) to permit them to suspend redemptions in order to facilitate an orderly liquidation of the fund. Specifically, rule 22e-3 permits a money market fund to suspend redemptions and postpone the payment of proceeds pending board-approved liquidation proceedings if: (i) The fund's board of directors, including a majority of disinterested directors, determines pursuant to § 270.2a-7(c)(8)(ii)(C) that the extent of the deviation between the fund's amortized cost price per share and its current net asset value per share calculated using available market quotations (or an appropriate substitute that reflects current market conditions) may result in material dilution or other unfair results to investors or existing shareholders; (ii) the fund's board of directors, including a majority of disinterested directors, irrevocably approves the liquidation of the fund; and (iii) the fund, prior to suspending redemptions, notifies the Commission of its decision to liquidate and suspend redemptions. Rule 22e-3 also provides an exemption from section 22(e) for registered investment companies that own shares of a money market fund pursuant to section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act (“conduit funds”), if the underlying money market fund has suspended redemptions pursuant to the rule. A conduit fund that suspends redemptions in reliance on the exemption provided by rule 22e-3 is required to provide prompt notice of the suspension of redemptions to the Commission. Notices required by the rule must be provided by electronic mail, directed to the attention of the Director of the Division of Investment Management or the Director's designee.
Commission staff estimates that, on average, one money market fund would break the buck and liquidate every six years.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days after this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17g-5 requires the disclosure of and establishment of procedures to manage certain NRSRO conflicts of interest, prohibits certain other NRSRO conflicts of interest, and contains requirements regarding the disclosure of information in the case of the conflict of interest of an NRSRO issuing or maintaining a credit rating on an asset-backed security that was paid for by the issuer, sponsor, or underwriter of the security. The Commission previously estimated that the total annual burden for respondents to comply with Rule 17g-5 is 261,295 hours.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Background documentation for this information collection may be viewed at the following website:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-12 is the reporting rule tailored specifically for over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives dealers registered with the Commission, and Part IIB of Form X-17A-5, the Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single (“FOCUS”) Report, is the basic document for reporting the financial and operational condition of OTC derivatives dealers. Rule 17a-12 requires registered OTC derivatives dealers to file Part IIB of the FOCUS Report quarterly. Rule 17a-12 also requires that OTC derivatives dealers file audited financial statements annually.
The reports required under Rule 17a-12 provide the Commission with information used to monitor the operations of OTC derivatives dealers and to enforce their compliance with the Commission's rules. These reports also enable the Commission to review the business activities of OTC derivatives dealers and to anticipate, where possible, how these dealers may be affected by significant economic events.
There are currently three registered OTC derivatives dealers. The staff expects that three additional firms will register as OTC derivatives dealers within the next three years. The staff estimates that the average amount of time necessary to prepare and file the quarterly reports required by the rule is eighty hours per OTC derivatives dealer
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection 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 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Independence Policy of the Board of Directors of the Exchange (“Independence Policy”) by (a) streamlining references to Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”) subsidiaries that are national securities exchanges, (b) removing obsolete references, and (c) adding references to national securities exchange affiliates of the Exchange. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of 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 proposes to amend the Independence Policy by (a) streamlining references to ICE subsidiaries that are national securities exchanges, (b) removing obsolete references, and (c) adding references to national securities exchange affiliates of the Exchange.
The Independence Policy includes references to the Exchange and its national securities exchange affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a second paragraph under “Purpose” with the definition of “Exchange.”
• Replace “New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE American LLC” with “an Exchange” in category 1(b) and (c);
• Replace “New York Stock Exchange LLC, on NYSE Arca, Inc. or on NYSE American LLC” with “an Exchange” in category 1(d) and category 4;
• Replace “New York Stock Exchange LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE American LLC exercise” with “each Exchange exercises” in the final paragraph of category 1;
• Replace “New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Arca
• Replace “New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. or NYSE American LLC” with “an Exchange” under “Listed Companies.”
The proposed changes would make the requirements under “Independence Qualifications” and “Listed Companies” apply to all of the Affiliate SROs, and not just those specifically listed in the Independence Policy. In addition, it would make the Independence Policy consistent with the governing documents of ICE and the intermediate holding companies between the Exchange and ICE, which use the term “Exchange.”
The NYSE no longer has allied members.
NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. merged with NYSE Arca, Inc., and therefore no longer exists.
The proposed removal of obsolete references would be consistent with changes made to the independence policy of the board of directors of ICE.
NYSE National became an Affiliate SRO in 2017. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add “Person Associated with an ETP Holder” (as defined in Rule 1.5 of NYSE National, Inc.);” in category 1(b), and add NYSE National to category 5 under “Independence Qualifications.” The changes would be consistent with changes made to the independence policy of the board of directors of ICE.
CHX became an Affiliate SRO in 2018.
The Exchange proposes to update the link included in footnote 2 and make conforming changes to delete and replace connectors.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed replacement of lists of individual SRO Affiliates in the Independence Policy with the term “Exchange” would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange, because use of the term would make the requirements under “Independence Qualifications” and “Listed Companies” apply to all of the Affiliate SROs, and not just those specifically listed in the Independence Policy. The Exchange Act definition of “exchange” states that “exchange” “includes the market place and the market facilities maintained by such exchange.”
For the same reason, the Exchange believes that the proposed replacement of lists of individual SRO Affiliates in the Independence Policy with the term “Exchange” would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. The changes would simplify and streamline the Exchange's rules while making them more consistent, thereby ensuring that persons subject to the Exchange's jurisdiction, regulators, and the investing public can more easily navigate and understand the Independence Policy and the Exchange Rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by (a) removing obsolete references to NYSE allied members and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc., and (b) incorporating NYSE National and CHX into the text of the Independence Policy. The Exchange believes that such changes would add clarity and transparency to the Exchange Rules by removing any confusion that may result if the Independence Policy retained obsolete references or did not encompass all of the Affiliate SROs. For the same reason, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Independence Policy would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by removing confusion that may result if the Independence Policy retained
The Exchange notes that the proposed change would be consistent with changes made to the independence policy of the board of directors of ICE, and believes that making the Independence Policy more consistent with the ICE policy would add clarity and transparency to the Exchange Rules, allowing persons subject to the Exchange's jurisdiction, regulators, and investors to more easily navigate and understand the Exchange Rules, contributing to the orderly operation of the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased clarity, thereby reducing potential confusion.
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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with updating the Independence Policy to (a) streamline references to ICE subsidiaries that are national securities exchanges, (b) remove obsolete references, and (c) add references to NYSE National and CHX.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Below is the projected average estimates for the next three years:
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection 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 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 23c-3 (17 CFR 270.23c-3) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The requirement that the fund send a notification to shareholders of each offer is intended to ensure that a fund provides material information to shareholders about the terms of each offer. The requirement that copies be sent to the Commission is intended to enable the Commission to monitor the fund's compliance with the notification requirement. The requirement that the shareholder notification be attached to Form N-23c-3 is intended to ensure that the fund provides basic information necessary for the Commission to process the notification and to monitor the fund's use of repurchase offers. The requirement that the fund describe its current policy on repurchase offers and the results of recent offers in the annual
The Commission staff estimates that 33 funds make use of rule 23c-3 annually, including eight funds that are relying upon rule 23c-3 for the first time. The Commission staff estimates that on average a fund spends 89 hours annually in complying with the requirements of the rule and Form N-23c-3, with funds relying upon rule 23c-3 for the first time incurring an additional one-time burden of 28 hours. The Commission therefore estimates the total annual hour burden of the rule's and form's paperwork requirements to be 3,161 hours. In addition to the burden hours, the Commission staff estimates that the average yearly cost to each fund that relies on rule 23c-3 to print and mail repurchase offers to shareholders is about $31,184.88. The Commission estimates total annual cost is therefore about $1,029,101.
Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule and form is mandatory only for those funds that rely on the rule in order to repurchase shares of the fund. The information provided to the Commission on Form N-23c-3 will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
All submissions should refer to File Number 270-373. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of CALIFORNIA dated 08/10/2018.
Issued on 08/10/2018.
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, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed 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 15640 5 and for economic injury is 15641 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are California.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of COLORADO dated 08/10/2018.
Issued on 08/10/2018.
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, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed 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 15644 5 and for economic injury is 15645 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Colorado
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting from 10:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m., Thursday, September 13, 2018, at the headquarters of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations (799 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017).
The public meeting will focus on
This meeting is open to the public, including the media and members and staff of governmental and non-governmental organizations. An RSVP is required for building access. To attend and make any requests for reasonable accommodation, email Michelle Bowen at
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy appraises U.S. government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. The Advisory Commission may conduct studies, inquiries, and meetings, as it deems necessary. It may assemble and disseminate information and issue reports and other publications, subject to the approval of the Chairperson, in consultation with the Executive Director. The Advisory Commission may undertake foreign travel in pursuit of its studies and coordinate, sponsor, or oversee projects, studies, events, or other activities that it deems desirable and necessary in fulfilling its functions.
For more information on the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, please visit
Request for comments; invitation to public session.
The Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative are providing notice that the parties to the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) intend to hold the eighth meeting of the Environment Affairs Council (Council) established under Chapter 19 of the FTA, as well as the sixth meeting of the U.S.-Chile Joint Commission on Environmental Cooperation (Commission) established under the U.S.-Chile Environmental Cooperation Agreement (ECA), on Tuesday September 4, 2018. The Council will review implementation of Chapter 19 (Environment) of the FTA, and the Commission will review implementation of the ECA.
The public session of the Council and Commission will be held on September 5, 2018, beginning at 10:00 a.m. at the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 180 Teatinos St., Santiago, Chile. We request RSVPs and any written comments no later than August 28, 2018, in order to facilitate consideration.
RSVPs and any written comments should be submitted to both:
(1) Keri Holland, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues, by email at
(2) Tia Potskhverashvili, United States Trade Representative, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for Environment and Natural Resources, by email at
In your RSVP, please include your full name and affiliation.
If you have access to the internet you can view and comment on this notice by going to:
Keri Holland, telephone (202) 647-6777,
The United States and Chile negotiated the United States-Chile FTA and United States-Chile ECA in concert, signing the FTA on June 6, 2003, in Miami, USA and the ECA on June 17, 2003, in Santiago, Chile. Article 19.3 of the FTA establishes an Environment Affairs Council (Council). The Council discusses implementation of Chapter 19 of the FTA, and its meetings include a public session. The Joint Commission on Environmental Cooperation (Commission) was established in Article II of the ECA. The Commission evaluates cooperative activities under the ECA, recommends options for improving cooperation, and establishes work programs that reflect national priorities and that identify the scope and focus of environmental cooperation activities. Commission meetings also include a public session.
The Council and Commission last met in August 2015 in Washington, DC. The Council reviewed the implementation of the Environment Chapter of the FTA. The Commission approved the 2015-2017 Work Program, which built on previous successes and identified activities to achieve the long-term goals of: (1) Strengthening effective implementation and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations; (2) encouraging development and adoption of sound environmental practices and technologies, particularly in business enterprises; (3) promoting sustainable development and management of environmental resources, including wild fauna and flora, protected wild areas, and other ecologically important ecosystems; and (4) encouraging civil society participation in the environmental decision-making process and environmental education.
During the Council and Commission meetings, Members will discuss the progress made in implementing Chapter 19 obligations and the impacts of environmental cooperation. The Commission will also finalize an updated Environmental Cooperation Work Program for 2018-2020. More information on the Council and Commission is included below under Supplementary Information.
All interested persons are invited to attend the Council and Commission joint public session beginning at 10:00 a.m. on September 5, 2018, at the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 180 Teatinos St., Santiago, Chile. Attendees will have an opportunity to ask questions and discuss implementation of Chapter 19 and the ECA with Council and Commission Members and environmental cooperation implementers. At the public session, the Council will receive input from the public on current environmental issues and ideas for future cooperation. The Department of State and Office of the United States Trade Representative invite written comments or suggestions regarding topics to be discussed at the meeting. In preparing comments, we encourage submitters to refer to Chapter 19 of the FTA and the ECA
If you would like to attend the public session, please notify Keri Holland and Tia Potskhverashvili at the email addresses listed above under the heading
• Chapter 19 of the FTA, and
• The ECA.
These documents are available at:
Watco Holdings, Inc. (Watco), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad, L.L.C. (DEIR), upon DEIR's becoming a Class III rail carrier. Watco owns, indirectly, 100% of the issued and outstanding stock of DEIR, a limited liability company.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
The transaction may be consummated on or after September 8, 2018, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed).
According to the verified notice of exemption, Watco currently controls, indirectly, 37 Class III rail carriers and one Class II rail carrier, collectively operating in 27 states. For a complete list of these rail carriers and the states in which they operate, see the August 9, 2018 verified notice of exemption at pages 5-9 for a list of carriers and pages 9-11 for a list of states.
Watco represents that: (1) The rail line to be operated by DEIR does not connect with any of the rail lines operated by railroads in the Watco corporate family; (2) the transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would result in such a connection; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. The proposed transaction is therefore exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
Watco states that the purpose of the transaction is to reduce overhead expenses and coordinate billing, maintenance, mechanical and personnel policies and procedures of its rail carrier subsidiaries, and thereby improve the overall efficiency of rail service provided by the railroads in the Watco corporate family.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Because the transaction involves the control of one Class II and one or more Class III rail carriers, the transaction is subject to the labor protection requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11326(b) and
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed by August 31, 2018 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36209, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Karl Morell & Associates, Suite 440, 440 1st Street NW, Washington, DC 20001.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board.
Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad, L.L.C. (DEIR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire and operate approximately 126.7 miles of track (the Line) owned by CSX Transportation, Inc., (CSXT), consisting of: (1) CSXT's Decatur Subdivision starting near Montezuma, Ind., at milepost BD 192.4 and ending in Decatur, Ill., at milepost BD 277.2; (2) CSXT's Danville Secondary Subdivision from near Terre Haute, Ind., at milepost QSD 72.2 to near Olivet, Ill., at milepost QSD 113.6; and (3) CSXT's Paris Industrial Track located in Paris, Ill. As part of the transaction, CSXT will also assign its trackage rights over Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC) between the Decatur Street road crossing at or near milepost 77.7 and milepost 76.7 on IC's Peoria Subdivision, including IC's connection with CSXT between milepost 30.5 and milepost 28.6 on IC's Peoria Subdivision, and between IC's lead track from its connection to the Green Switch Spur to IC's connection with the ADM Run-Around-Yard at Decatur, Ill., on IC's Peoria Subdivision, a total distance of approximately 3.6 miles.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
The verified notice states that DEIR and CSXT will enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement and a Freight Operating Agreement prior to closing, and that DEIR will be the operator of the acquired rail lines. As required by 49 CFR 1150.33(h), DEIR has disclosed in its verified notice that the Freight Operating Agreement contains an interchange commitment that would require DEIR to pay additional compensation to CSXT if DEIR interchanges traffic with a third-party rail carrier and that the affected interchange points are Decatur, Metcalf, and Tuscola, Ill. DEIR has provided additional information pertaining to the interchange commitment as required by § 1150.33(h).
DEIR certifies that its projected annual revenues resulting from the transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier. However, DEIR states that its projected annual revenues will exceed $5 million. Accordingly, in compliance with 49 CFR 1150.32(e), on July 6, 2018, DEIR posted the required 60-day labor notice of this transaction at the workplaces of CSXT employees on the affected Line, served notice on the national offices of the labor unions for those employees, and filed a letter with the Board certifying its compliance with the advance notice requirements.
The transaction may be consummated on or after September 8, 2018, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than August 31, 2018 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36206, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy must be served on Karl Morell, Karl Morell & Associates, Suite 440, 440 1st Street NW, Washington, DC 20001.
According to DEIR, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE Report) each year. The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) invites interested persons to submit written comments to assist the TPSC in identifying significant barriers to U.S. exports of goods and services, U.S. foreign direct investment, and the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights for inclusion in the NTE Report. USTR also will consider responses to this notice as part of the annual review of the operation and effectiveness of all U.S. trade agreements regarding telecommunications products and services that are in force with respect to the United States.
We must receive all written comments no later than 11:59 p.m. on October 30, 2018.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through
Yvonne Jamison at (202) 395-3475.
Section 181 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2241) requires USTR annually to publish the NTE Report, which sets out an inventory of the most significant foreign barriers affecting U.S. exports of goods and services, U.S. foreign direct investment, and the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. The inventory facilitates U.S. negotiations aimed at reducing or eliminating these barriers and is a valuable tool in enforcing U.S. trade laws and strengthening the rules-based trading system. You can find the 2018 NTE Report on USTR's website at
To assist USTR in preparing the NTE Report, commenters should submit information related to one or more of the following categories of foreign trade barriers:
1. Import policies (
2. Trade restrictions implemented through unwarranted standards, conformity assessment procedures, or technical regulations (technical barriers to trade) that may have as their objective protecting national security requirements, preventing deceptive practices, or protecting human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment, but that can be formulated or implemented in ways that create significant barriers to trade (including unnecessary or discriminatory technical regulations or standards for telecommunications products).
3. Trade restrictions implemented through unwarranted sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that the country claims to impose for purposes of protecting human, animal, and plant life or health (
4. Subsidies, including export subsidies (
5. Government procurement restrictions (
6. Lack of intellectual property protection and enforcement (
7. Barriers to trade in services (
8. Barriers to digital trade (
9. Investment barriers (
10. Government-tolerated anticompetitive conduct of state-owned or private firms that restrict the sale or purchase of U.S. goods or services in the foreign country's markets.
11. Other barriers (
In addition, Section 1377 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Section 1377) (19 U.S.C. 3106) requires USTR annually to review the operation and effectiveness of all U.S. trade agreements regarding telecommunications products and services that are in force with respect to the United States. The purpose of the review is to determine whether any act, policy, or practice of a country that has entered into a trade agreement or other telecommunications agreement with the United States is inconsistent with the terms of such agreement or otherwise denies U.S. firms, within the context of the terms of such agreements, mutually advantageous market opportunities for telecommunications products and services. USTR will consider responses to this notice in the review called for in Section 1377.
We invite commenters to identify those barriers covered in submissions that may operate as “localization barriers to trade.” Localization barriers are measures designed to protect, favor, or stimulate domestic industries, services providers, and/or intellectual property at the expense of goods, services, or intellectual property from other countries, including the provision of subsidies linked to local production. For more information on localization barriers, please go to
Each comment should include an estimate of the potential increase in U.S. exports that would result from removing any foreign trade barrier the comment identifies, as well as a description of the
In order to be assured of consideration, we must receive your written comments in English by 11:59 p.m. on October 30, 2018. USTR strongly encourages commenters to make on-line submissions, using
To submit comments via
The
Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information also must submit a public version of their comments that we will place in the docket for public inspection. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files.
As noted, USTR strongly urges that you file submissions through
USTR will post comments in the docket for public inspection, except business confidential information. You can view comments on the
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of public hearing and request for comments.
The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) invites interested persons to submit written comments and participate in a public hearing to assist the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in the preparation of its annual report to the Congress on China's compliance with the commitments made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
September 19, 2018 at midnight EDT: Deadline for submission of comments, and requests to appear and summaries of testimony at the October 3, 2018 public hearing. October 3, 2018: The TPSC will convene a public hearing in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street NW, Washington DC 20508, beginning at 9:30 a.m.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Yvonne Jamison at (202) 395-3475 for procedural questions concerning written comments or participation in the public hearing. Direct all other questions to Terrence J. McCartin, Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for China Affairs, at (202) 395-3900, or Philip D. Chen, Chief Counsel for China Enforcement, at (202) 395-3150.
China became a Member of the WTO on December 11, 2001. In accordance with section 421 of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-286), USTR is required to submit, by December 11 of each year, a report to Congress on China's compliance with commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including both multilateral commitments and any bilateral commitments made to the United States. In accordance with section 421, and to assist it in preparing this year's report, the TPSC is soliciting public comments. You can find last year's report on USTR's website at
The terms of China's accession to the WTO are contained in the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (including its annexes) (Protocol), the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China (Working Party Report), and the WTO agreements. You can find the Protocol and Working Party Report on the WTO website at
The TPSC invites written comments and/or oral testimony of interested persons on China's compliance with commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including, but not limited to, commitments in the following areas:
A. Trading rights.
B. Import regulation (
C. Export regulation.
D. Internal policies affecting trade (
E. Intellectual property rights (including intellectual property rights enforcement).
F. Services.
G. Rule of law issues (
H. Other WTO commitments.
In addition, given the United States' view that China should be held accountable as a full participant in, and beneficiary of, the international trading system, USTR requests that interested persons specifically identify unresolved compliance issues that warrant review and evaluation by USTR's China Enforcement Task Force.
The TPSC will hold a hearing on October 3, 2018, beginning at 9:30 a.m., to receive information regarding China's compliance with WTO commitments. The hearing will be held in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20508, and will be open to the public and to the press. A transcript of the hearing will be available on
All interested parties wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit, following the Requirements for Submissions below, the name, address, telephone number, and email address, if available, of the witness(es) representing their organization no later than midnight on September 19, 2018. Requests to present oral testimony must be accompanied by a written summary of the proposed testimony, in English. The TPSC will limit oral testimony to five-minute presentations that summarize or supplement information contained in briefs or statements submitted for the record to allow for possible questions from the TPSC.
In order to be assured of consideration, we must receive your notification of intent to testify and/or written comments in English by 11:59 p.m. on September 19, 2018. USTR strongly encourages commenters to make on-line submissions, using
To submit comments via
The
Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information also must submit a public version of their comments that we will place in the docket for public inspection. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files.
As noted, USTR strongly urges that you file submissions through
USTR will post comments in the docket for public inspection, except business confidential information. You can view comments on the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public comment on a request by the Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Authority (MKAA), to release approximately 59.093 acres of land at McGhee Tyson Airport from federal obligations. This release is being issued for the relocation of the existing alignment of State Route 115 (U.S. 129/Alcoa Highway) at the location commonly referred to as the Hunt Road interchange.
Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2018.
Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Memphis Airports District Office, Attn: Jamal Stovall, Community Planner, 2600 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must
Mr. Jamal Stovall, Community Planner, Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports District Office, 2600, Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118-2482. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location, by appointment.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the request to release property for disposal at McGhee Tyson Airport, 2055 Alcoa Hwy., Alcoa, TN 37701, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The FAA determined that the request to release property at McGhee Tyson Airport (TYS) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the release of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this notice.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Authority is releasing approximately 59.093 acres of airport property. This release is necessary for the relocation of the existing alignment of State Route 115 (US 129/Alcoa Highway) at the Hunt Road Interchange. This request will release this property from federal obligations.
The request consists of the following:
Total land area and portions of 18 federally obligated parcels currently owned by MKAA. The total amount of land to be released is 59.093 acres. The parcels in whole or portions thereof being released are referenced on the approved airport property map. The following are the effected parcels as they appear on the Approved Exhibit A and the amount of total land to be released versus the parcels total land area: A-1 (2.545ac. of 1,401.72ac.), A-3 (1.752ac. of 97.63 ac.), A-31 (49.03ac. of 70.88 ac.), A-191 (0.071ac. of 0.89ac.), A-192 (0.162ac. of 0.86ac.), A-193 (0.25ac. of 0.86ac.), A-194 (0.216ac. of 0.57ac.), A-195 (0.37ac. of 0.86ac.), A-196 (0.391 ac. of 0.86ac.), A-197 (0.454ac. of 0.83ac.), A-198 (0.608ac. of 0.91ac.), A-199 (0.756ac. of 0.75ac.), A-200 (0.59ac. of 0.59ac.), A-201 (1.107ac. of 1.107ac.), A-202 (0.232ac. of 0.232ac.), A-203 (0.21ac. of 0.21ac.), A-204 (0.185ac. of 0.185ac.), A-205 (0.162ac. of 0.162ac.). This property is bounded by Terminal Loop Drive to the west, North Wright Road to the east and Ambrose Street to the South. Parcels A-191 to A-205 were acquired in 1989. These parcels are all vacant with scattered trees and mowed grass. Parcel A-1 was purchased from the City of Knoxville in 1979, which included 1,401 acres of the original airport. Parcel A-3 was purchased from a private land owner in 1969. Parcel A-31 was purchased from the Aluminum Company of America in 1986.
This request will release this property from federal obligations. This action is taken under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Authority.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project, I-25 South Gap: Monument to Castle Rock in El Paso and Douglas Counties, Colorado, FHWA Project Number NHPP 0252-450, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Number 21102.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Effective June 27, 2018, FHWA assumed environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
The actions by FHWA, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project approved on April 25, 2018, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on June 27, 2018. The EA, FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting FHWA or CDOT at the addresses provided above. The EA and FONSI can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA that are final. The action relates to the approval of the Re-Evaluation for the State Route (SR) 509 Completion Project in King County, State of Washington.
A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before January 22, 2019. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
For FHWA, Lindsey Handel, Area Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 711 S. Capitol Way, Suite 501, Olympia, WA 98501-1284, 360-753-9550, or Megan White, Director, Environmental Services Office, Washington State Department of Transportation, 310 Maple Park Avenue SE, Olympia, WA 98504, 360-705-7480, or
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency action(s) subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions that are final as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 24, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2018-0135 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel REAL SUMMERTIME is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2018-0135 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability.
States need timely, accurate, complete, accessible, and uniform traffic records to identify and prioritize traffic safety issues and to choose appropriate safety countermeasures and evaluate their effectiveness. Traffic records program assessments provide States with the information needed to plan traffic records improvement projects. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announces the availability of a revised
States need timely, accurate, complete, uniform, integrated, and accessible traffic records data to identify and prioritize traffic safety issues, and choose appropriate safety countermeasures and evaluate their effectiveness. The purpose of traffic records assessments is to provide States with useful information on the status of the many systems that make up the traffic records system.
Federal statute requires States to certify that “an assessment of the State's highway safety data and traffic records system was conducted or updated during the preceding 5 years” in order to qualify for a State traffic safety information system improvements grant. 23 U.S.C. 405(c). NHTSA regulations require that the assessment comply with “procedures and methodologies” outlined by NHTSA. 23 CFR 1300.22(b)(4). NHTSA published the
This notice announces the availability of a revised
NHTSA received submissions from 23 commenters in response to the October 25, 2017 request for comment. 82 FR 49473-49475. Commenters included the following eleven State agencies and commissions: California Office of Traffic Safety (CA OTS); Colorado Department of Transportation (CO DOT); Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT DOT); Delaware Office of Highway Safety (DE OHS); Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA DPH); Michigan Crash Section (MI Crash); New York State Governor's Traffic Safety Committee (NY GTSC); Injury and Violence Prevention Branch of the NC Division of Public Health (NC DPH); Puerto Rico Traffic Safety Commission (PR TSC); joint submission by the Washington Traffic Safety Commission and Washington Traffic Records Committee (WA Traffic); and joint submission by the Departments of Transportation of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota & Wyoming (5-State DOTs). Three associations and consortiums provided comments: Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals (ATSIP); Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA); and National Safety Council (NSC). One non-profit organization, Consumers Union (CU), provided comments. Eight individual commenters also provided comments: Brook Chipman; Joe McCarthy; Mario Damiata; Nathan Dean; Jay Wall; and three anonymous commenters. Of these comments, three were out of the scope of this notice.
Three broad categories of comments accounted for more than half of the comments received: comments stating that the assessment is too burdensome, comments seeking more personalized recommendations, and comments seeking more in-person meetings as part of the assessment process.
Ten commenters, including States, associations and an individual, stated that the existing Traffic Records Assessment process is burdensome. Specifically, commenters stated that the assessment is burdensome due to the number of questions (some of which they consider redundant), the high standards of evidence required for responses, the time required to respond, and the number of agencies within the State that are required to participate in assessments.
Seven commenters, including States, associations, and individuals, requested that assessors provide more personalized recommendations to States at the conclusion of each assessment. Several commenters further asserted that it would be helpful to States if assessors prioritized the most important recommendations to assist States in planning traffic records improvement projects.
Twelve commenters, including States, associations, and individuals, argued that the assessment process would be easier and more useful if there were more opportunities for in-person meetings.
As a result of these comments, NHTSA has taken a fresh look at the
In addition to reducing burden on States by providing three options for conducting assessments, NHTSA strove to further reduce burden in the optional assessment questions provided in Appendix E of the
NY GTSC and the 5-State DOTs argued that using an “ideal” system as a baseline for the assessment sets an unattainable standard. The 5-State DOTs further requested that the
Seven State commenters requested more flexibility in the evidence required to respond to each question. While States may choose their own standard of evidence when conducting a self-assessment under either of the first two assessment options provided in the new
Four commenters requested more flexibility in the structure of the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee. In response, NHTSA has updated both the TRCC narrative and questions to align with the best practices identified in the
GHSA suggested that all performance measure questions be combined into a single question in each section of the assessment. While that would reduce the number of questions, it would not reduce the burden on the State to respond to each performance measure and would make it more difficult to identify limitations in any specific performance measure. NHTSA declines to make this change.
The ID, MT, ND, SD, and WY DOTs commented that the advisory text implies that States are required to adopt elements beyond the MMUCC minimum and Joe McCarthy asked for clarification that MMUCC is voluntary. MMUCC is a voluntary standard. NHTSA's intent in the
Three commenters (ATSIP, MA DPH, and NC DPH) found the Injury Surveillance System (ISS) section burdensome, stating that the number of questions in that section was disproportionate to the rest of the assessment questions. NHTSA recognizes that the ISS section has more questions than the other data system sections. However, the ISS system contains five separate component data systems, which is substantially more component data systems than the other sections. MA DPH asked whether the evidence provided for the Injury Surveillance System section of the assessment must be related to traffic data. States may provide any evidence from the system, regardless of whether it is traffic-related.
As highlighted above, NHTSA believes it is important to provide States with flexibility in meeting the requirement to conduct an assessment of the State's highway safety data and traffic records system. Therefore, the
First, States may design their own assessment of their traffic safety information systems. NHTSA regulations require States to list all recommendations from their most recent highway safety data and traffic records system assessment and identify whether and how they intend to address those recommendations. 23 CFR 1300.22(b)(2)(ii-iv). A State's assessment should, therefore, result in a comprehensive set of recommendations that will improve the State traffic safety information systems and inform the State's traffic records strategic plan. The
Second, NHTSA has developed a self-assessment tool that States may use. The assessment tool consists of a series of questions developed by NHTSA, with the input of subject matter experts, which will generate recommendations based on the States' responses. This assessment tool is available online at
Third, States may opt to participate in NHTSA's State Traffic Records Assessment Program (STRAP) at no cost to the State. STRAP is a peer assessment process using the questions from NHTSA's assessment tool. Qualified independent assessors will evaluate the State's responses and provide recommendations; specific and actionable considerations; and a final report. An experienced facilitator supports this process, which includes two onsite meetings and a webinar report-out.
Regardless of which process a State chooses to conduct its assessment, NHTSA GO Teams remain available to States who wish to apply for additional technical assistance. GO Teams provide technical expertise and guidance on specific small- to mid-scale projects that the States want to undertake but that may require other, specialized knowledge. Application forms are available on the NHTSA website
The full
23 U.S.C. Section 405(c)(3)(E).
Issued in Washington, DC.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) invites comments on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this document.
Comments are due on or before October 23, 2018.
As described below, you may send comments on the information collections listed in this document using the “
•
•
•
Please submit separate comments for each specific information collection listed in this document. You must reference the information collection's title, form or recordkeeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
You may view copies of this document, the information collections listed in it and any associated instructions, and all comments received in response to this document within Docket No. TTB-2018-0001 at
Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; telephone (202) 453-1039, ext. 135; or email
The Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in comments.
For each information collection listed below, we invite comments on: (a) Whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection's burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the information collection's burden on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the requested information.
Currently, we are seeking comments on the following information collections (forms, recordkeeping requirements, or questionnaires):
Under these authorities, TTB has issued regulations that require taxpayers to make claims for abatement, allowance, credit, refund, or remission of excise tax on taxable articles (alcohol, tobacco products, firearms, and ammunition) on form TTB F 5620.8. Taxpayers also use this form to request drawback on excise taxes paid on distilled spirits used in non-beverage products. Respondents submit the form to TTB along with supporting documentation, stating the reason for, and circumstances of, the claim. This information is necessary to protect the revenue as it allows TTB to determine if the claim qualifies for relief.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announces a meeting of the Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee (MDIAC).
The OCC MDIAC will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The OCC will hold the September 18, 2018 meeting of the MDIAC at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
Beverly Cole, Designated Federal Officer and Deputy Comptroller for Compliance Supervision, (202) 649-6862, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC 20219.
By this notice, the OCC is announcing that the MDIAC will convene a meeting at 8:30 a.m. EDT on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. Agenda items will include current topics of interest to the industry. The purpose of the meeting is for the MDIAC to advise the OCC on steps the agency may be able to take to ensure the continued health and viability of minority depository institutions and other issues of concern to minority depository institutions. Members of the public may submit written statements to the MDIAC by any one of the following methods:
•
•
The OCC must receive written statements no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, September 11, 2018. Members of the public who plan to attend the meeting should contact the OCC by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, September 11, 2018, to inform the OCC of their desire to attend the meeting and to provide information that will be required to facilitate entry into the meeting. Members of the public may contact the OCC via email at
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On August 21, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. NAGIBIN, Anton Aleksandrovich, Russia; DOB 20 May 1985; POB Leningrad, Russia; Gender Male; Passport 712413714 (Russia) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: DIVETECHNOSERVICES).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, DIVETECHNOSERVICES, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
2. TSAREVA, Marina Igorevna, Russia; DOB 09 Nov 1973; POB Krasnoyarsk, Russia; nationality Russia; Gender Female; Passport 711002398 (Russia) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: DIVETECHNOSERVICES; Linked To: VELA-MARINE LTD.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, DIVETECHNOSERVICES, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, VELA-MARINE LTD., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
1. LACNO S.R.O., Cintorinska 9, Bratislava 81108, Slovakia; D-U-N-S Number 361680273; V.A.T. Number SK2024170423 (Slovakia) [CYBER2] (Linked To: DIVETECHNOSERVICES).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, DIVETECHNOSERVICES, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
2. VELA-MARINE LTD. (Cyrillic: OOO ВЕЛА-МАРИН), Saint Petersburg, Russia; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(D) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having attempted to act or purport to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, DIVETECHNOSERVICES, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons and vessels that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons and these vessels are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On August 21, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons, and the following vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are blocked pursuant to the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC (a.k.a. LLC GUDZON SHIPPING CO; a.k.a. OOO GUDZON SHIPPING CO; a.k.a. SK GUDZON, OOO), ul Tigorovaya 20A, Vladivostok, Primorskiy kray 690091, Russia; Company Number IMO 5753988 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(v) of Executive Order 13810 of September 20, 2017 “Imposing Additional Sanctions With Respect to North Korea” (E.O. 13810) for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of KOREA ACHIM SHPG CO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810.
2. PRIMORYE MARITIME LOGISTICS CO LTD (a.k.a. “PML CO LTD”), 01 ul Tigorovaya 20A, Vladivostok, Primorskiy kray 690091, Russia; Company Number IMO 5993381 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(v) of E.O. 13810 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of KOREA ACHIM SHPG CO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810.
1. BELLA Russia flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8808264 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
2. BOGATYR Russia flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9085730 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
3. NEPTUN Russia flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8404991 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
4. PARTIZAN Russia flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9113020 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
5. PATRIOT Russia flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9003550 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: PRIMORYE MARITIME LOGISTICS CO LTD; Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
Also identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which PRIMORYE MARITIME LOGISTICS CO LTD, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
6. SEVASTOPOL Russia flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9235127 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of new matching program.
Pursuant to section 552a(e)(12) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the conduct of Matching Programs, notice is hereby given of the conduct of the re-established Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Data Loss Prevention Computer Matching Program. The program helps the IRS detect potential violations of security policies to determine whether there has been an actual violation by matching data from existing IRS systems of records.
Comments on this matching notice must be received no later than 30 days after date of publication in the
Inquiries may be sent by mail to the Office of Privacy, Governmental Liaison and Disclosure, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
David Silverman, Management and Program Analyst, IRS Privacy, Governmental Liaison and Disclosure, 202-317-6452 (not a toll-free number).
The notice of the matching program was last published at
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.
Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in Washington, DC.
The meeting will be held September 13, 2018.
The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 999 North Capitol Street NE, Washington, DC 20003.
Maricarmen Cuello, AP:SEPR:AAS, 51 SW 1st Avenue, Room 1014, Miami, FL 33130. Telephone (305) 982-5364 (not a toll free number).
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 999 North Capitol Street NE, Washington, DC 20003.
The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in sections 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), of the Government in the Sunshine Act, and that the meeting will not be open to the public.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before September 24, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice—announcement of public meeting.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is holding a public meeting to seek information from pertinent entities relating to establishing standards for quality regarding hospital care, medical services, and extended care services furnished by the Department, including through non-Department health care providers.
VA will hold the public meeting on Monday, September 24, 2018, in Arlington, VA. The meeting will start at 10:00 a.m. and conclude on or before 4:00 p.m. Check-in will begin at 9:00 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Veterans Health Administration National Conference Center at 2011 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. This facility is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
* In-person attendance will be limited to 60 individuals. Advanced registration for individuals and groups is strongly encouraged (see registration instructions below). For listening purposes only (phone lines will be muted), the meeting will be available via audio which can be accessed by dialing 1 (800) 767-1750, access code 21398.
Please submit all written comments no later than Tuesday, October 16, 2018, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Chris Rossio, Health System Specialist, Office of Strategic Integration/Veterans Resource Center, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (858) 245-9493. This is not a toll-free number.
The John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018, Public Law 115-182, (the VA MISSION Act) created a new 1703C in title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), that contains requirements for VA to facilitate the establishment and use of standards for quality. Section 1703C(a)(4) specifically requires VA to consult with all pertinent Federal entities (including the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services), entities in the private sector, and other non-governmental entities in establishing standards for quality. In establishing standards for quality, VA is required to consider existing health quality measures that are applied to public and privately sponsored health care systems with the purpose of providing covered Veterans relevant comparative information to make informed decisions regarding their health care. VA requests information from the public regarding the development of these standards for quality, including but not limited to, information on the use of standards for quality and the use and availability of comparative information to assist consumers in making informed decisions regarding their health care. Responses to this notice will support industry research and VA's development of standards for quality regarding care furnished by the Department, including through non-Department health care providers. This public meeting serves as one of the means for VA to consult with these groups and entities. We note that VA has published a request for information elsewhere in this issue of the
In order to submit a report to Congress detailing the standards for quality by March 3, 2019, VA must expedite this consultation, which will be foundational to the process of determining the standards for quality.
Pursuant to section 1703C(a)(3)-(4) of title 38, U.S.C., as added by section 104(a) of Public Law 115-182, (the VA MISSION Act), VA requests information that will assist in developing the standards for quality required by the VA MISSION Act. This includes datasets that include, at a minimum, elements relating to timely care, effective care, safety (including, at a minimum, complications, readmissions, and deaths), and efficiency.
Specifically, VA requests information related to the below:
1. What standards for quality do public or private providers or health systems currently use? How do public or private providers or health systems measure performance against these standards for quality (
2. How does the health system communicate standards for quality to their stakeholders?
3. How are data on quality standards obtained or collected from public or private providers and health systems?
4. Does the public or private provider or health system publicly report performance on those quality standards, including comparisons of quality measures, and in what manner?
5. How does the public or private provider or health system respond to findings when quality standards are not being met?
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 21, 2018, for publication.
Office of Reporting, Analytics, Performance, Improvement, and Deployment (RAPID), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice; request for information.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is requesting information to assist in establishing health care standards for quality regarding hospital care, medical services, and extended care services furnished by the Department, including through non-Department health care providers.
Comments must be received by VA on or before September 24, 2018.
Written comments may be submitted through
Chris Rossio, Health System Specialist, Office of Strategic Integration | Veterans Engineering Resource Center (OSI|VERC), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (858) 245-9493. This is not a toll-free number.
The John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018, Public Law 115-182, (the VA MISSION Act) created a new 1703C in title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), that contains requirements for VA to facilitate the establishment and use of standards for quality. In establishing standards for quality, VA is required to consider existing health quality measures that are applied to public and privately sponsored health care systems with the purpose of providing covered Veterans relevant comparative information to make informed decisions regarding their health care. VA requests information from the public regarding the development of these standards for quality, including but not limited to information on the use of standards for quality and the use and availability of comparative information to assist consumers in making informed decisions regarding their health care. Responses to this notice will support industry research and VA's development of standards for quality regarding care furnished by the
Section 1703C(a)(4) specifically requires VA to consult with all pertinent Federal entities (including the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services), entities in the private sector, and other non-governmental entities in establishing standards for quality. We note that VA will also hold a public meeting on Monday, September 24, 2018, to provide these groups and entities an opportunity to provide additional information. The meeting notice is published elsewhere in this issue of the
In order to submit a report to Congress detailing the standards for quality by March 3, 2019, VA must expedite this consultation, which will be foundational to the process of determining the health care standards for quality. Hence, this notice and request for information has a comment period of 30 days. VA believes that 30 days is sufficient to provide comments, as the groups and entities with expertise in standards for quality will likely have the information readily available or can quickly compile and submit such information.
This notice is a request for information only. Commenters are encouraged to provide complete but concise responses to the questions outlined below. VA may choose to contact individual commenters, and such communications would serve to further clarify their written comments.
VA requests information that will assist in developing the standards for quality required by the VA MISSION Act. This includes datasets that include, at a minimum, elements relating to timely care, effective care, safety (including, at a minimum, complications, readmissions, and deaths), and efficiency.
Specifically, VA requests information related to the following:
1. What standards for quality do public or private providers or health systems currently use? How do public or private providers or health systems measure performance against these standards for quality (
2. How does the health system communicate standards for quality to their stakeholders?
3. How are data on quality standards obtained or collected from public or private providers and health systems?
4. Does the public or private provider or health system publicly report performance on those quality standards, including comparisons of quality measures, and in what manner?
5. How does the public or private provider or health system respond to findings when quality standards are not being met?
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 21, 2018, for publication.
Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are proposing the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks” (SAFE Vehicles Rule). The SAFE Vehicles Rule, if finalized, would amend certain existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards, all covering model years 2021 through 2026. More specifically, NHTSA is proposing new CAFE standards for model years 2022 through 2026 and amending its 2021 model year CAFE standards because they are no longer maximum feasible standards, and EPA is proposing to amend its carbon dioxide emissions standards for model years 2021 through 2025 because they are no longer appropriate and reasonable in addition to establishing new standards for model year 2026. The preferred alternative is to retain the model year 2020 standards (specifically, the footprint target curves for passenger cars and light trucks) for both programs through model year 2026, but comment is sought on a range of alternatives discussed throughout this document. Compared to maintaining the post-2020 standards set forth in 2012, current estimates indicate that the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule would save over 500 billion dollars in societal costs and reduce highway fatalities by 12,700 lives (over the lifetimes of vehicles through MY 2029). U.S. fuel consumption would increase by about half a million barrels per day (2-3 percent of total daily consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration) and would impact the global climate by 3/1000th of one degree Celsius by 2100, also when compared to the standards set forth in 2012.
You may send comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283 and/or NHTSA-2018-0067, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
○
○
•
○
○
•
•
In this notice, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (collectively, “the agencies”) are proposing the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks” (SAFE Vehicles Rule). The proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule would set Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and carbon dioxide (CO
The agencies must act to propose and finalize these standards and do not have discretion to decline to regulate. Congress requires NHTSA to set CAFE standards for each model year.
Consistent with both agencies' statutes, this proposal is entirely
On March 15, 2017, President Trump announced a restoration of the original mid-term review timeline. The President made clear in his remarks, “[i]f the standards threatened auto jobs, then commonsense changes” would be made in order to protect the economic viability of the U.S. automotive industry.”
On August 21, 2017, EPA published a notice in the
EPA has since concluded, based on more recent information, that those standards are no longer appropriate.
The proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule begins the rulemaking process for both agencies to establish new standards for MYs 2022-2025 passenger cars and light trucks. Standards are concurrently being proposed for MY 2026 in order to provide regulatory stability for as many years as is legally permissible for both agencies together.
Separately, the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule includes revised standards for MY 2021 passenger cars and light trucks. The information now available and the current analysis suggest that the CAFE standards previously set for MY 2021 are no longer maximum feasible, and the CO
Thus, the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule would maintain the CAFE and CO
While actual requirements will ultimately vary for automakers depending upon their individual fleet mix of vehicles, many stakeholders will likely be interested in the current estimate of what the MY 2020 CAFE and CO
In the tables above, estimated required CO
As explained above, the agencies are taking comment on a wide range of alternatives and have specifically modeled eight alternatives (including the proposed alternative) and the current requirements (
Since finalizing the agencies' previous joint rulemaking in 2012 titled “Final Rule for Model Year 2017 and Later Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,” and even since EPA's 2016 and early 2017 “mid-term evaluation” process, the agencies have gathered new information, and have performed new analysis. That new information and analysis has led the
The technology to improve fuel economy and reduce CO
As fleet-wide fuel efficiency has improved over time, additional improvements have become both more complicated and more costly. There are two primary reasons for this phenomenon. First, as discussed, there is a known pool of technologies for improving fuel economy and reducing CO
Thus, even though the technologies may be largely the same, previous assumptions about how much fuel can be saved or how much emissions can be reduced by employing various technologies may not have played out as prior analyses suggested, meaning that previous assumptions about how much it would cost to save that much fuel or reduce that much in emissions fall correspondingly short. For example, the agencies assumed in the 2010 final rule that dual clutch transmissions would be widely used to improve fuel economy due to expectations of strong effectiveness and very low cost: In practice, dual clutch transmissions had significant customer acceptance issues, and few manufacturers employ them in the U.S. market today.
To be clear, this is no one's “fault”—the CAFE and CO
As fleet-wide fuel efficiency improves and CO
For purposes of illustration, assume a vehicle owner who drives a light vehicle 15,000 miles per year (a typical assumption for analytical purposes).
If fuel prices are high, the value of those gallons may be enough to offset the cost of further fuel economy improvements, but (1) the most recent reference case projections in the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO 2017 and AEO 2018) do not indicate particularly high fuel prices in the foreseeable future, given underlying assumptions,
This effect is mathematical in nature and long-established, but when combined with relatively low fuel prices potentially through 2050, and the likelihood that a large majority of American consumers could consequently continue to place a higher value on vehicle attributes other than fuel economy, it makes manufacturers' ability to sell light vehicles with ever-higher fuel economy and ever-lower carbon dioxide emissions increasingly difficult. Put more simply, if gas is cheap and each additional improvement saves less gas anyway, most consumers would rather spend their money on attributes other than fuel economy when they are considering a new vehicle purchase, whether that is more safety technology, a better infotainment package, a more powerful powertrain, or other features (or, indeed, they may prefer to spend the savings on something other than automobiles). Manufacturers trying to sell consumers more fuel economy in such circumstances may convince consumers who place weight on efficiency and reduced carbon emissions, but consumers decide for themselves what attributes are worth to them. And while some contend that consumers do not sufficiently consider or value future fuel savings when making vehicle purchasing decisions,
In 2012, the agencies projected fuel prices would rise significantly, and the United States would continue to rely heavily upon imports of oil, subjecting the country to heightened risk of price shocks.
At least partially in response to lower fuel prices, consumers have moved more heavily into crossovers, sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks, than anticipated at the time of the last rulemaking. Because standards are based on footprint and specified separately for passenger cars and light trucks, these shifts do not necessarily pose compliance challenges by themselves, but they tend to reduce the overall average fuel economy rates and increase the overall average CO
Consumers tend to avoid purchasing things that they neither want or need. The analysis in today's proposal moves closer to being able to represent this fact through an improved model for vehicle scrappage rates. While neither this nor a sales response model, also included in today's analysis, nor the combination of the two, are consumer choice models, today's analysis illustrates market-wide impacts on the sale of new vehicles and the retention of used vehicles. Higher vehicle prices, which result from more-stringent fuel economy standards, have an effect on consumer purchasing decisions. As prices increase, the market-wide incentive to extract additional travel from used vehicles increases. The average age of the in-service fleet has been increasing, and when fleet turnover slows, not only does it take longer for fleet-wide fuel economy and CO
Along with these gains, there have also been tremendous increases in vehicle prices, as new vehicles become increasingly unaffordable—with the average new vehicle transaction price
For all of these reasons, the agencies are proposing to maintain the MY 2020 fuel economy and CO
EPCA requires that NHTSA, when determining the maximum feasible levels of CAFE standards, consider the need of the Nation to conserve energy. However, EPCA also requires that NHTSA consider other factors, such as technological feasibility and economic practicability. The analysis suggests that, compared to the standards issued previously for MYs 2021-2025, today's proposed rule will eventually (by the early 2030s) increase U.S. petroleum consumption by about 0.5 million barrels per day—about two to three percent of projected total U.S. consumption. While significant, this additional petroleum consumption is, from an economic perspective, dwarfed by the cost savings also projected to result from today's proposal, as indicated by the consideration of net benefits appearing below.
Today's proposed rule is anticipated to prevent more than 12,700 on-road fatalities
Recent NHTSA analysis shows that the proportion of passengers killed in a vehicle 18 or more model years old is nearly double that of a vehicle three model years old or newer.
Improving fleet turnover will result in consumers getting into newer and cleaner vehicles, accelerating the rate at which older, more-polluting vehicles are removed from the roadways. Also, reducing fuel economy (relative to levels that would occur under previously-issued standards) would increase the marginal cost of driving newer vehicles, reducing mileage accumulated by those vehicles, and reducing corresponding emissions. On the other hand, increasing fuel consumption would increase emissions resulting from petroleum refining and related “upstream” processes. Our analysis shows that none of the regulatory alternatives considered in this proposal would noticeably impact net emissions of smog-forming or other “criteria” or toxic air pollutants, as illustrated by the following graph. That said, the resultant tailpipe emissions reductions should be especially beneficial to highly trafficked corridors.
The estimated effects of this proposal in terms of fuel savings and CO
Maintaining the MY 2020 curves for MYs 2021-2026 will save American consumers, the auto industry, and the public a considerable amount of money as compared to if EPA retained the previously-set CO
These estimates, reported as changes relative to impacts under the standards issued in 2012, account for impacts on vehicles produced during model years 2016-2029, as well as (through changes in utilization) vehicles produced in earlier model years, throughout those vehicles' useful lives. Reported values are in 2016 dollars, and reflect three-percent and seven-percent discount rates. Under CAFE standards, costs are estimated to decrease by $502 billion overall at a three-percent discount rate ($335 billion at a seven-percent discount rate); benefits are estimated to decrease by $326 billion at a three-percent discount rate ($204 billion at a seven-percent discount rate). Thus, net benefits are estimated to increase by $176 billion at a three-percent discount rate and $132 billion at a seven-percent discount rate. The estimated impacts under CO
This proposal also seeks comment on a variety of changes to NHTSA's and EPA's compliance programs for CAFE and CO
Both programs provide for the generation of credits based upon fleet-wide over-compliance, provide for adjustments to the test measured value of each individual vehicle based upon the implementation of certain fuel saving technologies, and provide additional incentives for the implementation of certain preferred technologies (regardless of actual fuel savings). Auto manufacturers and others have petitioned for a host of additional adjustment- and incentive-type flexibilities, where there is not always consumer interest in the technologies to be incentivized nor is there necessarily clear fuel-saving and emissions-reducing benefit to be derived from that incentivization. The agencies seek comment on all of those requests as part of this proposal.
Over-compliance credits, which can be built up in part through use of the above-described per-vehicle adjustments and incentives, can be saved and either applied retroactively to accounts for previous non-compliance, or carried forward to mitigate future non-compliance. Such credits can also be traded to other automakers for cash or for other credits for different fleets. But such trading is not pursued openly. Under the CAFE program, the public is not made aware of inter-automaker trades, nor are shareholders. And even the agencies are not informed of the price of credits. With the exception of statutorily-mandated credits, the agencies seek comment on all aspects of the current system. The agencies are particularly interested in comments on flexibilities that may distort the market.
Setting appropriate and maximum feasible fuel economy and tailpipe CO
EPA granted a waiver of preemption to California in 2013 for its “Advanced Clean Car” regulations, composed of its GHG standards, its “Low Emission Vehicle (LEV)” program and the ZEV program,
Attempting to solve climate change, even in part, through the Section 209 waiver provision is fundamentally different from that section's original purpose of addressing smog-related air quality problems. When California was merely trying to solve its air quality issues, there was a relatively-straightforward technology solution to the problems, implementation of which did not affect how consumers lived and drove. Section 209 allowed California to pursue additional reductions to address its notorious smog problems by requiring more stringent standards, and allowed California and other States that failed to comply with Federal air quality standards to make progress toward compliance. Trying to reduce carbon emissions from motor vehicles in any significant way involves changes to the entire vehicle, not simply the addition of a single or a handful of control technologies. The greater the emissions reductions are sought, the greater the likelihood that the characteristics and capabilities of the vehicle currently sought by most American consumers will have to change significantly. Yet, even decades later, California continues to be in widespread non-attainment with Federal air quality standards.
Moreover, California regulation of tailpipe CO
Improving fuel economy means getting the vehicle to go farther on a gallon of gas; a vehicle that goes farther on a gallon of gas produces less CO
Eliminating California's regulation of fuel economy pursuant to Congressional direction will provide benefits to the American public. The automotive industry will, appropriately, deal with fuel economy standards on a national basis—eliminating duplicative regulatory requirements. Further, elimination of California's ZEV program will allow automakers to develop such vehicles in response to consumer demand instead of regulatory mandate. This regulatory mandate has required automakers to spend tens of billions of dollars to develop products that a significant majority of consumers have not adopted, and consequently to sell such products at a loss. All of this is paid for through cross subsidization by increasing prices of other vehicles not just in California and other States that have adopted California's ZEV mandate, but throughout the country.
The agencies look forward to all comments on this proposal, and wish to emphasize that obtaining public input is extremely important to us in selecting from among the alternatives in a final rule. While the agencies and the Administration met with a variety of stakeholders prior to issuance of this proposal, those meetings have not resulted in a predetermined final rule outcome. The Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies provide the
The agencies' analysis of CAFE and CO
The agencies' analysis uses the CAFE model to estimate manufacturers' potential responses to new CAFE and CO
DOT's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (often simply referred to as the “Volpe Center”) develops, maintains, and applies the model for NHTSA. NHTSA has used the CAFE model to perform analyses supporting every CAFE rulemaking since 2001, and the 2016 rulemaking regarding heavy-duty pickup and van fuel consumption and GHG emissions also used the CAFE model for analysis.
DOT recently arranged for a formal peer review of the model. In general, reviewers' comments strongly supported the model's conceptual basis and implementation, and commenters provided several specific recommendations. DOT staff agreed with many of these recommendations and have worked to implement them wherever practicable. Implementing some of them would require considerable further research, development, and testing, and will be considered going forward. For a handful of other recommendations, DOT staff disagreed, often finding the recommendations involved considerations (
The agencies also use four DOE and DOE-sponsored models to develop inputs to the CAFE model, including three developed and maintained by DOE's Argonne National Laboratory. The agencies use the DOE Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate fuel prices,
EPA developed two models after 2009, referred to as the “ALPHA” and “OMEGA” models, which provide some of the same capabilities as the Autonomie and CAFE models. EPA applied the OMEGA model to conduct analysis of GHG standards promulgated in 2010 and 2012, and the ALPHA and OMEGA models to conduct analysis discussed in the above-mentioned 2016 Draft TAR and Proposed and Final Determinations regarding standards beyond 2021. In an August 2017 notice, the agencies requested comments on, among other things, whether EPA should use alternative methodologies and modeling, including DOE/Argonne's Autonomie full-vehicle simulation tool and DOT's CAFE model.
Having reviewed comments on the subject and having considered the matter fully, the agencies have determined it is reasonable and appropriate to use DOE/Argonne's model for full-vehicle simulation, and to use DOT's CAFE model for analysis of regulatory alternatives. EPA interprets Section 202(a) of the CAA as giving the agency broad discretion in how it develops and sets GHG standards for light-duty vehicles. Nothing in Section 202(a) mandates that EPA use any specific model or set of models for analysis of potential CO
Because the CAFE model simulates a wide range of actual constraints and practices related to automotive engineering, planning, and production, such as common vehicle platforms, sharing of engines among different vehicle models, and timing of major vehicle redesigns, the analysis produced by the CAFE model provides a transparent and realistic basis to show pathways manufacturers could follow over time in applying new technologies, which helps better assess impacts of potential future standards. Furthermore, because the CAFE model also accounts fully for regulatory compliance provisions (now including CO
There are sound reasons for the agencies to use the CAFE model going forward in this rulemaking. First, the CAFE and CO
Considering the technological heterogeneity of manufacturers' current product offerings, and the wide range of ways in which the many fuel economy-improving/CO
Additionally, DOE/Argonne's Autonomie also has a long history of development and widespread application by a much wider range of users in government, academia, and industry. Many of these users apply Autonomie to inform funding and design decisions. These real-world exercises have contributed significantly to aspects of Autonomie important to producing realistic estimates of fuel economy levels and CO
Commenters have also suggested that the CAFE model's graphical user interface (GUI) facilitates others' ability to use the model quickly—and without specialized knowledge or training—and to comment accordingly.
Beyond these general considerations, several specific related technical comments and considerations underlie the agencies' decision in this area, as discussed, where applicable, in the remainder of this Section.
Other commenters expressed a number of concerns with whether DOT's CAFE model could be used for CAA analysis. Many of these concerns focused on inputs used by the CAFE model for prior rulemaking analyses.
Moreover, DOT's CAFE model with inputs from DOE/Argonne's Autonomie model has produced analysis supporting rulemaking under the CAA. In 2015, EPA proposed new GHG standards for MY 2021-2027 heavy-duty pickups and vans, finalizing standards in 2016. Supporting the NPRM and final rule, EPA relied on analysis implemented by DOT using DOT's CAFE model, and DOT used inputs developed by DOE/Argonne using DOE/Argonne's Autonomie model.
The following sections provide a brief technical overview of the CAFE model, including changes NHTSA made to the model since 2012, before discussing inputs to the model and then diving more deeply into how the model works. For more information on the latter topic, see the CAFE model documentation July 2018 draft, available in the docket for this rulemaking and on NHTSA's website.
The CAFE model is designed to simulate compliance with a given set of CAFE or CO
Today's analysis reflects several changes made to the CAFE model since 2012, when NHTSA used the model to estimate the effects, costs, and benefits of final CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles produced during MYs 2017-2021 and augural standards for MYs 2022-2025. Key changes relevant to this analysis include the following:
• Expansion of model inputs, procedures, and outputs to accommodate technologies not included in prior analyses,
• Updated approach to estimating the combined effect of fuel-saving technologies using large scale simulation modeling,
• Modules that dynamically estimate new vehicle sales and existing vehicle scrappage in response to changes to new vehicle prices that result from manufacturers' compliance actions,
• A safety module that estimates the changes in light-duty traffic fatalities resulting from changes to vehicle exposure, vehicle retirement rates, and reductions in vehicle mass to improve fuel economy,
• Disaggregation of each manufacturer's fleet into separate “domestic” passenger car and “import” passenger car fleets to better represent the statutory requirements of the CAFE program,
• Changes to the algorithm used to apply technologies, enabling more explicit accounting of shared vehicle components (engines, transmissions, platforms) and “inheritance” of major technology within or across powertrains and/or platforms over time,
• An industry labor quantity module, which estimates net changes in the amount of U.S. automobile labor for dealerships, Tier 1 and 2 supplier companies, and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs),
• Cost estimation of batteries for electrification technologies incorporates an updated version of Argonne National Laboratory's BatPAC (battery) model for hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in
• Expanded accounting for CAFE credits carried over from years prior to those included in the analysis (a.k.a. “banked” credits) and application to future CAFE deficits to better evaluate anticipated manufacturer responses to proposed standards,
• The ability to represent a manufacturer's preference for fine payment (rather than achieving full compliance exclusively through fuel economy improvements) on a year-by-year basis,
• Year-by-year simulation of how manufacturers could comply with EPA's CO
○ Calculation of vehicle models' CO
○ Calculation of manufacturers' fleet average CO
○ Calculation of manufacturers' fleet average CO
○ Accounting for adjustments to average CO
○ Accounting for the treatment of alternative fuel vehicles for CO
○ Accounting for production “multipliers” for PHEVs, BEVs, compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs),
○ Accounting for transfer of CO
○ Accounting for carried-forward (a.k.a. “banked”) CO
Today's notice presents estimated impacts of the proposed CAFE and CO
These alternatives were examined because they will be considered as options for the final rule. The agencies seek comment on these alternatives, seek any relevant data and information, and will review responses. That review could lead to the selection of one of the other regulatory alternatives for the final rule or some combination of the other regulatory alternatives (
Because outputs depend on inputs (
The following sections describe what the analysis fleet is and why it is used, how it was developed for this NPRM, and the analysis-fleet-related topics on which comment is sought.
The starting point for the evaluation of the potential feasibility of different stringency levels for future CAFE and CO
Part of reflecting what vehicles will exist in future model years is knowing which vehicles are produced by which manufacturers, how many of each are sold, and whether they are passenger cars or light trucks. This is important because it improves our understanding of the overall impacts of different levels of CAFE and CO
Another part of reflecting what vehicles will exist in future model years is knowing what technologies are already on those vehicles. Accounting for technologies already being on vehicles helps avoid “double-counting” the value of those technologies, by assuming they are still available to be applied to improve fuel economy and reduce CO
Yet, another part of reflecting what vehicles will exist in future model years is having reasonable real-world assumptions about when certain technologies can be applied to vehicles. Each vehicle model/configuration in the analysis fleet also has information about its redesign schedule,
A final important aspect of reflecting what vehicles will exist in future model years and potential manufacturer responses to standards is estimating how future sales might change in response to different potential standards. If potential future standards appear likely to have major effects in terms of shifting production from cars to trucks (or vice versa), or in terms of shifting sales between manufacturers or groups of manufacturers, that is important for the agencies to consider. For previous analyses, the CAFE model used a static forecast contained in the analysis fleet input file, which specified changes in production volumes over time for each vehicle model/configuration. This approach yielded results that, in terms of production volumes, did not change between scenarios or with changes in important model inputs. For example, very stringent standards with very high technology costs would result in the same estimated production volumes as less stringent standards with very low technology costs.
New for today's proposal, the CAFE model begins with the first-year production volumes (
The input file for the CAFE model characterizing the analysis fleet
The source data for the vehicle models/configurations in the analysis fleet and their technologies is a central input for the analysis. The sections below discuss pros and cons of different potential sources and what was used for this proposal.
Since 2001, CAFE analysis has used either confidential, forward-estimating product plans from manufacturers, or publicly available data on vehicles already sold, as a starting point for determining what technologies can be applied to what vehicles in response to potential different levels of standards. These two sources present a tradeoff. Confidential product plans comprehensively represent what vehicles a manufacturer expects to produce in coming years, accounting for plans to introduce new vehicles and fuel-saving technologies and, for example, plans to discontinue other vehicles and even brands. This information can be very thorough and can improve the accuracy of the analysis, but for competitive reasons, most of this information must be redacted prior to publication with rulemaking documentation. This makes it difficult for public commenters to reproduce the analysis for themselves as
An analysis fleet based primarily on public sources can be released to the public, solving the issue of commenters being unable to reproduce the overall analysis when they want to. However, industry commenters have argued such an analysis fleet cannot accurately reflect manufacturers actual plans to apply fuel-saving technologies (
Based on the assumption that a publicly-available analysis fleet continues to be desirable, for this NPRM, an analysis fleet was constructed starting with CAFE compliance information from manufacturers.
The analysis fleet was initially developed with 2016 mid-model year compliance data because final compliance data was not available at that time, and the timing provided manufacturers the opportunity to review and comment on the characterization of their vehicles in the fleet. With a view toward developing an accurate characterization of the 2016 fleet to serve as an analytical starting point, corrections and updates to mid-year data (
Sales, footprint, and fuel economy values with final compliance data were also updated if that data was available. In a few cases, final production and fuel economy values may be slightly different for specific model year 2016 vehicle models and configurations than are indicated in today's analysis; however, other vehicle characteristics (
Manufacturers integrated a significant amount of new technology in the MY 2016 fleet, and this was especially true for newly-designed vehicles launched in MY 2016. While subsequent fleets will involve even further application of technology, using available data for MY 2016 provides the most realistic detailed foundation for analysis that can be made available publicly in full detail, allowing stakeholders to independently reproduce the analysis presented in this proposal. Insofar as future product offerings are likely to be more similar to vehicles produced in 2016 than to vehicles produced in earlier model years, using available data regarding the 2016 model year provides the most realistic, publicly releasable foundation for constructing a forecast of the future vehicle market for this proposal.
A number of comments to the Draft TAR, EPA's Proposed Determination, and EPA's 2017 Request for Comment
Generally, all else being equal, using a newer analysis fleet will produce more realistic estimates of impacts of potential new standards than using an outdated analysis fleet. However, among relatively current options, a balance must be struck between, on one hand, inputs' freshness, and on the other, inputs' completeness and accuracy.
In short, the 2016 fleet was, in fact, the most up-to-date fleet that could be produced for this NPRM. Moreover, during late 2016 and early 2017, nearly all manufacturers provided comments on the characterization of their vehicles in the analysis fleet, and many provided specific feedback about their vehicles, including aerodynamic drag coefficients, tire rolling resistance values, transmission efficiencies, and other information used in the analysis. NHTSA worked with manufacturers to clarify and correct some information and integrated the information into a single input file for use in the CAFE model. Accordingly, the current analysis fleet is reasonable to use for purposes of the NPRM analysis.
As always, however, ways to improve the analysis fleet used for subsequent modeling to evaluate potential new CAFE and CO
As explained above, the analysis fleet is defined not only by the vehicle models/configurations it contains but also by the technologies on those vehicles. Each vehicle model/configuration in the analysis fleet has an associated list of observed technologies and equipment that can improve fuel economy and reduce CO
In many cases, vehicle technology is clearly observable from the 2016 compliance data (
Either in mid-year compliance data for MY 2016 or, separately and at the agencies' invitation (as discussed above), most manufacturers identified most of the technology already present in each of their MY 2016 vehicle model/configurations. This information was not as complete for all manufacturers' products as needed for today's analysis, so in some cases, information was supplemented with publicly available data, typically from manufacturer media sites. In limited cases, manufacturers did not supply information, and information from commercial and publicly available sources was used.
While each vehicle model/configuration in the analysis fleet has its list of observed technologies and equipment, the ways in which manufacturers apply technologies and equipment do not always coincide perfectly with how the analysis characterizes the various technologies that improve fuel economy and reduce CO
In the analysis fleet, inputs assign each specific vehicle model/configuration to a technology class, and once there, map to the simulation within that technology class most closely matching the combination of observed technologies and equipment on that vehicle.
Another aspect of characterizing vehicle model/configurations in the analysis fleet is based on whether they share a “platform” with other vehicle model/configurations. A “platform” refers to engineered underpinnings shared on several differentiated products. Manufacturers share and standardize components, systems, tooling, and assembly processes within their products (and occasionally with the products of another manufacturer) to cost-effectively maintain vibrant portfolios.
Vehicle model/configurations derived from the same platform are so identified in the analysis fleet. Many manufacturers' use of vehicle platforms is well documented in the public record and widely recognized among the vehicle engineering community. Engineering knowledge, information from trade publications, and feedback from manufacturers and suppliers was also used to assign vehicle platforms in the analysis fleet.
When the CAFE model is deciding where and how to add technology to vehicles, if one vehicle on the platform receives new technology, other vehicles on the platform also receive the technology as part of their next major redesign or refresh.
It is important to note that manufacturers define common engines differently. Some manufacturers consider engines as “common” if the engines shared an architecture, components, or manufacturing processes. Other manufacturers take a narrower definition, and only assume “common” engines if the parts in the engine assembly are the same. In some cases, manufacturers designate each engine in each application as a unique powertrain.
Like with engines, manufacturers often use transmissions that are the same or similar on multiple vehicles.
Having all vehicles that share a platform (or engines that are part of a family) adopt fuel economy-improving/CO
Options will be considered to further refine the representation of sharing and inheritance of technology, possibly including model revisions to account for tradeoffs between fuel economy and performance when applying technology. Please provide comments on the sharing and inheritance-related aspects of the analysis fleet and the CAFE model along with information that would support refinement of the current approach or development and implementation of alternative approaches.
Another aspect of characterizing vehicle model/configurations in the analysis fleet is based on when they can next be refreshed or redesigned. Redesign schedules play an important role in determining when new technologies may be applied. Many technologies that improve fuel economy and reduce CO
To develop the refresh/redesign cycles used for the MY 2016 vehicles in the analysis fleet, information from commercially available sources was used to project redesign cycles through MY 2022, as for NHTSA's analysis for the Draft TAR published in 2016.
Some commenters suggested supplanting these estimated redesign schedules with estimates applying faster cycles (
Manufacturers use diverse strategies with respect to when, and how often they update vehicle designs. While most vehicles have been redesigned sometime in the last five years, many vehicles have not. In particular, vehicles with lower annual sales volumes tend to be redesigned less frequently, perhaps giving manufacturers more time to amortize the investment needed to bring the product to market. In some cases, manufacturers continue to produce and sell vehicles designed more than a decade ago.
Each manufacturer may use different strategies throughout their product portfolio, and a component of each strategy may include the timing of refresh and redesign cycles. Table II-3 below summarizes the average time between redesigns, by manufacturer, by vehicle technology class.
There are a few notable observations from this table. Pick-up trucks have much longer redesign schedules (7.8 years on average) than small cars (5.5 years on average). Some manufacturers redesign vehicles often (every 5.2 years in the case of Hyundai), while other manufacturers redesign vehicles less often (FCA waits on average 8.6 years between vehicle redesigns). Across the industry, light-duty vehicle designs last for about 6.5 years.
Even if two manufacturers have similar redesign cadence, the model years in which the redesigns occur may still be different and dependent on where each of the manufacturer's products are in their life cycle.
Table II-4 summarizes the average age of manufacturers' offering by vehicle technology class. A value of “0.0” means that every vehicle for a manufacturer in that vehicle technology class, represented in the MY 2016 analysis fleet was new in MY 2016. Across the industry, manufacturers redesigned MY 2016 vehicles an average of 3.2 years earlier.
Based on historical observations and refresh/redesign schedule forecasts, careful consideration to redesign cycles for each manufacturer and each vehicle is important. Simply assuming every vehicle is redesigned by 2021 and by 2025 is not appropriate, as this would misrepresent both the likely timing of redesigns and the likely time between redesigns in most cases.
As in the past four CAFE rulemakings, the most recent two of which included related standards for CO
Under attribute-based standards, every vehicle model has fuel economy and CO
Here,
The idea is to select the shape of the mathematical function relating the standard to the fuel economy-related attribute to reflect the trade-offs manufacturers face in producing more of that attribute over fuel efficiency (due to technological limits of production and relative demand of each attribute). If the shape captures these trade-offs, every manufacturer is more likely to continue adding fuel efficient technology across the distribution of the attribute within their fleet, instead of potentially changing the attribute—and other correlated attributes, including fuel economy—as a part of their compliance strategy. Attribute-based standards that achieve this have several advantages.
First, assuming the attribute is a measurement of vehicle size, attribute-based standards reduce the incentive for manufacturers to respond to CAFE standards by reducing vehicle size in ways harmful to safety.
Second, attribute-based standards, if properly fitted, better respect heterogeneous consumer preferences than do single-valued standards. As discussed above, a single-valued standard encourages a fleet mix with a larger share of smaller vehicles by creating incentives for manufacturers to use downsizing the average vehicle in their fleet (possibly through fleet mixing) as a compliance strategy, which may result in manufacturers building vehicles for compliance reasons that consumers do not want. Under a size-related, attribute-based standard, reducing the size of the vehicle is a less viable compliance strategy because smaller vehicles have more stringent regulatory targets. As a result, the fleet mix under such standards is more likely to reflect aggregate consumer demand for the size-related attribute used to determine vehicle targets.
Third, attribute-based standards provide a more equitable regulatory framework across heterogeneous manufacturers who may each produce different shares of vehicles along attributes correlated with fuel economy.
It is important that the CAFE and CO
First, mass is strongly correlated with fuel economy; it takes a certain amount of energy to move a certain amount of mass. Footprint has some positive correlation with frontal surface area, likely a negative correlation with aerodynamics, and therefore fuel economy, but the relationship is less deterministic. Mass and crush space (correlated with footprint) are both important safety considerations. As discussed below and in the accompanying PRIA, NHTSA's research of historical crash data indicates that holding footprint constant, and decreasing the mass of the largest vehicles, will have a net positive safety impact to drivers overall, while holding footprint constant and decreasing the mass of the smallest vehicles will have a net decrease in fleetwide safety. Properly fitted footprint-based standards provide little, if any, incentive to build smaller vehicles to meet CAFE and CO
Second, it is important that the attribute not be easily manipulated in a manner that does not achieve the goals of EPCA or other goals, such as safety. Although weight is more strongly correlated with fuel economy than footprint, there is less risk of manipulation (changing the attribute(s) to achieve a more favorable target) by increasing footprint under footprint-based standards than there would be 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
Further, some commenters on the MY 2011 CAFE rulemaking were concerned that there would be greater potential for gaming under multi-attribute standards, such as those that also depend on weight, torque, power, towing capability, and/or off-road capability. As discussed in NHTSA's MY 2011 CAFE final rule,
In requiring NHTSA to “prescribe by regulation separate average fuel economy standards for passenger and non-passenger automobiles based on 1 or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy and express each standard in the form of a mathematical function”, EPCA/EISA provides ample discretion regarding not only the selection of the attribute(s), but also regarding the nature of the function. The CAA provides no specific direction regarding CO
The decision of how to specify this mathematical function therefore reflects some amount of judgment. The function can be specified with a view toward achieving different environmental and petroleum reduction goals, encouraging different levels of application of fuel-saving technologies, avoiding any adverse effects on overall highway safety, reducing disparities of manufacturers' compliance burdens, and preserving consumer choice, among other aims. The following are among the specific technical concerns and resultant policy tradeoffs the agencies have considered in selecting the details of specific past and future curve shapes:
• Flatter standards (
• Steeper footprint-based standards may create incentives to upsize vehicles, potentially oversupplying vehicles of certain footprints beyond what consumers would naturally demand, and thus increasing the possibility that fuel savings and CO
• Given the same industry-wide average required fuel economy or CO
• Given the same industry-wide average required fuel economy or CO
• If cutpoints are adopted, given the same industry-wide average required fuel economy, moving small-vehicle cutpoints to the left (
• If cutpoints are adopted, given the same industry-wide average required fuel economy, moving large-vehicle cutpoints to the right (
Notwithstanding the aforementioned discretion under EPCA/EISA, data should inform consideration of potential mathematical functions, but how relevant data is defined and interpreted, and the choice of methodology for fitting a curve to that data, can and should include some consideration of specific policy goals. This section summarizes the methodologies and policy concerns that were considered in developing previous target curves (for a complete discussion see the 2012 FRIA).
As discussed below, the MY 2011 final curves followed a constrained logistic function defined specifically in the final rule.
Here,
The min and max functions will take the minimum and maximum values within their associated parentheses. Thus, the max function will first find the maximum of the fitted line at a given footprint value and the lower asymptote from the perspective of gpm. If the fitted line is below the lower asymptote it is replaced with the floor, which is also the minimum of the floor and the ceiling by definition, so that the target in mpg space will be the reciprocal of the floor in mpg space, or simply,
In this way curves specified as constrained linear functions are specified by the following parameters:
The slope and intercept are specified as gpm per sq. ft. and gpm instead of mpg per sq. ft. and mpg because fuel consumption and emissions appear roughly linearly related to gallons per mile (the reciprocal of the miles per gallon).
For the MY 2011 CAFE rule, NHTSA estimated fuel economy levels by footprint from the MY 2008 fleet after normalization for differences in technology,
For the MYs 2012-2016 rule, potential methods for specifying mathematical functions to define fuel economy and CO
The mathematical functions finalized in 2012 for MYs 2017 and beyond changed somewhat from the functions for the MYs 2012-2016 standards. These changes were made to both address comments from stakeholders, and to further consider some of the technical concerns and policy goals judged more preeminent under the increased uncertainty of the impacts of finalizing and proposing standards for model years further into the future.
By shifting the developed curves by a single factor, it is assumed that the underlying relationship of fuel consumption (in gallons per mile) to vehicle footprint does not change significantly from the model year data used to fit the curves to the range of model years for which the shifted curve shape is applied to develop the standards. However, it must be recognized that the relationship
For the above reasons, the curve shapes were reconsidered using the newest available data, from MY 2016. With a view toward corroboration through different techniques, a range of descriptive statistical analyses were conducted that do not require underlying engineering models of how fuel economy and footprint might be expected to be related, and a separate analysis that uses vehicle simulation results as the basis to estimate the relationship from a perspective more explicitly informed by engineering theory was conducted as well. Despite changes in the new vehicle fleet both in terms of technologies applied and in market demand, the underlying statistical relationship between footprint and fuel economy has not changed significantly since the MY 2008 fleet used for the 2012 final rule; therefore, it is proposed to continue to use the curve shapes fit in 2012. The analysis and reasoning supporting this decision follows.
In considering how to address the various policy concerns discussed above, data from the MY 2016 fleet was considered, and a number of descriptive statistical analyses (
With a view toward isolating the relationship between fuel economy and footprint, the few diesels in the fleet were excluded, as well as the limited number of vehicles with partial or full electric propulsion; when the fleet is normalized so that technology is more homogenous, application of these technologies is not allowed. This is consistent with the methodology used in the 2012 final rule.
The above adjustments were applied to all statistical analyses considered, regardless of the specifics of each of the methods, weights, and technology level of the data, used to view the relationship of vehicle footprint and fuel economy. Table II-5, below, summarizes the different assumptions considered and the key attributes of each. The analysis was performed considering all possible combinations of these assumptions, producing a total of eight footprint curves.
The “current technology” level curves exclude diesels and vehicles with electric propulsion, as discussed above, but make no other changes to each model year fleet. Comparing the MY 2016 curves to ones built under the same methodology from previous model year fleets shows whether the observed curve shape has changed significantly over time as standards have become more stringent. Importantly, these curves will include any market forces which make technology application variable over the distribution of footprint. These market forces will not be present in the “maximum technology” level curves: By making technology levels homogenous, this variation is removed. The current technology level curves built using both regression types and both regression weight methodologies from the MY 2008, MY 2010, and MY 2016 fleets, shown in more detail in Chapter 4.4.2.1 of the PRIA, support the curve slopes finalized in the 2012 final rule. The curves built from most methodologies using each fleet generally shift, but remain very similar in slope. This suggests that the relationship of footprint to fuel economy, including both technology and market limits, has not significantly changed.
As in prior rulemakings, technology differences between vehicle models were considered to be a significant factor producing uncertainty regarding the relationship between fuel consumption and footprint. Noting that attribute-based standards are intended to encourage the application of additional technology to improve fuel efficiency and reduce CO
The methods discussed above are descriptive in nature, using statistical analysis to relate observed fuel economy levels to observed footprints for known vehicles. As such, these methods are clearly based on actual data, answering the question “how does fuel economy appear to be related to footprint?” However, being independent of explicit engineering theory, they do not answer the question “how might one expect fuel economy to be related to footprint?” Therefore, as an alternative to the above methods, an alternative methodology was also developed and applied that, using full-vehicle simulation, comes closer to answer the second question, providing a basis to either corroborate answers to the first, or suggest that further investigation could be important.
As discussed in the 2012 final rule, several manufacturers have confidentially shared with the agencies what they described as “physics-based” curves, with each OEM showing significantly different shapes for the footprint-fuel economy relationships. This variation suggests that manufacturers face different curves given the other attributes of the vehicles in their fleets (
Tractive energy is the amount of energy it will take to move a vehicle.
A tractive energy prediction model was also developed to support today's proposal. Given a vehicle's mass, frontal area, aerodynamic drag coefficient, and rolling resistance as inputs, the model will predict the amount of tractive energy required for the vehicle to complete the Federal test cycle. This model was used to predict the tractive energy required for the average vehicle of a given footprint
Chapter 6 of the PRIA shows the resultant CAFE levels estimated for the vehicle classes ANL simulated for this analysis, at different footprint values and by vehicle “box.” Pickups are considered 1-box, hatchbacks and minivans are 2-box, and sedans are 3-box. These estimates are compared with the MY 2021 standards finalized in 2012. The general trend of the simulated data points follows the pattern of the previous MY 2021 standards for all technology packages and tractive energy effectiveness values presented in the PRIA. The tractive energy curves are intended to validate the curve shapes against a physics-based alternative, and the analysis suggests that the curve shapes track the physical relationship between fuel economy and tractive energy for different footprint values.
Physical limitations are not the only forces manufacturers face; they must also produce vehicles that consumers will purchase. For this reason, in setting future standards, the analysis will continue to consider information from statistical analyses that do not homogenize technology applications in addition to statistical analyses which do, as well as a tractive energy analysis similar to the one presented above.
The relationship between fuel economy and footprint remains directionally discernable but quantitatively uncertain. Nevertheless, each standard must commit to only one function. Approaching the question “how is fuel economy related to footprint” from different directions and applying different approaches will provide the greatest confidence that the single function defining any given standard appropriately and reasonably reflects the relationship between fuel economy and footprint. Please provide comments on this tentative conclusion and the above discussion.
The analysis evaluates a wide array of technologies manufacturers could use to improve the fuel economy of new vehicles, in both the near future and the timeframe of this proposed rulemaking, to meet the fuel economy and CO
NHTSA, EPA, and CARB issued the Draft Technical Assessment Report (Draft TAR)
The Draft TAR considered many technologies previously assessed in the 2012 final rule.
Some of the emerging technologies described in the Draft TAR were not included in this analysis, but this includes some additional technologies not previously considered. As industry invents and develops new fuel-savings technologies, and as suppliers and manufacturers produce and apply the technologies, and as consumers react to the new technologies, efforts are continued to learn more about the capabilities and limitations of new technologies. While a technology is in early development, theoretical constructs, limited access to test data, and CBI is relied on to assess the technology. After manufacturers commercialize the technology and bring products to market, the technology may be studied in more detail, which generally leads to the most reliable information about the technology. In addition, once in production, the technology is represented in the fuel economy and CO
Some technology assumptions have been updated since the MYs 2017-2025 final rule and, in many cases, since the 2016 Draft TAR. In some cases, EPA and NHTSA presented different analytical approaches in the Draft TAR; the analysis is now presented using the
Since the 2017 and later final rule, many cost assessments, including tear down studies, were funded and completed, and presented as part of the Draft TAR analysis. These studies evaluated transmissions, engines, hybrid technologies, and mass reduction.
The analysis uses an updated, peer-reviewed model developed by ANL for the Department of Energy to provide a more rigorous estimate for battery costs. The new battery model provides an estimate future for battery costs for hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles, taking into account the different battery design characteristics and taking into account the size of the battery for different applications.
In the Draft TAR, two possible methodologies to estimate indirect costs from direct manufacturing costs, described as “indirect cost multipliers” and “retail price equivalent” were presented. Both of these methodologies attempted to relate the price of parts for fuel-saving technologies to a retail price. Today's analysis utilizes the direct manufacturing costs (DMC) and the retail price equivalent (RPE) methodology published in the Draft TAR.
Two tools to estimate effectiveness of fuel-saving technologies were used in the Draft TAR, and for today's analysis, only one tool was used (Autonomie).
Similarly for today's analysis, only one tool is used. Previously, EPA developed “OMEGA,” a tool that looked at costs of technologies and effectiveness of technologies (as estimated by EPA's Lumped Parameter Model or ALPHA), and applied cost effective technologies to manufacturers' fleets in response to potential standards. Many stakeholders commented that the OMEGA model oversimplified fleet-wide analysis, resulting in significant shortcomings.
Each aforementioned change is discussed briefly in the remainder of this section and in much greater detail in Chapter 6 of the PRIA. A brief summary of the technologies considered in this proposal is discussed below. Please provide comments on all aspects of the analysis as discussed here and as detailed in the PRIA.
Technology assumptions were developed that provide a foundation for conducting a fleet-wide compliance analysis. As part of this effort, the analysis estimated technology costs, projected technology effectiveness values, and identified possible limitations for some fuel-saving technologies. There is a preference to use values developed from careful review of commercialized technologies; however, in some cases for technologies that are new, and are not yet for sale in any vehicle, the analysis relied on information from other sources, including CBI and third-party research reports and publications. Many emerging technologies are still being evaluated for the analysis supporting the final rule, including those that are currently emerging.
For today's analysis, one set of cost assumptions, one set of effectiveness values (developed with one tool), and one set of assumptions about the limitations of some technologies are presented. Many sources of data were evaluated, in addition to many stakeholder comments received on the Draft TAR. Throughout the process of developing the assumptions for today's analysis, the preferred approach was to harmonize on sources and methodologies that were data-driven and reproducible in independent verification, produced using tools utilized by OEMs, suppliers, and academic institutions, and using tools that could support both CAFE and CO
The analysis estimated present and future costs for fuel-saving technologies, taking into consideration the type of vehicle, or type of engine if technology costs vary by application. Cost estimates were developed based on three main inputs. First, direct manufacturing costs (DMC), or the component costs of the physical parts and systems, were considered, with estimated costs assuming high volume production. DMCs generally do not include the indirect costs of tools, capital equipment, and financing costs, nor do they cover indirect costs like engineering, sales, and administrative support. Second, indirect costs via a scalar markup of direct manufacturing costs (the retail price equivalent, or RPE) was taken into account. Finally, costs for technologies may change over time as industry streamlines design and manufacturing processes. Potential cost improvements with learning effects (LE) were also considered. The retail cost of equipment in any future year is estimated to be equal to the product of the DMC, RPE, and LE. Considering the retail cost of equipment, instead of merely direct manufacturing costs, is important to account for the real-world price effects of a technology, as well as market realities. Absent government mandate, a manufacturer will not undertake expensive development and support costs to implement technologies without realistic prospects of consumer willingness to pay enough for such technology to allow for the manufacturer to recover its investment.
In many instances, the analysis used agency-sponsored tear-down studies of vehicles and parts to estimate the direct manufacturing costs of individual technologies. In the simplest cases, the studies produced results that confirmed third-party industry estimates, and aligned with confidential information provided by manufacturers and suppliers. In cases with a large difference between the tear-down study results and credible independent sources, study assumptions were scrutinized, and sometimes the analysis was revised or updated accordingly.
Many fuel-saving technologies were considered that are pre-production, or sold in very small pilot volumes. For emerging technologies that could be applied in the rulemaking timeframe, a tear-down study cannot be conducted to assess costs because the product is not yet in the marketplace for evaluation. In these cases, third-party estimates and confidential information from suppliers and manufacturers are relied upon; however, there are some common pitfalls with relying on confidential business information to estimate costs. The agencies and the source may have had incongruent or incompatible definitions of “baseline.”
As explained above, in addition to direct manufacturing costs, the analysis estimates and considers indirect manufacturing costs. To estimate indirect costs, direct manufacturing costs are multiplied by a factor to represent the average price for fuel-saving technologies at retail. This factor, referred to as the retail price equivalence (RPE), accounts for indirect costs like engineering, sales, and administrative support, as well as other overhead costs, business expenses, warranty costs, and return on capital
The RPE was chosen for this analysis instead of indirect cost multipliers (ICM) because it provides the best estimate of indirect costs. For a more detailed discussion of the approach to indirect costs, see PRIA Chapter 9.
Past analyses accounted for costs associated with stranded capital when fuel economy standards caused a technology to be replaced before its costs were fully amortized. The idea behind stranded capital is that manufacturers amortize research, development, and tooling expenses over many years, especially for engines and transmissions. The traditional production life-cycles for transmissions and engines have been a decade or longer. If a manufacturer launches or updates a product with fuel-saving technology, and then later replaces that technology with an unrelated or different fuel-saving technology before the equipment and research and development investments have been fully paid off, there will be unrecouped, or stranded, capital costs. Quantifying stranded capital costs attempted to account for such lost investments. In the Draft TAR analysis, there were only a few technologies for a few manufacturers that were projected to have stranded capital costs.
As more technologies are included in this analysis, and as the CAFE model has been expanded to account for platform and engine sharing and updated with redesign and refresh cycles, accounting for stranded capital has become increasingly complex. Separately, the fact that manufacturers may be shifting their investment strategies in ways that may affect stranded capital calculations was considered. For instance, Ford and General Motors agreed to jointly develop next generation transmission technologies,
The analysis continues to rely on projected refresh and redesign cycles in the CAFE model to moderate the cadence for technology adoption and limit the occurrence of stranded capital and the need to account for it. Stranded capital is an important consideration to appropriately account for costs if there is too rapid of a turnover for certain technologies.
Manufacturers make improvements to production processes over time, often resulting in lower costs. Today's analysis estimates cost learning by considering Wright's learning theory, which states that as every time cumulative volume for a product doubles, the cost lowers by a scalar factor. The analysis accounts for learning effects with model year-based cost learning forecasts for each technology that reduce direct manufacturing costs over time. Historical use of technologies were evaluated, and industry forecasts were reviewed to estimate future volumes for the purpose of developing the model year-based technology cost learning curves. The CAFE model does not dynamically update learning curves, based on compliance pathways chosen in simulation.
As discussed above, cost inputs to the CAFE model incorporate estimates of volume-based learning. As an alternative approach, Volpe Center staff have considered modifications such that the CAFE model would calculate degrees of volume-based learning dynamically, responding to the model's application of affected technologies. While it is intuitive that the degree of cost reduction achieved through experience producing a given technology should depend on the actual accumulated experience (
Today's analysis also updates the way learning effects apply to costs. In the Draft TAR analysis, NHTSA applied learning curves only to the incremental direct manufacturing costs or costs over the previous technology on the tech tree. In practice, two things were observed: (1) If the incremental direct manufacturing costs were positive, technologies could not become less expensive than their predecessors on the tech tree, and (2) absolute costs over baseline technology depended on the learning curves of root technologies on the tech tree. Today's analysis applies learning effects to the incremental cost over the null technology state on the tech tree. After this step, the analysis calculates year-by-year incremental costs over preceding technologies on the tech tree to create the CAFE model inputs.
Direct manufacturing costs and learning effects for many technologies were reviewed by evaluating historical use of technologies and industry forecasts to estimate future volumes. This approach produced reasonable estimates for technologies already in production. For technologies not yet in production in MY 2016, the cumulative volume in MY 2016 is zero, because manufacturers have not yet produced the technologies. For pre-production cost estimates, the analysis often relies on confidential business information sources to predict future costs. Many sources for pre-production cost estimates include significant learning effects, often providing cost estimates assuming high volume production, and often for a timeframe late in the first production generation or early in the second generation of the technology. Rapid doubling and re-doubling of a low cumulative volume base with Wright's learning curves can provide unrealistic cost estimates. In addition, direct manufacturing cost projections can vary depending on the initial production volume assumed. Direct costs with learning were carefully examined, and adjustments were made to the starting
Full-vehicle simulation modeling was used to estimate the fuel economy improvements manufacturers could make to their fleet by adding new technologies, taking into account MY 2016 vehicle specifications, as well as how combinations of technologies interact. Full-vehicle simulation modeling uses computer software and physics-based models to predict how combinations of technologies perform together.
The simulation and modeling requires detailed specifications for each technology that describes its efficiency and performance-related characteristics. Those specifications generally come from design specifications, laboratory measurements, simulation or modeling, and may involve additional analysis. For example, the analysis used engine maps showing fuel use vs. engine torque vs. engine speed, and transmission maps taking into account gear efficiency for a range of loads and speeds. With physics-based technology specifications, full-vehicle simulation modeling can be used to estimate technology effectiveness for various combinations and permutations of technologies for many vehicle classes. To develop the specifications used for the simulation and modeling, laboratory test data was evaluated for production and pre-production technologies, technical publications, manufacturer and supplier CBI, and simulation modeling of specific technologies. Evaluating recently introduced production products to inform the technology effectiveness models of emerging technologies is preferred because doing so allows for a more reliable analysis of incremental improvements over previous technologies; however, some technologies were considered that are not yet in production. As technologies evolve and new applications emerge, this work will be continued and may include additional technologies and/or updated modeling for the final rule. The details of new and emerging technologies are discussed in PRIA Chapter 6.
Using full-vehicle simulation modeling has two primary advantages over using single or limited point estimates for fuel efficiency improvements of technologies. First, technology effectiveness often differs significantly depending on the type of vehicle and the other technologies that are on the vehicle, and this is shown in full-vehicle simulations. Different technologies may provide different fuel economy improvements depending on whether they are implemented alone or in tandem with other technologies. Single point estimates often oversimplify these important, complex relationships and lead to less accurate effectiveness estimates. Also, because manufacturers often implement a number of fuel-saving technologies simultaneously at vehicle redesigns, it is generally difficult to isolate the effect of individual technologies using laboratory measurement of production vehicles alone. Simulation modeling offers the opportunity to isolate the effects of individual technologies by using a single or small number of baseline configurations and incrementally adding technologies to those baseline configurations. This provides a consistent reference point for the incremental effectiveness estimates for each technology and for combinations of technologies for each vehicle type and reduces potential double counting or undercounting technology effectiveness. Note: It is most important that the incremental effectiveness of each technology and combinations be accurate and relative to a consistent baseline, because it is the incremental effectiveness that is applied to each vehicle model/configuration in the MY 2016 baseline fleet (and to each vehicle model/configuration's absolute fuel economy value) to determine the absolute fuel economy of the model/configuration with the additional technology. The absolute fuel economy values of the simulation modeling runs by themselves are used only to determine the incremental effectiveness and are never used directly to assign an absolute fuel economy value to any vehicle model/configuration for the rulemaking analysis. Therefore, commenters on technology effectiveness should be specific about the incremental effectiveness of technologies relative to other specifically defined technologies. The fuel economy of a specific vehicle or simulation modeling run in isolation may be less useful.
Second, full-vehicle simulation modeling requires explicit specifications and assumptions for each technology; therefore, these assumptions can be presented for public review and comment. For instance, transmission gear efficiencies, shift logic, and gear ratios are explicitly stated as model inputs and are available for review and comment. For today's analysis, every effort was made to make the input specifications and modeling assumptions available for review and comment. PRIA Chapter 6 and referenced documents provide more detailed information.
Technology development and application will be monitored to acquire more information for the final rule. The agencies may update the analysis for the final rule based on comments and/or new information that becomes available.
Today's analysis utilizes effectiveness estimates for technologies developed using Autonomie software,
In the 2015 National Academies of Science (NAS) study of fuel economy improving technologies, the Committee recommended that the agencies use full-vehicle simulation to improve the analysis method of estimating technology effectiveness.
Today's analysis modeled more than 50 fuel economy-improving technologies, and combinations thereof, on 10 vehicle types (an increase from five vehicle types in NHTSA's Draft TAR analysis). While 10 vehicle types may seem like a small number, a large portion of the production volume in the MY 2016 fleet have specifications that are very similar, especially in highly competitive segments (for instance, many mid-sized sedans, many small SUVs, and many large SUVs coalesce around similar specifications, respectively), and baseline simulations have been aligned around these modal specifications. The sequential addition of these technologies generated more than 100,000 unique technology combinations per vehicle class. The analysis included 10 technology classes, so more than one million full-vehicle simulations were run. In addition, simulation modeling was conducted to determine the appropriate amount of engine downsizing needed to maintain baseline performance across all modeled vehicle performance metrics when advanced mass reduction technology or advanced engine technology was applied, so these simulations take into account performance neutrality, given logical engine down-sizing opportunities associated with specific technologies.
Some baseline vehicle assumptions used in the simulation modeling were updated based on public comment and the assessment of the MY 2016 production fleet. The analysis included updated assumptions about curb weight, component inertia, as well as technology properties like baseline rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag coefficients, and frontal areas. Many of the assumptions are aligned with published research from the Department of Energy's Vehicle Technologies Office and other independent sources.
The 10 vehicle types (referred to as “technology classes” in the modeling documentation) are shown in Table II-7. Each vehicle type (technology class) represented a large segment of vehicles, such as medium cars, small SUVs, and medium performance SUVs.
From these baseline specifications, incremental combinations of fuel saving technologies were applied. As the combinations of technologies change, so too may predicted performance.
The analysis attempts to maintain performance by resizing engines at a few specific incremental technology steps. Steps from one technology to another typically associated with a major vehicle redesign, or engine redesign, were identified, and engine resizing was restricted only to these steps. The analysis allowed engine resizing when mass reduction of 10% or greater was applied to the vehicle glider mass,
The CAFE model is designed to simulate compliance with a given set of CAFE or CO
As a result of simulating compliance, the CAFE model provides the technology pathways that manufacturers could use to comply with regulations, including how technologies could be applied to each of their vehicle model/configurations in response to a given set of standards. The model calculates the impacts of the simulated standard: Technology costs, fuel savings (both in gallons and dollars), CO
The current analysis reflects several changes made to the CAFE model since 2012, when NHTSA used the model to estimate the effects, costs, and benefits of final CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles produced during MYs 2017-2021 and augural standards for MYs 2022-2025. The changes are discussed in Section II.A.1, above, and PRIA Chapter 6.
Cost and effectiveness values were estimated for each technology included in the analysis, with a summary list of all technologies provided in Table II-1 (List of Technologies with Data Sources for Technology Assignments) of Preamble Chapter II.B, above. In all, more than 50 technologies were considered in today's analysis, and the analysis evaluated many combinations of these technologies on many applications. Potential issues in assessing technology effectiveness and cost were identified, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Please provide comments on all assumptions for fuel economy and CO
The technology effectiveness modeling results show effectiveness of a technology often varies with the type of vehicle and the other technologies that are on the vehicle. Figure II-1 and Figure II-2 show the range of effectiveness for each technology for the range of vehicle types and technology combinations included in this NPRM analysis. The data reflect the change in effectiveness for applying each technology by itself while all other technologies are held unchanged. The data show the improvement in fuel consumption (in gallons per mile) and tailpipe CO
For engine technologies, the effectiveness improvement range is relative to a comparably equipped vehicle with only variable valve timing (VVT) on the engine. For automatic transmission technologies, the effectiveness improvement range is over a 5-speed automatic transmission. For manual transmission technologies, the effectiveness improvement range is over a 5-speed manual transmission. For road load technologies like aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and mass reduction, the effectiveness improvement ranges are relative to the least advanced technology state, respectively. For hybrid and electric drive systems that wholly replace an engine and transmission, the effectiveness improvement ranges are relative to a comparably equipped vehicle with a basic engine with VVT only and a 5-speed automatic transmission. For hybrid or electrification technologies that complement other advanced engine
There are a number of engine technologies that manufacturers can use to improve fuel economy and CO
In this section and for this analysis, the terms “basic engine technologies” and “advanced engine technologies” are used only to define how the CAFE model applies a specific engine technology and handles incremental costs and effectiveness improvements. “Basic engine technologies” refer to technologies that, in many cases, can be adapted to an existing engine with minor or moderate changes to the engine. “Advanced engine technologies” refer to technologies that generally require significant changes or an entirely new engine architecture. In the CAFE model, basic engine technologies may be applied in combination with other basic engine technologies; advanced engine technologies (defined by an engine map) stand alone as an exclusive engine technology. The words “basic” and “advanced” are not meant to confer any information about the level of sophistication of the technology. Also, many advanced engine technology
Engines come in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, and configurations, and the incremental engine costs and effectiveness values often depend on engine architecture. The agencies modeled single overhead cam (SOHC), dual overhead cam (DOHC), and overhead valve (OHV) engines separately to account for differences in engine architecture. The agencies adjusted costs for some engine technologies based on the number of cylinders and number of banks in the engine, and the agencies evaluated many production engines to better understand how costs and capabilities may vary with engine configuration. Table II-8, Table II-9, Table II-10 below shows the summary of absolute costs
Many types of production powertrains were reviewed and tested for this analysis, and engine maps were developed for each combination of
Stakeholders provided many comments on the engine maps that were presented in the Draft TAR. These comments were considered, and today's analysis utilizes several engine maps that were updated since the Draft TAR. Most notably, for turbocharged and downsized engines, the engine maps were adjusted in high torque, low speed operating conditions to address engine knock with regular octane fuel to align with the fuel octane that manufacturers recommend be used for the majority of vehicles. In the Draft TAR, NHTSA assumed high octane fuel to develop engine maps. See the discussion below and in PRIA Chapter 6.3 for more details. Please provide comment on the appropriateness of assuming the use of lower octane fuels.
The four “basic” engine technologies in today's model are Variable Valve Timing (VVT), Variable Valve Lift (VVL), Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (SGDI), and basic Cylinder Deactivation (DEAC). Over the last decade, manufacturers upgraded many engines with these engine technologies. Implementing these technologies involves changes to the cylinder head of the engine, but the engine block, crankshaft, pistons, and connecting rods require few, if any, changes. In today's analysis, manufacturers may apply the four basic engine technologies in various combinations, just as manufacturers have done recently.
Manufacturers and suppliers continue to evaluate more improved versions of cylinder deactivation, including advanced cylinder deactivation and pairing basic cylinder deactivation with turbo charged engines. No manufacturers produced such technologies in the MY 2016 fleet. Advanced cylinder deactivation and turbo technologies were modeled and considered separately in today's analysis.
The analysis included “advanced” engine technologies that can deliver high levels of effectiveness but often require a significant engine design change or a new engine architecture. In the CAFE model, “basic” engine technologies may be considered in combination and applied before advanced engine technologies. “Advanced” engine technologies generally include one or more basic engine technologies in the simulation, without the need to layer on “basic” engine technologies on top of “advanced” engines. Once an advanced engine technology is applied, the model does not reconsider the basic engine technologies. The characterization of each advanced engine technology takes into account the prerequisite technologies.
Many of the newest advanced engine technologies improve effectiveness over their predecessors, but the engines may also include sophisticated materials or manufacturing processes that contribute to efficiency improvements. For instance, one recently introduced turbo charged engine uses sodium filled valve stems.
Turbo engines recover energy from hot exhaust gas and compress intake air, thereby increasing available airflow and increasing specific power level. Due to specific power improvements on turbo engines, engine displacement can be downsized. The downsizing reduces pumping losses and improves fuel economy at lower loads. For the NPRM analysis, a level of downsizing is assumed to be applied that achieves performance similar to the baseline naturally-aspirated engine. This assumes manufacturers would apply the benefits toward improved fuel economy
Manufacturers may develop engines to operate on varying levels of boost,
The analysis also modeled turbocharged engines with parallel hybrid technology. In simulations with high stringencies, many manufacturers produced turbo-hybrid electric vehicles. In the MY 2016 fleet, of the vehicles that use parallel hybrid technology, many use turbocharged engines.
Since the Draft TAR, the turbo family engine maps were updated to reflect operation on 87 AKI regular octane fuel.
The analysis assumes engine downsizing with the addition of turbo technology. For instance, in the simulations, manufacturers may have replaced a naturally-aspirated V8 engine with a turbo V6 engine, and manufacturers may have replaced a naturally-aspirated V6 engine with a turbo I4 engine. When manufacturers reduced the number of banks or cylinders of an engine, some cost savings is projected due to fewer cylinders and fewer valves. Such cost savings is projected to help offset the additional costs of turbo charger specific hardware, making turbo downsizing a very attractive technology progression for some engines.
Manufacturers used Turbo1 technology in a little less than a quarter of the MY 2016 fleet with particularly high concentrations in premium vehicles.
Previous analyses considered turbo charged engines with even higher BMEP than today's Turbo2 and CEGR1 technologies, but today's analysis does not present 27 bar BMEP turbo engines. Turbo engines with very high BMEP have demonstrated limited potential to improve fuel economy due to practical limitations on engine downsizing and tradeoffs with launch performance and drivability. Based on the analysis, and based on CBI, CEGR2 turbo engine technology was not included in this NPRM analysis.
Often knock concerns for these engines limit applications in high load, low RPM conditions. Some manufacturers have mitigated knock concerns by lowering back pressure with long, intricate exhaust systems, but these systems must balance knock performance with emissions tradeoffs, and the increased size of the exhaust manifold can pose packaging concerns, particularly on V-engine configurations.
Only a few manufacturers produced internal combustion engine vehicles with Atkinson cycle engines in MY
Atkinson cycle engines played a prominent role in EPA's January 2017 final determination, which has since been withdrawn. Today's analysis recognizes that the technology is not suitable for many vehicles due to performance, emissions and packaging issues, and/or the extensive capital and resources that would be required for manufacturers to shift from other powertrain technology pathways (such as turbocharging and downsizing) to standalone Atkinson cycle engine technology.
A number of Asian manufacturers have launched Atkinson cycle engines in smaller vehicles that do not use hybrid technologies. These production engines have been benchmarked to characterize HCR1 technology for today's analysis.
Today's analysis restricted the application of stand-alone Atkinson cycle engines in the CAFE model in some cases. The engines benchmarked for today's analysis were not suitable for MY 2016 baseline vehicle models that have 8-cylinder engines and in many cases 6-cylinder engines.
EPA conceptualized a “future” Atkinson cycle engine and published the theoretical engine map in an SAE paper.
Previously, EPA relied heavily on the HCR2 (or sometimes referred to as ATK2 in previous EPA analysis) engine as a cost effective pathway to compliance for stringent alternatives, but many engine experts questioned its technical feasibility and near term commercial practicability. Stakeholders asked for the engine to be removed from compliance simulations until the performance could be validated with engine hardware.
As new engines emerge that achieve high thermal efficiency, questions may be raised as to whether the HCR2 engine is a simulation proxy for the new engine technology. It is important to conduct a thorough evaluation of the actual new production engines to measure the brake specific fuel consumption and to characterize the improvements attributable to friction and thermal efficiency before drawing conclusions. Using vehicle level data may misrepresent or conflate complex interactions between a high thermal efficiency engine, engine friction reduction, accessory load improvements, transmission technologies, mass reduction, aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and other vehicle technologies. For instance, some of the newest high compression ratio engines show improved thermal efficiency, in large part due to improved accessory loads or reduced parasitic losses from accessory systems.
Manufacturers and suppliers continue to invest in many emerging engine technologies, and some of these technologies are on the cusp of commercialization. Often, manufacturers submit information about new engine technologies that they may soon bring into production. When this happens, a collaborative effort is undertaken with suppliers and manufacturers to learn as much as possible and sometimes begin simulation modeling efforts. Bench data, or performance data for preproduction vehicles and engines, is usually closely held confidential business information. To properly characterize the technologies, it is often necessary to wait until the engine technologies are in production to study them.
ADEAC systems may be integrated into the valvetrains with moderate modifications on OHV engines. However, while the ADEAC operating concept remains the same on DOHC engines, the valvetrain hardware configuration is very different, and application on DOHC engines is projected to be more costly per cylinder due to the valvetrain differences.
Some preproduction 8-cylinder OHV prototype vehicles were briefly evaluated for this analysis, but no production versions of the technology have been studied.
Today's analysis relied on CBI to estimate costs and effectiveness values of ADEAC. Since no engine map was available at the time of the NPRM analysis, ADEAC was estimated to improve a basic engine with VVL, VVT, SGDI, and DEAC by three percent (for 4 cylinder engines) six percent (for engines with more than 4 cylinders).
ADEAC systems will continue to be studied as production begins.
Engines using variable compression ratio (VCR) technology appear to be at a production-intent stage of development but also appear to be targeted primarily towards limited production, high performance and very high BMEP (27-30 bar) applications. Variable compression ratio engines work by changing the length of the piston stroke of the engine to operate at a more optimal compression ratio and improve thermal efficiency over the full range of engine operating conditions.
A number of manufacturers and suppliers provided information about VCR technologies, and several design concepts were reviewed that could achieve a similar functional outcome. In addition to design concept differences, intellectual property ownership complicates the ability of the agencies to define a VCR hardware system that could be widely adopted across the industry.
For today's analysis, VCR engines have a spot on the technology simulation tree, but VCR is not actively used in the NPRM simulation. Reasonable representations of costs and technology characterizations remain open questions for VCR engine technology and the analysis.
NHTSA is sponsoring work to develop engine maps for additional combinations of technologies. Some of these technologies being researched presently, including VCR, may be used in the analysis supporting the final rule. Please provide comment on variable compression ratio engine technology. Should VCR technology be employed in the timeframe of this proposed rulemaking? Why or why not? Do commenters believe VCR technology will see widespread adoption in the US vehicle fleet? Why or why not? What vehicle segments may it best be suited for, and which segments would it not be best suited for? Why or why not? What cost and effectiveness values should be used if VCR is modeled for analysis? Please provide supporting data. Additionally, please provide any comments on the sponsored work related to VCR, described further in PRIA Chapter 6.3.
For many years, engine developers, researchers, manufacturers have explored ways to achieve the inherent efficiency of a diesel engine while maintaining the operating characteristics of a gasoline engine. A potential pathway for striking this balance is utilizing compression ignition for gasoline fueled engines, more commonly referred to as Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI).
Ongoing, periodic discussions with manufacturers on future fuel saving technologies and powertrain plans have, generally, included HCCI as a long-term strategy. The technology appears to always be a strong consideration as, in theory, it provides the “best of both worlds,” meaning a way to provide diesel engine efficiency with gasoline engine performance and emissions levels.
Developments in both the research and the potential production implementation of HCCI for the US market is continually assessed. In 2017, a significant, potentially production breakthrough was announced by Mazda regarding a gasoline-fueled engine employing Spark Controlled Compression Ignition (SpCCI), where HCCI is employed for a portion of its normal operation and spark ignition is used at other times.
However, HCCI was not included in the simulation and vehicle fleet modeling for past rulemakings, and is not included in this NPRM analysis, primarily because effectiveness, cost, and mass market implementation readiness data are not available.
Please comment on the potential use of HCCI technology in the timeframe covered by this rule. More specifically, should HCCI be included in the final rulemaking analysis for this proposed rulemaking? Why or why not? Please provide supporting data, including effectiveness values, costs in relation varying engine types and applications, and production timing that supports the timeframe of this rulemaking.
Reduction of engine friction can be achieved through low-tension piston rings, roller cam followers, improved material coatings, more optimal thermal management, piston surface treatments, and other improvements in the design of
Manufacturers have already widely adopted both lubrication and friction reduction technologies. This analysis includes advanced engine maps that already assume application of low-friction lubricants and engine friction reduction technologies. Therefore, additional friction reduction is not considered in today's analysis.
The use and commercial development of improved lubricants and friction reduction components will continue to be monitored, including conical boring and oblong cylinders, and future analyses may be updated if new information becomes available.
Gasoline octane levels are an integral part of potential engine performance. According the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), octane ratings are measures of fuel stability. These ratings are based on the pressure at which a fuel will spontaneously combust (auto-ignite) in a testing engine.
In the United States, consumers are typically able to select from three distinct grades of fuel, each of which provides a different octane rating. The octane levels can vary from region to region, but on the majority, the octane levels offered are regular (the lowest octane fuel-generally 87 Anti-Knock Index (AKI) also expressed as (the average of Research Octane + Motor Octane), midgrade (the middle range octane fuel-generally 89-90 AKI), and premium (the highest octane fuel-generally 91-94 AKI).
Currently, throughout the United States, pump fuel is a blend of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol. It is standard practice for refiners to manufacture gasoline and ship it, usually via pipelines, to bulk fuel terminals across the country. In many cases, refiners supply lower octane fuels than the minimum 87-octane required by law to these terminals. The terminals then perform blending operations to bring the fuel octane level up to the minimum required by law, and higher. In some cases, typically to lowest fuel grade, the “base fuel” is blended with ethanol, which has a typical octane rating of approximately 113. For example, in 2013, the State of Nebraska Ethanol Board defined requirements for refiners to 84-octane gas for blending to achieve 87-octane prior to final dispensing to consumers.
A typical, overarching goal of optimal spark-ignited engine design and operation is to maximize the greatest amount of energy from the fuel available, without manifesting detrimental impacts to the engine over its expected operating conditions. Design factors, such as compression ratio, intake and exhaust value control specifications, combustion chamber and piston characteristics, among others, are all impacted by octane (stability) of the fuel consumers are anticipated to use.
Vehicle manufacturers typically develop their engines and engine control system calibrations based on the fuel available to consumers. In many cases, manufacturers may recommend a fuel grade for best performance and to prevent potential damage. In some cases, manufacturers may
Consumers, though, may or may not choose to follow the recommendation or requirement for a specific fuel grade. Additionally, regional fuel availability could also limit consumer choice, or, in the case of higher elevation regions, present an opportunity for consumers to use a fuel grade that is below the minimum recommended. As such, vehicle manufacturers employ strategies for scenarios where a lower than recommended, or required, fuel grade is used, mitigating engine damage over the life of a vehicle.
When knock (also referred to as detonation) is encountered during engine operation, at the most basic level, non-turbo charged engines can reduce or eliminate knock by adjusting the timing of the spark that ignites the fuel, as well as the amounts of fuel injected at each intake stroke (“fueling”). In turbo-charged applications, boost levels are typically reduced along with spark timing and fueling adjustments. Past rulemakings have also discussed other techniques that may be employed to allow higher compression ratios, more optimal spark timing to be used without knock, such as the addition of cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). Regardless of the type of spark-ignition engine or technology employed, reducing or preventing knock results in the loss of potential power output, creating a “knock-limited” constraint on performance and efficiency.
Despite limits imposed by available fuel grades, manufacturers continue to make progress in extracting more power and efficiency from spark-ignited engines. Production engines are safely operating with regular 87 AKI fuel with compression ratios and boost levels once viewed as only possible with premium fuel. According to the Department of Energy, the average gasoline octane level has remained fundamentally flat starting in the early 1980's and decreased slightly starting in the early 2000s. During this time, however, the average compression ratio for the U.S. fleet has increased from 8.4 to 10.52, a more than 20% increase, yielding the statement that, “There is some concern that in the future, auto manufacturers will reach the limit of technological increases in compression ratios without further increases in the octane of the fuel.”
As such, manufacturers are still limited by the available fuel grades to consumers and the need to safeguard the durability of their products for all of the available fuels; thus, the potential
Automakers and advocacy groups have expressed support for increases to fuel octane levels for the U.S. market and are actively participating in Department of Energy research programs on the potential of higher octane fuel usage.
In anticipation of this proposed rulemaking, organizations such as the High Octane Low Carbon Alliance (HOLC) and the Fuel Freedom Foundation (FFA), have shared their positions on the potential for making higher octane fuels available for the U.S. market. Other stakeholders also commented to past NHTSA rulemakings and/or the Draft TAR regarding the potential for increasing octane levels for the U.S. market.
In the meetings with HOLC and the FFA, the groups advocated for the potential benefits high octane fuels could provide via the blending of non-petroleum feedstocks to increase octane levels available at the pump. The groups' positions on benefits took both a technical approach by suggesting an octane level of 100 is desired for the marketplace, as well as, the benefits from potential increased national energy security by reduced dependencies on foreign petroleum.
Please comment on the potential benefits, or dis-benefits, of considering the impacts of increased fuel octane levels available to consumers for purposes of the model. More specifically, please comment on how increasing fuel octane levels would play a role in product offerings and engine technologies. Are there potential improvements to fuel economy and CO
Today's analysis significantly increased the number of transmissions modeled in full-vehicle simulations, attempting to more closely align the Department of Energy full-vehicle simulations with existing vehicles. Previously, EPA included just five transmissions
Five-, six-, seven-, eight-, nine- and ten-speed automatic transmissions are optimized by changing the gear ratios to enable the engine to operate in a more efficient operating range over a broader range of vehicle operating conditions. While a six speed transmission application was most prevalent for the MYs 2012-2016 final rule, eight and higher speed transmissions were more prevalent in the MY 2016 fleet.
“L2” and “L3” transmissions designate improved gear efficiency and reduced parasitic losses. Few transmissions in the MY 2016 fleet have achieved “L2” efficiency, and the highest level of transmission efficiencies modeled are assumed to be available in MY 2022.
Dual clutch transmissions are very effective transmission technologies, and previous rule-making projected rapid, and wide adoption into the fleet. However, early DCT product launches in the U.S. market experienced shift harshness and poor launch performance, resulting in customer satisfaction issues—some so extreme as to prompt vehicle buyback campaigns.
Manual 6- and 7-speed transmissions offer an additional gear ratio, sometimes with a higher overdrive gear ratio, over a 5-speed manual transmission. Similar to automatic transmissions, more gears often means the engine may operate in the efficient zone more frequently.
As discussed earlier in Section II.D.1.b)(1), several technologies were considered for this analysis, and Table II-12, Table II-13, and Table II-14 below shows the full list of vehicle technologies analyzed and the associated absolute cost.
In some cases, low rolling resistance tires can affect traction, which may be untenable for some high performance vehicles. For cars and SUVs with more than 405 horsepower, the analysis restricted the application of the highest levels of rolling resistance. For cars and SUVs with more than 500 horsepower, the analysis restricted the application of any additional rolling resistance technology.
Notably, today's analysis assumes aerodynamic drag reduction can only come from reduction in the aerodynamic drag coefficient and not from reduction of frontal area.
For this NPRM, the analysis of electrification technologies relies primarily on research published by the Department of Energy, ANL.
P2 Hybrid systems typically rely on the internal combustion engine to deliver high, sustained power levels. While many vehicles may use HCR1 engines as part of a hybrid powertrain, HCR1 engines may not be suitable for all vehicles, especially high performance vehicles, or vehicles designed to carry or tow large loads. Many manufacturers may prefer turbo engines (with high specific power output) for P2 Hybrid systems.
The ANL Autonomie simulations assumed all power-split hybrids use a high compression ratio engine. Therefore, all vehicles equipped with SHEVPS technology in the CAFE model inputs and simulations are assumed to have high compression ratio engines.
The ANL Autonomie simulations assumed all PHEVs use a high compression ratio engine. Therefore, all vehicles equipped with PHEV technology in the CAFE model inputs and simulations are assumed to have high compression ratio engines. In practice, many PHEVs recently introduced in the marketplace use turbo-charged engines in the PHEV system, and this is particularly true for PHEVs produced by European manufacturers and for other PHEV performance vehicle applications.
Please provide comment on the modeling of PHEV systems. Should turbo PHEVs be considered instead, or in addition to high compression ratio PHEVs? Why or why not? What vehicle segments may turbo PHEVs best be suited for, and which segments would it not be best suited for? What vehicle segments may high compression ratio PHEVs best be suited for, and which segments would it not be best suited for? Similarly, the analysis currently considers PHEVs with 30-mile and 50-mile all-electric range, and should other ranges be considered? For instance, a 20-mile all-electic range may decrease the battery pack size, and hence the battery pack cost relative to a 30-mile all-electric range system, while still providing electric-vehicle functionality in many applications. Do commenters believe PHEV technology will see widespread adoption in the US vehicle fleet? Why or why not? Please provide supporting data.
BEVs and PHEVs may be charged at home or elsewhere. Home chargers may access electricity from a regular wall outlet, or they may require special equipment to be installed at the home. Commercial chargers may sometimes be found at businesses or other travel locations. These chargers often may supply power to the vehicle at a faster rate of charge but often require significant capital investment to install.
Time to charge, and availability and convenience of charging are significant factors for plug-in vehicle operators. For many consumers, accessible charging stations present inconveniences that may deter the adoption of battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
More detail about charging and charging infrastructure, including a discussion of potential electric vehicle impacts on the electric grid, is available in the PRIA, Chapter 6. For today's analysis, costs for installing chargers and charge convenience is not taken into account in the CAFE model. Also, today's analysis assumes HEVs, PHEVs, and BEVs have the same survival rates and mileage accumulation schedules as vehicles with conventional powertrains, and that HEVs, PHEVs, and BEVs never receive replacement batteries before being scrapped. The agencies invite comment on these assumptions and on data and practicable methods to implement any alternatives.
Two accessory technologies, electric power steering (EPS) and improved accessories (IACC) (accessory technologies categorized for the 2012 rule) were considered in this analysis, and are described below.
Manufacturers, suppliers, and researchers continue to create a diverse set of fuel economy technologies. Many high potential technologies that are still in the early stages of the development and commercialization process are still being evaluated for any final analysis. Due to uncertainties in the cost and capabilities of emerging technologies, some new and pre-production technologies are not yet a part of the CAFE model simulation. Evaluating and benchmarking promising fuel economy technologies continues to be a priority as commercial development matures.
• Variable compression ratio (VCR)—varies the compression ratio and swept volume by changing the piston stroke on all cylinders. Manufacturers accomplish this by changing the effective length of the piston connecting rod, with some prototypes having a range of 8:1 to 14:1 compression ratio. In turbocharged form, early publications suggest VCR may be possible to deliver up to 35% improved efficiency over the existing equivalent-output naturally-aspirated engine.
• Opposed-piston engine—sometimes known as opposed-piston opposed-cylinder (OPOC), operates with two pistons per cylinder working in opposite reciprocal motion and running on a two-stroke combustion cycle. It has no cylinder head or valvetrain but requires a turbocharger and supercharger for engine breathing. The efficiency may be significantly higher than MY 2016 turbocharged gasoline engines with competitive costs. This engine architecture could run on many fuels, including gasoline and diesel. Packaging constraints, emissions compliance, and performance across a wide range of operating conditions remain as open considerations. No production vehicles have been publicly announced, and multiple manufacturers continue to evaluate the technology.
• Dual-fuel—engine concepts such as reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) combine multiple fuels (
• Smart accessory technologies—can improve fuel efficiency through smarter controls of existing systems given imminent or expected controls inputs in real world driving conditions. For instance, a vehicle could adjust the use of accessory systems to conserve energy and fuel as a vehicle approaches a red light. Vehicle connectivity and sensors can further refine the operation for more benefit and smoother operation.
• High Compression Miller Cycle Engine with Variable Geometry Turbocharger or Electric Supercharger—Atkinson cycle gasoline engines with sophisticated forced induction system that requires advanced controls. The benefits of these technologies provide better control of EGR rates and boost which is achieved with electronically controlled turbocharger or supercharger. The electric version of this technology which incorporates 48V is called E-boost.
• Advanced battery chemistries—many emerging battery technologies promise to eventually improve the cost, safety, charging time, and durability in comparison to the MY 2016 automotive lithium-ion batteries. For instance, many view solid state batteries as a promising medium-term automotive technology. Solid state batteries replace the battery's liquid electrolyte with a solid electrolyte to potentially improve safety, power and energy density, durability, and cost. Some variations use ceramic, polymer, or sulfide-based solid electrolytes. Multiple automakers and suppliers are exploring the technology and possible commercialization that may occur in the early 2020s.
• Supercapacitors/Ultracapacitors—An electrical energy storage device with higher power density but lower energy density than batteries. Advanced capacitors may reduce battery degradation associated with charge and discharge cycles, with some tradeoffs to cost and engineering complexity. Supercapacitors/Ultracapacitors are currently not used in parallel or as a standalone traction motor energy storage device.
• Motor/Drivetrain:
○ Lower-cost magnets for Brushless Direct Current (BLDC) motors—BLDC motor technology, common in hybrid and battery electric vehicles, uses rare earth magnets. By substituting and eliminating rare earths from the magnets, motor cost can be significantly reduced. This technology is announced, but not yet in production. The capability and material configuration of these systems remains a closely guarded trade secret.
○ Integrated multi-phase integrated electric vehicle drivetrains. Research has been conducted on 6-phase and 9-phase integrated systems to potentially reduce cost and improve power density. Manufacturers may improve system power density through integration of the motor, inverter, control, and gearing. These systems are in the research phase.
• Beltless CVT—Most MY 2016, commercially available CVTs rely on belt technology. A new architecture of CVT replaces belts or pulleys with a continuously variable variator, which is a special type of planetary set with balls and rings instead of gears. The technology promises to improve efficiency, handle higher torques, and change modes more quickly. This technology may be commercially available as early as 2020.
• Multi-speed electric motor transmission—MY 2016 battery electric vehicle transmissions are single-speed. Multiple gears can allow for more torque multiplication at lower speeds or a downsized electric machine, increased efficiency, and higher top speed. Two-speed transmission designs are available but not currently in production.
• Vehicle waste heat recovery systems—Internal combustion engines convert the majority of the fuel's energy to heat. Thermoelectric generators and heat pipes can convert this heat to electricity.
• Suspension energy recovery—Multiple electromechanical and electrohydraulic suspension technologies exist that can convert motion from uneven roads into electricity.
Air conditioning (A/C) is a virtually standard automotive accessory, with more than 95% of new cars and light trucks sold in the United States equipped with mobile air conditioning (MAC) systems. Most of the additional air conditioning related load on an engine is due to the compressor, which pumps the refrigerant around the system loop. The less the compressor operates or the more efficiently it operates, the less load the compressor places on the engine, and the better fuel consumption will be. This high penetration means A/C systems can significantly impact energy consumed by the light duty vehicle fleet.
Vehicle manufacturers can generate credits for improved A/C systems under EPA's GHG program and receive a fuel consumption improvement value (FCIV) equal to the value of the benefit not captured on the 2-cycle test under NHTSA's CAFE program.
The 2012 final rule for MYs 2017 and later outlined two test procedures to determine credit or FCIV eligibility for A/C efficiency menu credits, the idle test, and the AC17 test. The idle test, performed while the vehicle is at idle, determined the additional CO
In MYs 2020 and later, manufacturers will use the AC17 test to demonstrate eligibility for A/C credits and to partially quantify the amount of the credit earned. AC17 test results equal to or greater than the menu value will allow manufacturers to claim the full menu value for the credit. A test result less than the menu value will limit the amount of credit to that demonstrated on the AC17 test. In addition, for MYs 2017 and beyond, A/C fuel consumption improvement values will be available for CAFE calculations, whereas efficiency credits were previously only available for GHG compliance. The agencies proposed these changes in the 2012 final rule for MYs 2017 and later largely as a result of new data collected, as well as the extensive technical comments submitted on the proposal.
The pre-defined technology menu and associated car and light truck credit value is shown in Table II-19 below. The regulations include a definition of each technology that must be met to be eligible for the menu credit.
In the 2012 final rule for MYs 2017 and later, the agencies estimated that manufacturers would employ significant advanced A/C technologies throughout their fleets to improve fuel economy, and this was reflected in the stringency of the standards.
The sections below provide a brief history of the AC17 test procedure for evaluating A/C efficiency improving technology and discuss stakeholder comments on the AC17 test procedure approach and discuss A/C efficiency technology valuation through the off-cycle program.
In developing the AC17 test procedure, the agencies sought to develop a test procedure that could more reliably generate an appropriate fuel consumption improvement value based on an “A” to “B” comparison, that is, a comparison of substantially similar vehicles in which one has the technology and the other does not.
The agencies received several comments on the Draft TAR evaluation of the AC17 test procedure. FCA commented generally that A/C efficiency technologies “are not showing their full effect on this AC17 test as most technologies provide benefit at different temperatures and humidity conditions in comparison to a standard test conditions. All of these technologies are effective at different levels at different conditions. So there is not one size fits all in this very complex testing approach. Selecting one test that captures benefits of all of these conditions has not been possible.”
The agencies acknowledge that any single test procedure is unlikely to equally capture the real-world effect of every potential technology in every potential use case. Both the agencies and stakeholders understood this difficulty when developing the AC17 test procedure. While no test is perfect, the AC17 test procedure represents an industry best effort at identifying a test that would greatly improve upon the idle test by capturing a greater range of operating conditions. General industry evaluation of the AC17 test procedure is in agreement that the test achieves this objective.
FCA also noted that “[i]t is a major problem to find a baseline vehicle that is identical to the new vehicle but without the new A/C technology. This alone makes the test unworkable.”
Commenters on the Draft TAR also expressed a desire for improvements in the process by which manufacturers without an “A” vehicle (for the A-to-B comparison) could apply under the engineering analysis provision, such as development of standardized engineering analysis and bench testing procedures that could support such applications. For example, Toyota requested that “EPA consider an optional method for validation via an engineering analysis, as is currently being developed by industry.”
As described in the Draft TAR, in 2016, USCAR members initiated a Cooperative Research Program (CRP) through the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to develop bench testing standards for the four hardware technologies in the fuel consumption improvement value menu (blower motor control, internal heat exchanger, improved evaporators and condensers, and oil separator). The intent of the program is to streamline the process of conducting bench testing and engineering analysis in support of an application for A/C credits under 40 CFR part 86.1868-12(g)(2), by creating uniform standards for bench testing and for establishing the expected GHG effect of the technology in a vehicle application.
An update to the list of SAE standards under development originally presented in the Draft TAR is listed in Table II-20. Since completion of the Draft TAR, work has continued on these standards, which appear to be nearing completion. The agencies seek comment with the latest completion of these SAE standards.
The A/C technology menu, discussed at length above, includes several A/C efficiency-improving technologies that were well defined and had been quantified for effectiveness at the time of the 2012 final rule for MYs 2017 and beyond. Manufacturers claimed the vast majority of A/C efficiency credits to date by utilizing technologies on the menu; however, the agencies recognize that manufacturers will develop additional technologies that are not currently listed on the menu. These additional A/C efficiency-improving technologies are eligible for fuel consumption improvement values on a case-by-case basis under the off-cycle program. Approval under the off-cycle program also requires “A-to-B” comparison testing under the AC17 test, that is, testing substantially similar vehicles in which one has the technology and the other does not.
To date, the agencies have received one type off-cycle application for an A/C efficiency technology. In December 2014, General Motors submitted an off-cycle application for the Denso SAS A/
The agencies received additional stakeholder comments on the off-cycle approval process as an alternate route to receiving A/C technology credit values. The Alliance requested that EPA “simplify and standardize the procedures for claiming off-cycle credits for the new MAC technologies that have been developed since the creation of the MAC indirect credit menu.”
The agencies note that some of these comments are directed towards the off-cycle technology approval process generally, which is described in more detail in Section X of this preamble. Regarding the A/C technology menu specifically, the agencies do anticipate that new A/C technologies not currently on the menu will emerge over the time frame of the MY 2021-2026 standards. This proposal requests comment on adding one additional A/C technology to the menu—the A/C compressor with variable crankcase suction valve technology, discussed below (and also one off-cycle technology, discussed below). The agencies also request comment on whether to change any fuel economy improvement values currently assigned to technologies on the menu.
Next, as mentioned above, the menu-based improvement values for A/C efficiency established in the 2012 final rule for MYs 2017 and by end are subject to a regulatory cap. The rule set a cap of 5.7 g/mi for cars and trucks through MY 2016 and separate caps of 5.0 g/mi for cars and 7.2g/mi for trucks for later MYs.
“. . . air conditioner efficiency is an off-cycle technology. It is thus appropriate [. . .] to employ the standard off-cycle credit approval process [to pursue a larger credit than the menu value]. Utilization of bench tests in combination with dynamometer tests and simulations [. . .] would be an appropriate alternate method of demonstrating and quantifying technology credits
This suggests the concept of placing a limit on total A/C fuel consumption improvement values, even when some are granted under the off-cycle program, is not entirely new and that EPA considered the menu cap as being appropriate at the time.
A/C regulatory caps specified under 40 CFR 86.1868-12(b)(2) apply to A/C efficiency menu-based improvement values and are not part of the off-cycle regulation (40 CFR 86.1869-12). However, it should be noted that off-cycle applications submitted via the public process pathway are decided individually on merits through a process involving public notice and opportunity for comment. In deciding whether to approve or deny a request, the agencies may take into account any factors deemed relevant, including such issues as the realization of claimed fuel consumption improvement value in real-world use. Such considerations could include synergies or interactions among applied technologies, which could potentially be addressed by application of some form of cap or other applicable limit, if warranted. Therefore, applying for A/C efficiency fuel consumption improvement values through the off-cycle provisions in 40 CFR 86.1869-12 should not be seen as a route to unlimited A/C fuel consumption improvement values. The agencies discuss air conditioning efficiency improvement values further in Section X of this NPRM.
“Off-cycle” emission reductions and fuel consumption improvements can be achieved by employing off-cycle technologies resulting in real-world benefits but where that benefit is not adequately captured on the test procedures used to demonstrate compliance with fuel economy emission standards. EPA initially included off-cycle technology credits in the MY 2012-2016 rule and revised the program in the MY 2017-2025 rule.
Manufacturers can demonstrate the value of off-cycle technologies in three ways: First, they may select fuel economy improvement values and CO
The pre-defined list of technologies and associated off-cycle light-duty vehicle fuel economy improvement values and GHG credits is shown in Table II-21 and Table II-22 below.
Manufacturers can also perform their own 5-cycle testing and submit test results to the agencies with a request explaining the off-cycle technology. The additional three test cycles have different operating conditions including high speeds, rapid accelerations, high temperature with A/C operation and cold temperature, enabling improvements to be measured for technologies that do not impact operation on the 2-cycle tests. Credits determined according to this methodology do not undergo public review.
The third pathway allows manufacturers to seek EPA approval to use an alternative methodology for determining the value of an off-cycle technology. This option is only available if the benefit of the technology cannot be adequately demonstrated using the 5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use this option to demonstrate reductions that exceed
Manufacturers must develop a methodology for demonstrating the benefit of the off-cycle technology, and EPA makes the methodology available for public comment prior to an EPA determination, in consultation with NHTSA, on whether to allow the use of the methodology to measure improvements. The data needed for this demonstration may be extensive.
Several manufacturers have requested and been granted use of alternative test methodologies for measuring improvements. In 2013, Mercedes requested off-cycle credits for the following off-cycle technologies in use or planned for implementation in the 2012-2016 model years: Stop-start systems, high-efficiency lighting, infrared glass glazing, and active seat ventilation. EPA approved methodologies for Mercedes to determine these off-cycle credits in September 2014.
As discussed below, all three methods have been used by manufacturers to generate off-cycle improvement values and credits.
Manufacturers used a wide array of off-cycle technologies in MY 2016 to generate off-cycle GHG credits using the pre-defined menu. Table II-23 below shows the percent of each manufacturer's production volume using each menu technology reported to EPA for MY 2016 by manufacturer. Table II-24 shows the g/mile benefit each manufacturer reported across its fleet from each off-cycle technology. Like Table II-23, Table II-24 provides the mix of technologies used in MY 2016 by manufacturer and the extent to which each technology benefits each manufacturer's fleet. Fuel consumption improvement values for off-cycle technologies were not available in the CAFE program until MY 2017; therefore, only GHG off-cycle credits have been generated by manufacturers thus far.
In 2016, manufacturers generated the vast majority of credits using the pre-defined menu.
It is important to report the benefits and costs of this proposed action in a format that conveys useful information about how those impacts are generated and that also distinguishes the impacts of those economic consequences for private businesses and households from the effects on the remainder of the U.S. economy. A reporting format will accomplish the first objective to the extent that it clarifies the benefits and costs of the proposed action's impacts on car and light truck producers, illustrates how these are transmitted to buyers of new vehicles, shows the action's collateral economic effects on owners of used cars and light trucks, and identifies how these impacts create costs and benefits for the remainder of the U.S. economy. It will achieve the second objective by showing clearly how the economy-wide or “social” benefits and costs of the proposed action are composed of its direct effects on vehicle producers, buyers, and users, plus the indirect or “external” benefits and costs it creates for the general public.
Table II-25 through Table II-28 present the economic benefits and costs of the proposed action to reduce CAFE and CO
As the tables show, most impacts of the proposed action will fall on the businesses and individuals who design, manufacture, and sell (at retail and wholesale) cars and light trucks, the consumers who purchase, drive, and subsequently sell or trade-in new models (and ultimately bear the cost of fuel economy technology), and owners of used cars and light trucks produced during model years prior to those covered by this action. Compared to the baseline standards, if the preferred alternative is finalized, buyers of new cars and light trucks will benefit from
At the same time, new cars and light trucks will offer lower fuel economy with more lenient standards in place, and this imposes various costs on their buyers and users. Drivers will experience higher costs as a consequence of new vehicles' increased fuel consumption (line 7), and from the added inconvenience of more frequent refueling stops required by their reduced driving range (line 8). They will also forego some mobility benefits as they use newly-purchased cars and light trucks less in response to their higher fueling costs, although this loss will be almost fully offset by the fuel and other costs they save by driving less (line 9). On balance, consumers of new cars and light trucks produced during the model years subject to this proposed action will experience significant economic benefits (line 10).
By lowering prices for new cars and light trucks, this proposed action will cause some owners of used vehicles to retire them from service earlier than they would otherwise have done, and replace them with new models. In effect, it will transfer some driving that would have been done in used cars and light trucks under the baseline scenario to newer and safer models, thus reducing costs for injuries (both fatal and less severe) and property damages sustained in motor vehicle crashes. This improvement in safety results from the fact that cars and light trucks have become progressively more protective in crashes over time (and also slightly less prone to certain types of crashes, such as rollovers). Thus, shifting some travel from older to newer models reduces injuries and damages sustained by drivers and passengers because they are traveling in inherently safer vehicles and not because it changes the risk profiles of drivers themselves. This reduction in injury risks and other damage costs produces benefits to owners and drivers of older cars and light trucks. This also results in benefits in terms of improved fuel economy and significant reductions of emissions from newer vehicles (line 11).
Table II-27 through Table II-28 also show that the changes in fuel consumption and vehicle use resulting from this proposed action will in turn generate both benefits and costs to the remainder of the U.S. economy. These impacts are “external,” in the sense that they are by-products of decisions by private firms and individuals that alter vehicle use and fuel consumption but are experienced broadly throughout the U.S. economy rather than by the firms and individuals who indirectly cause them. Increased refining and consumption of petroleum-based fuel will increase emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that theoretically contribute to climate change, and some of the resulting (albeit uncertain) increase in economic damages from future changes in the global climate will be borne throughout the U.S. economy (line 13). Similarly, added fuel production and use will increase emissions of more localized air pollutants (or their chemical precursors), and the resulting increase in the U.S. population's exposure to harmful levels of these pollutants will lead to somewhat higher costs from its adverse effects on health (line 14). On the other hand, it is expected that the proposed standards, by reducing new vehicle prices relative to the baseline, will accelerate fleet turnover to cleaner, safer, more efficient vehicles (as compared to used vehicles that might otherwise continue to be driven or purchased).
As discussed in PRIA Section 9.8, increased consumption and imports of crude petroleum for refining higher volumes of gasoline and diesel will also impose some external costs throughout the U.S. economy, in the form of potential losses in production and costs for businesses and households to adjust rapidly to sudden changes in energy prices (line 15 of the table), although these costs should be tempered by increasing U.S. oil production.
On balance, Table II-27 through Table II-28 show that the U.S. economy as a whole will experience large net economic benefits from the proposed action (line 22). While the proposal to establish less stringent CAFE and GHG emission standards will produce net external economic costs, as the increase in environmental and energy security externalities outweighs external benefits from reduced driving and higher fuel tax revenue (line 19), the table also shows that combined benefits to vehicle manufacturers, buyers, and users of cars and light trucks, and the general public (line 20), including the value of the lives saved and injuries avoided, will greatly outweigh the combined economic costs they experience as a consequence of this proposed action (line 21).
The finding that this action to reduce the stringency of previously-established CAFE and GHG standards will create significant net economic benefits—when it was initially claimed that establishing those standards would also generate large economic benefits to vehicle buyers and others throughout the economy—is notable. This contrast with the earlier finding is explained by the availability of updated information on the costs and effectiveness of technologies that will remain available to improve fuel economy in model years 2021 and beyond, the fleet-wide consequences for vehicle use, fuel consumption, and safety from requiring higher fuel economy (that is, considering these consequences for used cars and light trucks as well as new ones), and new estimates of some external costs of fuel in petroleum use.
Unlike previous CAFE and GHG rulemaking analyses, the economic context in which the alternatives are simulated is more explicit. While both this analysis and previous analyses contained fuel price projections from the Annual Energy Outlook, which has embedded assumptions about future macroeconomic conditions, this analysis requires explicit assumptions about future GDP growth, labor force participation, and interest rates in order to evaluate the alternatives.
The analysis simulates compliance through MY 2032 explicitly and must consider the full useful lives of those vehicles, approximately 40 years, in order to estimate their lifetime mileage accumulation and fuel consumption. This means that any macroeconomic forecast influencing those factors must cover a similar span of years. Due to the long time horizon, a source that regularly produces such lengthy forecasts of these factors was selected:
The analysis once again uses fuel price projections from the 2017 Annual Energy Outlook.
After significant portions of today's analysis had already been completed, EIA released AEO 2018, which reports reference case fuel prices about 10% higher than reported in AEO 2017, though still well below the above-mentioned prices from AEO 2011. The sensitivity analysis therefore includes a case that applies fuel prices from the AEO 2018 reference case. The AEO 2018 low oil price case reports fuel prices somewhat higher than the AEO 2017 low oil price case, and the AEO 2018 high oil price case reports fuel prices very similar to the AEO 2017 high oil price case. Adding the AEO 2018 low and high oil price cases to the sensitivity analysis would thus have provided little, if any, additional insight into the sensitivity of the analysis to fuel prices. As shown in the summary of the sensitivity analysis, results obtained applying AEO 2018-based fuel prices are similar to those obtained applying AEO 2017-based fuel prices. For example, net benefits between the two are about five percent different, especially considering that decisions regarding future standards are not single-factor decisions, but rather reflect a balancing of factors, applying AEO 2018-based fuel prices would not materially change the extent to which today's analysis supports the selection of the preferred alternative.
Like other inputs to the analysis, fuel prices will be updated for the analysis supporting the final rule after consideration of related new information and public comment.
In all previous CAFE and GHG rulemaking analyses, static fleet forecasts that were based on a combination of manufacturer compliance data, public data sources, and proprietary forecasts were used. When simulating compliance with regulatory alternatives, the analysis projected identical sales across the alternatives, for each manufacturer down to the make/model level where the exact same number of each model variant was simulated to be sold in a given model year under both the least stringent alternative (typically the
Any model of sales response must satisfy two requirements: It must be appropriate for use in the CAFE model, and it must be econometrically reasonable. The first of these requirements implies that any variable used in the estimation of the econometric model, must also be available as a forecast throughout the duration of the years covered by the simulations (this analysis explicitly simulates compliance through MY 2032). Some values the model calculates endogenously, making them available in future years for sales estimation, but others must be known in advance of the simulation. As the CAFE model simulates compliance, it accumulates technology costs across the industry and over time. By starting with the last known transaction price and adding the accumulated technology cost to that value, the model is able to represent the average selling price in each future model year assuming that manufacturers are able to pass all of their compliance costs on to buyers of new vehicles. Other variables used in the estimation must enter the model as inputs prior to the start of the compliance simulation.
How potential buyers value improvements in the fuel economy of new cars and light trucks is an important issue in assessing the benefits and costs of government regulation. If buyers fully value the savings in fuel costs that result from higher fuel economy, manufacturers will presumably supply any improvements that buyers demand, and vehicle prices will fully reflect future fuel cost savings consumers would realize from owning—and potentially re-selling—more fuel-efficient models. In this case, more stringent fuel economy standards will impose net costs on vehicle owners and can only result in social benefits by correcting externalities, since consumers would already fully incorporate private savings into their purchase decisions. If instead consumers systematically undervalue the cost savings generated by improvements in fuel economy when choosing among competing models, more stringent fuel economy standards will also lead manufacturers to adopt improvements in fuel economy that buyers might not choose despite the cost savings they offer.
The potential for car buyers to forego improvements in fuel economy that offer savings exceeding their initial costs is one example of what is often termed the “energy-efficiency gap.” This appearance of such a gap, between the level of energy efficiency that would minimize consumers' overall expenses and what they actually purchase, is typically based on engineering calculations that compare the initial cost for providing higher energy efficiency to the discounted present value of the resulting savings in future energy costs.
There has long been an active debate about why such a gap might arise and whether it actually exists. Economic theory predicts that individuals will purchase more energy-efficient products only if the savings in future energy costs they offer promise to offset their higher initial costs. However, the additional cost of a more energy-efficient product includes more than just the cost of the technology necessary to improve its efficiency; it also includes the opportunity cost of any other desirable features that consumers give up when they choose the more efficient alternative. In the context of vehicles, whether the expected fuel savings outweigh the opportunity cost of purchasing a model offering higher fuel economy will depend on how much its buyer expects to drive, his or her expectations about future fuel prices, the discount rate he or she uses to value future expenses, the expected effect on resale value, and whether more efficient models offer equivalent attributes such as performance, carrying capacity, reliability, quality, or other characteristics.
Published literature has offered little consensus about consumers' willingness-to-pay for greater fuel economy, and whether it implies over-, under- or full-valuation of the expected fuel savings from purchasing a model with higher fuel economy. Most studies have relied on car buyers' purchasing behavior to estimate their willingness-to-pay for future fuel savings; a typical approach has been to use “discrete choice” models that relate individual buyers' choices among competing vehicles to their purchase prices, fuel economy, and other attributes (such as performance, carrying capacity, and reliability), and to infer buyers' valuation of higher fuel economy from the relative importance of purchase prices and fuel economy.
Despite these efforts, more recent research has criticized these cross-sectional studies; some have questioned the effectiveness of the instruments they use (Allcott & Greenstone, 2012), while others have observed that coefficients estimated using non-linear statistical methods can be sensitive to the optimization algorithm and starting values (Knittel & Metaxoglou, 2014). Collinearity (
In an effort to overcome shortcomings of past analyses, three recently published studies rely on panel data from sales of individual vehicle models to improve their reliability in identifying the association between vehicles' prices and their fuel economy (Sallee,
These studies point to a somewhat narrower range of estimates than suggested by previous cross-sectional studies; more importantly, they consistently suggest that buyers value a large proportion—and perhaps even all—of the future savings that models with higher fuel economy offer.
As Table 1 indicates, Allcott & Wozny (2014) find that consumers incorporate 55% of future fuel costs into vehicle purchase decisions at a six percent discount rate, when their expectations for future gasoline prices are assumed to reflect prevailing prices at the time of their purchases. With the same expectation about future fuel prices, the authors report that consumers would fully value fuel costs only if they apply discount rates of 24% or higher. However, these authors' estimates are closer to full valuation when using gasoline price forecasts that mirror oil futures markets because the petroleum market expected prices to fall during this period (this outlook reduces the discounted value of a vehicle's expected remaining lifetime fuel costs). With this expectation, Allcott & Wozny (2014) find that buyers value 76% of future cost savings (discounted at six percent) from choosing a model that offers higher fuel economy, and that a discount rate of 15% would imply that they fully value future cost savings. Sallee
The studies also explore the sensitivity of the results to other parameters that could influence their results. Busse
Since they rely predominantly on changes in vehicles' prices between repeat sales, most of the valuation estimates reported in these studies apply most directly to buyers of used vehicles. Only Busse
Accounting for differences in their data and estimation procedures, the three studies described here suggest that car buyers who use discount rates of five to six percent value at least half—and perhaps all—of the savings in future fuel costs they expect from choosing models that offer higher fuel economy. Perhaps more important in assessing the case for regulating fuel economy, one study suggests that buyers of
In contrast, previous regulatory analyses of fuel economy standards implicitly assumed that buyers undervalue even more of the benefits they would experience from purchasing models with higher fuel economy so that without increases in fuel economy standards little improvement would occur, and the entire value of fuel savings from raising CAFE standards represented private benefits to car and light truck buyers themselves. For instance, in the EPA analysis of the 2017-2025 model year greenhouse gas emission standards, fuel savings alone added up to $475 billion (at three percent discount rate) over the lifetime of the vehicles, far outweighing the compliance costs: $150 billion). The assertion that buyers were unwilling to take voluntary advantage of this opportunity implies that collectively, they must have valued less than a third ($150 billion/$475 billion = 32%) of the fuel savings that would have resulted from those standards.
What analysts assume about consumers' vehicle purchasing behavior, particularly about potential buyers' perspectives on the value of increased fuel economy, clearly matters a great deal in the context of benefit-cost analysis for fuel economy regulation. In light of recent evidence on this question, a more nuanced approach than assuming that buyers drastically undervalue benefits from higher fuel economy, and that as a consequence, these benefits are unlikely to be realized without stringent fuel economy standards, seems warranted. One possible approach would be to use a baseline scenario where fuel economy levels of new cars and light trucks reflected full (or nearly so) valuation of fuel savings by potential buyers in order to reveal whether setting fuel economy standards above market-determined levels could produce net social benefits. Another might be to assume that, unlike in the agencies' previous analyses, where buyers were assumed to greatly undervalue higher fuel economy under the baseline but to value it fully under the proposed standards, buyers value improved fuel economy identically under both the baseline scenario and with stricter CAFE standards in place. The agencies ask for comment on these and any alternative approaches they should consider for valuing fuel savings, new peer-reviewed evidence on vehicle buyers' behavior that casts light on how they value improved fuel economy, the appropriate private discount rate to apply to future fuel savings, and thus the degree to which private fuel savings should be considered as private benefits of increasing fuel economy standards.
Developing a procedure to predict the effects of changes in prices and attributes of new vehicles is complicated by the fact that their sales are highly pro-cyclical—that is, they are very sensitive to changes in macroeconomic conditions—and also statistically “noisy,” because they reflect the transient effects of other factors such as consumers' confidence in the future, which can be difficult to observe and measure accurately. At the same time, their average sales price tends to move in parallel with changes in economic growth; that is, average new vehicle prices tend to be higher when the total number of new vehicles sold is increasing and lower when the total number of new sales decreases (typically during periods of low economic growth or recessions). Finally, counts of the total number of new cars and light trucks that are sold do not capture shifts in demand among vehicle size classes or body styles (“market segments”); nor do they measure changes in the durability, safety, fuel economy, carrying capacity, comfort, or other aspects of vehicles' quality.
The historical series of new light-duty vehicle sales exhibits cyclic behavior over time that is most responsive to larger cycles in the macro economy—but has not increased over time in the same way the population, for example, has. While U.S. population has grown over 35 percent since 1980, the registered vehicle population has grown at an even faster pace—nearly doubling between 1980 and 2015.
In an attempt to overcome these analytical challenges, various approaches were experimented with to predict the response of new vehicle sales to the changes in prices, fuel economy, and other features. These included treating new vehicle demand as a product of changes in total demand for vehicle ownership and demand necessary to replace used vehicles that are retired, analyzing total expenditures to purchase new cars and light trucks in conjunction with the total number sold, and other approaches. However, none of these methods offered a significant improvement over estimating the total number of vehicles sold directly from its historical relationship to directly measurable factors such as their average sales price, macroeconomic variables such as GDP or Personal Disposable Income, U.S. labor force participation, and regularly published surveys of consumer sentiment or confidence.
Quarterly, rather than annual data on total sales of new cars and light trucks, their average selling price, and macroeconomic variables was used to develop an econometric model of sales, in order to increase the number of observations and more accurately capture the causal effects of individual explanatory variables. Applying conventional data diagnostics for time-series economic data revealed that most variables were non-stationary (
To address the complications of the time series data, the analysis estimated an autoregressive distributed-lag (ARDL) model that employs a combination of lagged values of its dependent variable—in this case, last year's and the prior year's vehicle sales—and the change in average vehicle price, quarterly changes in the U.S. GDP growth rate, as well as current and lagged values of quarterly estimates of U.S. labor force participation. The number of lagged values of each explanatory variable to include was determined empirically (using the Bayesian information criterion), by examining the effects of including different combinations of their lagged values on how well the model “explained” historical variation in car and light truck sales.
The results of this approach were encouraging: The model's predictions fit the historical data on sales well, each of its explanatory variables displayed the expected effect on sales, and analysis of its unexplained residual terms revealed little evidence of autocorrelation or other indications of statistical problems. The model coefficients suggest that positive GDP growth rates and increases in labor force participation are both indicators of increases in new vehicle sales, while positive changes in average new vehicle price reduce new sales. However, the magnitude of the
Based on the model, a $1,000 increase in the average new vehicle price causes approximately 170,000 lost units in the first year, followed by a reduction of another 600,000 units over the next ten years as the initial sales decrease propagates over time through the lagged variables and their coefficients. The price elasticity of new car and light truck sales implied by alternative estimates of the model's coefficients ranged from −0.2 to −0.3—meaning that changes in their prices have moderate effects on total sales—which contrasts with estimates of higher sensitivity to prices implied by some models.
Despite the evidence in the literature, summarized above, that consumers value most, if not all, of the fuel economy improvements when purchasing new vehicles, the model described here operates at too high a level of aggregation to capture these preferences. By modeling the total number of new vehicles sold in a given year, it is necessary to quantify important measures, like sales price or fuel economy, by averages. Our model operates at a high level of aggregation, where the average fuel economy represents an average across many vehicle types, usage profiles, and fuel economy levels. In this context, the average fuel economy was not a meaningful value with respect to its influence on the total number of new vehicles sold. A number of recent studies have indeed shown that consumers value fuel savings (almost) fully. Those studies are frequently based on large datasets that are able to control for all other vehicle attributes through a variety of econometric techniques. They represent micro-level decisions, where a buyer is (at least theoretically) choosing between a more or less efficient version of a pickup truck (for example) that is otherwise identical. In an aggregate sense, the average is not comparable to the decision an individual consumer faces.
Estimating the sales response at the level of total new vehicle sales likely fails to address valid concerns about changes to the quality or attributes of new vehicles sold—both over time and in response to price increases resulting from CAFE standards. However, attempts to address such concerns would require significant additional data, new statistical approaches, and structural changes to the CAFE model over several years. It is also the case that using absolute changes in the average price may be more limited than another characterization of price that relies on distributions of household income over time or percentage change in the new vehicle price. The former would require forecasting a deeply uncertain quantity many years into the future, and the latter only become relevant once the simulation moves beyond the magnitude of observed price changes in the historical series. Future versions of this model may use a different characterization of cost that accounts for some of these factors if their inclusion improves the model estimation and corresponding forecast projections are available.
The changes in selling prices, fuel economy, and other features of cars and light trucks produced during future model years that result from manufacturers' responses to lower CAFE and GHG emission standards are likely to affect both sales of individual models and the total number of new vehicles sold. Because the values of changes in fuel economy and other features to potential buyers are not completely understood; however, the magnitude, and possibly even the direction, of their effect on sales of new vehicles is difficult to anticipate. On balance, it is reasonable to assume that the changes in prices, fuel economy, and other attributes expected to result from their proposed action to amend and establish fuel economy and GHG emission standards are likely to increase total sales of new cars and light trucks during future model years. Please provide comment on the relationship between price increases, fuel economy, and new vehicle sales, as well as methods to appropriately account for these relationships.
The purpose of the sales response model is to allow the CAFE model to simulate new vehicle sales in a given future model year, accounting for the impact of a regulatory alternative's stringency on new vehicle prices (in a macro-economic context that is identical across alternatives). In order to accomplish this, it is important that the model of sales response be dynamically stable, meaning that it responds to shocks not by “exploding,” increasing or decreasing in a way that is unbounded, but rather returns to a stable path, allowing the shock to dissipate. The CAFE model uses the sales model described above to dynamically project future sales; after the first year of the simulation, lagged values of new vehicle sales are those that were produced by the model itself rather than observed. The sales response model constructed here uses two lagged dependent variables and simple econometric conditions determine if the model is dynamically stable. The coefficients of the one-year lag and the two-year lag, β
Using the Augural CAFE standards as the baseline, it is possible to produce a series of future total sales as shown in Table-II-32. For comparison, the table includes the calculated total light-duty sales of a proprietary forecast purchased to support the 2016 Draft TAR analysis, the total new light-duty sales in EIA's 2017 Annual Energy Outlook, and a (short) forecast published in the Center for Automotive Research's Q4 2017 Automotive Outlook. All of the forecasts in Table-II-32 assume the Augural Standards are in place through MY 2025, though assumptions about the costs required to comply with them likely differ. As the table shows, despite differences among them, the dynamically produced sales projection from the CAFE model is not qualitatively different from the others.
While this
In addition to the statistical model that estimates the response of total new vehicle sales to changes in the average new vehicle price, the CAFE model incorporates a dynamic fleet share model that modifies the light truck (and, symmetrically, passenger car) share of the new vehicle market. A version of this model first appeared in the 2012 final rule, when this fleet share component was introduced to ensure greater internal consistency within inputs in the uncertainty analysis. For today's analysis, this dynamic fleet share is enabled throughout the analysis of alternatives.
The dynamic fleet share model is a series of difference equations that determine the relative share of light trucks and passenger cars based on the average fuel economy of each, the fuel price, and average vehicle attributes like horsepower and vehicle mass (the latter of which explicitly evolves as a result of the compliance simulation). While this model was taken from EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), it is applied at a different level. Rather than apply the shares based on the regulatory class distinction, the CAFE model applies the shares to body-style. This is done to account for the large-scale shift in recent years to crossover utility vehicles that have model variants in both the passenger car and light truck regulatory fleets. The agencies have always modified their static forecasts of new vehicle sales to reflect the PC/LT split present in the Annual Energy Outlook; this integration continues that approach in a way that ensures greater internal consistency when simulating multiple regulatory alternatives (and conducting sensitivity analysis on any of the factors that influence fleet share).
Another potential option to estimate future new vehicle sales would be to use a full consumer choice model. The agencies simulate compliance with CAFE and CO
Aside from the computational intensity of simulating new vehicle sales at the level of individual models—for all manufacturers, under each regulatory alternative, over the next decade or more—it would be necessary to include additional relationships
It is also true consumers have heterogeneous preferences that change over time and determine willingness-to-pay for a variety of vehicle attributes. These preferences change in response to marketing, distribution, pricing, and product strategies that manufacturers may change over time. With enough data, a consumer choice model could stratify new vehicle buyers into types and attempt to measure the strength of each type's preference for fuel economy, acceleration, safety rating, perceived quality and reliability, interior volume, or comfort. However, other factors also influence customers' purchase decision, and some of these can be challenging to model. Consumer proximity to dealerships, quality of service and customer experience at dealerships, availability and terms of financing, and basic product awareness may significantly factor into sales success.
Manufacturers' marketing choices may significantly and unpredictably affect sales. Ad campaigns may increase awareness in the market, and campaigns may reposition consumers' perception of the brands and products. For example, in 2011 the Volkswagen Passat featured an ad with a child in a Darth Vader costume (and showcased remote start technology on the Passat). In MY 2012, Kia established the Kia Soul with party rocking, hip-hop hamster commercials showcasing push-button ignition, a roomy interior, and design features in the brake lights. Both commercials raised awareness and highlighted basic product features. Each commercial also impressed demographic groups with pop culture references, product placement, and co-branding. While the marketing budget of individual manufacturers may help a consumer choice model estimate market share for a given brand, estimating the impact of a given campaign on new sales is more challenging as consumers make purchasing decisions based upon their own needs and desires.
Modelers must understand how consumers and commercial buyers select vehicles in order to effectively develop and implement a consumer choice model in a compliance simulation. Consumers purchase vehicles for a variety of reasons such as family need, need for more space, new technology, changes to income and affordability of a new vehicle, improved fuel economy, operating costs of current vehicles, and others. Once committed to buying a vehicle, consumers use different processes to narrow down their shopping list. Consumer choice decision attributes include factors both related and not related to the vehicle design. The vehicle's utility for those attributes is researched across many different information sources as listed in the table below.
An objective, attribute-based consumer choice model could lead to projected swings in manufacturer market shares and individual model volumes. The current approach simulates compliance for each manufacturer assuming that it produces the same set of vehicles that it produced in the initial year of the simulation (MY 2016 in today's analysis). If a consumer choice model were to drive projected sales of a given vehicle model below some threshold, as consumers have done in the real market, the simulation currently has no way to generate a new vehicle model to take its place. As demand changes across specific market segments and models, manufacturers adapt by supplying new vehicle nameplates and models (
Comment is sought on the development and use of potential consumer choice model in compliance simulations. Comment is also sought on the appropriate breadth, depth, and complexity of considerations in a consumer choice model.
In the first two joint CAFE/CO
Today many of the effects that were previously qualitatively identified, but not considered, are quantified. For instance, in the PRIA for the 2017-2025 rule EPA identified “demand effects,” “cost effects,” and “factor shift effects” as important considerations for industry labor, but the analysis did not attempt to quantify either the demand effect or the factor shift effect.
Previous analyses and new methodologies to consider direct labor effects on the automotive sector in the United States were improved upon and developed. Potential changes that were evaluated include (1) dealership labor related to new light duty vehicle unit sales; (2) changes in assembly labor for vehicles, for engines and for transmissions related to new vehicle unit sales; and (3) changes in industry labor related to additional fuel savings technologies, accounting for new vehicle unit sales. All automotive labor effects were estimated and reported at a national level,
The analysis estimated labor effects from the forecasted CAFE model technology costs and from review of automotive labor for the MY 2016 fleet. For each vehicle in the CAFE model analysis, the locations for vehicle assembly, engine assembly, and transmission assembly and estimated labor in MY 2016 were recorded. The percent U.S. content for each vehicle was also recorded. Not all parts are made in the United States, so the analysis also took into account the percent U.S. content for each vehicle as manufacturers add fuel-savings technologies. As manufacturers added fuel-economy technologies in the CAFE model simulations, the analysis assumed percent U.S. content would remain constant in the future, and that the U.S. labor added would be proportional to U.S. content. From this foundation, the analysis forecasted automotive labor effects as the CAFE model added fuel economy technology and adjusted future sales for each vehicle.
The analysis also accounts for sales projections in response to the different regulatory alternatives; the labor analysis considers changes in new vehicle prices and new vehicle sales (for further discussion of the sales model, see Section 2.E). As vehicle prices rise, the analysis expected consumers to purchase fewer vehicles than they would have at lower prices. As manufacturers sell fewer vehicles, the manufacturers may need less labor to produce the vehicles and less labor to sell the vehicles. However, as manufacturers add equipment to each new vehicle, the manufacturers will require human resources to develop, sell, and produce additional fuel-saving technologies. The analysis also accounts for the potential that new standards could shift the relative shares of passenger cars and light trucks in the overall fleet (see Section 2.E); insofar as different vehicles involved different amounts of labor, this shifting impacts the quantity of estimated labor. The CAFE model automotive labor analysis takes into account reduction in vehicle sales, shifts in the mix of passenger cars and light trucks, and addition of fuel-savings technologies.
For today's analysis, it was assumed that some observations about the production of MY 2016 vehicles would carry forward, unchanged into the future. For instance, assembly plants would remain the same as MY 2016 for all products now, and in the future. The analysis assumed percent U.S. content would remain constant, even as manufacturers updated vehicles and introduced new fuel-saving technologies. It was assumed that assembly labor hours per unit would remain at estimated MY 2016 levels for vehicles, engines, and transmissions, and the factor between direct assembly labor and parts production jobs would remain the same. When considering shifts from one technology to another, the analysis assumed revenue per employee at suppliers and original equipment manufacturers would remain in line with MY 2016 levels, even as manufacturers added fuel-saving technologies and realized cost reductions from learning.
The analysis focused on automotive labor because adjacent employment factors and consumer spending factors for other goods and services are uncertain and difficult to predict. The analysis did not consider how direct labor changes may affect the macro economy and possibly change employment in adjacent industries. For instance, the analysis did not consider possible labor changes in vehicle maintenance and repair, nor did it consider changes in labor at retail gas stations. The analysis did not consider possible labor changes due to raw material production, such as production of aluminum, steel, copper and lithium, nor did the agencies consider possible labor impacts due to changes in production of oil and gas, ethanol, and electricity. The analysis did not analyze effects of how consumers could spend money saved due to improved fuel economy, nor did the analysis assess the effects of how consumers would pay for more expensive fuel savings technologies at the time of purchase; either could affect consumption of other goods and services, and hence affect labor in other industries. The effects of increased usage of car-sharing, ride-sharing, and automated vehicles were not analyzed. The analysis did not estimate how changes in labor from any industry could affect gross domestic product and possibly affect other industries as a result.
Finally, no assumptions were made about full-employment or not full-employment and the availability of human resources to fill positions. When the economy is at full employment, a fuel economy regulation is unlikely to have much impact on net overall U.S. employment; instead, labor would primarily be shifted from one sector to another. These shifts in employment impose an opportunity cost on society, approximated by the wages of the employees, as regulation diverts workers from other activities in the economy. In this situation, any effects on net employment are likely to be transitory as workers change jobs (
Comment is sought on these assumptions and approaches in the labor analysis.
The following sections discuss the approaches to estimating factors related to dealership labor, final assembly labor and parts production, and fuel economy technology labor.
The analysis evaluated dealership labor related to new light-duty vehicle sales, and estimated the labor hours per new vehicle sold at dealerships, including labor from sales, finance, insurance, and management. The effect of new car sales on the maintenance, repair, and parts department labor is expected to be limited, as this need is based on the vehicle miles traveled of the total fleet. To estimate the labor hours at dealerships per new vehicle sold, the National Automobile Dealers Association 2016 Annual Report, which provides franchise dealer employment by department and function, was referenced.
How the quantity of assembly labor and parts production labor for MY 2016 vehicles would increase or decrease in the future as new vehicle unit sales increased or decreased was estimated.
Specific assembly locations for final vehicle assembly, engine assembly, and transmission assembly for each MY 2016 vehicle were identified. In some cases, manufacturers assembled products in more than one location, and the analysis identified such products and considered parallel production in the labor analysis.
The analysis estimated industry average direct assembly labor per vehicle (30 hours), per engine (four hours), and per transmission (five hours) based on a sample of U.S. assembly plant employment and production statistics and other publicly available information. The analysis recognizes that some plants may use less labor than the analysis estimates to produce the vehicle, the engine, or the transmission, and other plants may have used more labor. The analysis used the assembly locations and industry averages for labor per unit to estimate U.S. assembly labor hours for each vehicle. U.S. assembly labor hours per vehicle ranged from as high as 39 hours if the manufacturer assembled the vehicle, engine, and transmission at U.S. plants, to as low as zero hours if the manufacturer imported the vehicle, engine, and transmission.
The analysis also considered labor for part production in addition to labor for final assembly. Motor vehicle and equipment manufacturing labor statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
The industry estimates for vehicle assembly labor and parts production labor for each vehicle scaled up or down as unit sales scaled up or down over time in the CAFE model.
As manufacturers spend additional dollars on fuel-saving technologies, parts suppliers and manufacturers require human resources to bring those technologies to market. Manufacturers may add, shift, or replace employees in ways that are difficult for the agencies to predict in response to adding fuel-savings technologies; however, it is expected that the revenue per labor hour at original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and suppliers will remain about the same as in MY 2016 even as industry includes additional fuel-saving technology.
To estimate the average revenue per labor hour at OEMs and suppliers, the analysis looked at financial reports from publicly traded automotive businesses.
The analysis estimated the total labor as the sum of three components: Dealership hours, final assembly and parts production, and labor for fuel-economy technologies (at OEM's and suppliers). The CAFE model calculated additional labor hours for each vehicle, based on current vehicle manufacturing locations and simulation outputs for additional technologies, and sales changes. The analysis applied some constants to all vehicles,
While a multiplier effect of all U.S. automotive related jobs on non-auto related U.S. jobs was not considered for today's analysis, the analysis did program a “global multiplier” that can be used to scale up or scale down the total labor hours. This multiplier exists in the parameters file, and for today's analysis the analysis set the value at 1.00.
Some costs of purchasing and owning a new or used vehicle scale with the
The analysis took auto sales taxes by state
The analysis assumes 85% of automobiles are financed based on Experian's quarter 4, 2016 “State of the Automotive Finance Market,” which notes that 85.2% of 2016 new vehicles were financed, as were 85.9% of 2015 new vehicle purchases.
From Wards Auto data, the average 48- and 60-month new auto interest rates were 4.25% in 2016, and the average finance term length for new autos was 68 months. It is recognized that longer financing terms generally include higher interest rates. The share financed, interest rate, and finance term length are added as inputs in the
The above stream does not equate to the average amount paid to finance the purchase of a new vehicle. In order to compute this amount, the share of financed transactions at each interest rate and term combination would have to be known. Without having projections of the full distribution of the auto finance market into the future, the above methodology reasonably accounts for the increased amount of financing costs due to the purchase of a more expensive vehicle, on an average basis taking into account non-financed transactions. Financing payments are also assumed to be an intertemporal transfer of wealth for a consumer; for this reason, it is not included in the societal cost and benefit analysis. However, because it is an additional cost paid by the consumer, it is calculated as a part of the private consumer welfare analysis.
It is recognized that increased finance terms, combined with rising interest rates, lead to a longer period of time before a consumer will have positive equity in the vehicle to trade in toward the purchase of a newer vehicle. This has impacts in terms of consumers either trading vehicles with negative equity (thereby increasing the amount financed and potentially subjecting the consumer to higher interest rates and/or rendering the consumer unable to obtaining financing) or delaying the replacement of the vehicle until they achieve suitably positive equity to allow for a trade. Comment is sought on the effect these developments will have on the new vehicle market, both in general, and in light of increased stringency of fuel economy and GHG emission standards. Comment is also sought on whether and how the model should account for consumer decisions to purchase a used vehicle instead of a new vehicle based upon increased new vehicle prices in response to increased CAFE standard stringency.
More expensive vehicles will require more expensive collision and comprehensive (
To utilize the above framework, estimates of the share of MSRP paid on collision and comprehensive insurance and of annual vehicle depreciations are needed to implement the above equation. Wards has data on the average annual amount paid by model year for new light trucks and passenger cars on collision, comprehensive and damage and liability insurance for model years 1992-2003; for model years 2004-2016, they only offer the total amount paid for insurance premiums. The share of total insurance premiums paid for collision and comprehensive coverage was computed for 1979-2003. For cars the share ranges from 49 to 55%, with the share tending to be largest towards the end of the series. For trucks the share ranges from 43 to 61%, again, with the share increasing towards the end of the series. It is assumed that for model years 2004-2016, 60% of insurance premiums for trucks, and 55% for cars, is paid for collision and comprehensive. Using these shares the absolute amount paid for collision and comprehensive coverage for cars and trucks is computed. Then each regulatory class in the fleet is weighted by share to estimate the overall average amount paid for collision and comprehensive insurance by model year as shown in Table-II-35. The average share of the initial MSRP paid in collision and comprehensive insurance by model year is then computed. The average share paid for model years 2010-2016 is 1.83% of the initial MSRP. This is used as the share of the value of a new vehicle paid for collision and comprehensive in the future.
2017 data from Fitch Black Book was used as a source for vehicle depreciation rates; two- to six-year-old vehicles in 2016 had an average annual depreciation rate of 17.3%.
The increase in insurance premiums resulting from an increase in the average value of a vehicle is a result of an increase in the expected amount insurance companies will have to pay out in the case of damage occurring to the driver's vehicle. In this way, it is a cost to the private consumer, attributable to the CAFE standard that caused the price increase.
In previous rulemaking analyses, NHTSA imposed an economic cost of lost welfare to buyers of advanced electric vehicles. NHTSA chose to model a 75-mile EV for early adopters, who we assume would not be concerned with the lower range, and a 150-mile EV for the broader market. The initial five percent of EV sales were assumed to go to early adopters, with the remainder being 150-mile EVs. The broader market was assumed to have some lower utility for the 150-mile EV, due to the lower driving range between refueling events relative to a conventional vehicle. Thus, an additional social cost of about $3,500 per vehicle was assigned to the EV150 to capture the lost utility to consumers.
One reason it was necessary to account for welfare losses from reduced driving range in this way is that, in previous rulemakings, the agencies implicitly assumed that every vehicle in the forecast would be produced and purchased and that manufacturers would pass on the entire incremental cost of fuel-saving technologies to new car (and truck) buyers. However, many stakeholders commented that consumers are not willing to pay the full incremental costs for hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and battery electric vehicles.
Using data from the used vehicle market, statistical models were fit to estimate consumer willingness to pay for new vehicles with varying levels of electrification relative to comparable internal combustion engine vehicles was evaluated in four steps. The analysis (1) gathered used car fair market value for select vehicles; (2) developed regression models to estimate the portion of vehicle depreciation rate attributable to the vehicle nameplate and the portion attributable to the vehicle's technology content at each age (using fixed effects for nameplates and specific electrification technologies); (3) estimated the value of vehicles at age zero (
The dataset used for estimation consisted of vehicle attribute data from Edmunds and transaction data from Kelley Blue Book published online in June and July of 2017 for select vehicles of interest.
The regression models used to estimate the transaction price (or “Value”) as a function of age, control for the type of powertrain (ICE, HEV, PHEV, and BEV) and nameplate to account for their impact on the value of the vehicle as it ages.
For each observation in the dataset, the “Value” at age zero is determined by setting the age variable to zero and solving.
The estimated willingness-to-pay for electrified powertrain packages over an internal combustion engine in an otherwise similar vehicle is computed as the difference between their estimated initial values, using the functions above. These pair-wise differences are averaged to estimate a price premium for new vehicles with HEV, PHEV, and BEV technologies. This analysis suggests that consumers are willing to pay more for new electrified vehicles than their new internal engine combustion counterparts, but only a little more, and not necessarily enough to cover the relatively large projected incremental cost to produce these vehicles. Specifically, the analysis estimated consumers are willing to pay between $2,000 and $3,000 more for the electrified powertrains considered here than their internal combustion engine counterparts.
Table-II-37 illustrates the variation in willingness-to-pay by electrification level (although the statistical model did not distinguish between PHEV30 and PHEV50 due to the small number of available operations for plug-in hybrids). As the table demonstrates, the difference between the median and mean predicted price premium for PHEVs is significant. The limited number of PHEV observations were not uniformly distributed among the nameplates present, and some of the luxury vehicles in the set retained value in a way that skewed the average. The CBI acquired from manufacturers was more consistent with the mean than median value (except for the PHEVs).
Additionally, the Kelley Blue Book data suggest that the used electrified vehicles were often worth less than their used internal combustion engine counterpart vehicles after a few years of use.
The “technology cost burden” numbers used in today's analysis represent the amount of a given technology's incremental cost that manufacturers are unable to pass along to the buyer of a given vehicle at the time of purchase. The burden is defined as the difference between estimated willingness-to-pay, itself a combination of the estimated values and confidential business information received from manufacturers any tax credits that can be passed through in the price, and the cost of the technology. In general, the incremental willingness-to-pay falls well short of the costs currently projected for HEVs, PHEVs, and BEVs; for example, BEV technology can add roughly $18,000 in equipment costs to the vehicle after standard retail price equivalent markups (with a large portion of those costs being batteries), but the estimated willingness-to-pay is only about $3,000. While tax credits offset some, if not most of that difference for PHEVs and BEVs, there is some residual amount that buyers of new electrified vehicles are currently unwilling to cover, and that must either come from forgone profits or be passed
Manufacturers may be able to recover some or all of these costs by charging higher prices for their other models, in which case it will represent a welfare loss to buyers of other vehicles (even if not to buyers of HEVs, PHEVs, or BEVs themselves). To the extent that they are unable to do so and must absorb part or all of these costs, their profits will decline, and in effect this cost will be borne by their investors. In practice, the analysis estimates benefits and costs to car and light truck manufacturers and buyers under the assumption that each manufacturer recovers all technology costs and civil penalties it incurs from buyers via higher average prices for the models it produces and sells, although sufficient information to support specific assumptions about price increases for individual models is not present. In effect, this means that any part of a manufacturer's costs to convert specific models to electric drive technologies that it cannot recover by charging higher prices to their buyers will be borne collectively by buyers of the other models they produce. Each of those buyers is in effect assumed to pay a slight premium (or “markup”) over the manufacturer's cost to produce the models they purchase (including the cost of any technology used to improve its fuel economy), this premium on average is modeled to recover the full cost of technology applied to all vehicles to improve the fuel economy of the fleet. So, even though electrified vehicles are modeled as if their buyers are unwilling to pay the full cost of the technology associated with their fuel economy improvement, the price borne by the average new vehicle buyer represents the average incremental technology cost for all applied technology, the sum of all technology costs divided by the number of units sold, across all classes, for each manufacturer.
The willingness-to-pay analysis described above relies on used vehicle data that is widely available to the public. Market tracking services update used vehicle price estimates regularly as fuel prices and other market conditions change, making the data easy to update in the future as market conditions change. The used vehicle data also account for consumer willingness-to-pay absent State and Federal rebates at the time of sale, which are reflected in both the initial purchase price of the vehicle and its later value in the used vehicle market. As such, the analysis would continue to be relevant even if incentive programs for vehicle electrification change or phase out in the future. By considering a variety of nameplates and body styles produced by several manufacturers, this analysis produces average willingness-to-pay estimates that can be applied to the whole industry. By evaluating matched pairs of vehicles from the same manufacturer, the analysis accounts for many additional factors that may be tied to the brand, rather than the technology, and influence the fair market price of vehicles. In particular, the data inherently include customer valuations for fuel-savings and vehicle maintenance schedules, as well as other factors like noise-vibration-and-harshness, interior space,
There are some limitations to this approach. There are currently few observations of PHEV and BEV technologies in the data, and most of the observations for BEVs are sedans and small cars, the values for which are extrapolated to other market segments. Additionally, the used vehicle data supporting these estimates inherently includes both older and newer generations of technology, so the historical regression may be slow to react to rapid changes in the new vehicle marketplace. As new vehicle nameplates emerge, and existing nameplates improve their implementation of electrification technologies, this model will require re-estimation to determine how these new entrants impact the estimated industry average willingness-to-pay.
Additionally, the willingness-to-pay analysis does not consider electric vehicles with no direct ICE counterpart. For example, today's evaluation does not consider Tesla because the Tesla brand has no ICE equivalent, and because the free-market prices for used Tesla vehicles have been difficult (if not impossible) to obtain, primarily due to factory guaranteed resale values (which is a program that still affects the used market for many Tesla vehicles). Still, Tesla vehicles have a large share of the BEV market by both unit sales and dollar sales, it may be possible to include Tesla data in a future update to this analysis. Similarly, the analysis did not include ICE vehicles with no similar HEV, PHEV, or BEV nameplate or counterpart, so the analysis presented here looks at a small portion of all transactions and is more likely to include fuel efficient models where market demand for hybrid (or higher) versions may exist. One possible alternative is to rely on new vehicle transaction prices to estimate consumer willingness-to-pay for new vehicles with certain attributes. However, new vehicle transaction data is highly proprietary and difficult to obtain in a form that may be disclosed to the public.
While estimating willingness-to-pay for electrification technologies from depreciation and MSRP data is appealing, many manufacturers handle MSRP and pricing strategies differently, with some preferring to deviate only a little from sticker price and others preferring to offer high discounts. There is evidence of large differences between MSRP and effective market prices to consumers for many vehicles, especially BEVs.
Please provide comments on methods and data used to evaluate consumer willingness-to-pay for electrification technologies.
Direct estimates of the value of extended vehicle range are not available in the literature, so the reduction in the required annual number of refueling cycles due to improved fuel economy was calculated and the economic value of the resulting benefits assessed. Chief among these benefits is the time that owners save by spending less time both in search of fueling stations and in the act of pumping and paying for fuel.
The economic value of refueling time savings was calculated by applying DOT-recommended valuations for travel time savings to estimates of how much time is saved.
The
The calculations above assume only one adult occupant per vehicle. To fully estimate the average value of vehicle travel time, the presence of additional adult passengers during refueling trips must be accounted for. The analysis applies such an adjustment as shown in Table-II-40; this adjustment is performed separately for passenger cars and for light trucks, yielding occupancy-adjusted valuations of vehicle travel time during refueling trips for each fleet.
Children (persons under age 16) are excluded from average vehicle occupancy counts, as it is assumed that the opportunity cost of children's time is zero.
The analysis estimated the amount of refueling time saved using (preliminary) survey data gathered as part of our 2010-2011 National Automotive Sampling System's Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) study.
This analysis of refueling benefits considers only those refueling trips which interview respondents indicated the primary reason was due to a low reading on the gas gauge.
As an illustration of how the value of extended refueling range was estimated, assume a small light truck model has an average fuel tank size of approximately 20 gallons and a baseline actual on-road fuel economy of 24 mpg (its assumed level in the absence of a higher CAFE standard for the given model year). TPMS survey data indicate that drivers who indicated the primary reason for their refueling trips was a low reading on the gas gauge typically refuel when their tanks are 35% full (
In the central analysis, this calculation was repeated for each future calendar year that light-duty vehicles of each model year affected by the standards considered in this rule would remain in service. The resulting cumulative lifetime valuations of time savings account for both the reduction over time in the number of vehicles of a given model year that remain in service and the reduction in the number of miles (VMT) driven by those that stay in service. The analysis also adjusts the value of time savings that will occur in future years both to account for expected annual growth in real wages
Because a reduction in the expected number of annual refueling trips leads to a decrease in miles driven to and from fueling stations, the value of consumers' fuel savings associated with this decrease can also be calculated. As shown in Table-II-41, the typical incremental round-trip mileage per refueling cycle is 1.08 miles for light trucks and 0.97 miles for passenger cars. Going back to the earlier example of a light truck model, a decrease of 1.6 in the number of refuelings per year leads to a reduction of 1.73 miles driven per year (= 1.6 refuelings × 1.08 miles driven per refueling). Again, if this model's actual on-road fuel economy was 24 mpg, the reduction in miles driven yields an annual savings of approximately 0.07 gallons of fuel (= 1.73 miles/24 mpg), which at $3.25/gallon
This example is illustrative only of the approach used to quantify this benefit. In practice, the societal value of this benefit excludes fuel taxes (as they are transfer payments) from the calculation and is modeled using fuel price forecasts specific to each year the given fleet will remain in service.
The annual savings to each consumer shown in the above example may seem like a small amount, but the reader should recognize that the valuation of the cumulative lifetime benefit of this savings to owners is determined separately for passenger car and light truck fleets and then aggregated to show the net benefit across all light-duty vehicles, which is much more significant at the macro level. Calculations of benefits realized in future years are adjusted for expected real growth in the price of gasoline, for the decline in the number of vehicles of a given model year that remain in service as they age, for the decrease in the number of miles (VMT) driven by those that stay in service, and for the percentage of refueling trips that occur for reasons other than a low reading on the gas gauge; a discount rate is also applied in the valuation of future benefits. Using this direct estimation approach to quantify the value of this benefit by model year was considered; however, it was concluded that the value of this benefit is implicitly captured in the separate measure of overall valuation of fuel savings. Therefore, direct estimates of this benefit are not added to net benefits calculations. It is noted that there are other benefits resulting from the reduction in miles driven to and from fueling stations, such as a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions—CO
Special mention must be made with regard to the value of refueling time savings benefits to owners of electric and plug-in electric (both referred to here as EV) vehicles. EV owners who routinely drive daily distances that do not require recharging on-the-go may eliminate the need for trips to fueling or charging stations. It is likely that early adopters of EVs will factor this benefit into their purchasing decisions and maintain driving patterns that require once-daily at-home recharging (a process which generally takes five to eleven hours for a full charge)
To properly account for the average value of consumer and societal costs and benefits associated with vehicle usage under various CAFE and GHG alternatives, it is necessary to estimate the portion of these costs and benefits that will occur at each age (or calendar year) for each model year cohort. Doing so requires some estimate of how many miles the average vehicle of a given type
The MY 2017-2021 FRM built estimates of average lifetime mileage accumulation by body style and age using the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), which surveys odometer readings of the vehicles present from the approximately 113,000 households sampled. Approximately 210,000 vehicles were in the sample of self-reported odometer readings collected between April 2008 and April 2009. This represents a sample size of less than one percent of the more than 250 million light-duty vehicles registered in 2008 and 2009. The NHTS sample is now 10 years old and taken during the Great Recession. The 2017 NHTS was not available at the time of this rulemaking. Because of the age of the last available NHTS and the unusual economic conditions under which it was collected, NHTSA built the new schedule using a similar method from a proprietary dataset collected in the fall of 2015. This new data source has the advantages of both being newer, a larger sample, and collected by a third party.
To develop new mileage accumulation schedules for vehicles regulated under the CAFE program (classes 1-3), NHTSA purchased a data set of vehicle odometer readings from IHS/Polk (Polk). Polk collects odometer readings from registered vehicles when they encounter maintenance facilities, state inspection programs, or interactions with dealerships and OEMs—these readings are more likely to be precise than the self-reported odometer readings collected in the NHTS. The average odometer readings in the data set NHTSA purchased are based on more than 74 million unique odometer readings across 16 model years (2000-2015) and vehicle classes present in the data purchase (all registered vehicles less than 14,000 lbs. GVW). This sample represents approximately 28% of the light-duty vehicles registered in 2015, and thus has the benefit of not only being a newer, but also, a larger, sample.
Comparably to the NHTS, the Polk data provide a measure of the cumulative lifetime vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for vehicles, at the time of measurement, aggregated by the following parameters: Make, model, model year, fuel type, drive type, door count, and ownership type (commercial or personal). Within each of these subcategories they provide the average odometer reading, the number of odometer readings in the sample from which Polk calculated the averages, and the total number of that subcategory of vehicles in operation.
In estimating the VMT models, each data point was weighted (make/model classification) by the share of each make/model in the total population of the corresponding vehicle body style. This weighting ensures that the predicted odometer readings, by body style and model year, represent each vehicle classification among observed vehicles (
First, the majority of vehicle make/models is well-represented in the sample. For more than 85% of make/model combinations, the average odometer readings are collected for 20% or more of the total population. Most make/model observations have sufficient sample sizes, relative to their representation in the vehicle population, to produce meaningful average odometer totals at that level. Second, we considered whether the representativeness of the odometer sample varies by vehicle age because VMT schedules in the CAFE model are specific to each age. It is possible that, for some of those models, an insufficient number of odometer readings is recorded to create an average that is likely to be representative of all of those models in operation for a given year. For all model years other than 2015, approximately 95% or more of vehicles types are represented by at least five percent of their population. For this reason, observations from all model years, other than 2015, were included in the estimation of the new VMT schedules.
Because model years are sold in in the Fall of the previous calendar year, throughout the same calendar year, and even into the following calendar year—not all registered vehicles of a make/model/model year will have been registered for at least a year (or more) until age three. The result is that some MY 2014 vehicles may have been driven for longer than one year, and some less, at the time the odometer was observed. In order to consider this in the definition of age, an age of a vehicle is assigned to be the difference between the average reading date of a make/model and the average first registration date of that make/model. The result is that the continuous age variable reflects the amount of time that a car has been registered at the time of odometer reading and presumably the time span that the car has accumulated the miles.
After creating the “age” variable, the analysis fits the make/model lifetime VMT data points to a weighted quartic polynomial regression of the age of the vehicle (stratified by vehicle body styles). The predicted values of the quartic regressions are used to calculate the marginal annual VMT by age for each body style by calculating differences in estimated lifetime mileage accumulation by age. However, the Polk data acquired by NHTSA only contains
From the old schedules, the annual VMT is expected to be decreasing for all ages. Towards the end of the sample, the predictions for annual VMT increase. In order to force the expected monotonicity, a triangular smoothing algorithm is performed until the schedule is monotonic. This performs a weighted average which weights the observations close to the observation more than those farther from it. The result is a monotonic function, that predicts similar lifetime VMT for the sample span as the original function. Because the analysis does not have data beyond 15 years of age, it is not able to correctly capture that part of the annual VMT curve using only the new dataset. For this reason, trends in the old data to extrapolate the new schedule for ages beyond the sample range are used.
To use the VMT information from the newer data source for ages outside of the sample, final in-sample age (15 years) are used as a seed and then applied to the proportional trend from the old schedules to extrapolate the new schedules out to age 40. To do this, the annual percentage difference in VMT of the old schedule for ages 15-40 is calculated. The same annual percentage difference in VMT is applied to the new schedule to extend beyond the final in-sample value. This assumes that the overall proportional trend in the outer years is correctly modeled in the old VMT schedule and imposes this same trend for the outer years of the new schedule. The extrapolated schedules are the final input for the VMT schedules in the CAFE model. PRIA Chapter 8 contains a lengthier discussion of both the data source and the methodology used to create the new schedules.
While the Polk registration data set contains odometer readings for individual vehicles, the CAFE model tabulates “mileage accumulation” schedules, which relate average annual miles driven to vehicle age, based on vehicles' body style. For the purposes of VMT accounting, the CAFE model classifies vehicles in the analysis fleet as being one of the following: Passenger car, SUV, pickup truck, passenger van, or medium-duty pickup/van.
The only revision made to the mappings used to construct the new VMT schedules was to merge the SUV and passenger van body styles into a single class. These body styles were merged because there were very few examples of vans—only 38 models were in use during 2014, where every other body style had at least three times as many models. Further, as shown in the PRIA Chapter 8, there was not a significant difference between the 2009 NHTS van and SUV mileage schedules, nor was there a significant difference between the schedules built with the two body styles merged or kept separate using the 2015 Polk data. Merging these body styles does not change the workings of the CAFE model in any way, and the merged schedule is simply entered as an input for both vans and SUVs.
Although there is a single VMT by age schedule used as an input for each body style, the assumptions about the rebound effect require that this schedule be scaled for future analysis years to reflect changes in the cost of travel from the time the Polk sample was originally collected. These changes result from both changes in fuel prices between the time the sample was collected and any future analysis year and differences in fuel economy between the vehicles included in the sample used to build the mileage schedules and the future-year vehicles analyzed within the CAFE Model simulation.
As discussed in Section 0, recent literature supports a 20% “rebound effect” for light-duty vehicle use, which represents an elasticity of annual use with respect to fuel cost per mile of −0.2. Because fuel cost per mile is calculated as fuel price per gallon divided by fuel economy (in miles per gallon), this same elasticity applies to changes in fuel cost per mile that result from variation in fuel prices or differences in fuel economy. It suggests that a five percent reduction in the cost per mile of travel for vehicles of a certain body style will result in a one percent increase in the average number of miles they are driven annually.
The average cost per mile (CPM) of a vehicle of a given age and vehicle style in CY 2016 (the first analysis year of the simulation) was used as the reference point to calculate the rebound effect within the CAFE model. However, this does not perfectly align with the time of the collection of the Polk dataset. The Polk data were collected in 2015 (so that 2014 fuel prices were the last to influence sampled vehicles' odometer readings), and represents the average odometer reading at a single point in time for age (model year) included in the cross-section. We use the difference in the average odometer reading for each vintage during 2014 to calculate the number of miles vehicles are driven at each age (see PRIA Chapter 8 for specific details on the analysis). For example, we interpret the difference in the average odometer reading between the five- and six-year-old vehicles of a given body style as the average number of miles they are driven during the year when they were five years old. However, vehicles produced during different model years do not have the same average fuel economy, so it is important to consider the average fuel economy of each vintage (or model year) used to measure mileage accumulation at a given age when scaling VMT for the rebound calculation.
The first step in doing so is to adjust for any change in average annual use that would have been caused by differences in fuel prices between CYs 2014 and 2016. This is done by scaling the original schedules of annual VMT by age tabulated from the Polk sample using the following equation:
Here, the average fuel economy for vehicles of a given body style and age refers to a different MY in 2016 than it did in 2014; for example, a MY 2014 vehicle had reached age two vehicle during CY 2016, whereas a 2012 model year vehicle was age two during CY 2014.
To estimate the average annual use of vehicles of a specified body type and age during future calendar years under a specific regulatory alternative, the CAFE model adjusts the resulting estimates of vehicle use by age for that body type during CY 2016 to reflect (1) the projected change in fuel prices from 2016 to each future calendar year; and (2) the difference between the average fuel economy for vehicles of that body type and age during a future calendar year and the average fuel economy for vehicles of that same body type and age during 2016. These two factors combine to determine the average fuel cost per mile for vehicles of that body type and age during each future calendar year and the average fuel cost per mile for vehicles of that same body type and age during 2016.
The elasticity of annual vehicle use with respect to fuel cost per mile is applied to the difference between these two values because vehicle use is assumed to respond identically to differences in fuel cost per mile that result from changes in fuel prices or from differences in fuel economy. The model then repeats this calculation for each calendar year during the lifetimes of vehicles of other body types, and subsequently repeats this entire set of calculations for each regulatory alternative under consideration. The resulting differences in average annual use of vehicles of each body type at each age interact with the number estimated to remain in use at that age to determine total annual VMT by vehicles of each body type.
This adjustment is defined by the equation below:
This equation uses the observed cost per mile of a vehicle of each age and style in CY 2016 as the reference point for all future calendar years. That is, the reference fuel price is fixed at 2016 levels, and the reference fuel economy of vehicles of each age is fixed to the average fuel economy of the vintage that had reached that age in 2016. For example, the reference CPM for a one-year-old SUV is always the CPM of the average MY 2015 SUV in CY 2016, and the CPM for a two-year-old SUV is always the CPM of the average MYv2014 SUV in CY 2016.
This referencing ensures that the model's estimates of annual mileage accumulation for future calendar years reflect differences in the CPM of vehicles of each given type and age relative to CPM resulting from the average fuel economy of vehicles of that type and age and observed fuel prices during the year when the mileage accumulation schedules were originally measured. This is consistent with a definition of the rebound effect as the elasticity of annual vehicle use with respect to changes in the fuel cost per mile of travel, regardless of the source of changes in fuel cost per mile. Alternative forms of referencing are possible, but none can guarantee that projected future vehicle use will respond to
The mileage estimates described above are a crucial input in the CAFE model's calculation of fuel consumption and savings, energy security benefits, consumer surplus from cheaper travel, recovered refueling time, tailpipe emissions, and changes in crashes, fatalities, noise and congestion.
Across all body styles and ages, the previous VMT schedules estimate higher average annual VMT than the updated schedules. Table-II—42 compares the lifetime VMT under the 2009 NHTS and the 2015 Polk dataset. The 40-year lifetime VMT gives the
The static survival-weighted lifetime VMT represents the expected number of miles the average vehicle of each body style will drive, weighting by the likelihood it survives to each age using the previous static scrappage schedules. The dynamic survival-weighted lifetime VMT represents the expected number of miles driven by each body style, weighting by the dynamic survival schedules under baseline assumptions.
We
The primary advantage of the current schedules is the data source. The previous schedules are based on data that is outdated and self-reported, while the observations from Polk are between five and seven years newer than those in the NHTS and represent valid odometer readings (rather than self-reported information). Further, the 2009 NHTS represents approximately one percent of the sample of vehicles registered in 2008/2009, while the 2015 Polk dataset represents approximately 30% of all registered light-duty vehicles; it is a much larger dataset, and less likely to oversample certain vehicles. Additionally, while the NHTS may be a representative sample of households, it is less likely to be a representative sample of vehicles. However, by properly accounting for vehicle population weights in the new averages and models, we corrected for this issue in the derivation of the new schedules.
Importantly, this methodology treats the cross-section of ages in a single calendar year as a panel of the same model year vehicle, when in reality each age represents a single model year, and not a true panel. We have some concern that where the most heavily driven vehicles drop out of the sample that the lifetime odometer readings will be lower than they would be if the scrapped vehicles had been left in the dataset without additional mileage accumulation. This would bias our estimates of inter-annual mileage accumulation downward and may result in an undervaluation of costs and benefits associated with additional travel for vehicles of older ages. For the next VMT schedule iteration, NHTSA intends to use panel data to test the magnitude of any attrition effect that may exist. While this caveat is important, all previous iterations were also built from a single calendar year cross-section and contain the same inherent bias.
Lightly used vehicles are a close substitute for new vehicles; thus, there is relationship between the two markets. As the price for new vehicles increases, there is an upward shift in the demand for used vehicles. As a result of the upward shift in the demand curve, the equilibrium price and quantity of used vehicles both increase; the value of used vehicles increases as a result. The decision to scrap or maintain a used vehicle is closely linked with the value of the vehicle; when the value is lesser than the cost to maintain the vehicle, it will be scrapped. In general, as a result of new vehicle price increases, the scrappage rate, or the proportion of vehicles remaining on the road unregistered in a given year, of used vehicles will decline. Because older vehicles are on average less efficient and less safe, this will have important implications for the evaluations of costs
Fuel economy standards result in the application of more fuel saving technologies for at least some models, which result in a higher cost for manufacturers to produce otherwise identical vehicles. This increase in production cost amounts to an upward shift in the supply curve for new vehicles. This increases the equilibrium price and reduces the quantity of vehicles demanded. While the cost of new vehicles increases under increased fuel economy standards, the fuel cost per mile of travel declines. Consumers will place some value on the fuel savings associated with the additional technology, to the extent that they value reduced operating expenses against the increased price of a new vehicle, increased financing costs (and impediments to obtaining financing), and increased insurance costs.
There is a trade-off between fuel economy and other attributes that consumers value such as: Vehicle performance, interior volume, etc. Where the additional value of fuel savings associated with a technology is greater than any loss of value from trade-offs with other attributes, the demand for new vehicles will also shift upwards. Where the additional evaluation of fuel savings is lesser than any loss of value from changes to other attributes, the demand will shift downwards. Thus, the direction of the demand shift is unknown. However, if we assume that manufacturers pass all costs associated with a model off to the consumer of that vehicle, then the per vehicle profit remains constant. If we also assume that manufacturers are good predictors of the valuation and elasticity of certain vehicle attributes, then we can assume that even if there is some positive demand shift, it is not enough to increase demand above the original equilibrium levels, or manufacturers would apply those technologies even in the absence of regulation.
As noted above, the increase in the price of new vehicles will result in increased demand for used vehicles as substitutes, extending the expected age and lifetime vehicle miles travelled of less efficient, and generally, less safe vehicles. The additional usage of older vehicles will result in fewer gallons saved and more total on-road fatalities under more stringent CAFE alternatives. For more on the topic of safety, the relative safety of specific model year vehicles is discussed in Section 0 of the preamble and PRIA Chapter 11. Both the erosion of fuel savings and the increase in incremental fatalities will decrease the societal net benefits of increasing new vehicle fuel economy standards.
Our previous estimates of vehicle scrappage did not include a dynamic response to new vehicle price, but recent literature has continued to illustrate that this an omission which could rival the rebound effect in magnitude (Jacobsen & van Bentham, 2015). For this reason, we worked to develop an econometric survival model which captures the effect of increasing the price of new vehicles on the survival rate of used vehicles discussed in the following sections and in more detail in the PRIA Chapter 8. We discuss the literature on vehicle scrappage rate and discuss in the succeeding section. A brief explanation of why we develop our own models and the data sources and econometric estimations we use to do so, follows. We conclude the discussion of the updates to vehicle survival estimates with a summary of the results, a description of how we use them in the CAFE model, and finally, how the updated schedules compare with the previous static scrappage schedules.
The effects of differentiated regulation
Greenspan & Cohen (1996) offer additional foundations from which to think about vehicle stock and scrappage. Their work identifies two types of scrappage: Engineering scrappage and cyclical scrappage. Engineering scrappage represents the physical wear on vehicles, which results in their being scrapped. Cyclical scrappage represents the effects of macroeconomic conditions on the relative value of new and used vehicles; under economic growth the demand for new vehicles increases and the value of used vehicles declines, resulting in increased scrappage. In addition to allowing new vehicle prices to affect cyclical vehicle scrappage à la the Gruenspecht effect, Greenspan and Cohen also note that engineering scrappage seems to increase where EPA emission standards also increase; as more costs goes towards compliance technologies, it becomes more expensive to maintain and repair more complicated parts, and scrappage increases. In this way, Greenspan and Cohen identify two ways that fuel economy standards could affect vehicle scrappage: (1) Through increasing new vehicle prices, thereby increasing used vehicle prices, and finally, reducing on-road vehicle scrappage, and (2) by shifting resources towards fuel-saving technologies—potentially reducing the durability of new vehicles by making them more complex.
One important distinction between the literatures on vehicles scrappage is between those that use atomic vehicle data, data following specific individual vehicles, and those that use some level of aggregated data, data that counts the total number of vehicles of a given type. The decision to scrap a vehicle is an atomic one—that is, made on an individual vehicle basis. The decision relates to the cost of maintaining a vehicle, and the value of the vehicle both on the used car market, and as scrap metal. Generally, a used car owner will decide to scrap a vehicle where the value of the vehicle is less than the value of the vehicle as scrap metal plus the cost to maintain or repair the vehicle. In other words, the owner gets more value from scrapping the vehicle than continuing to drive it or from selling it.
Recent work is able to model scrappage as an atomic decision due to the availability of a large database of used vehicle transactions. Following works by other authors including:
While the decision to scrap a vehicle is made atomically, the data available to NHTSA on scrappage rates and variables that influence these scrappage rates are aggregate measures. This influences the best available methods to measure the impacts of new vehicle prices on existing vehicle scrappage. The result is that this study models aggregate trends in vehicle scrappage and not the atomic decisions that make up these trends. Many other works within the literature use the same data source and general scrappage construct, such as: Walker (1968); Park (1977), Greene & Chen (1981); Gruenspecht (1981); Gruenspecht (1982); Feeney & Cardebring (1988); Greenspan & Cohen (1996); Jacobsen & van Bentham (2015); and Bento, Roth, & Zhuo (2016) all use the same aggregate vehicle registration data as the source to compute vehicle scrappage.
Walker (1968) and Bento, Roth, & Zhuo (2016) use aggregate data to directly compute the elasticity of scrappage from measures of used vehicle prices. Walker (1968) uses the ratio of used vehicle Consumer Price Index (CPI) to repair and maintenance CPI. Bento, Roth, & Zhuo (2016) use used vehicle prices directly. While the direct measurement of the elasticity of scrappage is preferable in a theoretical sense, the CAFE model does not predict future values of used vehicles, only future prices of new vehicles. For this reason, any model compatible with the current CAFE model must estimate a reduced form similar to Park (1977); Gruenspecht (1981); Greenspan & Cohen (1996), who use some form of new vehicle prices or the ratio of new vehicle prices to maintenance and repair prices to impute some measure of the effect of new vehicle prices on vehicle scrappage.
Waker (1968); Park (1977); Feeney & Cardebring (1988); Hamilton & Macauley (1999); and Bento, Ruth, & Zhuo (2016) all note that vehicles change in durability over time. Walker (1968) simply notes a significant distinction in expected vehicle lifetimes pre- and post-World War I. Park (1977) discusses a `durability factor' set by the producer for each year so that different vintages and makes will have varying expected lifecycles. Feeney & Cardebring (1988) show that durability of vehicles appears to have generally increased over time both in the U.S. and Swedish fleets using registration data from each country. They also note that the changes in median lifetime between the Swedish and U.S. fleet track well, with a 1.5 year lag in the U.S. fleet. This lag is likely due to variation in how the data is collected—the Swedish vehicle registry requires a title to unregister a vehicle, and therefore gets immediate responses, where the U.S. vehicle registry requires re-registration, which creates a lag in reporting.
Hamilton & Macauley (1999) argue for a clear distinction between embodied versus disembodied impacts on vehicle longevity. They define embodied impacts as inherent durability similar to Park's producer supplied `durability factor' and Greenspan's `engineering scrappage' and disembodied effects those which are environmental, not unlike Greenspan and Cohen's `cyclical scrappage.' They use calendar year and vintage dummy variables to isolate the effects—concluding that the environmental factors are greater than any pre-defined `durability factor.' Some of their results could be due to some inflexibility of assuming model year coefficients are constant over the life of a vehicle, and there may be some correlation between the observed life of the later model years of their sample and the `stagflation'
This is not the first estimation of the `Gruenspecht Effect' for policy considerations. In their Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2004 proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, California Air Resources Board (CARB) outlines how they utilized the CARBITS vehicle transaction choice model in an attempt to capture the effect of increasing new vehicle prices on vehicle replacement rates. They consider data from the National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) as a source of revealed preferences and a University of California (UC) study as a source of stated preferences for the purchase and sale of household fleets under different prices and attributes (including fuel economy) of new vehicles.
The transaction choice model represents the addition and deletion of a vehicle from a household fleet within a short period of time as a “replacement” of a vehicle, rather than as two separate actions. Their final data set consists of 790 vehicle replacements, 292 additions, and 213 deletions; they do not include the deletions, but assume any vehicle over 19 years old that is sold is scrapped. This allows them to capture a slowing of vehicle replacement under higher new vehicle prices, but because their model does not include deletions, does not explicitly model vehicle scrappage, but assumes all vehicles aged 20 and older are scrapped rather than resold. They calibrate the model so that the overall fleet size is benchmarked to Emissions FACtors (EMFAC) fleet predictions for the starting year; the simulation then produces estimates that match the EMFAC predictions without further calibration.
The CARB study captures the effect on new vehicle prices on the fleet replacement rates and offers some precedence for including some estimate of the Gruenspecht Effect. One important thing to note is that because vehicles that exited the fleet without replacement were excluded, the effect of new vehicle prices on scrappage rates where the scrapped vehicle is not replaced is not captured. Because new and used vehicles are substitutes, it is expected that used vehicle prices will increase with new vehicle prices. Because higher used vehicle prices will lower the number of vehicles whose cost of maintenance is higher than their value, it is expected that not only will
NHTSA purchases proprietary data on the registered vehicle population from IHS/Polk for safety analyses. IHS/Polk has annual snapshots of registered vehicle counts beginning in calendar year (CY) 1975 and continuing until calendar year 2015. The data includes the following regulatory classes as defined by NHTSA: Passenger cars, light trucks (classes 1 and 2a), and medium and heavy-duty trucks (classes 2b and 3). Polk separates these vehicles into another classification scheme: Cars and trucks. Under their schema, pickups, vans, and SUVs are treated as trucks, and all other body styles are included as cars. In order to build scrappage models to support the model year (MY) 2021-2026 light duty vehicle (LDV) standards, it was important to separate these vehicle types in a way compatible with the existing CAFE model.
There were two compatible choices to aggregate scrappage rates: (1) By regulatory class or (2) by body style. Because for NHTSA's purposes vans/SUVs are sometimes classified as passenger cars and sometimes as light trucks, and there was no quick way to reclassify some SUVs as passenger cars within the Polk dataset, NHTSA chose to aggregate survival schedules by body style. This approach is also preferable because NHTSA uses body style specific lifetime VMT schedules. Vehicles experience increased wear with use; many maintenance and repair events are closely tied to the number of miles on a vehicle. The current version of the CAFE model considers separate lifetime VMT schedules for cars, vans/SUVs, pickups and classes 2b and 3 vehicles. These vehicles are assumed to serve different purposes and, as a result, are modelled to have different average lifetime VMT patterns. These different uses likely also result in different lifetime scrappage patterns.
Once stratified into body style level buckets, the data can be aggregated into population counts by vintage and age. These counts represent the population of vehicles of a given body style and vintage in a given calendar year. The difference between the counts of a given vintage and vehicle type from one calendar year to the next is assumed to represent the number of vehicles of that vintage and type scrapped in a given year. There were a couple other important data considerations for the calculations of the historical scrappage rates not discussed here but discussed in detail in the PRIA Chapter 8.
For historical data on vehicle transaction prices, the models use data from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), which records the average transaction price of all light-duty vehicles. These transaction prices represent the prices consumers paid for new vehicles but do not include any value of vehicles that may have been traded in to dealers. Importantly, these transaction prices were not available by vehicle body styles; thus, the models will miss any unique trends that may have occurred for a particular vehicle body style. This may be particularly relevant for pickup trucks, which observed considerable average price increases as luxury and high option pickups entered the market. Future models will further consider incorporating price series that consider the price trends for cars, SUVs and vans, and pickups separately.
The models use the NADA price series rather than the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) New Vehicle Consumer Price Index (CPI), used by Park (1977) and Greenspan & Cohen (1997), because the BLS New Vehicle CPI makes quality adjustments to the new vehicle prices. BLS assumes that additions of safety and fuel economy equipment are a quality adjustment to a vehicle model, which changes the good and should not be represented as an increase in its price. While this is good for some purposes, it presumes consumers fully value technologies that improve fuel economy. Because it is the purpose to this study to measure whether this is true, it is important that vehicle prices adjusted to fully value fuel economy improving technologies, which would obscure the ability to measure the preference for more fuel efficient and expensive new vehicles, are not used. As further justification for using the NADA price series over the BLS New Vehicle CPI, Park (1977) cites a discontinuity found in the amount of quality adjustments made to the series so that more adjustments are made over time. This could further limit the ability for the BLS New Vehicle CPI to predict changes in vehicle scrappage.
Vehicle scrappage rates are also influenced by fuel economy and fuel prices. Historical data on the fuel economy by vehicle style from model years 1979-2016 was obtained from the 2016 EPA Motor Trends Report.
Aggregate measures that cyclically affect the value of used vehicles include macroeconomic factors like the real interest rate, the GDP growth rate, unemployment rates, cost of maintenance and repairs, and the value of a vehicle as scrap metal or as parts. Here only the GDP growth rate is discussed, as this is the only measure included in the final model. Extended reasoning as to why other variables are not included in the final model in the PRIA Chapter 8 is offered, but the discussion was omitted here for brevity in describing only the final model. Generally economic growth will result in a higher demand for new vehicles—cars in aggregate are normal goods—and a reduction in the value of used vehicles. The result should be an increase in the scrappage rate of existing vehicles so that we expect the GDP growth rate to be an important predictor of vehicle scrappage rates.
NHTSA sourced the GDP growth rate from the 2017 OASDI Trustees Report.
The most predictive element of vehicle scrappage is what Greenspan and Cohen deem `engineering scrappage.' This source of scrappage is largely determined by the age of a vehicle and the durability of a specific model year vintage. Vehicle scrappage typically follows a roughly logistic function with age—that is, instantaneous scrappage increases to some peak, and then declines, with age as noted in Walker (1968); Park (1977); Greene & Chen (1981); Gruenspecht (1981); Feeney & Cardebring (1988); Greenspan & Cohen (1996); Hamilton & Macauley (1999); and Bento, Roth, & Zhuo (2016). Thus, this analysis also uses a logistic function to capture this trend of vehicle scrappage with age but allows non-linear terms to capture any skew to the logistic relationship. Specific details about the final and considered forms of engineering scrappage by body styles is presented in the PRIA Chapter 8.
The final and considered independent variables intended to capture cyclical elements of vehicle scrappage and the considered forms of each are discussed in PRIA Chapter 8; here only inclusion of the GDP growth rate is discussed. The GDP growth rate is not a single-period effect; both the current and previous GDP growth rates will affect vehicle scrappage rates. A single year increase will affect scrappage differently than a multi-period trend. For this reason, an optimal number of lagged terms are included: The within-period GDP growth rate, the previous period GDP growth rate, and the growth rate from two prior years for the car model, while for vans/SUVs, and pickups, the current and previous period GDP growth rate are sufficient.
Similarly, the considered model allows that one-period changes in new vehicle prices will affect the used vehicle market differently than a consistent trend in new vehicle prices. The optimal number of lags is three so that the price trend from the current year and the three prior years influences the demand for and scrappage of used vehicles.
The final cyclical factor affecting vehicle scrappage in the preferred model is the cost per 100 miles of travel both of new vehicles and of the vehicle which is the subject of the decision to scrap or not to scrap. The new vehicle cost per 100 miles is defined as the ratio of the average fuel price faced by new vehicles in a given calendar year and the average new vehicle fuel economy for 100 miles in the same calendar year, and varies only with calendar year:
The cost per 100 miles of the potentially scrapped vehicle is described as the ratio of the average fuel price faced by that model year vintage in a given calendar year and the average fuel economy for 100 miles of travel for that model year when it was new, and varies both with calendar year and model year:
The average per-gallon fuel price faced by a model year vintage in a given calendar year is the annual average fuel price of all fuel types present in that model year fleet for the given calendar year, weighted by the share of each fuel type in that model year fleet. Or the following, where FT represents the set of fuel types present in a given model year vintage:
For these variables, the best fit model includes the cost per mile of both the new and the used vehicle for the current and prior year. This is congruent with research that suggests consumers respond to current fuel prices and fuel price changes. The selection process of this form for the cost per mile and the implications is discussed in PRIA Chapter 8.
There are a couple other controlling factors considered in our final model. The 2009 Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) is not outlined here but is outlined in PRIA Chapter 8. This program aimed to accelerate the retirement of less fuel efficient vehicles and replace them with more fuel efficient vehicles. Further discussion of how this is controlled for is located in PRIA Chapter 8. Finally, evidence of autocorrelation was found, and including three lagged values of the dependent variable addresses the concern. Treatment of autocorrelation is discussed in PRIA Chapter 8.
One additional issue encountered in the estimations of scrappage rates is that the models predict too many vehicles remain on the road in the later years. This issue occurs because the data beyond age 15 are progressively more sparsely populated; vehicles over 15 years were not captured in the Polk data until 1994, when each successive collection year added an additional age of vehicles until 2005 when all ages began to be collected. This means that for vehicles over the age of 25 there are only 10 years of data. In order to correct for this issue the fact that the final fleet share converges to roughly the same share for most model years for a given vehicle type is used. The predicted versus historical relationships seem to deviate beginning around age 20; thus, for scrappage rates for vehicles beyond age 20 an exponential decay function which guarantees that by age 40 the final fleet share reaches the convergence level observed in the historical data is applied. The application of the decay function and mathematical definition is further defended in PRIA Chapter 8.
A sensitivity case is also developed to isolate the magnitude of the Greunspecht effect. The impacts on costs and benefits are presented in section VII.H.1 of this document. In order to isolate the effect, the price of new vehicles is held constant at CY 2016 levels. The specific methodology used to do so is described in detail in PRIA Chapter 8, as is the leakage implied by comparing the reference and no Gruenspecht effect sensitivity cases. It is important to note here that the leakage calculated ranges between 12 and 18% across regulatory alternatives. This is in line with Jacobsen & van Bentham (2015) estimates which put leakage for their central case between 13 and 16%. Their high gasoline price case is more in line this analysis' central case—with fuel prices of $3/gallon—and predicts leakage of 21%. This further validates the scrappage model effects against examples in the literature.
The models used for this analysis are able to capture the relationship for vehicle scrappage as it varies with age and how this relationship changes with increases to new vehicle price, the cost per mile of travel of new and used vehicles, and how the rate varies cyclically with the GDP growth rate. It also controls for the CARS program and checks the influence of a change in Polk's data collection procedures. The goodness of fit measures and the plausibility of the predictions of the model are discussed at some length in PRIA Chapter 8. In the next section, the impacts of updating the static scrappage models to the dynamic models on average vehicle age and usage, by body styles, and across different regulatory assumptions are discussed.
The expected lifetime of a car estimated using the static scrappage schedule from the 2012 final rule, both in years and miles, is between the expected lifetime of the dynamic scrappage model in the absence of CAFE standards and under the baseline standards. Estimated by the dynamic scrappage model, the average vehicle is expected to live 15.1 years under the influence of only market demand for new technology, and 15.6 years under the baseline scenario, a four percent increase. However, given the distribution of the mileage accumulation schedule by age, this amounts only to a two percent increase in the expected lifetime mileage accumulation of an individual vehicle. This range is consistent with DOT expectations in terms of direction and magnitude.
The use of a static retirement schedule, while deemed a reasonable approach in the past, is a limited representation of scrappage behavior. It fails to account for increasing vehicle durability—occurring for the last several decades—and the resulting increase in average vehicle age in the on-road fleet, which has nearly doubled since 1980.
As discussed above, the dynamic scrappage model implemented to support this proposal affects total fleet size through several mechanisms. Although the model accounts for the influence of changes to average new vehicle price and U.S. GDP growth, the most influential mechanism, by far, is the observed trend of increasing vehicle durability over successive model years. This phenomenon is prominently discussed in the academic literature related to vehicle retirement, where there is no disagreement about its existence or direction.
The historical data show the size of the registered vehicle population (
Additionally, there are inherent precision limitations in measuring something as vast and complex as the registered vehicle population. For decades, the two authoritative sources for the size of the on-road fleet have been R.L. Polk (now IHS/Polk) and FHWA. For two decades these two sources differed by more than 10% each year, only lately converging to within a few percent of each other. These discrepancies over the correct interpretation of the data by each source have consistently represented differences of more than 10 million vehicles.
The total number of new vehicles projected to enter the fleet is slightly higher than the historical trend (though the impact of the great recession makes it hard to say by how much). More generally, the projections used in the analysis cover long periods of time without exhibiting the kinds of fluctuation that are present in the historical record. For example, the forecast of GDP growth in our analysis posits a world in which the United States sees uninterrupted positive annual growth in real GDP for four decades. The longest such period in the historical record is 17 years and still included several years of low (but positive) growth during that interval.
Over such a long period of time, in the absence of deep insight into the future of the U.S. auto industry, it is sensible to assume that the trends observed over the course of decades are likely to persist. Analyzing fuel economy standards requires an understanding of the mechanisms that influence new vehicle sales, the size of the on-road fleet, and vehicle miles traveled. It is upon these mechanisms that the policy acts: Increasing/decreasing new vehicle prices changes the rate at which new vehicles are sold, changing the attributes and prices of these vehicles influences the rates at which all used vehicles are retired, the overall size of the on-road fleet determines the total amount of VMT, which in turn affects total fuel consumption, fatalities, and other externalities. The fact that DOT's bottom-up approach produces results in line with historical trends is both expected and intended.
This is not to say that all details of this new approach will be immediately intuitive for reviewers accustomed to results that do not include a dynamic sales model or dynamic scrappage model, much less results that combine the two. For example, some reviewers may observe that today's analysis shows that, compared to the baseline standards, the proposed standards produce a somewhat smaller on-road fleet (
To further test the validity of the scrappage model, a dynamic forecast was constructed for calendar years 2005 through 2015 to see how well it predicts the fleet size for this period. The last true population the scrappage model “sees” is the 2005 registered vehicle population. It then takes in known production volumes for the new model year vehicles and dynamically estimates instantaneous scrappage rates for all registered vehicles at each age for CYs 2006-2015, based only on the observed exogenous values that inform the model (GDP growth rate, observed new vehicle prices, and cost per mile of operation), fleet attributes of the vehicles (body style, age, cost per mile of operation), and estimated scrappage rates at earlier ages. Within this exercise, the scrappage model relies on its own estimated values as the previous scrappage rates at earlier ages, forcing any estimation errors to propagate through to future years. This exercise is discussed further in PRIA Chapter VII. While the years of the recession represent a significant shock to the size of the fleet, briefly reversing many years of annual growth, the model recovers quickly and produces results within one percent of the actual fleet size, as it did prior to the recession.
In order to compare the magnitudes of the sales and scrappage effects across different fuel economy standards considered it is important to define comparable measures. The sales effect in a single calendar year is simply the difference in new vehicle sales across alternatives. However, the scrappage effect in a single calendar year is not simply the change in fleet size across regulatory alternatives. The scrappage model predicts the probability that a vehicle will be scrapped in the next year conditional on surviving to that age; the absolute probability that a vehicle survives to a given age is conditional on the scrappage effect for all previous analysis years. In other words, if successive calendar years observe lower average new vehicle prices, the effect of increased scrappage on fleet size will accumulate with each successive calendar year—because fewer vehicles survived to previous ages, the same probability of scrappage would result in a smaller fleet size for the following year as well, though fewer vehicles will have been scrapped than in the previous year.
To isolate the number of vehicles not scrapped in a single calendar year because of the change in standards, the first step is to calculate the number of vehicles scrapped in every calendar year for both the proposed standards and the baseline; this is calculated by the inter-annual change in the size of the used vehicle fleet (vehicles ages 1-39) for each alternative. The difference in this measure across regulatory alternatives represents the change in vehicle scrappage because of a change in the standards. The resulting scrappage effect for a single calendar year can be compared to the difference across regulatory alternatives in new vehicle sales for the same calendar year as a comparison of the relative magnitudes of the two effects. In most years, under the proposed standards relative to the baseline standards, the analysis shows that for each additional new vehicles sold, two to four used vehicles are removed from the fleet. Over the time period of the analysis these predicted differences in the numbers of vehicles accumulate, resulting in a maximum of
To understand why the sales and scrappage effects do not perfectly offset each other to produce a constant fleet size across regulatory alternatives it is important to remember that the decision to buy a new vehicle and the decision to scrap a used vehicle are often not made by the same household as a joint decision. The average length of initial ownership for new vehicles is approximately 6.5 years (and increasing over time). Cumulative scrappage up to age seven is typically less than 10%of the initial fleet. This suggests that most vehicles belong to more than one household over the course of their lifetimes. The household that is deciding whether or not to purchase a new vehicle is rarely the same household deciding whether or not to scrap a vehicle. So a vehicle not scrapped in a given year is seldom the direct substitute for a new vehicle purchased by that household. Considering this, it is not expected that for every additional vehicle scrapped, there is also an additional new one sold, under the proposed standards relative to the baseline standards.
Further, while sales and scrappage decisions are both influenced by changes in new vehicle prices, the mechanism through which these decisions change are different for the two effects. A decrease in average new vehicle prices will directly increase the demand for new vehicles along the same demand curve. This decrease in new vehicle prices will cause a substitution towards new vehicles and away from used vehicles, shifting the entire demand curve for used vehicles downwards. This will decrease both the equilibrium prices of used vehicles, as shown in Figure 8-16 of the PRIA. Since the decision to scrap a vehicle in a given year is closely related to the difference between the vehicle's value and the cost to maintain it, if the value of a vehicle is lower than the cost to maintain it, the current owner will not choose to maintain the vehicle for their own use or for resale in the used car market, and the vehicle will be scrapped. That is, a current owner will only supply a vehicle to the used car market if the price of the vehicle is greater than the cost of supplying it. Lowering the equilibrium price of used vehicles will lower the increase the number of scrapped vehicles, lowering the supply of used vehicles, and decreasing the equilibrium quantity. The change in new vehicle sales is related to demand of new vehicles at a given price, but the change in used vehicle scrappage is related to the shift in the demand curve for used vehicles, and the resulting change in the quantity current owners will supply; these effects are likely not exactly offsetting.
Our models indicate that the ratio of the magnitude of the scrappage effect to the sales effect is greater than one so that the fleet grows under more stringent scenarios. However, it is important to remember that not all vehicles are driven equally; used vehicles are estimated to deliver considerably less annual travel than new vehicles. Further, used vehicles only have a portion of their original life left so that it will take more than one used vehicle to replace the full lifetime of a new vehicle, at least in the long-run. The result of the lower annual VMT and shorter remaining lifetimes of used vehicles, is that although the fleet is 1.5% bigger in CY 2050 for the augural baseline than it is for the proposed standards, the total non-rebound VMT for CY 2050 is 0.4% larger in the augural baseline than in the proposed standards. This small increase in VMT is consistent with a larger fleet size; if more used vehicles are supplied, there likely is some small resulting increase in VMT.
Our models face some limitations, and work will continue toward developing methods for estimating vehicle sales, scrappage, and mileage accumulation. For example, our scrappage model assumes that the average VMT for a vehicle of a particular vintage is fixed—that is, aside from rebound effects, vehicles of a particular vintage drive the same amount annually, regardless of changes to the average expected lifetimes. The agencies seek comment on ways to further integrate the survival and mileage accumulation schedules. Also, our analysis uses sales and scrappage models that do not dynamically interact (though they are based on similar sets of underlying factors); while both models are informed by new vehicle prices, the model of vehicle sales does not respond to the size and age profile of the on-road fleet, and the model of vehicle scrappage rates does not respond to the quantity of new vehicles sold. As one potential option for development, the potential for an integrated model of sales and scrappage, or for a dynamic connection between the two models will be considered. Comment is sought on both the sales and scrappage models, on potential alternatives, and on data and methods that may enable practicable integration of any alternative models into the CAFE model.
Amending and establishing fuel economy and GHG standards at a lesser stringency than the augural standards for future model years will lead to comparatively lower fuel economy for new cars and light trucks, thus increasing the amount of fuel they consume in traveling each mile than they would under the augural standard. The resulting increase in their per-mile fuel and total driving costs will lead to a reduction in the number of miles they are driven each year over their lifetimes, and example of the rebound effect that is usually associated with energy efficiency improvements working in reverse. The fuel economy rebound effect—a specific example of the energy efficiency rebound effect for the case of motor vehicles—refers to the well-documented tendency of vehicles' use to increase when their fuel economy is improved and the cost of driving each mile declines as a result.
Table-II-43 summarizes estimates of the fuel economy rebound effect for light-duty vehicles from studies conducted through 2008, when the agencies originally surveyed research on this subject.
Despite their wide range, these estimates displayed a strong central tendency, as Table-II-43 also shows. The average values of all estimates, those that were published, and authors' preferred estimates from published studies were 22-23%, and the median estimates in each category were close to these values, indicating nearly symmetric distributions. The estimates in each category also clustered fairly tightly around their respective average values, as shown by their standard deviations in the table's last column. When classified by the type of data they relied on, U.S. aggregate time-series data produced slightly smaller values (averaging 18%) than did panel-type data for individual states (23%) or household survey data (25%). In each category, the median estimate was again quite close to the average reported value, and comparing the standard deviations of estimates based on each type of data again suggests a fairly tight scatter around their respective means.
Of these studies, a then recently-published analysis by Small & Van Dender (2007), which reported that the rebound effect appeared to be declining over time in response to increasing income of drivers, was singled out. These authors theorized that rising income increased the opportunity cost of drivers' time, leading them to be less responsive over time to reductions in the fuel cost of driving each mile. Small and Van Dender reported that while the rebound effect averaged 22% over the entire time period they analyzed (1967-2001), its value had declined by half—or to 11%—during the last five years they studied (1997-2001). Relying primarily on forecasts of its continued decline over time, the analysis reduced the 20% rebound effect that NHTSA used to analyze the effects of CAFE standards for light trucks produced during model years 2005-07 and 2008-11 to 10% for their analysis of CAFE and GHG standards for MY 2012-16 passenger cars and light trucks.
Table-II-44 summarizes estimates of the rebound effect reported in research that has become available since the agencies' original survey, which extended through 2008, and the following discussion briefly summarizes the approaches used by these more recent studies. Bento
Bento
Barla
Their analysis found that provincial-level aggregate economic activity had moderately strong effects on car and light truck ownership and use but that fuel prices had only modest effects on driving and the average fuel efficiency of the light-duty vehicle fleet. Each of these effects became considerably stronger over the long term than in the year when changes in economic activity and fuel prices initially occurred, with three to five years typically required for behavioral adjustments to stabilize. After controlling for the joint relationship among vehicle ownership, driving demand, and the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks, Barla
Wadud
Dividing U.S. households into five equally-sized income categories, Wadud
West & Pickrell (2011) analyzed data on more than 100,000 households and 300,000 vehicles from the 2009 Nationwide Household Transportation Survey to explore how households owning multiple vehicles chose which of them to use and how much to drive each one on the day the household was surveyed. Their study focused on how the type and fuel economy of each vehicle a household owned, as well as its demographic characteristics and location, influenced household members' decisions about whether and how much to drive each vehicle. They also investigated whether fuel economy and fuel prices exerted similar influences on vehicle use, and whether households owning more than one vehicle tended to substitute use of one for another—or vary their use of all of them similarly—in response to fluctuations in fuel prices and differences in their vehicles' fuel economy.
Their estimates of the fuel economy rebound effect ranged from as low as nine percent to as high as 34%, with their lowest estimates typically applying to single-vehicle households and their highest values to households owning three or more vehicles. They generally found that differences in fuel prices faced by households who were surveyed on different dates or who lived in different regions of the U.S. explained more of the observed variation in daily vehicle use than did differences in vehicles' fuel economy. West and Pickrell also found that while the rebound effect for households' use of passenger cars appeared to be quite large—ranging from 17% to nearly twice that value—it was difficult to detect a consistent rebound effect for SUVs.
Anjovic & Haas (2012) examined variation in vehicle use and fuel efficiency among six European nations over an extended period (1970-2006), using an elaborate model and estimation procedure intended to account for the existence of common underlying trends among the variables analyzed and thus avoid identifying spurious or misleading relationships among them. The six nations included in their analysis were Austria, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, and Sweden; the authors also conducted similar analyses for the six nations combined. The authors focused on the effects of average income levels, fuel prices, and the fuel efficiency of each nation's fleet of cars on the total distance they were driven each year and their total fuel energy consumption. They also tested whether the responses of energy consumption to rising and falling fuel prices appeared to be symmetric in the different nations.
Anjovic and Haas report a long-run aggregate rebound effect of 44% for the six nations their study included, with corresponding values for individual nations ranging from a low of 19% (for Austria) to as high as 56% (Italy). These estimates are based on the estimated response of vehicle use to variation in average fuel cost per kilometer driven in each of the six nations and for their combined total. Other information reported in their study, however, suggests lower rebound effects; their estimates of the response of total fuel energy consumption to fuel efficiency appear to imply an aggregate rebound effect of 24% for the six nations, with values ranging from as low as 0-3% (for Austria and Denmark) to as high as 70% (Sweden), although the latter is very uncertain. These results suggest that vehicle use in European nations may be somewhat less sensitive to variation in driving costs caused by changes in fuel efficiency than to changes in driving costs arising from variation in fuel prices, but they find no evidence of asymmetric responses of total fuel consumption to rising and falling prices. Using data on household characteristics and vehicle use from the 2009 Nationwide Household Transportation Survey (NHTS), Su (2012) analyzes the effects of locational and demographic factors on household vehicle use and investigates how the magnitude of the rebound effect varies with vehicles' annual use. Using variation in the fuel economy and per-mile cost of and detailed controls for the demographic, economic, and locational characteristics of the households that owned them (
Su estimated the overall rebound effect for all vehicles in the sample averaged 13%, and that its magnitude varied from 11-19% among the 10 different categories of annual vehicle use. The smallest rebound effects were estimated for vehicles at the two extremes of the distribution of annual use—those driven comparatively little, and those used most intensively—while the largest estimated effects applied to vehicles that were driven slightly more than average. Controlling for the possibility that high-mileage drivers respond to the increased importance of fuel costs by choosing vehicles that offer higher fuel economy narrowed the range of Su's estimated rebound effects slightly (to 11-17%), but did not alter the finding that they are smallest for lightly- and heavily-driven vehicles and largest for those with slightly above average use.
Linn (2013) also uses the 2009 NHTS to develop a linear regression approach to estimate the relationship between the VMT of vehicles belonging to each household and a variety of different factors: Fuel costs, vehicle characteristics other than fuel economy (
One interesting result of the study is that when the fuel efficiency of all vehicles increases, which would be the long-run effect of rising fuel efficiency standards, two factors have opposing effects on the VMT of a particular vehicle. First, VMT increases when that vehicle's fuel efficiency increases. But the increase in the fuel efficiency of the household's other vehicles causes the vehicle's own VMT to decrease. Because the effect of a vehicle's own fuel efficiency is larger than the other vehicles' fuel efficiency, VMT increases if the fuel efficiency of all vehicles increases proportionately. Linn also finds that VMT responds much more strongly to vehicle fuel economy than to gasoline prices, which is at variance with the Hymel
Like Su and Linn, Liu
Liu
A study of the rebound effect by Frondel
Frondel
Gillingham (2014) analyzed variation in the use of approximately five million new vehicles sold in California from 2001 to 2003 during the first several years after their purchase, focusing particularly on how their use responded to geographic and temporal variation in fuel prices. His sample consisted primarily of personal or household vehicles (87%) but also included some that were purchased by businesses, rental car companies, and government agencies. Using county-level data, he analyzed the effect of differences in the monthly average fuel price paid by their drivers on variation in their monthly use and explored how that effect varied with drivers' demographic characteristics and household incomes.
Gillingham's analysis did not include a measure of vehicles' fuel economy or fuel cost per mile driven, so he could not measure the rebound effect directly, but his estimates of the effect of fuel prices on vehicle use correspond to a rebound effect of 22-23% (depending on whether he controlled for the potential effect of gasoline demand on its retail price). His estimation procedure and results imply that vehicle use requires nearly two years to adjust fully to changes in fuel prices. He found little variation in the sensitivity of vehicle use to fuel prices among car buyers with different demographic characteristics, although his results suggested that it increases with their income levels.
Weber & Farsi (2014) analyzed variation in the use of more than 70,000 individual cars owned by Swiss households who were included in a 2010 survey of travel behavior. Their analysis focuses on the simultaneous relationships among households' choices of the fuel efficiency and size (weight) of the vehicles they own, and how much they drive each one, although they recognize that fuel efficiency cannot be chosen independently of vehicle weight. The authors employ a model specification and statistical estimation procedures that account for the likelihood that households intending to drive more will purchase more fuel-efficient cars but may also choose more spacious and comfortable—and thus heavier—models, which affects their fuel efficiency indirectly, since heavier vehicles are generally less fuel-efficient. The survey data they rely on includes both owners' estimates of their annual use of each car and the distance it was actually driven on a specific day; because they are not closely correlated, the authors employ them as alternative measures of vehicle use to estimate the rebound effect, but this restricts their sample to the roughly 8,100 cars for which both measures are available. Weber and Farsi's estimates of the rebound effect are extremely large: 75% using estimated annual driving and 81% when they measure vehicle use by actual daily driving. Excluding vehicle size (weight) and limiting the choices that households are assumed to consider simultaneously to just vehicles' fuel efficiency and how much to drive approximately reverses these estimates, but both are still very large. Using a simpler procedure that does not account for the potential effect of driving demand on households' choices among vehicle models of different size and fuel efficiency produces much smaller values for the rebound effect: 37% using annual driving and 19% using daily travel. The authors interpret these latter estimates as likely to be too low because actual on-road fuel efficiency has not improved as rapidly as suggested by the manufacturer-reported measure they employ. This introduces an error in their measure that may be related to a vehicle's age, and their more complex estimation procedure may reduce its effect on their estimates. Nevertheless, even their lower estimates exceed those from many other studies of the rebound effect, as Table 8-2 shows.
Hymel, Small, & Van Dender (2010)—and more recently, Hymel & Small (2015)—extended the simultaneous equations analysis of time-series and state-level variation in vehicle use originally reported in Small & Van Dender (2007) and to test the effect of including more recent data. As in the original 2007 study, both subsequent extensions found that the fuel economy rebound effect had declined over time in response to increasing personal income and urbanization but had risen during periods when fuel prices increased. Because they rely on the response of vehicle use to fuel cost per mile to estimate the rebound effect, however, none of these three studies is able to detect whether its apparent decline in response to rising income levels over time truly reflects its effect on drivers' responses to changing fuel economy—the rebound effect itself—or simply captures the effect of rising income on their sensitivity to fuel
In their 2015 update, Hymel and Small hypothesized that the recent increase in the rebound effect could be traced to a combination of expanded media coverage of changing fuel prices, increased price volatility, and an asymmetric response by drivers to variation in fuel costs. The authors estimated that about half of the apparent increase in the rebound effect for recent years could be attributed to greater volatility in fuel prices and more media coverage of sudden price changes. Their results also suggest that households curtail their vehicle use within the first year following an increase in fuel prices and driving costs, while the increase in driving that occurs in response to declining fuel prices—and by implication, to improvements in fuel economy—occurs more slowly.
West
The authors reported that the higher fuel economy of new models that eligible households purchased in response to the generous financial incentives offered under the “Cash for Clunkers” did not prompt their buyers to use them more than the older, low-MPG vehicles they replaced. They attributed this apparent absence of a fuel economy rebound effect—which they described as an “attribute-adjusted” measure of its magnitude—to the fact that eligible households chose to buy less expensive, smaller, and lower-performing models to replace those they retired. Because these replacements offered lower-quality transportation service, their buyers did not drive them more than the vehicles they replaced.
The applicability of this result to the proposal's analysis is doubtful because previous regulatory analyses assumed that manufacturers could achieve required improvements in fuel economy without compromising the performance, carrying and towing capacity, comfort, or safety of cars and light trucks from recent model years.
Most recently, De Borger
These authors' data enabled them to control for the effects of changes over time in household characteristics and vehicle features other than fuel economy that were likely to have contributed to observed changes in vehicle use. They also employed complex statistical methods to account for the fact that some households replacing their vehicles may have done so in anticipation of changes in their driving demands (rather than the reverse), as well as for the possibility that some households who replaced their cars may have done so because their driving behavior was more sensitive to fuel prices than other households. Their estimates ranged from 8-10%, varying only minimally among alternative model specifications and statistical estimation procedures or in response to whether their sample was restricted to households that replaced their vehicles or also included households that kept their original vehicles throughout the period.
On the basis of all of the evidence summarized here, a fuel economy rebound effect of 20% has been chosen to analyze the effects of the proposed action. This is a departure from the 10% value used in regulatory analyses for MYs 2012-2016 and previous analyses for MYs 2017-2025 CAFE and GHG standards and represents a return to the value employed in the analyses for MYs 2005-2011 CAFE standards. There are several reasons the estimate of the fuel economy rebound effect for this analysis has been increased.
First, the 10% value is inconsistent with nearly all research on the magnitude of the rebound effect, as Table-II-43 and Table-II-44 indicate. Instead, it is based almost exclusively
At the same time, the continued increases in income that were anticipated to produce a continued decline in the rebound effect have not materialized. The income measure (real personal income per Capita) used in these analyses has grown only approximately one percent annually over the past two decades and is projected to grow at approximately 1.5% for the next 30 years, in contrast to the two to three percent annual growth assumed by the agencies when developing earlier forecasts of the future rebound effect. Further, another recent study by DeBorger
Some studies of households' use of individual vehicles also find that the fuel economy rebound effect increases with the number of vehicles they own. Because vehicle ownership is strongly associated with household income, this common finding suggests that the overall value of the rebound effect is unlikely to decline with rising incomes as the agencies had previously assumed. In addition, buyers of new cars and light trucks belong disproportionately to higher-income households that already own multiple vehicles, which further suggests that the higher values of the rebound effect estimated by many studies for such households are more relevant for analyzing use of newly-purchased cars and light trucks.
Finally, research on the rebound effect conducted since the agencies' original 2008 review of evidence almost universally reports estimates in the 10-40% (and larger) range, as Table-II-43 shows. Thus, the 20% rebound effect used in this analysis more accurately represents the findings from both the studies considered in 2008 review and the more recent analyses.
The assumed rebound effect not only influences the use of new vehicles in today's analysis but also affects the response of the initial registered vehicle population to changes in fuel price throughout their remaining useful lives. The fuel prices used in this analysis are lower than the projections used to inform the 2012 Final Rule but generally increase from today's level over time. As they do so, the rebound effect acts as a price elasticity of demand for travel—as the cost-per-mile of travel increases, owners of all vehicles in the registered population respond by driving less. In particular, they drive 20% less than the difference between the cost-per-mile of travel when they were observed in calendar year 2016 and the relevant cost-per-mile at any future age. For the new vehicles subject to this proposal (and explicitly simulated by the CAFE model), fuel economies increase relative to MY 2016 levels, and generally improve enough to offset the effect of rising fuel prices—at least during the years covered by the proposal. For those vehicles, the difference between the initial cost-per-mile of travel and future travel costs is negative. As the vehicles become less expensive to operate, they are driven more (20% more than the difference between initial and present travel costs, precisely). Of course, each of the regulatory alternatives considered in the analysis would result in lower fuel economy levels for vehicles produced in model year 2020 and later than if the baseline standards remained in effect, so total VMT is lower under these alternatives than under the baseline.
The increase in travel associated with the rebound effect produces additional benefits to vehicle owners, which reflect the value to drivers and other vehicle occupants of the added (or more desirable) social and economic opportunities that become accessible with additional travel. As evidenced by the fact that they elect to make more frequent or longer trips when the cost of driving declines, the benefits from this added travel exceed drivers' added outlays for the fuel it consumes (measured at the improved level of fuel economy resulting from stricter CAFE standards). The amount by which the benefits from this increased driving travel exceed its increased fuel costs measures the net benefits they receive from the additional travel, usually are referred to as increased consumer surplus.
NHTSA's analysis estimates the economic value of the decreased consumer surplus provided by reduced driving using the conventional approximation, which is one half of the product of the increase in vehicle operating costs per vehicle-mile and the resulting decrease in the annual number of miles driven. Because it depends on the extent of the change in fuel economy, the value of economic impacts from decreased vehicle use changes by model year and varies among alternative CAFE standards.
Higher U.S. fuel consumption will produce a corresponding increase in the nation's demand for crude petroleum, which is traded actively in a worldwide market. The U.S. accounts for a large enough share of global oil consumption that the resulting boost in global demand will raise its worldwide price. The increase in global petroleum prices that results from higher U.S. demand causes a transfer of revenue to oil producers worldwide from not only buyers of new cars and light trucks, but also other consumers of petroleum products in the U.S. and throughout the world, all of whom pay the higher price that results.
Although these effects will be tempered by growing U.S. oil production, uncertainty in the long-term import-export balance makes it difficult to precisely project how these effects might change in response to that increased production. Growing U.S. petroleum consumption will also increase potential costs to all U.S. petroleum users from possible interruptions in the global supply of petroleum or rapid increases in global oil prices, not all of which are borne by
These three effects are often referred to collectively as “energy security externalities” resulting from U.S. petroleum consumption, and increases in their magnitude are sometimes cited as potential social costs of increased U.S. demand for oil. To the extent that they represent real economic costs that would rise incrementally with increases in U.S. petroleum consumption of the magnitude likely to result from less stringent CAFE and GHG standards, these effects represent potential additional costs of this proposed action. Chapter 7 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this proposed action defines each of these energy security externalities in detail, assesses whether its magnitude is likely to change as a consequence of this action, and identifies whether that change represents a real economic cost or benefit of this action.
The change in criteria pollutant emissions that result from changes in vehicle usage and fuel consumption is estimated as part of this analysis. Criteria air pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon compounds (usually referred to as “volatile organic compounds,” or VOC), nitrogen oxides (NO
The social damage costs associated with changes in the emissions of criteria pollutants and CO
Increased vehicle use associated with the rebound effect also contributes to increased traffic congestion and highway noise. To estimate the economic costs associated with these consequences of added driving, the estimates of per-mile congestion and noise costs caused by increased use of automobiles and light trucks developed previously by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) were applied. These values are intended to measure the increased costs resulting from added congestion and the delays it causes to other drivers and passengers and noise levels contributed by automobiles and light trucks. NHTSA previously employed these estimates in its analysis accompanying the MY 2011 final CAFE rule as well as in its analysis of the effects of higher CAFE standards for MY 2012-16 and MY 2017-2021. After reviewing the procedures used by FHWA to develop them and considering other available estimates of these values and recognizing that no commenters have addressed these costs directly in their comments on previous rules, the values continue to be appropriate for use in this proposal. For this analysis, FHWA's estimates of per-mile costs are multiplied by the annual increases in automobile and light truck use from the rebound effect to yield the estimated increases in total congestion and noise externality costs during each year over the lifetimes of the cars and light trucks in the on-road fleet. Due to the fact that this proposal represents a decrease in stringency, the fuel economy rebound effect results in fewer miles driven under the action alternatives relative to the baseline, which generates savings in congestion and road noise relative to the baseline.
In past CAFE rulemakings, NHTSA has examined the effect of CAFE standards on vehicle mass and the subsequent effect mass changes will have on vehicle safety. While setting standards based on vehicle footprint helps reduce potential safety impacts associated with CAFE standards as compared to setting standards based on some other vehicle attribute, footprint-based standards cannot entirely eliminate those impacts. Although prior analyses noted that there could also be impacts because of other factors besides mass changes, those impacts were not estimated quantitatively.
(1) Changes, which affect the crashworthiness of vehicles impact other vehicles or roadside objects, in vehicle mass made to reduce fuel consumption. NHTSA's statistical analysis of historical crash data to understand effects of vehicle mass and size on safety indicates reducing mass in light trucks generally improves safety, while reducing mass in passenger cars generally reduces safety. NHTSA's crash simulation modeling of vehicle design concepts for reducing mass revealed similar trends.
(2) The delay in the pace of consumer acquisition of newer safer vehicles that results from higher vehicle prices associated with technologies needed to meet higher CAFE standards. Because of a combination of safety regulations and voluntary safety improvements, passenger vehicles have become safer over time. Compared to prior decades, fatality rates have declined significantly
(3) Increased driving because of better fuel economy. The “rebound effect” predicts consumers will drive more when the cost of driving declines. More stringent CAFE standards reduce vehicle operating costs, and in response, some consumers may choose to drive more. Driving more increases exposure to risks associated with on-road transportation, and this added exposure translates into higher fatalities.
Although all three factors influence predicted fatality levels that may occur, only two of them, the changes in vehicle mass and the changes in the acquisition of safer vehicles—are actually imposed on consumers by CAFE standards. The safety of vehicles has improved over time and is expected to continue improving in the future commensurate with the pace of safety technology innovation and implementation and motor vehicle safety regulation. Safety improvements will likely continue regardless of changes to CAFE standards. However, its pace may be modified if manufacturers choose to delay or forgo investments in safety technology because of the demand CAFE standards impose on research, development, and manufacturing budgets. Increased driving associated with rebound is a consumer choice. Improved CAFE will reduce driving costs, but nothing in the higher CAFE standards compels consumers to drive additional miles. If consumers choose to do so, they are making a decision that the utility of more driving exceeds the marginal operating costs as well as the added crash risk it entails. Thus, while the predicted fatality impacts with all three factors embedded into the model are measured, the fatalities associated with consumer choice decisions are accounted for separately from those resulting from technologies implemented in response to CAFE regulations or economic limitations resulting from CAFE regulation. Only those safety impacts associated with mass reduction and those resulting from higher vehicle prices are directly attributed to CAFE standards.
The safety component of CAFE analysis has evolved over time. In the 2012 final rule, the analysis accounted for the change in projected fatalities attributable to mass reduction of new vehicles. The model assumed that manufacturers would choose mass reduction as a compliance method across vehicle classes such that the net effect of mass reduction on fatalities was zero. However, in the 2016 draft Technical Assessment Report, DOT made two consequential changes to the analysis of fatalities associated with the CAFE standards. In particular, first, the modelling assumed that mass reduction technology was available to all vehicles, regardless of net safety impact, and second, it accounted for the incremental safety costs associated with additional miles traveled due to the rebound effect. The current analysis extends the analysis to report incremental fatality impacts associated with additional miles traveled due to the rebound effect, and identifies the increase in fatalities associated with additional driving separately from changes in fatalities attributable other sources.
The current analysis adds another element: The effect that higher new vehicle prices have on new vehicle sales and on used vehicle scrappage, which influences total expected fatalities because older vehicle vintages are associated with higher rates of involvement in fatal crashes than newer vehicles. Finally, a dynamic fleet share model also predicts the effects of changes in the standards on the share of light trucks and passenger cars in future model year light-duty vehicle fleets. Vehicles of different body styles have different rates of involvement in fatal crashes, so that changing the share of each in the projected future fleet has safety impacts; the implied safety effects are captured in the current modelling. The agencies seek comment on changes to the safety analysis made in this proposal, they seek particular comment on the following changes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The primary goals of CAFE and CO
Safety trade-offs associated with fuel economy increases have occurred in the past, particularly before NHTSA CAFE standards were attribute-based; past safety trade-offs may have occurred because manufacturers chose at the time, in response to CAFE standards, to build smaller and lighter vehicles. Although the agency now uses attribute-based standards, in part to protect against excessive vehicle downsizing, the agency must be mindful of the possibility of related safety trade-offs in the future. In cases where fuel economy improvements were achieved through reductions in vehicle size and mass, the smaller, lighter vehicles did not fare as well in crashes as larger, heavier vehicles, on average.
Historically, as shown in FARS data analyzed by NHTSA, the safest cars generally have been heavy and large, while cars with the highest fatal-crash rates have been light and small. The question, then, is whether past is necessarily a prologue when it comes to potential changes in vehicle size (both footprint and “overhang”) and mass in response to the more stringent future CAFE and GHG standards.
Manufacturers stated they will reduce vehicle mass as one of the cost-effective means of increasing fuel economy and reducing CO
Researchers have been using statistical analysis to examine the relationship of vehicle mass and safety in historical crash data for many years and continue to refine their techniques. In the MY 2012-2016 final rule, the agencies stated we would conduct further study and research into the interaction of mass, size, and safety to assist future rulemakings and start to work collaboratively by developing an interagency working group between NHTSA, EPA, DOE, and CARB to evaluate all aspects of mass, size, and safety. The team would seek to coordinate government-supported studies and independent research to the greatest extent possible to ensure the work is complementary to previous and ongoing research and to guide further research in this area.
The agencies also identified three specific areas to direct research in preparation for future CAFE/CO
Second, NHTSA and EPA, in consultation with DOE, would update the MY 1991-1999 database where safety analyses in the NPRM and final rule are based with newer vehicle data and create a common database that could be made publicly available to address concerns that differences in data were leading to different results in statistical analyses by different researchers.
And third, to assess if the design of recent model year vehicles incorporating various mass reduction methods affect relationships among vehicle mass, size, and safety, the agencies sought to identify vehicles using material substitution and smart design and to assess if there is sufficient crash data involving those vehicles for statistical analysis. If sufficient data exists, statistical analysis would be conducted to compare the relationship among mass, size, and safety of these smart design vehicles to vehicles of similar size and mass with more traditional designs.
By the time of the MY 2017-2025 final rule, significant progress was made on these tasks: The independent review of recent and updated statistical analyses of the relationship between vehicle mass, size, and crash fatality rates had been completed. NHTSA contracted with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) to conduct this review, and the UMTRI team led by Green evaluated more than 20 papers, including studies done by NHTSA's Kahane, Wenzel of the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Dynamic Research, Inc., and others. UMTRI's basic findings are discussed in Chapter 11 of the PRIA accompanying this NPRM.
Some commenters in recent CAFE rulemakings, including some vehicle manufacturers, suggested designs and materials of more recent model year vehicles may have weakened the historical statistical relationships between mass, size, and safety. It was agreed that the statistical analysis would be improved by using an updated database reflecting more recent safety technologies, vehicle designs and materials, and reflecting changes in the vehicle fleet. An updated database was created and employed for assessing safety effects for that final rule. The agencies also believed, as UMTRI found, different statistical analyses may have produced different results because they used slightly different datasets for their analyses.
To try to mitigate this issue and to support the current rulemaking, NHTSA created a common, updated database for statistical analysis consisting of crash data of model years 2000-2007 vehicles in calendar years 2002-2008, as
Since the publication of the MYs 2017-2025 final rule, NHTSA has sponsored, and is sponsoring, new studies and research to inform the current CAFE and CO
Undertaking these tasks has helped come closer to resolving ongoing debates in statistical analysis research of historical crash data. It is intended that these conclusions will be applied going forward in future rulemakings, and it is believed the research will assist the public discussion of the issues. Specific historical analyses (in addition to NHTSA's own analysis) on vehicle mass and safety used to support this rulemaking include:
• The 2011 and 2013 NHTSA Workshops on Vehicle Mass, Size, and Safety;
• the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) independent review of a set of statistical relationships between vehicle curb weight, footprint variables (track width, wheelbase), and fatality rates from vehicle crashes;
• the 2012 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports on the sensitivity of NHTSA's baseline results and casualty risk per VMT;
• the 2012 DRI reports on, among other things, the effects of mass reduction on crash frequency and fatality risk per crash;
• LBNL's subsequent review of DRI's study;
• the 2015 National Academy of Sciences Report; and
• the 2017 NBER working paper analyzing the relationships among traffic fatalities, CAFE standards, and distributions of MY 1989-2005 light-duty vehicle curb weights.
A detailed discussion of each analysis is discussed in Chapter 11 of the PRIA accompanying this proposed rule.
As mentioned previously, NHTSA and EPA's 2012 joint final rule for MYs 2017 and beyond set “footprint-based” standards, with footprint being defined as roughly equal to the wheelbase multiplied by the average of the front and rear track widths. Basing standards on vehicle footprint ideally helps to discourage vehicle manufacturers from downsizing their vehicles; the agencies set higher (more stringent) mile per gallon (mpg) targets for smaller-footprint vehicles but would not similarly discourage mass reduction that maintains footprint while potentially improving fuel economy. Several technologies, such as substitution of light, high-strength materials for conventional materials during vehicle redesigns, have the potential to reduce weight and conserve fuel while maintaining a vehicle's footprint and maintaining or possibly improving the vehicle's structural strength and handling.
In considering what technologies are available for improving fuel economy, including mass reduction, an important corollary issue for NHTSA to consider is the potential effect those technologies may have on safety. NHTSA has thus far specifically considered the likely effect of mass reduction that maintains footprint on fatal crashes. The relationship between a vehicle's mass, size, and fatality risk is complex, and it varies in different types of crashes. As mentioned above, NHTSA, along with others, has been examining this relationship for more than a decade.
The safety chapter of NHTSA's April 2012 final regulatory impact analysis (FRIA) of CAFE standards for MY 2017-2021 passenger cars and light trucks included a statistical analysis of relationships between fatality risk, mass, and footprint in MY 2000-2007 passenger cars and LTVs (light trucks and vans), based on calendar year (CY) 2002-2008 crash and vehicle-registration data;
The principal findings and conclusions of the 2012 Kahane report were mass reduction in the lighter cars, even while holding footprint constant, would significantly increase fatality risk, whereas mass reduction in the heavier LTVs would reduce societal fatality risk by reducing the fatality risk of occupants of lighter vehicles colliding with those heavier LTVs. NHTSA concluded, as a result, any
NHTSA released a preliminary report (2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report) on the relationship between fatality risk, mass, and footprint in June 2016 in advance of the Draft TAR. The preliminary report covered the same scope as the 2012 Kahane report, offering a detailed description of the databases, modeling approach, and analytical results on relationships among vehicle size, mass, and fatalities that informed the Draft TAR. Results in the Draft TAR and the 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report are consistent with results in the 2012 Kahane report; chiefly, societal effects of mass reduction are small, and mass reduction concentrated in larger vehicles is likely to have a beneficial effect on fatalities, while mass reduction concentrated in smaller vehicles is likely to have a detrimental effect on fatalities.
For the 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report and Draft TAR, NHTSA, working closely with EPA and the DOE, performed an updated statistical analysis of relationships between fatality rates, mass and footprint, updating the crash and exposure databases to the latest available model years. The agencies analyzed updated databases that included MY 2003-2010 vehicles in CY 2005-2011 crashes. For this proposed
The basic analytical method used to analyze the impacts of weight reduction on safety in this proposed rule is the same as in NHTSA's 2012 Kahane report, 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report, and the Draft TAR: The agency analyzed cross sections of the societal fatality rate per billion vehicle miles of travel (VMT) by mass and footprint, while controlling for driver age, gender, and other factors, in separate logistic regressions by vehicle class and crash type. “Societal” fatality rates include fatalities to occupants of all the vehicles involved in the collisions, plus any pedestrians.
The temporal range of the data is now MY 2004-2011 vehicles in CY 2006-2012, updated from previous databases of MY 2000-2007 vehicles in CY 2002-2008 (2012 Kahane Report) and MY 2003-2010 vehicles in CY 2005-2011 (2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report and Draft TAR). NHTSA purchased a file of odometer readings by make, model, and model year from Polk that helped inform the agency's improved VMT estimates. As in the 2012 Kahane report, 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report, and the Draft TAR, the vehicles are grouped into three classes: Passenger cars (including both two-door and four-door cars); CUVs and minivans; and truck-based LTVs.
There are nine types of crashes specified in the analysis. Single-vehicle crashes include first-event rollovers, collisions with fixed objects, and collisions with pedestrians, bicycles and motorcycles. Two-vehicle crashes include collisions with: heavy-duty vehicles; car, CUV, or minivan < 3,187 pounds (the median curb weight of other, non-case, cars, CUVs and minivans in fatal crashes in the database); car, CUV, or minivan ≥ 3,187 pounds; truck-based LTV < 4,360 pounds (the median curb weight of other truck-based LTVs in fatal crashes in the database); and truck-based LTV ≥ 4,360 pounds. An additional crash type includes all other fatal crash types (
The curb weight of passenger cars is formulated, as in the 2012 Kahane report, 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report, and Draft TAR, as a two-piece linear variable to estimate one effect of mass reduction in the lighter cars and another effect in the heavier cars. The boundary between “lighter” and “heavier” cars is 3,201 pounds (which is the median mass of MY 2004-2011 cars in fatal crashes in CY 2006-2012, up from 3,106 for MY 2000-2007 cars in CY 2002-2008 in the 2012 NHTSA safety database, and up from 3,197 for MY 2003-2010 cars in CY 2005-2011 in the 2016 NHTSA safety database).
Likewise, for truck-based LTVs, curb weight is a two-piece linear variable with the boundary at 5,014 pounds (again, the MY 2004-2011 median, higher than the median of 4,594 for MY 2000-2007 LTVs in CY 2002-2008 and the median of 4,947 for MY 2003-2010 LTVs in CY 2005-2011). Curb weight is formulated as a simple linear variable for CUVs and minivans. Historically, CUVs and minivans have accounted for a relatively small share of new-vehicle sales over the range of the data, resulting in less crash data available than for cars or truck-based LTVs.
For a given vehicle class and weight range (if applicable), regression coefficients for mass (while holding footprint constant) in the nine types of crashes are averaged, weighted by the number of baseline fatalities that would have occurred for the subgroup MY 2008-2011 vehicles in CY 2008-2012 if these vehicles had all been equipped with electronic stability control (ESC). The adjustment for ESC, a feature of the analysis added in 2012, takes into account results will be used to analyze effects of mass reduction in future vehicles, which will all be ESC-equipped, as required by NHTSA's regulations.
Techniques developed in the 2011 (preliminary) and 2012 (final) Kahane reports have been retained to test statistical significance and to estimate 95 percent confidence bounds (sampling error) for mass effects and to estimate the combined annual effect of removing 100 pounds of mass from every vehicle (or of removing different amounts of mass from the various classes of vehicles), while holding footprint constant.
NHTSA considered the near multicollinearity of mass and footprint to be a major issue in the 2010 Kahane report
Nevertheless, multicollinearity appears to have become less of a problem in the 2012 Kahane, 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger/Draft TAR, and current NHTSA analyses. Ultimately, only three of the 27 core models of fatality risk by vehicle type in the current analysis indicate the potential presence of effects of multicollinearity, with estimated effects of mass and footprint reduction greater than two percent per 100-pound mass reduction and one-square-foot footprint reduction, respectively; these three models include passenger cars and CUVs in first-event rollovers, and CUVs in collisions with LTVs greater than 4,360 pounds. This result is consistent with the 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report, which also found only three cases out of 27 models with estimated effects of mass and footprint reduction greater than two percent per 100-pound mass reduction and one-square-foot footprint reduction.
Table II-45 presents the estimated percent increase in U.S. societal fatality risk per 10 billion VMT for each 100-
None of the estimated effects have 95-percent confidence bounds that exclude zero, and thus are not statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level. Two estimated effects are statistically significant at the 85-percent level. Societal fatality risk is estimated to: (1) Increase by 1.2 percent if mass is reduced by 100 pounds in the lighter cars; and (2) decrease by 0.61 percent if mass is reduced by 100 pounds in the heavier truck-based LTVs. The estimated increases in societal fatality risk for mass reduction in the heavier cars and the lighter truck-based LTVs, and the estimated decrease in societal fatality risk for mass reduction in CUVs and minivans are not significant, even at the 85-percent confidence level.
Confidence bounds estimate only the sampling error internal to the data used in the specific analysis that generated the point estimate. Point estimates are also sensitive to the modification of components of the analysis, as discussed at the end of this section. However, this degree of uncertainty is methodological in nature rather than statistical.
It is useful to compare the new results in Table II-45 to results in the 2012 Kahane report (MY 2000-2007 vehicles in CY 2002-2008) and the 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report and Draft TAR (MY 2003-2010 vehicles in CY 2005-2011), presented in Table II-46 below:
New results are directionally the same as in 2012; in the 2016 analysis, the estimate for lighter LTVs was of opposite sign (but small magnitude). Consistent with the 2012 Kahane and 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger reports, mass reductions in lighter cars are estimated to lead to increases in fatalities, and mass reductions in heavier LTVs are estimated to lead to decreases in fatalities. However, NHTSA does not consider this conclusion to be definitive because of the relatively wide confidence bounds of the estimates. The estimated mass effects are similar among analyses for both classes of passenger cars; for all reports, the estimate for lighter passenger cars is statistically significant at the 85-percent confidence level, while the estimate for heavier passenger cars is insignificant.
The estimated mass effect for heavier truck-based LTVs is stronger in this analysis and in the 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report than in the 2012 Kahane report; both estimates are statistically significant at the 85-percent confidence level, unlike the corresponding insignificant estimate in the 2012 Kahane report. The estimated mass effect for lighter truck-based LTVs is insignificant and positive in this analysis and the 2012 Kahane report, while the corresponding estimate in the 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report was insignificant and negative.
Vehicle mass continued an historical upward trend across the MYs in the newest databases. The average (VMT-weighted) masses of passenger cars and CUVs both increased by approximately three percent from MYs 2004 to 2011 (3,184 pounds to 3,289 pounds for passenger cars, and 3,821 pounds to 3,924 pounds for CUVs). Over the same period, the average mass of minivans increased by six percent (from 4,204 pounds to 4,462 pounds), and the average mass of LTVs increased by 10% (from 4,819 pounds to 5,311 pounds).
The principal difference between heavier vehicles, especially truck-based LTVs, and lighter vehicles, especially passenger cars, is mass reduction has a different effect in collisions with another car or LTV. When two vehicles of unequal mass collide, the change in velocity (delta V) is greater in the lighter vehicle. Through conservation of momentum, the degree to which the delta V in the lighter vehicle is greater than in the heavier vehicle is proportional to the ratio of mass in the heavier vehicle to mass in the lighter vehicle:
Because fatality risk is a positive function of delta V, the fatality risk in the lighter vehicle in two-vehicle collisions is also higher. Removing some mass from the heavy vehicle reduces delta V in the lighter vehicle, where fatality risk is higher, resulting in a large benefit, offset by a small penalty because delta V increases in the heavy vehicle where fatality risk is low—adding up to a net societal benefit. Removing some mass from the lighter vehicle results in a large penalty offset by a small benefit—adding up to net harm.
These considerations drive the overall result: Mass reduction is associated with an increase in fatality risk in lighter cars, a decrease in fatality risk in heavier LTVs, CUVs, and minivans, and has smaller effects in the intermediate groups. Mass reduction may also be harmful in a crash with a movable object such as a small tree, which may break if hit by a high mass vehicle resulting in a lower delta V than may occur if hit by a lower mass vehicle which does not break the tree and therefore has a higher delta V. However, in some types of crashes not involving collisions between cars and LTVs, especially first-event rollovers and impacts with fixed objects, mass reduction may not be harmful and may be beneficial. To the extent lighter vehicles may respond more quickly to braking and steering, or may be more stable because their center of gravity is lower, they may more successfully avoid crashes or reduce the severity of crashes.
Farmer, Green, and Lie, who reviewed the 2010 Kahane report, again peer-reviewed the 2011 Kahane report.
The regression results are best suited to predict the effect of a small change in mass, leaving all other factors, including footprint, the same. With each additional change from the current environment (
Nevertheless, one consideration provides some basis for confidence in applying regression results to estimate effects of relatively large mass reductions or mass reductions over longer periods. This is NHTSA's sixth evaluation of effects of mass reduction and/or downsizing,
Results of the six studies are not identical, but they have been consistent to a point. During this time period, many makes and models have increased substantially in mass, sometimes as much as 30-40%.
Neither CAFE standards nor this analysis mandate mass reduction, or mandate mass reduction occur in any specific manner. However, mass reduction is one of the technology applications available to manufacturers, and thus a degree of mass reduction is allowed within the CAFE model to: (1) Determine capabilities of manufacturers; and (2) to predict cost and fuel consumption effects of improved CAFE standards.
The agency utilized the relationships between weight and safety from the new NHTSA analysis, expressed as percentage increases in fatalities per 100-pound weight reduction, and examined the weight impacts assumed in this CAFE analysis. The effects of mass reduction on safety were estimated relative to estimated baseline levels of safety across vehicle classes and model years. To identify baseline levels of safety, the agency examined effects of identifiable safety trends over lifetimes of vehicles produced in each model year. The projected effectiveness of existing and forthcoming safety technologies and expected on-road fleet penetration of safety technologies were incorporated into observed trends in fatality rates to estimate baseline fatality rates in future years across vehicle classes and model years.
The agency assumed safety trends will result in a reduction in the target population of fatalities from which the vehicle mass impacts are derived. Table II-47 through Table II-52 show results of NHTSA's vehicle mass-size-safety analysis over the cumulative lifetime of MY 1977-2029 vehicles, for both the CAFE and GHG programs, based on the MY 2016 baseline fleet, accounting for the projected safety baselines. The reported fatality impacts are undiscounted, but the monetized safety impacts are discounted at three-percent and seven-percent discount rates. The reported fatality impacts are estimated increases or decreases in fatalities over the lifetime of the model year fleet. A positive number means that fatalities are projected to increase; a negative number (in parentheses) means that fatalities are projected to decrease.
Results are driven extensively by the degree to which mass is reduced in relatively light passenger cars and in relatively heavy vehicles because their coefficients in the logistic regression analysis have the most significant values. We assume any impact on fatalities will occur over the lifetime of the vehicle, and the chance of a fatality occurring in any particular year is directly related to the weighted vehicle miles traveled in that year.
For all light-duty vehicles, mass changes are estimated to lead to a decrease in fatalities over the cumulative lifetime of MY 1977-2029 vehicles in all alternatives evaluated. The effects of mass changes on fatalities
Additionally, social effects of increasing fatalities can be monetized using NHTSA's estimated comprehensive cost per life of $9,900,000 in 2016 dollars. This consists of a value of a statistical life of $9.6 million in 2015 dollars plus external economic costs associated with fatalities such as medical care, insurance administration costs and legal costs, updated for inflation to 2016 dollars.
Typically, NHTSA would also estimate the effect on injuries and add that to social costs of fatalities, but in this case NHTSA does not have a model estimating the effect of vehicle mass on injuries. Blincoe
Changes in vehicle mass are estimated to decrease social safety costs over the lifetime of the nine model years by between $176 million (for Alternative #7) and $2.7 billion (for Alternative #4) relative to the augural standards at a three-percent discount rate and by between $97 million and $1.6 billion at a seven-percent discount rate. The estimated decreases in social safety costs are driven by estimated decreases in costs associated with passenger cars, ranging from $264 million (for Alternative #7) to $4.4 billion (for Alternative #1) relative to the Augural standards at a three-percent discount rate and by between $146 million and $2.5 billion at a seven-percent discount rate. The estimated decreases in costs associated with passenger cars are offset by estimated increases in costs associated with light trucks, ranging from $88 million (for Alternative #7) to $2.0 billion (for Alternative #1) relative to the Augural standards at a three-percent discount rate and by between $49 million and $1.3 billion at a seven-percent discount rate.
Table II-53 through Table II-55 presents average annual estimated safety effects of vehicle mass changes, for CYs 2035-2045:
For all light-duty vehicles, mass changes are estimated to lead to an average annual decrease in fatalities in all alternatives evaluated for CYs 2035-2045. The effects of mass changes on fatalities range from a combined
Changes in vehicle mass are estimated to decrease average annual social safety costs in CY 2035-2045 by between $2 million (for Alternative #7) and $271 million (for Alternative #1) relative to the Augural standards at a three-percent discount rate and by between $1 million and $111 million at a seven-percent discount rate. The estimated decreases in social safety costs are generally driven by estimated decreases in costs associated with passenger cars, decreasing between $13 million (for Alternative #7) and $424 million (for Alternative #1) relative to the Augural standards at a three-percent discount rate and decreasing between $5 million and $175 million at a seven-percent discount rate. The estimated decreases in costs associated with passenger cars are generally offset by estimated increases in costs associated with light trucks, decreasing between $11 million (for Alternative #7) and $153 million (for Alternative #1) relative to the Augural standards at a three-percent discount rate and decreasing between $5 million and $64 million at a seven-percent discount rate.
To help illuminate effects at the model year level, Table II-59 presents the lifetime fatality impacts associated with vehicle mass changes for passenger cars, light trucks, and all light-duty vehicles by model year under Alternative #1, relative to the Augural standards for the CAFE Program. Table II-59 presents an analogous table for the GHG Program.
Under Alternative #1, passenger car fatalities associated with mass changes are estimated to decrease generally from MY 2017 (decrease of three fatalities) through MY 2029 (decrease of 36 fatalities), peaking in MY 2025 (37 fatalities). Corresponding estimates of light truck fatalities associated with mass changes are generally positive, ranging from a decrease of one fatality in MYs 2017 and 2018 to an increase of 14 fatalities in MYs 2026 through 2029. Altogether, light-duty vehicle fatality reductions associated with mass changes under Alternative #1 are
Table II-61 and Table II-62 present estimates of monetized lifetime social safety costs associated with mass changes by model year at three-percent and seven-percent discount rates, respectively for the CAFE Program. Table II-63 and Table II-64 show comparable tables from the perspective of the GHG Program.
Lifetime social safety costs are estimated to decrease generally by model year, with decreases associated with passenger cars generally offset partially by increases associated with light trucks. At a three-percent discount
Consistent with the analysis of fatality impacts by model year in Table II-61, decreases in lifetime social safety costs associated with mass changes are generally concentrated in MY 2023 through MY 2029 light-duty vehicles under Alternative #1. At a three-percent discount rate, 93% of the reduction in total lifetime costs ($872 million out of $937 million) is attributed to MY 2023 through MY 2029 light-duty vehicles; at a seven-percent discount rate, 97% of the reduction in total lifetime costs ($486 million out of $501 million) is attributed to MY 2023 through MY 2029 light-duty vehicles.
Table II-65 shows the principal findings and includes sampling-error confidence bounds for the five parameters used in the CAFE model. The confidence bounds represent the statistical uncertainty that is a consequence of having less than a census of data. NHTSA's 2011, 2012, and 2016 reports acknowledged another source of uncertainty: The baseline statistical model can be varied by choosing different control variables or redefining the vehicle classes or crash types, which for example, could produce different point estimates.
Beginning with the 2012 Kahane report, NHTSA has provided results of 11 plausible alternative models that serve as sensitivity tests of the baseline model. Each alternative model was tested or proposed by: Farmer (IIHS) or Green (UMTRI) in their peer reviews; Van Auken (DRI) in his public comments; or Wenzel in his parallel research for DOE. The 2012 Kahane and 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger reports provide further discussion of the models and the rationales behind them.
Alternative models use NHTSA's databases and regression-analysis approach but differ from the baseline model in one or more explanatory variables, assumptions, or data restrictions. NHTSA applied the 11 techniques to the latest databases to generate alternative CAFE model coefficients. The range of estimates produced by the sensitivity tests offers insight to the uncertainty inherent in the formulation of the models, subject to the caveat these 11 tests are, of course, not an exhaustive list of conceivable alternatives.
The baseline and alternative results follow, ordered from the lowest to the highest estimated increase in societal risk per 100-pound reduction for cars weighing less than 3,201 pounds:
The sensitivity tests illustrate both the fragility and the robustness of baseline estimates. On the one hand, the variation among NHTSA's coefficients is quite large relative to the baseline estimate: In the preceding example of cars < 3,201 pounds, the estimated coefficients range from almost zero to almost double the baseline estimate. This result underscores the key relationship that the societal effect of mass reduction is small and, as Wenzel has said, it “is overwhelmed by other known vehicle, driver, and crash factors.”
On the other hand, variations are not particularly large in absolute terms. The ranges of alternative estimates are generally in line with the sampling-error confidence bounds for the baseline estimates. Generally, in alternative models as in the baseline models, mass reduction tends to be relatively more harmful in the lighter vehicles and more beneficial in the heavier vehicles, just as they are in the central analysis. In all models, the point estimate of NHTSA's coefficient is positive for the lightest vehicle class, cars < 3,201 pounds. In nine out of 11 models, the point estimate is negative for CUVs and minivans, and in eight out of 11 models the point estimate is negative for LTVs ≥ 5,014 pounds.
NHTSA has traditionally used real world crash data as the basis for projecting the future safety implications for regulatory changes. However, because lightweight vehicle designs are introducing fundamental changes to the structure of the vehicle, there is some concern that historical safety trends may not apply. To address this concern, NHTSA developed an approach to utilize lightweight vehicle designs to evaluate safety in a subset of real-world representative crashes. The methodology focused on frontal crashes because of the availability of existing vehicle and occupant restraint models. Representative crashes were simulated between baseline and lightweight vehicles against a range of vehicles and roadside objects using two different size belted driver occupants (adult male and small female) only. No passenger(s) or unbelted driver occupants were considered in this fleet simulation. The occupant injury risk from each simulation was calculated and summed to obtain combined occupant injury risk. The combined occupant injury risk was weighted according to the frequency of real world occurrences to develop overall societal risk for baseline and light-weighted vehicles. Note: The generic restraint system developed and used in the baseline occupant simulations was also used in the light-weighted vehicle occupant simulations as the purpose of this fleet simulation was to understand changes in societal injury risks because of mass reduction for different classes of vehicles in frontal crashes. No modifications to the restraint systems were made for light-weighted vehicle occupant simulations. Any modifications to restraint systems to improve occupant injury risks or societal injury risks in the light-weighted vehicle would have conflated results without identifying effects of mass reduction only. The following sections provide an overview of the fleet simulation study:
NHTSA contracted with George Washington University to develop a fleet simulation model
• 2001 model year Ford Taurus finite element model baseline and two simple design variants included a 25% lighter vehicle while maintaining the same vehicle front end stiffness and 25% overall stiffer vehicle while maintaining the same overall vehicle mass.
• 2011 model year Honda Accord finite element baseline vehicle and its 20% light-weight vehicle designed by Electricore. (This mass reduction study was sponsored by NHTSA).
• 2009/2010 model year Toyota Venza finite element baseline vehicle and two design variants included a 20% light-weight vehicle model (2010 Venza) (Low option mass reduction vehicle funded by EPA and International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)) and a 35% light-weight vehicle (2009 Venza) (High option mass reduction vehicle funded by California Air Resources Board).
Light weight vehicles were designed to have similar vehicle crash pulses as baseline vehicles. More than 440 vehicle crash simulations were conducted for the range of crash speeds and crash configurations to generate crash pulse and intrusion data points. The crash pulse data and intrusion data points will be used as inputs in the occupant simulation models.
For vehicle to vehicle impact simulations, four finite element models were chosen to represent the fleet. The partner vehicle models were selected to represent a range of vehicle types and weights. It was assumed vehicle models would reflect the crash response for all vehicles of the same type,
As noted, vehicle simulations generated vehicle deformations and acceleration responses utilized to drive occupant restraint simulations and predict the risk of injury to the head, neck, chest, and lower extremities. In all, more than 1,520 occupant restraint simulations were conducted to evaluate the risk of injury for mid-size male and small female drivers.
The computed societal injury risk (SIR) for a target vehicle
The fleet simulation was performed using the best available engineering models, with base vehicle restraint and airbag settings, to estimate societal risks of future lightweight vehicles. The range of the predicted risks for the baseline vehicles is from 1.25% to 1.56%, with an average of 1.39%, for the NASS frontal crashes that were simulated. The change in driver injury risk between the baseline and light-weighted vehicles will provide insight into the estimate of modification needed in the restraint and airbag systems of lightweight vehicles. If the difference extends beyond the expected baseline vehicle restraint and airbag capability, then adjustments to the structural designs would be needed. Results from the fleet simulation study show the trend of increased societal injury risk for light-weighted vehicle designs, as compared to their baselines, occurs for both single vehicle and two-vehicle crashes. Results are listed in Table II-66.
In general, the societal injury risk in the frontal crash simulation associated with the small size driver is elevated when compared to that of the mid-size driver. However, both occupant sizes had reasonable injury risk in the simulated impact configurations representative of the regulatory and consumer information testing. NHTSA examined three methods for combining injuries with different body regions. One observation was the baseline mid-size CUV model was more sensitive to leg injuries.
This study only looked at lightweight designs for a midsize sedan and a mid-size CUV and did not examine safety implications for heavier vehicles. The study was also limited to only frontal crash configurations and considered just mid-size CUVs whereas the statistical regression model considered all CUVs and all crash modes.
The change in the safety risk from the MY 2010 fleet simulation study was directionally consistent with results for passenger cars from NHTSA 2012 regression analysis study,
This fleet simulation study does not provide information that can be used to modify coefficients derived for the NPRM regression analysis because of the restricted types of crashes
Previous versions of the CAFE model, and the accompanying regulatory analyses relying on it, did not carry a representation of the full on-road vehicle population, only those vehicles from model years regulated under proposed (or final) standards. The omission of an on-road fleet implicitly assumed the population of vehicles registered at the time a set of CAFE standards is promulgated is not affected by those standards. However, there are several mechanisms by which CAFE standards can affect the existing vehicle
The sales response in the CAFE model acts to modify new vehicle sales in two ways:
1. Changes in new vehicle prices either increase or decrease total sales (passenger cars and light trucks combined) each year in the context of forecasted macroeconomic conditions.
2. Changes in new vehicle attributes and fuel prices influence the share of new vehicles sold that are light trucks, and therefore also passenger cars.
These two responses change the total number of new vehicles sold in each model year across regulatory alternatives and the relative proportion of new vehicles that are passenger cars and light trucks. This response has two effects on safety. The first response slows the rate at which new vehicles, and their associated safety improvements, enter the on-road population. The second response influences the mix of vehicles on the road—with more stringent CAFE standards leading to a higher share of light trucks sold in the new vehicle market, assuming all else is equal. Light trucks have higher rates of fatal crashes when interacting with passenger cars and, as earlier sections discussed, different directional responses to mass reduction technology based on the existing mass and body style of the vehicle.
The sales response and scrappage response influence safety outcomes through the same basic mechanism, fleet turnover. In the case of the scrappage response, delaying fleet turnover keeps drivers in older vehicles likely to be less safe than newer model year vehicles that could replace them. Similarly, delaying the sale of new vehicles can force households to keep older vehicles in use longer, reallocate VMT within their household fleet, and generally meet travel demand through the use of older, less safe vehicles. As an illustration, if we simplify by ignoring that the share of new vehicles that are passenger cars changes with the stringency of the alternatives, simply changing the number of new vehicles between scenarios affects the mileage accumulation of the fleet and therefore all fleet level effects. Reducing the number of new vehicles sold, relative to a baseline forecasted value, reduces the size of the registered vehicle fleet that is able to service the underlying demand for travel.
Consider a simple example where we show sales effects operating on a micro-scale for a single household whose choices of whether to purchase a new vehicle is affected by vehicle price. A household starts with three vehicles, aged three, five, and eight years old. In a scenario with no CAFE standards and therefore no related changes in vehicle sales prices, the household buys a new car and scraps the eight-year old car; the other two cars in the fleet each get a year older. In a scenario where CAFE standards become more stringent causing vehicle sales prices to increase, this household chooses to delay buying a new car and each of their three existing cars gets a year older. In both cases, all three vehicles (including the new car in the first scenario, and the year-year-old car in the second scenario) have to serve the family's travel demand.
The scrappage effect is visible in the household's vehicle fleet as it moves from the first scenario to the second scenario with changes in CAFE standards. In the second scenario, the nine-year-old car remains in the household's fleet to service demand for travel, when it would otherwise have been retired. While the scrappage effect can be symmetrical to the sales effect, it need not be. The “new car” in the scenario without CAFE standards could be a new vehicle from the current model year or a used car that is of a newer vintage than the 8-year-old vehicle it replaces. The latter instance is an effect of scrappage decisions that do not directly affect new vehicle sales. Eventually, new vehicles transition to the used car market, but that on average take several years, and the shift is slow. At the household level, the scrappage decision occurs in a single year, each year, for every vehicle in the fleet. To the extent CAFE standards affect new vehicle prices and fuel economies, relative to vehicles already owned, scrappage could accelerate or decelerate depending upon the direction (and magnitude) of the changes.
The analysis supporting the CAFE rule for MYs 2017 and beyond did not account for differences in exposure or inherent safety risk as vehicles aged throughout their useful lives. However, the relationship between vehicle age and fatality risk is an important one. In a 2013 Research Note,
With an integrated fleet model now part of the analytical framework for CAFE analysis, any effects on fleet turnover (either from delayed vehicle retirement or deferred sales of new vehicles) will affect the distribution of both ages and model years present in the on-road fleet. Because each of these vintages carries with it inherent rates of fatal crashes, and newer vintages are generally safer than older ones, changing that distribution will change
To estimate the empirical relationship between vehicle age, model year vintage, and fatalities, DOT conducted a statistical analysis linking data from the FARS database, a time series of Polk registration data to represent the on-road vehicle population, and assumed per-vehicle mileage accumulation rates (the derivation of which is discussed in detail in PRIA Chapter 11). These data were used to construct per-mile fatality rates that varied by vehicle vintage, accounting for the influence of vehicle age. However, unlike the NCSA study referenced above, any attempt to account for this relationship in the CAFE analysis faces two challenges. The first challenge is the CAFE model lacks the internal structure to account for other factors related to observed fatal crashes—for example, vehicle speed, seat belt use, drug use, or age of involved drivers or passengers. Vehicle interactions are simply not modeled at this level; the safety analysis in the CAFE model is statistical, using aggregate values to represent the totality of fleet interactions over time. The second challenge is perhaps the more significant of the two: The CAFE analysis is inherently forward-looking. To implement a statistical model analogous to the one developed by NCSA, the CAFE model would require forecasts of all factors considered in the NCSA model—about vehicle speeds in crashes, driver behavior, driver and passenger ages, vehicle vintages, and so on. In particular, the model would require distributions (joint distributions, in most cases) of these factors over a period of time spanning decades. Any such forecasts would be highly uncertain and would be likely to assume a continuation of current conditions.
Instead of trying to replicate the NCSA work at a similar level of detail, DOT conducted a simpler statistical analysis to separate the safety impact of the two factors the CAFE model explicitly accounts for: The distribution of vehicle ages in the fleet and the number of miles driven by those vehicles at each age. To accomplish this, DOT used data from the FARS database at a lower level of resolution; rather than looking at each crash and the specific factors that contributed to its occurrence, staff looked at the total number of fatal crashes involving light-duty vehicles over time with a focus on the influence of vehicle
As shown in Figure II-4, fatalities per registered vehicle have generally declined over time across all vehicle ages (the darker points representing newer vintages being closer to the x-axis) and, across most recent calendar years, fatality rates (per registered vehicle) start out at a low point, rise through age 15 or so, then decline through age 30 (at which point little of the initial model year cohort is still registered). While this pattern is evident in the registration data, it is magnified by imposing a mileage accumulation schedule on the registered population and examining fatalities per billion miles of VMT.
The mileage accumulation schedule used in this analysis was developed using odometer readings of vehicles aged 0-15 years in calendar year 2015.
When the per-vehicle fatality rates are converted into per-mile fatality rates, the pattern observed in the registration comparison becomes clearer. As Figure II-5 shows, the trend present in the fatality data on a per-registration basis is even clearer on a per-mile basis: Newer vintages are safer than older vintages, at each age, over time.
The shape of the curve in Figure II-5 suggests a polynomial relationship between fatality rate and vehicle age, so DOT's statistical model is based on that structure.
The final model is a weighted quartic polynomial regression (by number of registered vehicles) on vehicle age with fixed effects for the model years present in the dataset:
The coefficient estimates and model summary are in Table II-67.
This function is now embedded in the CAFE model, so the combination of VMT per vehicle and the distribution of ages and model years present in the on-road fleet determine the number of fatalities in a given calendar year. The model reproduces the observed fatalities of a given model year, at each age, reasonably well with more recent model years (to which the VMT schedule is a better match) estimated with smaller errors.
While the final specification was not the only one considered, the fact this model was intended to live inside the CAFE model to dynamically estimate fatalities for a dynamically changing on-road vehicle population was a constraining factor.
The base model predicts a net increase in fatalities due primarily to slower adoption of safer vehicles and added driving because of less costly vehicle operating costs. In earlier calendar years, the improvement in safety of the on-road fleet produces a net reduction in fatalities, but from the mid-2020s forward, the baseline model predicts no further increase in safety, and the added risk from more VMT and older vehicles produces a net increase in fatalities. This model thus reflects a conservative limitation; it implicitly assumes the trend toward increasingly safe vehicles that has been apparent for the past 3 decades will flatten in mid-2020s. The agency does not assert this is the most likely case. In fact, the development of advanced crash avoidance technologies in recent years indicates some level of safety improvement is almost certain to occur. The difficulty is for most of these technologies, their effectiveness against fatalities and the pace of their adoption are highly uncertain. Moreover, autonomous vehicles offer the possibility of significantly reducing or eventually even eliminating the effect of human error in crash causation, a contributing factor in roughly 94% of all crashes. This conservative assumption may cause the NPRM to understate the beneficial effect of proposed standards on improving (reducing) the number of fatalities.
Advanced technologies that are currently deployed or in development include:
These technologies are either under development or are currently being offered, typically in luxury vehicles, as either optional or standard equipment.
To estimate baseline fatality rates in future years, NHTSA examined predicted results from a previous NCSA study
This model was based on inputs representing the impact of technology improvement through CY 2020. Projecting this trend beyond 2020 can be justified based on the continued transformation of the on-road fleet to 100% inclusion of the known safety technologies. Based on projections in the NCSA study, significant further technology penetration can be expected in the on-road fleet for side impact improvements (FMVSSS 214), electronic stability control (FMVSS 126), upper interior head impact protection (FMVSS 301), tire pressure monitoring systems (FMVSS 138), ejection mitigation (FMVSS 226), and heavy truck stopping distance improvements (FMVSS 121). These technologies were estimated to be installed in only 40-70% of the on-road fleet as of CY 2020, implying further safety improvement well beyond the 2020 calendar year.
The NCSA study focused on projections to reflect known technology adaptation requirements, but it was conducted prior to the 2008 recession, which disrupted the economy and changed travel patterns throughout the country. Thus, while the relative trends it predicts seem reasonable, they cannot account for the real-world disruption and recovery that occurred in the 2008-2015 timeframe. In addition, the NCSA study did not attempt to adjust for safety impacts that may have resulted from changes in the vehicle sales mix (vehicle types and sizes creating different interactions in crashes), in commuting patterns, or in shopping or socializing habits associated with internet access and use. To address this, NHTSA also examined the actual change in the fatality rate as measured by fatality counts and VMT estimates. Figure II-7 below illustrates the actual fatality rates measured from 2000 through 2016 and the modeled fatality rate trend based on these historical data.
The effect of the recession and subsequent recovery can be seen in chaotic shift in the fatality rate trend starting in 2008. The generally gradual decline that had been occurring over the previous decade was interrupted by a slowdown in the rate of change followed by subsequent upward and downward shifts. More recently, the rate has begun to increase. These shifts reflect some combination of factors not captured in the NCSA analysis mentioned above. The significance of this is that although there was a steady increase in the penetration of safety technologies into the on-road fleet between 2008 and 2015, other unknown factors offset their positive influence and eventually reversed the trend in vehicle safety rates. Because of the upward shift over the 2014-2015 period, this model, which does not reflect technology trend savings after 2015, will predict an upward shift of fatality rates after 2020.
Predicting future safety trends has significant uncertainty. Although further safety improvements are expected because of advanced safety technologies such as automatic braking and eventually, fully automated vehicles, the pace of development and extent of consumer acceptance of these improvements is uncertain. Thus, two imperfect models exist for predicting future safety trends. The NCSA model reflects the expected trend from required technologies and indicates continued improvement well beyond the 2020 timeframe, which is when the historical fatality rate based model breaks down. By contrast, the historical fatality rate model reflects shifts in safety not captured by the NCSA model, but gives arguably implausible results after 2020. It essentially represents a scenario in which economic, market, or behavioral factors minimize or offset much of the potential impact of future safety technology.
For the NPRM, the analysis examines a scenario projecting safety improvements beyond 2015 using a simple average of the NCSA and historical fatality rate models, accepting each as an illustration of different and conflicting possible future scenarios. As
A difficulty with these trend models is they are based on calendar year predictions, which are derived from the full on-road vehicle fleet rather than the model year fleet, which is the basis for calculations in the CAFE model. As such they are useful primarily as indicators that vehicle safety has steadily improved over the past several decades, and given the advanced safety technologies under current development, we would expect some continuation of improvement in MY vehicle safety over the near and mid-term future. To account for this, NHTSA approximated a model year safety trend continuing through about 2035 (Figure II-9). For this trend the agency used actual data from FARS to calculate the change in fatality rates through 2007. The recession, which struck our economy in 2008, distorted normal behavioral patterns and affected both VMT and the mix of drivers and type of driving to an extent we do not believe the recession era gives an accurate picture of the safety trends inherent in the vehicles themselves. Therefore, beginning in 2008, NHTSA approximated a trend for safety improvement through about MY 2035 to reflect the continued effect of improved safety technologies such as advanced automatic braking, which manufacturers have announced will be in all new vehicles by MY 2022. The agency recognize this is only an estimate, and actual MY trends could be above or below this line. NHTSA examined alternate trends in a sensitivity analysis and request comments on the best way to address future safety trends.
NHTSA also notes although we project vehicles will continue to become safer going forward to about 2035, we do not have corresponding cost information for technologies enabling this improvement. In a standard elasticity model, sales impacts are a function of the percent change in vehicle price. Hypothetically, increasing the base price for added safety technologies would decrease the impact of higher prices due to impacts of CAFE standards on vehicle sales. The percentage change in baseline price would decrease, which would mean a lower elasticity effect, which would mean a lower impact on sales. NHTSA will consider possible ways to address this issue before the final rule, and we request comments on the need and/or practicability for such an adjustment, as well as any data and other relevant information that could support such an analysis of these costs, as well as the future pace of technological adoption within the vehicle fleet.
The influence of delayed purchases of new vehicles is estimated to have the most significant effect on safety imposed by CAFE standards. Because of a combination of safety regulations and voluntary safety improvements, passenger vehicles have become safer over time. Compared to prior decades, fatality rates have declined significantly because of technological improvements, as well as behavioral shifts, such as increased seat belt use. As these safer vehicles replace older less safe vehicles in the fleet, the on-road fleet is replaced with vehicles reflecting the improved fatality rates of newer, safer vehicles. However, fatality rates associated with different model year vehicles are influenced by the vehicle itself and by driver behavior. Over time, used vehicles are purchased by drivers in different demographic circumstances who also tend to have different behavioral characteristics. Drivers of older vehicles, on average, tend to have lower belt use rates, are more likely to drive inebriated, and are more likely to drive over the speed limit. Additionally, older vehicles are more likely to be driven on rural roadways, which typically have higher speeds and produce more serious crashes. These relationships are illustrated graphically in Chapter 11 of the PRIA accompanying this proposed rule.
The behavior being modelled and ascribed to CAFE involves decisions by drivers who are contemplating buying a new vehicle, and the purchase of a newer vehicle will not in itself cause those drivers to suddenly stop wearing seat belts, speed, drive under the influence, or shift driving to different land use areas. The goal of this analysis is to measure the effect of different vehicle designs that change by model year. The modelling process for estimating safety essentially involves substituting fatality rates of older MY vehicles for improved rates that would have been experienced with a newer vehicle. Therefore, it is important to control for behavioral aspects associated with vehicle age so only vehicle design differences are reflected in the estimate of safety impacts. To address this, the CAFE safety model was run to control for vehicle age. That is, it does not reflect a decision to replace an older model year vehicle that is, for example, 10 years old with a new vehicle. Rather, it reflects the difference in the average fatality rate of each model year across its entire lifespan. This will account for most of the difference because of vehicle age, but it may still reflect a bias caused by the upward trend in societal seat belt use over time. Because of this secular trend, each subsequent model year's useful life will occur under increasingly higher average seat belt use rates. This could cause some level of behavioral safety improvement to be ascribed to the model year instead of the driver cohort. However, it is difficult to separate this effect from the belt use impacts of changing driver cohorts as vehicles age.
Glassbrenner (2012) analyzed the effect of improved safety in newer vehicles for model years 2001 through 2008. She developed several statistical regression models that specifically controlled for most behavioral factors to isolate model year vehicle characteristics. However, her study did not specifically report the change in MY fatality rates—rather, she reported total fatalities that could have been saved in a baseline year (2008) had all vehicles in the on-road fleet had the same safety features as the MY 2001 through MY 2008 vehicles. This study potentially provides a basis for comparison with results of the CAFE safety estimates. To make this comparison, the CY 2008 passenger car and light truck fatalities total from FARS were modified by subtracting the values found in Figure II-9 of her study. This gives a stream of comparable hypothetical CY 2008 fatality totals under progressively less safe model year designs. Results indicated that had the 2008 on-road fleet been equipped with MY 2008 safety equipment and vehicle characteristics, total fatalities would have been reduced by 25% compared to vehicles that were actually on the road in 2008. Similar results were calculated for each model years' vehicle characteristics back to 2001.
For comparison, predicted MY fatality rates were derived from the CAFE safety model and applied to the CY 2008 VMT calculated by that model. This gives an estimate of CY 2008 fatalities under each model years' fatality rate, which, when compared to the predicted CY fatality total, gives a trendline
Using the corrected fatality count, but retaining the predicted VMT changes the initial 2018 CY fatality rate to 12.62 (instead of 12.15) and produces the result shown in Figure II-10. The CAFE model trendline shifts up, which narrows the difference in early years but expands it in later years. However, VMT and fatalities are linked in the CAFE model, so the actual level of the MY safety predicted by the CAFE curve has uncertainty. Perhaps the most meaningful result from this comparison is the difference in slopes; the CAFE model predicts more rapid change through 2006, but in the last few years change decreases. This might reflect the trend in societal belt use, which rose steadily through 2005 and levelled off. Later model years' fatality rates would benefit from this trend while earlier model years would suffer. This seems consistent with our using lifetime MY fatality rates to reflect MY change rather than first year MY fatality rates (although even first year rates would reflect this bias, but not as much).
To provide another perspective on safety impacts, NHTSA accessed data from a comprehensive study of the effects of safety technologies on motor vehicle fatalities. Kahane (2015)
From Figure II-11 both approaches show similar long-term downward trends, but this model shows a steeper slope than Kahane's model. The two models involve completely different approaches, so some difference is to be expected. However, it is also possible this reflects different methods used to isolate vehicle design safety from behavioral impacts. As discussed previously, NHTSA addressed this issue by removing vehicle age impacts from its model, whereas Kahane's model does it by controlling for belt use. As noted previously, aside from the age impact on belt use associated with the different demographics driving older vehicles, there is a secular trend toward more belt use reflecting the increase in societal awareness of belt use importance over time. This trend is illustrated in Figure II-12 below.
These models (NHTSA, Glassbrenner, and Kahane) involve differing approaches and assumptions contributing to uncertainty, and given this, their differences are not surprising. It is encouraging they show similar directional trends, reinforcing the basic concept we are measuring. NHTSA recognizes predicting future fatality impacts, as well as sales impacts that cause them, is a difficult and imprecise task. NHTSA will continue to investigate this issue, and we seek comment on these estimates as well as alternate methods for predicting the safety effects associated with delayed new vehicle purchases.
Based on historical data, it is possible to calculate a baseline fatality rate for vehicles of any model year vintage. By simply taking the total number of vehicles involved in fatal accidents over all ages for a model year and dividing by the cumulative VMT over the useful life of every vehicle produced in that model year, one arrives at a baseline hazard rate denominated in fatalities per billion miles. The fatalities associated with vehicles produced in that model year are then proportional to the cumulative lifetime VMT, where total fatalities equal the product of the baseline hazard rate and VMT. A more comprehensive discussion of the rebound effect and the basis for calculating its impact on mileage and risk is in Chapter 8 of the PRIA accompanying this proposed rule.
Fatalities estimated to be caused by various alternative CAFE standards are valued as a societal cost within the CAFE models' cost/benefit accounting. Their value is based on the comprehensive value of a fatality derived from data in Blincoe
Development of this factor is based on the assumption nonfatal crashes will be affected by CAFE standards in proportion to their nationwide incidence and severity. That is, NHTSA assumes the same injury profile, the relative number of cases of each injury severity level, that occur nationwide, will be increased or decreased because of CAFE. The agency recognizes this may not be the case, but the agency does not have data to support individual estimates across injury severities. There are reasons why this may not be true. For example, because older model year vehicles are generally less safe than newer vehicles, fatalities may make up a larger portion of the total injury picture than they do for newer vehicles. This would imply lower ratios across the non-fatal injury and PDO profile and would imply our adjustment may overstate total societal impacts. NHTSA requests comments on this assumption and alternative methods to estimate injury impacts.
The adjustment factor is derived from Tables 1-8 and I-3 in Blincoe
Table 1-3 in Blincoe lists injured persons with their highest (maximum) injury determining the AIS level (MAIS). This scale is represented in terms of MAIS level, or maximum abbreviated injury scale. MAIS0 refers to uninjured occupants in injury vehicles, MAIS1 are generally considered minor injuries, MAIS2 moderate injuries, MAIS3 serious injuries, MAIS4 severe injuries, and MAIS5 critical injuries. PDO refers to property damage only crashes, and counts for PDOs refer to vehicles in which no one was injured. From Table II-68, ratios of injury incidence/fatality are derived for each injury severity level as follows:
For each fatality that occurs nationwide in traffic crashes, there are 561 vehicles involved in PDOs, 139 uninjured occupants in injury vehicles, 105 minor injuries, 10 moderate injuries, 3 serious injuries, and fractional numbers of the most serious categories which include severe and critical nonfatal injuries. For each fatality ascribed to CAFE it is assumed there will be nonfatal crashes in these same ratios.
Property damage costs associated with delayed new vehicle purchases must be treated differently because crashes that subsequently occur damage older used vehicles instead of newer vehicles. Used vehicles are worth less and will cost less to repair, if they are repaired at all. The consumer's property damage loss is thus reduced by longer retention of these vehicles. To estimate this loss, average new and used vehicle prices were compared. New vehicle transaction prices were estimated from a study published by Kelley Blue Book.
Based on these data, new vehicles are on average worth 82% more than used vehicles. To estimate the effect of higher property damage costs for newer vehicles on crashes, the per unit property damage costs from Table I-9 in Blincoe
The total property damage cost reduction was then calculated as a function of the number of fatalities reduced or increased by CAFE as follows:
The number of fatalities ascribed to CAFE because of older vehicle retention was multiplied by the unit cost per fatality from Table I-9 in Blincoe
For the fatalities that occur because of mass effects or to the rebound effect, the calculation was more direct, a simple application of the ratio of the portion of costs produced by fatalities. In this case, there is no need to adjust for property damage because all impacts were derived from the mix of vehicles in the on-road fleet. Again, from Table I-8 in Blincoe et al (2015), we derive this ratio based on all cost factors including property damage to be .36. These calculations are summarized as follows:
For purposes of application in the CAFE model, these two factors were combined based on the relative contribution to total fatalities of different factors. As noted, although a safety impact from the rebound effect is calculated, these impacts are considered to be freely chosen rather than imposed by CAFE and imply personal benefits at least equal to the sum of their added costs and safety consequences. The impacts of this nonfatal crash adjustment affect costs and benefits equally. When considering safety impacts actually imposed by CAFE standards, only those from mass changes and vehicle purchase delays are considered. NHTSA has two different factors depending on which metric is considered. The agency created these factors by weighting components by the relative contribution to changes in fatalities associated with each component. This process and results are shown in Table II-70. Note: For the NPRM, NHTSA applied the average weighted factor to all fatalities. This will tend to slightly overstate costs because of sales and scrappage and understate costs associated with mass and rebound. The agency will consider ways to adjust this minor discrepancy for the final rule.
Table II-71, Table II-72, Table II-73, and Table II-74 summarize the safety effects of CAFE standards across the various alternatives under the 3% and 7% discount rates. As noted in Section II.F.5, societal impacts are valued using a $9.9 million value per statistical life (VSL). Fatalities in these tables are undiscounted; only the monetized societal impact is discounted.
Table II-75 through Table II-78 summarize the safety effects of GHG standards across the various alternatives under the 3% and 7% discount rates. As noted in Section II.F.5, societal impacts are valued using a $9.9 million value per statistical life (VSL). Fatalities in these tables are undiscounted; only the monetized societal impact is discounted.
While NHTSA notes the value of rebound effect fatalities, as well as total fatalities from all causes, the agency does not add rebound effects to the other CAFE-related impacts because rebound-related fatalities and injuries result from risk that is freely chosen and offset by societal valuations that at a minimum exceed the aggregate value of safety consequences plus added vehicle operating and maintenance costs.
In the U.S. market, the stringency of CAFE and CO
The CAFE model takes, as inputs, the coefficients of the mathematical functions described in Sections III and IV. It uses these coefficients and the function to which they belong to define the target for each vehicle in the fleet, then computes the standard using the harmonic average of the targets for each manufacturer and fleet. The model also allows the user to define the extent and duration of various compliance flexibilities (
Another aspect of credit accounting is partially implemented in the CAFE model at this point—those related to the application of off-cycle and A/C efficiency adjustments, which manufacturers earn by taking actions such as special window glazing or using reflective paints that provide fuel economy improvements in real-world operation but do not produce measurable improvements in fuel consumption on the 2-cycle test.
NHTSA's inclusion of off-cycle and A/C efficiency adjustments began in MY 2017, while EPA has collected several years' worth of submissions from manufacturers about off-cycle and A/C efficiency technology deployment. Currently, the level of deployment can vary considerably by manufacturer with several claiming extensive Fuel Consumption Improvement Values (FCIV) for off-cycle and A/C efficiency technologies and others almost none. The analysis of alternatives presented here does not attempt to project how future off-cycle and A/C efficiency technology use will evolve or speculate about the potential proliferation of FCIV proposals submitted to the agencies. Rather, this analysis uses the off-cycle credits submitted by each manufacturer for MY 2017 compliance and carries these forward to future years with a few exceptions. Several of the technologies described in Section II.D are associated with A/C efficiency and off-cycle FCIVs. In particular, stop-start systems, integrated starter generators, and full hybrids are assumed to generate off-cycle adjustments when applied to vehicles to improve their fuel economy. Similarly, higher levels of aerodynamic improvements are assumed to include active grille shutters on the vehicle, which also qualify for off-cycle FCIVs.
The analysis assumes that any off-cycle FCIVs that are associated with actions outside of the technologies discussed in Section II.D (either chosen from the pre-approved “pick list,” or granted in response to individual manufacturer petitions) remain at the levels claimed by manufacturers in MY 2017. Any additional A/C efficiency and off-cycle adjustments that accrue as the result of explicit technology application are calculated dynamically in each model year for each alternative. The off-cycle FCIVs for each manufacturer and fleet, denominated in grams CO
The model currently accounts for any off-cycle adjustments associated with technologies that are included in the set of fuel-saving technologies explicitly simulated as part of this proposal (for example, start-stop systems that reduce fuel consumption during idle or active grille shutters that improve aerodynamic drag at highway speeds) and accumulates these adjustments up to the 10 g/mi cap. As a practical matter, most of the adjustments for which manufacturers are claiming off-cycle FCIV exist outside of the technology tree, so the cap is rarely reached during compliance simulation. If those FCIVs become a more important compliance mechanism, it may be necessary to model their application explicitly. However, doing so will require data on which vehicle models already possess these improvements as well as the cost and expected value of applying them to other models in the future. Comment is sought on both the data requirements and strategic decisions associated with manufacturers' use of A/C efficiency and off-cycle technologies to improve CAFE and CO
Throughout the history of the CAFE program, some manufacturers have consistently achieved fuel economy levels below their standard. As in previous versions of the CAFE model, the current version allows the user to specify inputs identifying such manufacturers and to consider their compliance decisions as if they are willing to pay civil penalties for non-compliance with the CAFE program. The assumed civil penalty rate in the current analysis is $5.50 per 1/10 of a mile per gallon, per vehicle sold.
It is worth noting that treating a manufacturer as if they are willing to pay civil penalties does not necessarily mean that it is expected to pay penalties in reality. It merely implies that the manufacturer will only apply fuel economy technology up to a point, and then stop, regardless of whether or not its corporate average fuel economy is above its standard. In practice, we expect that many of these manufacturers will continue to be active in the credit market, using trades with other manufacturers to transfer credits into specific fleets that are challenged in any given year, rather than paying penalties to resolve CAFE deficits. The CAFE model calculates the amount of penalties paid by each manufacturer, but it does not simulate trades between manufacturers. In practice, some (possibly most) of the total estimated penalties may be a transfer from one OEM to another.
While the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended in 2007 by the Energy Independence and Security Act, prescribes these specific civil penalty provisions for CAFE standards, the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not contain similar provisions. Rather, the CAA's provisions regarding noncompliance constitute a de facto prohibition against selling vehicles failing to comply with emissions standards. Therefore, inputs regarding civil penalties—including inputs regarding manufacturers' potential willingness to treat civil penalty payment as an economic choice—apply only to simulation of CAFE standards.
NHTSA may not consider the application of CAFE credits toward compliance with new standards when establishing the standards themselves.
The “unconstrained” perspective acknowledges that these flexibilities exist as part of the program and, while not considered in NHTSA's decision of the preferred alternative, are important to consider when attempting to estimate the real impact of any alternative. Under the “unconstrained” perspective, credits may be earned, transferred, and applied to deficits in the CAFE program throughout the full range of model years in the analysis. The Draft Environmental Impact Analysis (DEIS) accompanying today's NPRM presents results of “unconstrained” modeling. Also, because the CAA provides no direction regarding consideration of any CO
NHTSA is also prohibited from considering the possibility that a manufacturer might produce alternatively fueled vehicles as a compliance mechanism,
The CAFE model provides a way of estimating how manufacturers could attempt to comply with a given CAFE standard by adding technology to fleets that the agencies anticipate they will produce in future model years. This exercise constitutes a simulation of manufacturers' decisions regarding compliance with CAFE or CO
This compliance simulation begins with the following inputs: (a) The analysis fleet of vehicles from model year 2016 discussed above in Section II.B, (b) fuel economy improving technology estimates discussed above in Section II.D, (c) economic inputs discussed above in Section II.E, and (d) inputs defining baseline and potential new CAFE standards. For each manufacturer, the model applies technologies in both a logical sequence and a cost-minimizing strategy in order to identify a set of technologies the manufacturer could apply in response to new CAFE or CO
(1) The manufacturer's fleet achieves compliance
(2) The manufacturer “exhausts” available technologies;
(3) For manufacturers assumed to be willing to pay civil penalties (in the CAFE program), the manufacturer reaches the point at which doing so would be more cost-effective (from the manufacturer's perspective) than adding further technology.
The model accounts explicitly for each model year, applying technologies when vehicles are scheduled to be redesigned or freshened and carrying forward technologies between model years once they are applied (until, if applicable, they are superseded by other technologies). The model then uses these simulated manufacturer fleets to generate both a representation of the U.S. auto industry and to modify a representation of the entire light-duty registered vehicle population. From these fleets, the model estimates changes in physical quantities (gallons of fuel, pollutant emissions, traffic fatalities, etc.) and calculates the relative costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives under consideration.
The CAFE model accounts explicitly for each model year, in turn, because manufacturers actually “carry forward” most technologies between model years, tending to concentrate the application of new technology to vehicle redesigns or mid-cycle “freshenings,” and design cycles vary widely among manufacturers and specific products. Comments by manufacturers and model peer reviewers strongly support explicit year-by-year simulation. Year-by-year accounting also enables accounting for credit banking (
After the light-duty rulemaking analysis accompanying the 2012 final rule that finalized NHTSA's standards through MY 2021, NHTSA began work on changes to the CAFE model with the intention of better reflecting constraints of product planning and cadence for which previous analyses did not account.
Past comments on the CAFE model have stressed the importance of product cadence—
As in previous iterations of CAFE rulemaking analysis, the simulation of compliance actions that manufacturers might take is constrained by the pace at which new technologies can be applied in the new vehicle market. Operating at the Make/Model level (
While these characterizations of product cadence are important to any evaluation of the impacts of CAFE or CO
For every model that appears in the MY 2016 analysis fleet, the model years have been estimated in which future redesigns (and less significant “freshenings,” which offer manufacturers the opportunity to make less significant changes to models) will occur. These appear in the market data file for each model variant. Mid-cycle freshenings provide additional opportunities to add some technologies in years where smaller shares of a manufacturer's portfolio is scheduled to be redesigned. In addition, the analysis accounts for multiyear planning—that is, the potential that manufacturers may apply “extra” technology in an early model year with many planned redesigns in order to carry technology forward to facilitate compliance in a later model year with fewer planned redesigns. Further, the analysis accounts for the potential that manufacturers could earn CAFE and/or CO
Additionally, each technology considered for application by the CAFE model is assigned to either a “refresh” or “redesign” cadence that dictates when it can be applied to a vehicle. Technologies that are assigned to “refresh/redesign” can be applied at either a refresh or redesign, while technologies that are assigned to “redesign” can only be applied during a significant vehicle redesign. Table II-80 and Table II-81 show the technologies available to manufacturers in the compliance simulation, the level at which they are applied (described in greater detail in the CAFE model documentation), whether they are available outside of a vehicle redesign, and a short description of each. A brief examination of the tables shows that most technologies are only assumed to be available during a vehicle redesign—and nearly all engine improvements are assumed to be available only during redesign. In a departure from past CAFE analyses, all transmission improvements are assumed to be available during refresh as well as redesign. While there are past and recent examples of mid-cycle product changes, it seems reasonable to expect that manufacturers will tend to attempt to keep engineering and other costs down by applying most major changes mainly during vehicle redesigns and some mostly modest changes during product freshenings. As mentioned below, comment is sought on the approach to account for product cadence.
In practice, manufacturers are limited in the number of engines and transmissions that they produce.
In previous analyses that used the CAFE model (with the exception of the 2016 Draft TAR), engines and transmissions in individual vehicle models were allowed relative freedom in technology application, potentially leading to solutions that would, if followed, create many more unique engines and transmissions than exist in the analysis fleet (or in the market) for a given model year. This multiplicity likely failed to sufficiently account for costs associated with such increased complexity in the product portfolio and may have represented an unrealistic diffusion of products for manufacturers that are consolidating global production to increasingly smaller numbers of shared engines and platforms.
One peer reviewer of the CAFE model recently commented, “The integration of inheritance and sharing of engines, transmissions, and platforms across a manufacturer's light duty fleet and separately across its light duty truck fleet is standard practice within the industry.” In the current version of the CAFE model, engines and transmissions that are shared between vehicles must apply the same levels of technology, in all technologies, dictated by engine or transmission inheritance. This forced adoption is referred to as “engine inheritance” in the model documentation. In practice, the model first chooses an “engine leader” among vehicles sharing the same engine—the vehicle with the highest sales in MY 2016. If there is a tie, the vehicle with the highest average MSRP is chosen, representing the idea that manufacturers will choose to pilot the newest technology on premium vehicles if possible. The model applies the same logic with respect to the application of transmission changes. After the model modifies the engine on the “engine leader” (or “transmission leader”), the changes to that engine propagate through to the other vehicles that share that engine (or transmission) in subsequent years as those vehicles are redesigned. The CAFE model has been modified to provide additional flexibility vis-à-vis product cadence. In a recent public comment, NRDC noted:
EPA and NHTSA currently constrain their model to apply significant fuel-efficient technologies mainly during a product-redesign as opposed to product-refresh (or mid-cycle). This was identified as one of the most sensitive assumptions affecting overall program costs by NHTSA in the TAR. By constraining the model, the agencies have likely under-estimated the ability of auto manufacturers to incorporate some technologies during their product refreshes. This is particularly true regarding the critical powertrain technologies which are undergoing continuous improvement. The agency should account for these trends and incorporate greater flexibility for automakers—within their models—to incorporate more mid-cycle enhancements.
While engine redesigns are only applied to the engine leader when it is redesigned in the model, followers may now inherit upgraded engines (that they share with the leader) at either refresh or redesign. All transmission changes, whether upgrades to the “leader” or inheritance to “followers” can occur at refresh as well as redesign. This provides additional opportunities for technology diffusion within manufacturers' product portfolios.
While “follower” vehicles are awaiting redesign (or, for transmissions, refreshing as applicable), they carry a legacy version of the shared engine or transmission. As one peer reviewer recently stated,
There are some logical consequences of this approach, the first of which is that forcing engine and transmission changes to propagate through to other vehicles in this way effectively dictates the pace at which new technology can be applied and limits the total number of unique engines that the model simulates. In the past, NHTSA used “phase-in caps” (see discussion below) to limit the amount of technology that can be applied to any vehicle in a given year. However, by explicitly tying the engine changes to a specific vehicle's product cadence, rather than letting the timing of changes vary across all the vehicles that share an engine, the model ensures that an engine is only changed when its leader is redesigned (at most). Given that most vehicle redesign cycles are five to eight years, this approach still represents shorter average lives than most engines in the market, which tend to be in production for eight to ten years or more. It is also the case that vehicles which share an engine in the analysis fleet (MY 2016, for this analysis) are assumed to share that same engine throughout the analysis—unless one or both of them are converted to power-split hybrids (or farther) on the electrification path. In the market, this is not true—since a manufacturer will choose an engine from among the engines it produces to fulfill the efficiency and power demands of a vehicle model upon redesign. That engine need not be from the same family of engines as the prior version of that vehicle. This is a simplifying assumption in the model. While the model already accommodates detailed inputs regarding redesign schedules for specific vehicles and commercial information sources are available to inform these inputs, further research would be needed to determine whether design schedules for specific engines and transmissions can practicably be simulated.
The CAFE model has implemented a similar structure to address shared vehicle platforms. The term “platform” is used loosely in industry but generally refers to a common structure shared by a group of vehicle variants. The degree of commonality varies with some platform variants exhibiting traditional “badge engineering” where two products are differentiated by little more than insignias, while other platforms may be used to produce a broad suite of vehicles that bear little outer resemblance to one another.
Given the degree of commonality between variants of a single platform, manufacturers do not have complete freedom to apply technology to a vehicle: While some technologies (
Within the analysis fleet, each vehicle is associated with a specific platform. Similar to the application of engine and transmission technologies, the CAFE model defines a platform “leader” as the vehicle variant of a given platform that has the highest level of observed mass reduction present in the analysis fleet. If there is a tie, the CAFE model begins mass reduction technology on the vehicle with the highest sales in model year 2016. If there remains a tie, the model begins by choosing the vehicle with the highest MSRP in MY 2016. As the model applies technologies, it effectively levels up all variants on a platform to the highest level of mass reduction technology on the platform. So, if the platform leader is already at MR3 in MY 2016, and a “follower” starts at MR0 in MY 2016, the follower will get MR3 at its next redesign (unless the leader is redesigned again before that time, and further increases the MR level associated with that platform, then the follower would receive the new MR level).
In the 2015 NPRM proposing new fuel consumption and GHG standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans, NHTSA specifically requested comment on the general use of shared engines, transmissions, and platforms within CAFE rulemakings. While no commenter responded to this specific request, comments from some environmental organizations cited examples of technology sharing between light- and heavy-duty products. NHTSA has continued to refine its implementation of an approach accounting for shared engines, transmissions, and platforms, and again seeks comment on the approach, recommendations regarding any other approaches, and any information that would facilitate implementation of the agency's current approach or any alternative approaches.
The CAFE model retains the ability to use phase-in caps (specified in model inputs) as proxies for a variety of practical restrictions on technology application, including the improvements described above. Unlike vehicle-specific restrictions related to redesign, refreshes or platforms/engines, phase-in caps constrain technology application at the vehicle manufacturer level for a given model year. Introduced in the 2006 version of the CAFE model, they were intended to reflect a manufacturer's overall resource capacity available for implementing new technologies (such as engineering research and development personnel and financial resources), thereby ensuring that resource capacity is accounted for in the modeling process.
Compared to prior analyses of light-duty standards, these model changes result in some changes in the broad characteristics of the model's application of technology to manufacturers' fleets. Since the use of phase-in caps has been de-emphasized and manufacturer technology deployment remains tied strongly to estimated product redesign and freshening schedules, technology penetration rates may jump more quickly as manufacturers apply technology to high-volume products in their portfolio. As a result, the model will ignore a phase-in cap to apply inherited technology to vehicles on shared engines, transmissions, and platforms.
In previous CAFE rulemakings, redesign/refresh schedules and phase-in caps were the primary mechanisms to reflect an OEM's limited pool of available resources during the rulemaking time frame and the years preceding it, especially in years where many models may be scheduled for refresh or redesign. The newly-introduced representation of platform-, engine-, and transmission-related considerations discussed above augment the model's preexisting representation of redesign cycles and eliminate the need to rely on phase-in caps. By design, restrictions that enforce commonality of mass reduction on variants of a platform, and those that enforce engine and transmission inheritance, will result in fewer vehicle-technology combinations in a manufacturer's future modeled fleet. The integration of shared components and product cadence as a mechanism to control the pace of technology application also more accurately represents each manufacturer's unique position in the market and its existing technology footprint, rather than a technology-specific phase-in cap that is uniformly applied to all manufacturers in a given year. Comment is sought regarding this shift away from relying on phase-in caps and, if greater reliance on phase-in caps is recommended, what approach and information can be used to define and apply these caps.
Like earlier versions, the current CAFE model provides the capability for integrated analysis spanning different regulatory classes, accounting both for standards that apply separately to different classes and for interactions between regulatory classes. Light vehicle CAFE and CO
While previous versions of the CAFE model have represented manufacturers' fleets by drawing a distinction between passenger cars and light trucks, the current version of the CAFE model adds a further distinction, capturing the difference between passenger cars classified as domestic passenger cars and those classified as imports. The CAFE program regulates those passenger cars separately, and the current version of the CAFE model simulates all three CAFE regulatory classes separately: Domestic Passenger Cars (DC), Imported Passenger Cars (IC), and Light Trucks (LT). CAFE regulations state that standards, fuel economy levels, and compliance are all calculated separately for each class. These requirements are specified explicitly by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), with the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) having added the requirement to enforce minimum standards for domestic passenger cars. This update to the accounting imposes two additional constraints on
While previous versions of the CAFE model considered those fleets as a single fleet (
During 2015-2016, a single version of the CAFE model was applied to produce analyses supporting both a rulemaking regarding heavy-duty pickups and vans (HD PUV) and the 2016 draft TAR regarding CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks. Both analyses reflected integrated analysis of the light-duty and HD PUV fleets, thereby accounting for sharing between the fleets. However, for most OEMs, that analysis showed considerably less sharing between light-duty and HD PUV fleets than initially expected. Today's analysis includes only vehicles subject to CAFE and light-duty CO
While some properties of the technologies included in the analysis are specified by the user (
The “application level” describes the system of the vehicle to which the technology is applied, which in turn determines the extent to which that decision affects other vehicles in a manufacturer's fleet. For example, if a technology is applied at the “engine” level, it naturally affects all other vehicles that share that same engine (though not until they themselves are redesigned, if it happens to be in a future model year). Technologies applied at the “vehicle” level can be applied to a vehicle model without impacting the other models with which it shares components. Platform-level technologies affect all of the vehicles on a given platform, which can easily span technology classes, regulatory classes, and redesign cycles.
The “application schedule” identifies when manufacturers are assumed to be able to apply a given technology—with many available only during vehicle redesigns. The application schedule also accounts for which technologies the CAFE model tracks but does not apply. These enter as part of the analysis fleet (“Baseline Only”), and while they are necessary for accounting related to cost and incremental fuel economy improvement, they do not represent a choice that manufacturers make in the model. As discussed in Section II.B, the analysis fleet contains the information about each vehicle model, engine, and transmission selected for simulation and defines the initial technology state of the fleet relative to the sets of technologies in Table II-80 and Table II-81.
As Table II-80 and Table II-81 show, all of the engine technologies may only be applied (for the first time) during redesign. New transmissions can be applied during either refresh or redesign, except for manual transmissions, which can only be upgraded during redesign. Unlike previous versions of the model, which only allowed significant changes to vehicle powertrains at redesign, this version allows vehicles to
The CAFE model defines several “technology classes” and “technology pathways” for logically grouping all available technologies for application on a vehicle. Technology classes provide costs and improvement factors shared by all vehicles with similar body styles, curb weights, footprints, and engine types, while technology pathways establish a logical progression of technologies on a vehicle within a system or sub-system (
Technology classes, shown in Table-II-82, are a means for specifying common technology input assumptions for vehicles that share similar characteristics. Predominantly, these classes signify the degree of applicability of each of the available technologies to a specific class of vehicles and represent a specific set of Autonomie simulations (conducted as part of the Argonne National Lab large-scale simulation study) that determine the effectiveness of each technology to improve fuel economy. The vehicle technology classes also define, for each technology, the additional cost associated with application.
The model defines technology pathways for grouping and establishing a logical progression of technologies on a vehicle. Each pathway (or path) is evaluated independently and in parallel, with technologies on these paths being considered in sequential order. As the model traverses each path, the costs and fuel economy improvements are accumulated on an incremental basis with relation to the preceding technology. The system stops examining a given path once a combination of one or more technologies results in a “best” technology solution for that path. After evaluating all paths, the model selects the most cost-effective solution among all pathways. This parallel path approach allows the modeling system to progress through technologies in any given pathway without being unnecessarily prevented from considering technologies in other paths.
Rather than rely on a specific set of technology combinations or packages, the model considers the universe of applicable technologies, dynamically identifying the most cost-effective combination of technologies for each manufacturer's vehicle fleet based on each vehicle's initial technology content and the assumptions about each technology's effectiveness, cost, and interaction with all other technologies both present and available.
The modeling system incorporates 16 technology pathways for evaluation as shown in Table-II—83. Similar to individual technologies, each path carries an intrinsic application level that denotes the scope of applicability of all technologies present within that path and whether the pathway is evaluated on one vehicle at a time, or on a collection of vehicles that share the same platform, engine, or transmission.
The technologies that comprise the five Engine-Level paths available within the model are presented in Figure-II-13. Note: The baseline-level technologies (SOHC, DOHC, OHV, and CNG) appear in gray boxes. These technologies are used to inform the modeling system of the initial engine's configuration and are not otherwise applicable during the analysis. Additionally, the VCR path (intended to house fuel economy improvements from variable compression ratio engines) was not used in this analysis but is present within the model. Unlike earlier versions of the CAFE model, that enforced strictly sequential application of technologies like VVL and SGDI, this version of the CAFE model allows basic engine technologies to be applied in any order once an engine has VVT (the base state of all ANL simulations). Once the model progresses past the basic engine path, it considers all of the more advanced engine paths (Turbo, HCR, Diesel, and ADEAC) simultaneously. They are assumed to be mutually exclusive. Once one path is taken, it locks out the others to avoid situations where the model could be perceived to force manufacturers to radically change engine architecture with each redesign, incurring stranded capital costs and lost opportunities for learning.
For all pathways, the technologies are evaluated and applied to a vehicle in sequential order, as shown from top to bottom. In some cases, however, if a technology is deemed ineffective, the system will bypass it and skip ahead to the next technology. If the modeling system applies a technology that resides later in the pathway, it will “backfill” anything that was previously skipped in order to fully account for costs and fuel economy improvements of the full
While costs are still purely incremental, technology effectiveness is no longer constructed that way. The non-sequential nature of the basic engine technologies have no obvious preceding technology except for VVT, the root of our engine path. It was a natural extension to carry this approach to the other branches as well. The technology effectiveness estimates are now an integrated part of the CAFE model and represent a translation of the Argonne simulation database that compares the fuel consumption of any combination of technologies (across all paths) to the base vehicle (that has only VVT, 5-speed automatic transmission, no electrification, and no body-level improvements).
The Basic Engine path begins with SOHC, DOHC, and OHV technologies defining the initial configuration of the vehicle's engine. Since these technologies are not available during modeling, the system evaluates this pathway starting with VVT. Whenever a technology pathway forks into two or more branch points, as the engine path does at the end of the basic engine path, all of the branches are treated as mutually exclusive. The model evaluates all technologies forming the branch simultaneously and selects the most cost-effective for the application, while disabling the unchosen remaining paths.
The technologies that make up the four Transmission-Level paths defined by the modeling system are shown in Figure-II-14. The baseline-level technologies (AT5, MT5 and CVT) appear in gray boxes and are only used to represent the initial configuration of a vehicle's transmission. For simplicity, all manual transmissions with five forward gears or fewer have been assigned the MT5 technology in the analysis fleet. Similarly, all automatic transmissions with five forward gears or fewer have been assigned the AT5 technology. The model preserves the initial configuration for as long as possible, and prohibits manual transmissions from becoming automatic transmissions at any point. Automatic transmissions may become CVT level 2 after progressing though the 6-speed automatic. While the structure of the model still allows automatic transmissions to consider the move to DCT, in practice they are restricted from doing so in the market data file. This allows vehicles that enter with a DCT to improve it (if opportunities to do so exist) but does not allow automatic transmissions to become DCTs, in recognition of low consumer enthusiasm for the earlier versions the transmission that have been introduced over the last decade. The model does not attempt to simulate “reversion” to less advanced transmission technologies, such as replacing a 6-speed AT with a DCT and then replacing that DCT with a 10-speed AT. The agencies invite comment on whether or not the model should be modified to simulate such “reversion” and, if so, how this possible behavior might be practicably simulated.
The root of the Electrification path, shown in Figure-II-15, is a conventional powertrain (CONV) with no electrification. The two strong hybrid technologies (SHEVP2 and SHEVPS) on the Hybrid/Electric path, are defined as stand-alone and mutually exclusive. These technologies are not incremental over each other for cost or effectiveness and do not follow a traditional progression logic present on other paths. While the SHEVP2 represents a hybrid system paired with the existing engine on a given vehicle, the SHEVPS removes and replaces that engine, making it the larger architectural change of the two. In general, the electrification technologies are applied as vehicle-level technologies, meaning that the model applies them without affecting components that might be shared with other vehicles. In the case of the more advanced electrification technologies, where engines and transmissions are removed or replaced, the model will choose a new vehicle to be the leader on that component (if necessary) and will not force other vehicles sharing that engine or transmission to become hybrids (or EVs). In addition to the electrification technologies, there are two electrical system improvements, electric power steering (EPS) and accessory improvements (IACC), which were not part of the ANL simulation project and are applied by the model as fixed percentage improvements to all technology combinations in a particular technology class. Their improvements are superseded by technologies in the other electrification paths, BISG or CISG, in the case of EPS, and strong hybrids (and above) in the case of IACC, which are assumed to include those improvements already.
The technology paths related to load reduction of the vehicle are shown in Figure-II-16. Of these, only the Mass Reduction (MR) path is applied at the platform level, thus affecting all vehicles (across classes and body styles) on a given platform. The remaining technology paths are all applied at the vehicle level, and technologies within each path are considered purely sequential. For mass reduction, aerodynamic improvements, and reductions in rolling resistance, the base level of each path is the “zero state,” in which a vehicle has exhibited none of the improvements associated with the technology path. In addition to choosing among possible engine, transmission, and electrification improvements to improve a vehicle's fuel economy, the CAFE model will consider technologies each of the possible load improvement paths simultaneously.
Even though the model evaluates each technology path independently, some of the pathways are interconnected to allow for additional logical progression and incremental accounting of technologies. For example, the cost of
Of the 17 technology pathways present in the model, all Engine paths, the Automatic Transmission path, the Electrification path, and both Hybrid/Electric paths are logically linked for incremental technology progression. Some of the technology pathways, as defined in the model and shown in Figure-II-17, may not be compatible with a vehicle given its state at the time of evaluation. For example, a vehicle with a 6-speed automatic transmission will not be able to get improvements from a Manual Transmission path. For this reason, the model implements logic to explicitly disable certain paths whenever a constraining technology from another path is applied on a vehicle. On occasion, not all of the technologies present within a pathway may produce compatibility constraints with another path. In such a case, the model will selectively disable a conflicting pathway (or part of the pathway) as required by the incompatible technology.
For any interlinked technology pathways shown in Figure-II-17, the model also disables all preceding technology paths whenever a vehicle transitions to a succeeding pathway. For example, if the model applies SHEVPS technology on a vehicle, the model disables the Turbo, HCR, ADEAC, and Diesel Engine paths, as well as the Basic Engine, the Automatic Transmission, and the Electrification paths (all of which precede the Hybrid/Electric path).
As a starting point, the model needs enough information to represent each manufacturer covered by the program. As discussed above in Section II.B, the MY 2016 analysis fleet contains information about each manufacturer's:
• Vehicle models offered for sale—their current (
• Production constraints—product cadence of vehicle models (
• Compliance constraints and flexibilities—historical preference for full compliance or penalty payment/credit application, willingness to apply additional cost-effective fuel saving technology in excess of regulatory requirements, projected applicable flexible fuel credits, and current credit balance (by model year and regulatory class) in first model year of simulation.
Each manufacturer's regulatory requirement represents the production-weighted harmonic mean of their vehicle's targets in each regulated fleet. This means that no individual vehicle has a “standard,” merely a target, and each manufacturer is free to identify a compliance strategy that makes the most sense given its unique combination of vehicle models, consumers, and competitive position in the various market segments. As the CAFE model provides flexibility when defining a set of regulatory standards, each manufacturer's requirement is dynamically defined based on the specification of the standards for any simulation and the distribution of footprints within each fleet.
Given this information, the model attempts to apply technology to each manufacturer's fleet in a manner than minimizes “effective costs.” The effective cost captures more than the incremental cost of a given technology; it represents the difference between their incremental cost and the value of fuel savings to a potential buyer over the first 30 months of ownership.
This construction allows the model to choose technologies that both improve a manufacturer's regulatory compliance position and are most likely to be attractive to its consumers. This also means that different assumptions about future fuel prices will produce different rankings of technologies when the model evaluates available technologies for application. For example, in a high fuel price regime, an expensive but very efficient technology may look attractive to manufacturers because the value of the fuel savings is sufficiently high to both counteract the higher cost of the technology and, implicitly, satisfy consumer demand to balance price increases with reductions in operating cost. Similarly, technologies for which there exist consumer welfare losses (discussed in Section II.E) will be seen as less attractive to manufacturers who may be concerned about their ability to recover the full amount of the technology cost during the sale of the vehicle. The model continues to add technology until a manufacturer either: (a) Reaches compliance with regulatory standards (possibly through the accumulation and application of overcompliance credits), (b) reaches a point at which it is more cost effective to pay penalties than to add more technology (for CAFE), or (c) reaches a point beyond compliance where the manufacturer assumes its consumers will be unwilling to pay for additional fuel saving/emissions reducing technologies.
In general, the model adds technology for several reasons but checks these sequentially. The model then applies any “forced” technologies. Currently, only VVT is forced to be applied to vehicles at redesign since it is the root of the engine path and the reference point for all future engine technology applications.
The CAFE model implements multi-year planning by looking back, rather than forward. When a manufacturer is unable to comply through cost-effective (
In a given model year, the model determines applicability of each technology to each vehicle model, platform, engine, and transmission. The compliance simulation algorithm begins the process of applying technologies based on the CAFE or CO
The algorithm first finds the best next applicable technology in each of the technology pathways then selects the
The following example will illustrate the features discussed above for the CAFE program. While the example describes the actions that General Motors takes to modify the Chevrolet Equinox in order to comply with the augural standards (the baseline in this analysis), and the logical consequences of these actions, a similar example would develop if instead simulating compliance with the EPA standards for those years. The structure of GM's fleet and the mechanisms at work in the CAFE model are identical in both cases, but different features of each program (unlimited credit transfers between fleets, for example) would likely cause the model to choose different technology solutions.
At the start of the simulation in MY 2016, GM has 30 unique engines shared across over 33 unique nameplates, 260 model variants, and three regulatory classes. As discussed earlier, the CAFE model will attempt to preserve that level of sharing across GM's fleets to avoid introducing additional production complexity for which the agencies do not estimate additional costs. An even smaller number of transmissions (16) and platforms (12) are shared across the same set of nameplates, model variants, and regulatory classes.
The Chevrolet Equinox is represented in the model inputs as a single nameplate, with five model variants distinguished by the presence of all-wheel drive and four distinct powertrain configurations (two engines paired with two different transmissions). Across all five model variants, GM produced above 220,000 units of the Equinox nameplate. About 150,000 units of that production volume is regulated as Domestic Passenger Car, with the remainder regulated as Light Trucks. The easiest way to describe the actions taken by the CAFE model is to focus on a single model variant of the Equinox (one row in the market data file). The model variant of the Equinox with the highest production volume, about 130,000 units in MY 2016, is vehicle code 110111.
The example Equinox variant is designated as an engine and platform leader. As discussed earlier, this implies that modifications to its engine (11031, a 2.4L I-4) are tied to the redesign cadence of this Equinox, as are modifications to its platform (Theta/TE). The engine is shared by the Buick LaCrosse, Regal, and Verano, and by the GMC Terrain (as well as appearing in two other variants of the Equinox). So those vehicles, if redesigned after this Equinox, will inherit changes to engine 11031 when they are redesigned, carrying the legacy version of the engine until then. Similarly, this Equinox shares its platform with the Cadillac SRX and GMC Terrain, which will inherit changes made to this platform when they are redesigned (if later than the Equinox, as is the case with the SRX).
This specific Equinox is a transmission “follower,” getting updates made to its transmission leader (the Chevrolet Malibu) when it is freshened or redesigned. Additionally, two other variants of the Equinox nameplate (the more powerful versions, containing a 3.6L V-6 engine) are not “leaders” on any of the primary components. Those variants are built on the same platform as the example Equinox variant but share their engine with the Buick Enclave and LaCrosse, the Cadillac SRX and XTS,
This example uses a “standard setting” perspective to minimize the amount of credit generation and application, in order to focus on the mechanics of technology application and component sharing. The actions taken by the CAFE model when operating on the example Equinox during GM's compliance simulation are shown in Table-II-84. In general, the example Equinox begins the compliance simulation with the technology observed in its MY 2016 incarnation—a 2.6L I-4 with VVT and SGDI, a 6-speed automatic transmission, low rolling resistance tires (ROLL20) and a 10% realized improvement in aerodynamic drag (AERO10). In MY 2018, the Equinox is redesigned, at which time the engine adds VVL and level-1 turbocharging. The transmission on the Malibu is upgraded to an 8-speed automatic in 2018, which the Equinox also gets. The platform, for which this Equinox is the designated leader, gets level-4 mass reduction. The CAFE model also applies a few vehicle-level technologies: low-drag brakes, electronic accessory improvements, and additional aerodynamic improvements (AERO20). Upon refresh in MY 2021, it acquires an upgraded 10-speed transmission (AT10) from the Malibu.
The technology applications described in Table-II-84 have consequences beyond the single variant of the Equinox shown in the table. In particular, two other variants of the Equinox (both of which are regulated as Light Trucks) get the upgraded engine, which they share with the example, in MY 2018. Thus, this application of engine technology to a single variant of the Equinox in the Domestic Car fleet, “spills over” into the Light Truck fleet, generating improvements in fuel economy and additional costs. Furthermore, the Buick LaCrosse and Regal, and the GMC Terrain also get the same engine, which they share with the example, in MY 2018. Those vehicles also span the Domestic Car and Light Truck fleets. However, the Buick Verano, which is not redesigned until MY 2019, continues with the legacy (
This same story continues with the diffusion of platform improvements simulated by the CAFE model in MY 2018. The GMC Terrain is simulated to be redesigned in MY 2018, in conjunction with the Equinox. The performance variants of the Equinox, with a 3.5L V-6, also upgrade their engines in MY 2018 (in conjunction with the estimated Chevrolet Traverse redesign). However, when the Equinox is next redesigned in MY 2025, the engine shared with the Traverse is not upgraded again until MY 2026, so the performance versions of the Equinox continue with the 2018 version of the engine throughout the remainder of the simulation. While these inheritances and sharing dynamics are not a perfect representation of each manufacturer's specific constraints, nor the flexibilities available to shift strategies in real-time as a response to changing market or regulatory conditions, they are a reasonable way to consider the resource constraints that prohibit fleet-wide technology diffusion over shorter windows than have been observed historically and for which the agencies have no way to impose additional costs.
Aside from the technology application and its consequences throughout the GM product portfolio, discussed above, there are other important conclusions to draw from the technology application example. The first of these is that product cadence matters, and only by taking a year-by-year perspective can this be seen. When the example Equinox
Another feature of note in Table-II-84 is the cost of applying these technologies. The costs are all denominated in dollars and represent incremental cost increases relative to the MY 2016 version of the Equinox. Aside from the cost increase of over $5,000 in MY 2025 when the vehicle is converted to a strong hybrid, the incremental technology costs display a consistent trend between application events—decreasing steadily over time as the cost associated with each given combination of technologies “learns down.” By MY 2032, even the most expensive version of the example Equinox costs nearly $800 less to produce than it did in MY 2025.
The technology application in the example occurs in the context of GM's attempt to comply with the augural standards. As some of the components on the Equinox nameplate are shared across all three regulated fleets, Table-II-85 shows the compliance status of each fleet in MYs 2016-2025. In MY 2017, the CAFE model applies expiring credits to offset deficits in the DC and LT fleets. In MY 2028, when GM is simulated to aggressively apply technology to the example Equinox, the DC fleet exceeds its standard while the LT fleet still generates deficits. The CAFE model offset that deficit with expiring (and possibly transferred) credits. However, by MY 2020 the “standard setting” perspective removes the option of using CAFE credits to offset deficits and GM exceeds the standard in all three fleets, though by almost 2 mpg in DC and LT. As the Equinox example showed, many of the vehicles redesigned in MY 2020 will still be produced at the MY 2020 technology level in MY 2025 where GM is simulated to comply exactly across all three fleets. Under an “unconstrained” perspective, the CAFE model would use the CAFE credits earned through over-compliance with the standards in MYs 2020-2023 to offset deficits created by under-compliance as the standards continued to increase, pushing some technology application until later years when the standards stabilized and those credits expired. The CAFE model simulates compliance through MY 2032 to account for this behavior.
The CAFE model simulates manufacturer responses to both regulatory standards and technology availability. In order to do so, it requires assumptions about how the industry views consumer demand for additional fuel economy because manufacturer responses to potential standards depend not just on what they think they are best off producing to satisfy regulatory requirements (considering the consequences of not satisfying those requirements), but also on what they think they can sell, technology-wise, to consumers. In the 2012 final rule, the agencies analyzed alternatives under the assumption that manufacturers would not improve the fuel economy of new vehicles at all unless compelled to do so by the existence of increasingly stringent CAFE and GHG standards.
The industry has exceeded the required CAFE level for both passenger cars and light trucks in the past; notably, by almost 5 mpg during the fuel price spikes of the 2000s when CAFE standards for passenger cars were still frozen at levels established for the 1990 model year.
When the model chooses which technology to apply
Because the civil penalty provisions specified for CAFE in EPCA do not apply to CO
Just as manufacturers' actual approaches to vehicle pricing are closely held, manufacturers'
While described in greater detail in the CAFE model documentation, the effective cost reflects an assumption not about consumers' actual willingness to pay for additional fuel economy but about what manufacturers believe consumers are willing to pay. The reference case estimate for today's analysis is that manufacturers will treat all technologies that pay for themselves within the first 2
One implication of this assumption is that futures with higher, or lower, fuel prices produce different sets of attractive technologies (and at different times). For example, if fuel prices were above $7/gallon, many of the technologies in this analysis could pay for themselves within the first year or two and would be applied at high rates in all of the alternatives. Similarly, at the other extreme (significantly reduced fuel prices), almost no additional fuel economy would be observed.
While these assumptions about desired payback period and consumer preferences for fuel economy may not affect the eventual level of achieved CAFE and CO
When considering technology applications to improve fleet fuel economy, the model will add technology up to the point at which the effective cost of the technology (which includes technology cost, consumer fuel savings, consumer welfare changes, and the cost of penalties for non-compliance with the standard) is less costly than paying civil penalties or purchasing credits. Unlike previous versions of the model, the current implementation further acknowledges that some manufacturers experience transitions between product lines where they rely heavily on credits (either carried forward from earlier model years or acquired from other manufacturers) or simply pay penalties in one or more fleets for some number of years. The model now allows the user to specify, when appropriate for the regulatory program being simulated, on a year-by-year basis, whether each manufacturer should be considered as willing to pay penalties for non-compliance. This provides additional flexibility, particularly in the early years of the simulation. As discussed above, this assumption is best considered as a method to allow a manufacturer to under-comply with its standard in some model years—treating the civil penalty rate and payment option as a proxy for other actions it may take that are not represented in the CAFE model (
In the current analysis, NHTSA has relied on past compliance behavior and certified transactions in the credit market to designate some manufacturers as being willing to pay CAFE penalties in some model years. The full set of assumptions regarding manufacturer behavior with respect to civil penalties is presented in Table-II-86, which shows all manufacturers are assumed to be willing to pay civil penalties prior to MY 2020. This is largely a reflection of either existing credit balances (which manufacturers will use to offset CAFE deficits until the credits reach their expiration dates) or assumed trades between manufacturers that are likely to happen in the near-future based on previous behavior. The manufacturers in the table whose names appear in bold all had at least one regulated fleet (of three) whose CAFE was below its standard in MY 2016. Because the analysis began with the MY 2016 fleet, and no technology can be added to vehicles that are already designed and built, all manufacturers can generate civil penalties in MY 2016. However, once a manufacturer is designated as unwilling to pay penalties, the CAFE model will attempt to add technology to the respective fleets to avoid shortfalls.
Several of the manufacturers in Table-II-86 that are assumed to be willing to pay civil penalties in the early years of the program have no history of paying civil penalties. However, several of those manufacturers have either bought or sold credits—or transferred credits from one fleet to another to offset a shortfall in the underperforming fleet. As the CAFE model does not simulate credit trades between manufacturers, providing this additional flexibility in the modeling avoids the outcome where the CAFE model applies more technology than would be needed in the context of the full set of compliance flexibilities at the industry level. By statute, NHTSA cannot consider credit flexibilities when setting standards, so most manufacturers (those without a history of civil penalty payment) are assumed to comply with their standard through fuel economy improvements for the model years being considered in this analysis. The notable exception to this is FCA, who we expect will still satisfy the requirements of the program through a combination of credit application and civil penalties through MY 2025 before eventually complying exclusively through fuel economy improvements in MY 2026.
As mentioned above, the CAA does not provide civil penalty provisions similar to those specified in EPCA/EISA, and the above-mentioned corresponding inputs apply only to simulation of compliance with CAFE standards.
The model's approach to simulating compliance decisions accounts for the potential to earn and use CAFE credits as provided by EPCA/EISA. The model similarly accumulates and applies CO
As discussed in the CAFE model documentation, the model's default logic attempts to maximize credit carry-forward—that is, to “hold on” to credits for as long as possible. If a manufacturer needs to cover a shortfall that occurs when insufficient opportunities exist to add technology in order to achieve compliance with a standard, the model will apply credits. Otherwise it carries forward credits until they are about to expire, at which point it will use them before adding technology that is not considered cost-effective. The model attempts to use credits that will expire within the next three years as a means to smooth out technology application over time to avoid both compliance shortfalls and high levels of over-compliance that can result in a surplus of credits. As further discussed in the CAFE model documentation, model inputs can be used to adjust this logic to shift the use of credits ahead by one or more model years. In general, the logic used to generate credits and apply them to compensate for compliance shortfalls, both in a given fleet and across regulatory fleets, is an area that requires more attention in the next phase of model development. While the current model correctly accounts for credits earned when a manufacturer exceeds its standard in a given year, the strategic decision of whether to earn additional credits to bank for future years (in the current fleet or to transfer into another regulatory fleet) and when to optimally apply them to deficits is challenging to simulate. This will be an area of focus moving forward.
NHTSA introduced the CAFE Public Information Center
Having reviewed credit balances (as of October 23, 2017) and estimated the potential that some manufacturers could trade credits, NHTSA developed inputs that make carried-forward credits available as summarized in Table-II-87, Table-II-88, and Table-II-89, after subtracting credits assumed to be traded to other manufacturers, adding credits assumed to be acquired from other manufacturers through such trades, and adjusting any traded credits (up or down) to reflect their true value for the fleet and model year into which they were traded.
In addition to the inclusion of these existing credit banks, the CAFE model also updated its treatment of credits in the rulemaking analysis. Congress has declared that NHTSA set CAFE standards at maximum feasible levels for each model year under consideration without consideration of the program's credit mechanisms. However, as CAFE rulemakings have evaluated longer time periods in recent years, the early actions taken by manufacturers required more nuanced representation. Therefore, the CAFE model now allows a “last year to consider credits,” set at the last year for which new standards are not being considered (MY 2019 in this analysis). This allows the model to replicate the practical application of existing credits toward CAFE compliance in early years but to examine the impact of proposed standards based solely on fuel economy improvements in all years for which new standards are being considered. Comment is sought regarding the model's representation of the CAFE and CO
The CAFE model has also been modified to include a similar representation of existing credit banks in EPA's CO
While the CAFE model does not simulate the ability to trade credits between manufacturers, it does simulate the strategic accumulation and application of compliance credits, as well as the ability to transfer credits between fleets to improve the compliance position of a less efficient fleet by leveraging credits earned by a
From 2009 to present, no manufacturer has transferred CAFE credits into a fleet to offset a deficit in the same year in which they were earned. This has occurred with credits acquired from other manufacturers via trade but not with a manufacturer's own credits. Therefore, the current representation of credit transfers between fleets—where the model prefers to transfer expiring, or soon-to-be-expiring credits rather than newly earned credits—is both appropriate and consistent with observed industry behavior.
This may not be the case for GHG standards, though it is difficult to be certain at this point. The GHG program seeded the industry with a large quantity of early compliance credits (earned in MYs 2009-2011
In addition to more rigorous accounting of CAFE and CO
When the CAFE model simulates EPA's program, the treatment of A/C efficiency and off-cycle credits is similar, but the model also accounts for A/C leakage (which is not part of NHTSA's program). When determining the compliance status of a manufacturer's fleet (in the case of EPA's program, PC and LT are the only fleet distinctions), the CAFE model weighs future compliance actions against the presence of existing (and expiring) CO
The CAFE model tracks and reports technology application and penetration rates for each manufacturer, regulatory class, and model year, calculated as the volume of vehicles with a given technology divided by the total volume. The “application rate” accounts only for those technologies applied by the model during the compliance simulation, while the “penetration rate” accounts for the total percentage of a technology present in a given fleet, whether applied by the CAFE model or already present at the start of the simulation.
In addition to the aggregate representation of technology penetration, the model also tracks each individual vehicle model on which it has operated. Each row in the market data file (the representation of vehicles offered for sale in MY 2016 in the U.S., discussed in detail in Section II.B.a and PRIA Chapter 6) contains a record for every model year and every alternative, that identifies with which technologies the vehicle started the simulation, which technologies were applied, and whether those technologies were applied directly or through inheritance (discussed above). Interested parties may use these outputs to assess how the compliance simulation modified any vehicle that was offered for sale in MY 2016 in response to a given regulatory alternative.
The model fully represents the required CAFE (and now, CO
In calculating the achieved CAFE level, the model uses the prescribed harmonic average of fuel economy ratings within a vehicle fleet. Under an “unconstrained” analysis, or in a model year for which standards are already final, it is possible for a manufacturer's CAFE to fall below its required level without generating penalties because the model will apply expiring or transferred credits to deficits if it is strategically appropriate to do so. Consistent with current EPA regulations, the model applies simple (not harmonic) production-weighted averaging to calculate average CO
For each technology that the model adds to a given vehicle, it accumulates cost. The technology costs are defined incrementally and vary both over time and by technology class, where the same technology may cost more to apply to larger vehicles as it involves more raw materials or requires different specifications to preserve some performance attributes. While learning-by-doing can bring down cost, and should reasonably be implemented in the CAFE model as a rate of cost reduction that is applied to the cumulative volume of a given technology produced by either a single manufacturer or the industry as a whole, in practice this notion is implemented as a function of time, rather than production volume. Thus, depending upon where a given technology starts along its learning curve, it may appear to be cost-effective in later years where it was not in earlier years. As the model carries forward technologies that it has already applied to future model years, it similarly adjusts the costs of those technologies based on their individual learning rates.
The other costs that manufacturers incur as a result of CAFE standards are civil penalties resulting from non-compliance with CAFE standards. The CAFE model accumulates costs of $5.50 per 1/10-MPG under the standard, multiplied by the number of vehicles produced in that fleet, in that model year. The model reports as the full “regulatory cost,” the sum of total technology cost and total fines by the manufacturer, fleet, and model year. As mentioned above, the relevant EPCA/EISA provisions do not also appear in the CAA, so this option and these costs apply only to simulated compliance with CAFE standards.
In all previous versions of the CAFE model, the total number of vehicles sold in any model year, in fact the number of each individual vehicle model sold in each year, has been a static input that did not vary in response to price increases induced by CAFE standards, nor changes in fuel prices, or any other input to the model. The only way to alter sales, was to update the entire forecast in the market input file. However, in the 2012 final rule, NHTSA included a dynamic fleet share model that was based on a module in the Energy Information Administration's NEMS model. This fleet share model did not change the size of the new vehicle fleet in any year, but it did change the share of new vehicles that were classified as passenger cars (or light trucks). That capability was not included in the central analysis but was included in the uncertainty analysis, which looked at the baseline and preferred alternative in the context of thousands of possible future states of the world. As some of those futures contained extreme cases of fuel prices, it was important to ensure consistent modeling responses within that context. For example, at a gasoline price of $7/gallon, it would be unrealistic to expect the new vehicle market's light truck share to be the same as the future where gasoline cost $2/gallon. The current model has slightly modified, and fully integrated, the dynamic fleet share model. Every regulatory alternative and sensitivity case considered in this analysis reflects a dynamically responsive fleet mix in the new vehicle market.
While the dynamic fleet share model adjusts unit sales across body styles (cars, SUVs, and trucks), it does not modify the total number of new vehicles sold in a given year. The CAFE model now includes a separate function to account for changes in the total number of new vehicles sold in a given year (regardless of regulatory class or body style), in response to certain macroeconomic inputs and changes in the average new vehicle price. The price impact is modest relative to the influence of the macroeconomic factors in the model. The combination of these two models modify the total number of new vehicles, the share of passenger cars and light trucks, and, as a consequence, the number of each given model sold by a given manufacturer. However, these two factors are insufficient to cause large changes to the composition of any of a manufacturer's fleets. In order to significantly change the mix of models produced within a given fleet, the CAFE model would require a way to trade off the production of one vehicle versus another both within a manufacturer's fleet and across the industry. While NHTSA has experimented with fully-integrated consumer choice models, their performance has yet to satisfy the requirements of a rulemaking analysis.
There are multiple levels of sales impacts that could result from increasing the prices of new vehicles across the industry. Any estimate of impacts at the manufacturer, or model, level would be subject to an assumed pricing strategy that spreads technology cost increases across available models in a way that may cross-subsidize specific models or segments at the expense of others. However, at the industry level, it is reasonable to assume that all incremental technology costs can be captured by the average price of a new vehicle. To the extent that this factor influences the total number of new vehicles sold in a given model year, it can be included in an empirical model of annual sales. However, there is limited historical evidence that the average price of a new vehicle is a strong determining factor in the total number of annual new vehicle sales.
The CAFE model carries a complete representation of the registered vehicle population in each calendar year, starting with an aggregated version of the most recent available data about the registered population for the first year of the simulation. In this analysis, the first model year considered is MY 2016, and the registered vehicle population enters the model as it appeared at the end of calendar year 2015. The initial vehicle population is stratified by age (or model year cohort) and regulatory class—to which the CAFE model assigns average fuel economies based on the reported regulatory class industry average compliance value in each model year (and class). Once the simulation begins, new vehicles are added to the population from the market data file and age throughout their useful lives during the simulation, with some fraction of them being retired (or scrapped) along the way. For example, in calendar year 2017, the new vehicles (age zero) are MY 2017 vehicles (added by the CAFE model simulation and represented at the same level of detail used to simulate compliance), the age one vehicles are MY 2016 vehicles (added by the CAFE model simulation), and the age two vehicles are MY 2015 vehicles (inherited from the registered vehicle population and carried through the analysis with less granularity). This national registered fleet is used to calculate annual fuel consumption, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), pollutant emissions, and safety impacts under each regulatory alternative.
In addition to dynamically modifying the total number of new vehicles sold, a dynamic model of vehicle retirement, or scrappage, has also been implemented. The model implements the scrappage response by defining the instantaneous scrappage rate at any age using two functions. For ages less than 20, instantaneous scrappage is defined as a function of vehicle age, new vehicle price, cost per mile of driving (the ratio of fuel price and fuel economy), and a small number of macroeconomic factors. For ages greater than 20, the instantaneous scrappage rate is a simple exponential function of age. While the scrappage response does not affect manufacturer compliance calculations, it impacts the lifetime mileage accumulation (and thus fuel savings) of all vehicles. Previous CAFE analyses have focused exclusively on new vehicles, tracing the fuel consumption and social costs of these vehicles throughout their useful lives; the scrappage effect also impacts the registered vehicle fleet that exists when a set of standards is implemented.
As new vehicles enter the registered population their retirement rates are governed by the scrappage model, so are the vehicles already registered at the start of model year 2016. To the extent that a given set of CAFE or CO
In support of prior CAFE rulemakings, the CAFE model accounted for new travel that results from fuel economy improvements that reduce the cost of driving. The magnitude of the increase in travel demand is determined by the rebound effect. In both previous versions and the current version of the CAFE model, the amount of travel demanded by the existing fleet of vehicles is also responsive to the rebound effect (representing the price elasticity of demand for travel)—increasing when fuel prices decrease relative to the fuel price when the VMT on which our mileage accumulation schedules were built was observed. Since the fuel economy of those vehicles is already fixed, only the fuel price influences their travel demand relative to the mileage accumulation schedule and so is identical for all regulatory alternatives.
While the average mileage accumulation per vehicle by age is not influenced by the rebound effect in a way that differs by regulatory alternative, three other factors influence total VMT in the model in a way that produces different total mileage accumulation by regulatory alternative. The first factor is the total industry sales response: New vehicles are both driven more than older vehicles and are more fuel efficient (thus producing more rebound miles). To the extent that more (or fewer) of these new models enter the vehicle fleet in each model year, total VMT will increase (or decrease) as a result. The second factor is the dynamic fleet share model. The fleet share influences not only the fuel economy distribution of the fleet, as light trucks are less efficient than passenger cars on average, but the total miles are influenced by fact that light trucks are driven more than passenger cars as well. Both of the first two factors can magnify the influence of the rebound effect on vehicles that go through the compliance simulation (MY 2016-2032) in the manner discussed above and in Section II.E. The third factor influencing total annual VMT is the scrappage model. By modifying the retirement rates of on-road vehicles under each regulatory alternative, the scrappage model either increases or decreases the lifetime miles that accrue to vehicles in a given model year cohort.
For every vehicle model in the market file, the model estimates the VMT per vehicle (using the assumed VMT schedule, the vehicle fuel economy, fuel price, and the rebound assumption). Those miles are multiplied by the volume for each vehicle. Fuel consumption is the product of miles driven and fuel economy, which can be tracked by model year cohort in the model. Carbon dioxide emissions from vehicle tailpipes are the simple product of gallons consumed and the carbon content of each gallon.
In order to calculate calendar year fuel consumption, the model needs to account for the inherited on-road fleet in addition to the model year cohorts affected by this proposed rule. Using the VMT of the average passenger car and light truck from each cohort, the model computes the fuel consumption of each model year class of vehicles for its age in a given CY. The sum across all ages (and thus, model year cohorts) in a given CY provides estimated CY fuel consumption.
Rather than rely on the compliance values of fuel economy for either historical vehicles or vehicles that go through the full compliance simulation, the model applies an “on-road gap” to represent the expected difference between fuel economy on the laboratory test cycle and fuel economy under real-world operation. This was a topic of interest in the recent peer review of the CAFE model. While the model currently allows the user to specify an on-road gap that varies by fuel type (gasoline, E85, diesel, electricity, hydrogen, and CNG), it does not vary over time, by vehicle age, or by technology combination. It is possible that the “gap” between laboratory fuel economy and real-world fuel economy has changed over time, that fuel economy degrades over time as a vehicle ages, or that specific combinations of fuel-saving technologies have a larger discrepancy between laboratory and real-world fuel economy than others. Further research would be required to determine whether the model should include a functional representation of the on-road gap to address these various factors, and comment is sought on the data sources and implementation strategies available to do so.
Because the model produces an estimate of the aggregate number of gallons sold in each CY, it is possible to calculate both the total expenditures on motor fuel and the total contribution to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) that result from that fuel consumption. The Federal fuel excise tax is levied on every gallon of gasoline and diesel sold in the U.S., with diesel facing a higher per-gallon tax rate. The model uses a national perspective, where the state taxes present in the input files represent an estimated average fuel tax across all U.S. states. Accordingly, while the CAFE model cannot reasonably estimate potential losses to state fuel tax revenue from increasingly the fuel economy of new vehicles, it can do so for the HTF, and the agencies invite comment on the proposed standards' implications for the HTF.
In addition to the tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide, each gallon of gasoline produced for consumption by the on-road fleet has associated “upstream” emissions that occur in the extraction, transportation, refining, and distribution of the fuel. The model accounts for these emissions as well (on a per-gallon basis) and reports them accordingly.
The CAFE model uses the entire on-road fleet, calculated VMT (discussed above), and emissions factors (which are an input to the CAFE model, specified by model year and age) to calculate tailpipe emissions associated with a given alternative. Just as it does for additional GHG emissions associated with upstream emissions from fuel production, the model captures criteria pollutants that occur during other parts of the fuel life cycle. While this is typically a function of the number of gallons of gasoline consumed (and miles driven, for tailpipe criteria pollutant emissions), the CAFE model also estimates electricity consumption and the associated upstream emissions (resource extraction and generation, based on U.S. grid mix).
Earlier versions of the CAFE model accounted for the safety impacts associated with reducing vehicle mass in order to improve fuel economy. In particular, NHTSA's safety analysis estimated the additional fatalities that would occur as a result of new vehicles getting lighter, then interacting with the on-road vehicle population. In general, taking mass out of the heaviest new vehicles improved safety outcomes, while taking mass from the lightest new vehicles resulted in a greater number of expected highway fatalities. However, the change in fatalities did not adequately account for changes in exposure that occur as a result of increased demand for travel as vehicles become cheaper to operate. The current version of the model resolves that
NHTSA has observed that older vehicles in the population are responsible for a disproportionate number of fatalities, both by number of registrations and by number of miles driven. Accordingly, any factor that causes the population of vehicles to turn over more slowly will induce additional fatalities—as those older vehicles continue to be driven, rather than being retired and replaced with newer (even if not brand new) vehicle models. The scrappage effect, which delays (or accelerates) the retirement of registered vehicles, impacts the number of fatalities through this mechanism—importantly affecting not just new vehicles sold from model years 2016-2032 but existing vehicles that are already part of the on-road fleet. Similarly, to the extent that a CAFE or CO
The CAFE model now estimates fatalities by combining the effects discussed above. In particular, the model estimates the fatality rate per billion miles VMT for each model year vehicle in the population (the newest of which are the new vehicles produced that model year). This estimate is independent of regulatory class and varies only by year (and not vehicle age). The estimated fatality rate is then multiplied by the estimated VMT for each vehicle in the population and the product of the change in curb weight and the relevant safety coefficient, as in the equation below.
For the vehicles in the historical fleet, meaning all those vehicles that are already part of the registered vehicle population in CY 2016, only the model year effect that determines the “FatalityEstimate” is relevant. However, each vehicle that is simulated explicitly by the CAFE model, and is eligible to receive mass reduction technologies, must also consider the change between its curb weight and the threshold weights that are used to define safety classes. For vehicles above the threshold, reducing vehicle mass can have a smaller negative impact on fatalities (or even reduce fatalities, in the case of the heaviest light trucks). The “ChangePer100Lbs” depends upon this difference. The sum of all estimated fatalities for each model year vehicle in the on-road fleet determines the reported fatalities, which can be summarized by either model year or calendar year.
As the CAFE model simulates manufacturer compliance with regulatory alternatives, it estimates and tracks a number of consequences that generate social costs. The most obvious cost associated with the program is the cost of additional fuel economy improving/CO
Other social costs and benefits emerge as the result of physical phenomena, like tailpipe emissions or highway fatalities, which are the result of changes in the composition and use of the on-road fleet. The social costs associated with those quantities represent an economic estimate of the social damages associated with the changes in each quantity. The model tracks and reports each of these quantities by: Model year and vehicle age (the combination of which can be used to produce calendar year totals), regulatory class, fuel type, and social discount rate.
The full list of potential costs and benefits is presented in Table-II-92 as well as the population of vehicles that determines the size of the factor (either new vehicles or all registered vehicles) and the mechanism that determines the size of the effect (whether driven by the number of miles driven, the number of gallons consumed, or the number of vehicles produced).
NHTSA and EPA are proposing that the form of the CAFE and CO
For MYs since 2011 for CAFE and since 2012 for CO
For passenger cars, consistent with prior rulemakings, NHTSA is proposing to define fuel economy targets as follows:
Here,
For light trucks, also consistent with prior rulemakings, NHTSA is proposing to define fuel economy targets as follows:
Although the general model of the target function equation is the same for each vehicle category (passenger cars and light trucks) and each model year, the parameters of the function equation differ for cars and trucks. For MYs 2020-2026, the parameters are unchanged, resulting in the same stringency in each of those model years.
Mathematical functions defining the proposed CO
For light trucks, CO
To be clear, as has been the case since the agencies began establishing attribute-based standards, no vehicle need meet the specific applicable fuel economy or CO
Similarly, the required average CO
Today's action would set standards that only apply to fuel economy and CO
Comment is sought on the proposed standards and on the analysis presented here; we seek any relevant data and information and will review responses. That review could lead to selection of one of the other regulatory alternatives for the final rule.
For passenger cars, NHTSA and EPA are proposing CAFE and CO
Section II.C above discusses in detail how the coefficients in Table III-1 were developed for this proposal. The coefficients result in the footprint-dependent targets shown graphically below for MYs 2021-2026. The MYs 2017-2020 standards are also shown for comparison.
While we do not know yet with certainty what CAFE and CO
EPA seeks comments on whether to proceed with this proposal to discontinue accounting for A/C leakage, methane emissions, and nitrous oxide emissions as part of the CO
EPA notes that since the 2010 rulemaking on this subject, the agencies have accounted for the ability to apply A/C leakage credits by increasing EPA's CO
For methane and nitrous oxide emissions, as part of the MY 2012-2016 rulemaking, EPA finalized standards to cap emissions of N
If the agency moves forward with its proposal to eliminate these factors, EPA would consider whether it is appropriate to initiate a new rulemaking to regulate these programs independently, which could include an effective date that would result in no lapse in regulation of A/C leakage or emissions of nitrous oxide and methane. If the agency decides to retain the A/C leakage and nitrous oxide and methane emissions provisions for CO
We emphasize again that the values in these tables are estimates, and not necessarily the ultimate levels with which each of these manufacturers will have to comply, for the reasons described above.
EPCA has long required manufacturers to meet the passenger car CAFE standard with both their domestically-manufactured and imported passenger car fleets—that is, domestic and imported passenger car fleets must comply separately with the passenger car CAFE standard in each model year.
The following table lists the proposed minimum domestic passenger car standards (which very likely will be updated for the final rule as the agency updates its overall analysis and resultant projection), highlighted as “Preferred (Alternative 3)” and calculates what those standards would be under the no action alternative (as issued in 2012, and as updated by today's analysis) and under the other alternatives described and discussed further in Section IV, below.
For light trucks, NHTSA and EPA are proposing CAFE and CO
Section II.C above discusses in detail how the coefficients in Table III-4 were developed for this proposal. The coefficients result in the footprint-dependent targets shown graphically below for MYs 2021-2026. The MYs 2017-2020 standards are also shown for comparison.
While we do not know yet with certainty what CAFE and CO
We emphasize again the values in these tables are estimates and not necessarily the ultimate levels with which each of these manufacturers will have to comply for reasons described above.
Agencies typically consider regulatory alternatives in proposals as a way of evaluating the comparative effects of different potential ways of accomplishing their desired goal.
As discussed above in Chapter II, today's notice also presents the results of analysis estimating impacts under a range of other regulatory alternatives the agencies are considering. Aside from the no-action alternative, NHTSA and EPA defined the different regulatory alternatives in terms of percent-increases in CAFE and GHG stringency from year to year. Under some alternatives, the rate of increase is the same for both passenger cars and light trucks; under others, the rate of increase differs. Two alternatives also involve a gradual discontinuation of CAFE and average GHG adjustments reflecting the application of technologies that improve air conditioner efficiency or, in other ways, improve fuel economy under conditions not represented by long-standing fuel economy test procedures. For increased harmonization with NHTSA CAFE standards, which cannot account for such issues, under Alternatives 1-8, EPA would regulate tailpipe CO
EPA also seeks comment on retaining the existing credit program for regulation of A/C refrigerant leakage, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions as part of the CO
The agencies have examined these alternatives because the agencies intend to continue considering them as options for the final rule. The agencies seek comment on these alternatives and on the analysis presented here, seek any relevant data and information, and will review responses. That review could lead the agencies to select one of the
The table below shows the different alternatives evaluated in this proposal.
Also, as
Additionally, the agencies note that this proposal also seeks comment on a number of additional compliance flexibilities for the programs. See Section X below, and EPA specifically draws attention the discussion of “enhanced flexibilities” in Section X.C.
The No-Action Alternative applies the augural CAFE and final GHG targets announced in 2012 for MYs 2021-2025. For MY 2026, this alternative applies the same targets as for MY 2025. Carbon dioxide equivalent of air conditioning refrigerant leakage, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions are included for compliance with the EPA standards for all model years under the baseline/no action alternative.
Alternative 1 holds the stringency of targets constant and MY 2020 levels through MY 2026. Beginning in MY 2021, air conditioning refrigerant leakage, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions are no longer included with the tailpipe CO
Alternative 2 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 2021-2026 (on a gallon per mile basis, starting from MY 2020) by 0.5% for passenger cars and 0.5% for light trucks. Section III describes the proposed standards included in the preferred alternative. Beginning in MY 2021, air conditioning refrigerant leakage, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions are no longer included with the tailpipe CO
Alternative 3 phases out A/C and off-cycle adjustments and increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 2021-2026 (on a gallon per mile basis, starting from MY 2020) by 0.5% for passenger cars and 0.5% for light trucks. The cap on adjustments for AC efficiency improvements declines from 6 grams per mile in MY 2021 to 5, 4, 3, 2, and 0 grams per mile in MYs 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026, respectively. The cap on adjustments for off-cycle improvements declines from 10 grams per mile in MY 2021 to 8, 6, 4, 2, and 0 grams per mile in MYs 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026, respectively. Beginning in MY 2021, air conditioning refrigerant leakage, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions are no longer included with the tailpipe CO
Alternative 4 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 2021-2026 (on a gallon per mile basis, starting from MY 2020) by 1.0% for passenger cars and 2.0% for light trucks. Beginning in MY 2021, air conditioning refrigerant leakage, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions are no longer included with the tailpipe CO
Alternative 5 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 2022-2026 (on a gallon per mile basis, starting from MY 2021) by 1.0% for passenger cars and 2.0% for light trucks. Beginning in MY 2021, air conditioning refrigerant leakage, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions are no longer included with the tailpipe CO
Alternative 6 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 2021-2026 (on a gallon per mile basis, starting from MY 2020) by 2.0% for passenger cars and 3.0% for light trucks. Beginning in MY 2021, air conditioning refrigerant leakage, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions are no longer included with the tailpipe CO
Alternative 7 phases out A/C and off-cycle adjustments and increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 2021-2026 (on a gallon per mile basis, starting from MY 2020) by 1.0% for passenger cars and 2.0% for light trucks. The cap on adjustments for AC efficiency improvements declines from 6 grams per mile in MY 2021 to 5, 4, 3, 2, and 0 grams per mile in MYs 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026, respectively. The cap on adjustments for off-cycle improvements declines from 10 grams per mile in MY 2021 to 8, 6, 4, 2, and 0 grams per mile in MYs 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026, respectively. Beginning in MY 2021, air conditioning refrigerant leakage, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions are no longer included with the tailpipe CO
Alternative 8 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 2022-2026 (on a gallon per mile basis, starting from MY 2021) by 2.0% for passenger cars and 3.0% for light trucks. Beginning in MY 2021, air conditioning refrigerant leakage, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions are no longer included with the tailpipe CO
EPCA, as amended by EISA, contains a number of provisions regarding how NHTSA must set CAFE standards. NHTSA must establish separate CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks
Besides the requirement that the standards be maximum feasible for the fleet in question and the model year in question, EPCA/EISA also contain
EPCA requires that NHTSA prescribe new CAFE standards at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year.
For amendments to existing standards, EPCA requires that if the amendments make an average fuel economy standard more stringent, at least 18 months of lead time must be provided.
As discussed above, EPCA requires NHTSA to set separate CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks for each model year.
EPCA, as amended by EISA, also requires another separate standard to be set for domestically-manufactured
Since that requirement was promulgated, the “92 percent” has always been greater than 27.5 mpg. NHTSA published the 92-percent minimum domestic passenger car standards for model years 2017-2025 at 49 CFR 531.5(d) as part of the 2012 final rule. For MYs 2022-2025, 531.5(e) states that these were to be applied if, when actually proposing MY 2022 and subsequent standards, the previously identified standards for those years are deemed maximum feasible, but if NHTSA determines that the previously identified standards are not maximum feasible, the 92-percent minimum domestic passenger car standards would also change. This is consistent with the statutory language that the 92-percent standards must be determined at the time an overall passenger car standard is promulgated and published in the
The 2016 Alliance/Global petition for rulemaking asked NHTSA to retroactively revise the 92-percent minimum domestic passenger car standards for MYs 2012-2016 “to reflect 92 percent of the required average passenger car standard taking into account the fleet mix as it actually occurred, rather than what was forecast.” The petitioners stated that doing so would be “fully consistent with the statute.”
NHTSA understands that determining the 92 percent value ahead of the model year to which it applies, based on the information then available to the agency, results in a different mpg number than if NHTSA determined the 92 percent value based on the information available at the end of the model year in question. NHTSA further understands that determining the 92 percent value ahead of time can make the domestic minimum passenger car standard more stringent than it could be if it were determined at the end of the model year,
Accordingly, NHTSA seeks comment on this request by Alliance/Global. Additionally, recognizing the uncertainty inherent in projecting specific mpg values far into the future, it is possible that NHTSA could define the mpg values associated with a CAFE standard (
EISA requires NHTSA to set CAFE standards that are “based on 1 or more
EISA also states that NHTSA shall “issue regulations under this title prescribing average fuel economy standards for at least 1, but not more than 5, model years.”
Today, NHTSA proposes to establish new standards for MYs 2022-2026 and to revise the previously-established final standards for MY 2021. Legislative history suggests that Congress included the five year maximum limitation so NHTSA would issue standards for a period of time where it would have reasonably realistic estimates of market conditions, technologies, and economic practicability (
Moreover, we believe it would be an absurd result not intended by Congress if the five year maximum limitation were interpreted to prevent NHTSA from revising a previously-established standard that we have determined to be beyond maximum feasible, while concurrently setting five years of standards not so distant from today. The concerns Congress sought to address are much starker when NHTSA is trying to determine what standards would be maximum feasible 10 years from now as compared to three years from now.
As discussed above, EPCA requires NHTSA to consider four factors in determining what levels of CAFE standards would be maximum feasible, and NHTSA presents in the sections below its understanding of what those four factors mean. All factors should be considered, in the manner appropriate, and then the maximum feasible standards should be determined.
“Technological feasibility” refers to whether a particular method of improving fuel economy is available for deployment in commercial application in the model year for which a standard is being established. Thus, NHTSA is not limited in determining the level of new standards to technology that is already being commercially applied at the time of the rulemaking. For this proposal, NHTSA is considering a wide range of technologies that improve fuel economy, subject to the constraints of EPCA regarding how to treat alternative fueled vehicles, and considering the need to account for which technologies have already been applied to which vehicle model/configuration, and the need to realistically estimate the cost and fuel economy impacts of each technology. NHTSA has not attempted to account for every technology that might conceivably be applied to improve fuel economy and considers it unnecessary to do so given that many technologies address fuel economy in similar ways.
“Economic practicability” has traditionally referred to whether a standard is one “within the financial capability of the industry, but not so stringent as to” lead to “adverse economic consequences, such as a significant loss of jobs or unreasonable elimination of consumer choice.”
Prior to the MYs 2005-2007 rulemaking under the non-attribute-based (fixed value) CAFE standards, NHTSA generally sought to ensure the economic practicability of standards in part by setting them at or near the capability of the “least capable manufacturer” with a significant share of the market,
NHTSA's consideration of economic practicability depends on a number of elements. Expected availability of capital to make investments in new technologies matters; manufacturers' expected ability to sell vehicles with certain technologies matters; likely consumer choices matter and so forth. NHTSA's analysis of the impacts of this proposal incorporates assumptions to capture aspects of consumer preferences, vehicle attributes, safety, and other elements relevant to an impacts estimate; however, it is difficult to capture every such constraint. Therefore, it is well within the agency's discretion to deviate from the level at which modeled net benefits are maximized if the agency concludes that that level would not represent the maximum feasible level for future CAFE standards. Economic practicability is complex, and like the other factors must also be considered in the context of the overall balancing and EPCA's overarching purpose of energy conservation. Depending on the conditions of the industry and the assumptions used in the agency's analysis of alternative standards, NHTSA could well find that standards that maximize net benefits, or that are higher or lower, could be at the limits of economic practicability, and thus potentially the maximum feasible level, depending on how the other factors are balanced.
While we discuss safety as a separate consideration, NHTSA also considers safety as closely related to, and in some circumstances a subcomponent of economic practicability. On a broad level, manufacturers have finite resources to invest in research and development. Investment into the development and implementation of fuel saving technology necessarily comes at the expense of investing in other areas such as safety technology. On a more direct level, when making decisions on how to equip vehicles, manufacturers must balance cost considerations to avoid pricing further consumers out of the market. As manufacturers add technology to increase fuel efficiency, they may decide against installing new safety equipment to reduce cost increases. And as the price of vehicles increase beyond the reach of more consumers, such consumers continue to drive or purchase older, less safe vehicles. In assessing practicability, NHTSA also considers the harm to the nation's economy caused by highway fatalities and injuries.
“The effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy” involves analysis of the effects of compliance with emission, safety, noise, or damageability standards on fuel economy capability and thus on average fuel economy. In many past CAFE rulemakings, NHTSA has said that it considers the adverse effects of other motor vehicle standards on fuel economy. It said so because, from the CAFE program's earliest years
In the 2012 final rule establishing CAFE standards for MYs 2017-2021, NHTSA also discussed whether EPA GHG standards and California GHG standards should be considered and accounted for as “other motor vehicle standards of the Government.” NHTSA recognized that “To the extent the GHG standards result in increases in fuel economy, they would do so almost exclusively as a result of inducing manufacturers to install the same types of technologies used by manufacturers in complying with the CAFE standards.”
Considering the issue afresh in this proposal, and looking only at the words in the statute, obviously EPA's GHG standards applicable to light-duty vehicles are literally “other motor vehicle standards of the Government,” in that they are standards set by a Federal agency that apply to motor vehicles. Basic chemistry makes fuel economy and tailpipe CO
NHTSA is aware that some stakeholders believe that NHTSA's obligation to set maximum feasible CAFE standards can best be executed by letting EPA decide what GHG standards
NHTSA and EPA are obligated by Congress to exercise their own independent judgment in fulfilling their statutory missions, even though both agencies' regulations affect both fuel economy and CO
With regard to standards issued by the State of California, State tailpipe standards (whether for greenhouse gases or for other pollutants) do not qualify as “other motor vehicle standards of the Government” under 49 U.S.C. 32902(f); therefore, NHTSA will not consider them as such in proposing maximum feasible average fuel economy standards. States may not adopt or enforce tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions standards when such standards relate to fuel economy standards and are therefore preempted under EPCA, regardless of whether EPA granted any waivers under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(1) A fuel economy standard; and
(2) A law or regulation that has the direct effect of a fuel economy standard, but is not labeled as one (
NHTSA and EPA agree that state tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions standards do not become Federal standards and qualify as “other motor vehicle standards of the Government,” when subject to a CAA preemption waiver. EPCA's legislative history supports this position.
EPCA, as initially passed in 1975, mandated average fuel economy standards for passenger cars beginning with model year 1978. The law required the Secretary of Transportation to establish, through regulation, maximum feasible fuel economy standards
For the statutorily-established standards for model years 1978-1980, EPCA provided each manufacturer with the right to petition for changes in the standards applicable to that manufacturer. A petitioning manufacturer had the burden of demonstrating a “Federal fuel economy standards reduction” was likely to exist for that manufacturer in one or more of those model years and that it had made reasonable technology choices. “Federal standards,” for that limited purpose, included not only safety standards, noise emission standards, property loss reduction standards, and emission standards issued under various Federal statutes, but also “
In 1994, Congress recodified EPCA. As part of this recodification, the CAFE provisions were moved to Title 49 of the United States Code. In doing so, unnecessary provisions were deleted. Specifically, the recodification eliminated subsection (d). The House report on the recodification declared that the subdivision was “executed,” and described its purpose as “[p]rovid[ing] for modification of average fuel economy standards for model years 1978, 1979, and 1980.”
NHTSA has previously considered the impact of California's Low Emission Vehicle standards in establishing fuel economy standards and occasionally has done so under the “other standards” sections.
“The need of the United States to conserve energy” means “the consumer cost, national balance of payments, environmental, and foreign policy implications of our need for large quantities of petroleum, especially imported petroleum.”
Fuel for vehicles costs money for vehicle owners and operators. All else equal, consumers benefit from vehicles that need less fuel to perform the same amount of work. Future fuel prices are a critical input into the economic
Historically, the need of the United States to conserve energy has included consideration of the “national balance of payments” because of concerns that importing large amounts of oil created a significant wealth transfer to oil-exporting countries and left the U.S. economically vulnerable.
Higher fleet fuel economy can reduce U.S. emissions of various pollutants by reducing the amount of oil that is produced and refined for the U.S. vehicle fleet but can also increase emissions by reducing the cost of driving, which can result in increased vehicle miles traveled (
NHTSA has considered environmental issues, both within the context of EPCA and the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in making decisions about the setting of standards since the earliest days of the CAFE program. As courts of appeal have noted in three decisions stretching over the last 20 years,
U.S. consumption and imports of petroleum products impose costs on the domestic economy that are not reflected in the market price for crude petroleum or in the prices paid by consumers for petroleum products such as gasoline. These costs include (1) higher prices for petroleum products resulting from the effect of U.S. oil demand on world oil prices, (2) the risk of disruptions to the U.S. economy caused by sudden increases in the global price of oil and its resulting impact of fuel prices faced by U.S. consumers, and (3) expenses for maintaining the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) to provide a response option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy, to allow the U.S. to meet part of its International Energy Agency obligation to maintain emergency oil stocks, and to provide a national defense fuel reserve.
While these costs are considerations, the United States has significantly increased oil production capabilities in
EPCA also provides that in determining the level at which it should set CAFE standards for a particular model year, NHTSA may not consider the ability of manufacturers to take advantage of several EPCA provisions that facilitate compliance with CAFE standards and thereby reduce the costs of compliance.
The effect of the prohibitions against considering these statutory flexibilities in setting the CAFE standards is that the flexibilities remain voluntarily-employed measures. If NHTSA were instead to assume manufacturer use of those flexibilities in setting new standards, higher standards would appear less costly and therefore more feasible, which would thus tend to require manufacturers to use those flexibilities in order to meet higher standards. By keeping NHTSA from including them in our stringency determination, the provision ensures that these statutory credits remain true compliance flexibilities.
Additionally, for non-statutory incentives that NHTSA developed by regulation, NHTSA does not consider these subject to the EPCA prohibition on considering flexibilities, either. EPCA is very clear as to which flexibilities are not to be considered. When the agency has introduced additional flexibilities such as A/C efficiency and “off-cycle” technology fuel economy improvement values, NHTSA has considered those technologies as available in the analysis. Thus, today's analysis includes assumptions about manufacturers' use of those technologies, as detailed in Section X.B.1.c)(4)
Congress amended EPCA through EISA to add two requirements not yet discussed in this section relevant to determination of CAFE standards during the years between MY 2011 and MY 2020 but not beyond. First, Congress stated that, regardless of NHTSA's determination of what levels of standards would be maximum feasible, standards must be set at levels high enough to ensure that the combined U.S. passenger car and light truck fleet achieves an average fuel economy level of not less than 35 mpg no later than MY 2020.
NHTSA has historically considered the potential for adverse safety consequences in setting CAFE standards. This practice has been consistently approved in case law. As courts have recognized, “NHTSA has always examined the safety consequences of the CAFE standards in its overall consideration of relevant factors since its earliest rulemaking under the CAFE program.”
The attribute-based standards that Congress requires NHTSA to set help to mitigate the negative safety effects of the historical “flat” standards originally required in EPCA, in recent rulemakings, NHTSA limited the consideration of mass reduction in lower weight vehicles in its analysis, which impacted the resulting assessment of potential adverse safety effects. That analytical approach did not reflect, however, the likelihood that automakers may pursue the most cost effective means of improving fuel efficiency to comply with CAFE requirements. For this rulemaking, the modeling does not limit the amount of mass reduction that is applied to any segment but rather considers that automakers may apply mass reduction based upon cost-effectiveness, similar to most other technologies. NHTSA does not, of course, mandate the use of any particular technology by manufacturers in meeting the standards. The current proposal, like the Draft TAR, also considers the safety effect associated with the additional vehicle miles traveled due to the rebound effect.
In this rulemaking, NHTSA is considering the effect of additional expenses in fuel savings technology on the affordability of vehicles—the likelihood that increased standards will result in consumers being priced out of the new vehicle market and choosing to keep their existing vehicle or purchase a used vehicle. Since new vehicles are significantly safer than used vehicles, slowing fleet turnover to newer vehicles results in older and less safe vehicles remaining on the roads longer. This significantly affects the safety of the United States light duty fleet, as described more fully in Section 0 above and in Chapter 11 of the PRIA accompanying this proposal. Furthermore, as fuel economy standards become more stringent, and more fuel efficient vehicles are introduced into the fleet, fueling costs are reduced. This results in consumers driving more miles, which results in more crashes and increased highway fatalities.
To be upheld under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of judicial review in the APA, an agency rule must be rational, based on consideration of the relevant factors, and within the scope of
Statutory interpretations included in an agency's rule are subject to the two-step analysis of
If an agency's interpretation differs from the one that it has previously adopted, the agency need not demonstrate that the prior position was wrong or even less desirable. Rather, the agency would need only to demonstrate that its
As discussed above, EPCA requires NHTSA to determine the level at which to set CAFE standards for each model year by considering the four factors of technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) directs that environmental considerations be integrated into that process.
To explore the environmental consequences of this proposed rule in depth, NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”). The purpose of an EIS is to “provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and [to] inform decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.”
NEPA is “a procedural statute that mandates a process rather than a particular result.”
The agency must identify the “environmentally preferable” alternative but need not adopt it. “Congress in enacting NEPA . . . did not require agencies to elevate environmental concerns over other appropriate considerations.”
We seek comment on the DEIS associated with this NPRM.
NHTSA well recognizes that the decision it proposes to make in today's NPRM is different from the one made in the 2012 final rule that established standards for MY 2021 and identified “augural” standard levels for MYs 2022-2025. Not only do we believe that the facts before us have changed, but we believe that those facts have changed sufficiently that the balancing of the EPCA factors and other considerations must also change. The standards we are proposing today reflect that balancing.
The overarching purpose of EPCA is energy conservation; that fact remains the same. Examining that phrasing afresh, Merriam-Webster states that to “conserve” means, in relevant part, “to keep in a safe or sound state; especially, to avoid wasteful or destructive use of.”
Today, the conditions that led both to those price shocks and to U.S. energy vulnerability overall have changed significantly. In the late 1970s, the U.S. was a major oil importer and changes (intentional or not) in the global oil supply had massive domestic consequences, as Congress saw. While oil consumption exceeded domestic production for many years after that, net energy imports peaked in 2005, and since then, oil imports have declined while exports have increased.
The relationship between the U.S. and the global oil market has changed for two principal reasons. The first reason is that the U.S. now consumes a significantly smaller share of global oil production than it did in the 1970s. At the time of the Arab oil embargo, the U.S. consumed about 17 million barrels per day of the globe's approximately 55 million barrels per day.
The second factor that has changed the United States' relationship to the global oil market is the changing U.S. reliance on imported oil over the last decade. U.S. domestic oil production began rising in 2009 with more cost-effective drilling and production technologies.
Recent analysis further suggests that the U.S. oil supply response to a rise in global prices is much larger now due to the shale revolution, as compared to what it was when U.S. production depended entirely on conventional wells. Unconventional wells may be not only capable of producing more oil over time but also may be capable of responding faster to price shocks. One 2017 study concluded that “The long-run price responsiveness of supply is about 6 times larger for tight oil on a per well basis, and about 9 times larger when also accounting for the rise in unconventional-directed drilling.” That same study further found that “Given a price rise to $80 per barrel, U.S. oil production could rise by 0.5 million barrels per day in 6 months, 1.2 million in 1 year, 2 million in 2 years, and 3 million in 5 years.”
These changes in U.S. oil intensity, production, and capacity cannot entirely insulate consumers from the effects of price shocks at the gas pump, because although domestic production may be able to satisfy domestic energy demand, we cannot predict whether domestically produced oil will be distributed domestically or more broadly to the global market. But it appears that domestic supply may dampen the magnitude, frequency, and duration of price shocks. As global per-barrel oil prices rise, U.S. production is now much better able to (and does) ramp up in response, pulling those prices back down. Corresponding per-gallon gas prices may not fall overnight,
Regardless of changes in the oil supply market, on the demand side, conditions are also significantly different from the 1970s. If gasoline prices increase suddenly and dramatically, in today's market American consumers have more options for fuel-efficient new vehicles. Fuel-efficient vehicles were available to purchasers in the 1970s, but they were generally small entry-level vehicles with features that did not meet the needs and preferences of many consumers. Today, most U.S. households maintain a household vehicle fleet that serves a variety of purposes and represents a variety of fuel efficiency levels. Manufacturers have responded to fuel economy standards and to consumer demand over the last decade to offer a wide array of fuel-efficient vehicles in different segments and with a wide range of features. A household may now respond to short-term increases in fuel price by shifting vehicle miles traveled within their household fleet away from less-efficient vehicles and toward models with higher fuel economy. A similar option existed in the 1970s, though not as widely as today, and vehicle owners in 2018 do not have to sacrifice as much utility as owners did in the 1970s when making fuel-efficiency trade-offs within their household fleets (or when replacing household vehicles at the time of purchase). On a longer-term basis, if oil prices rise, consumers have more options to invest in additional fuel economy when purchasing new vehicles than at any other time in history.
Global oil demand conditions are also different than in previous years. Countries that had very small markets for new light-duty vehicles in the 1970s are now driving global production as their economies improve and growing numbers of middle-class consumers are able to purchase vehicles for personal use. The global increase in drivers inevitably affects global oil demand, which affects oil prices. However, these changes generally occur gradually over time, unlike a disruption that causes a gasoline price shock. Market growth happens relatively gradually and is subject to many different factors. Oil supply markets likely have time to adjust to increases in demand from higher vehicle sales in countries like China and India, and in fact, those increases in demand may temper global prices by keeping production increasing more steadily than if demand was less certain; clear demand rewards increased production and encourages additional resource development over time. It therefore seems unlikely that growth in these vehicle markets could lead to gasoline price shocks. Moreover, even as these vehicle markets grow, it is possible that these and other vehicle markets may be moving away from petroleum usage under the direction of their governments.
Considering all of the above factors, if gasoline price shocks are no longer as much of a threat as they were when EPCA was originally passed, it seems reasonable to consider what the need of the United States to conserve oil is today and going forward. Looking to the discussion above on what factors are relevant to the need of the United States to conserve oil, one may conclude that the U.S. is no longer as dependent upon petroleum as the engine of economic prosperity as it was when EPCA was passed. The national balance of payments considerations are likely drastically less important than they were in the 1970s, at least in terms of oil imports and vehicle fuel economy. Foreign policy considerations appear to have shifted along with the supply shifts also discussed above.
Whether and how environmental considerations create a need for CAFE standards is, perhaps, more complicated. As discussed earlier in this document, carbon dioxide is a direct byproduct of the combustion of carbon-based fuels in vehicle engines.
Some commenters have argued essentially that any petroleum use is destructive because it all adds incrementally to climate change. They argue that as CAFE standards increase, petroleum use will decrease; therefore CAFE standard stringency should increase as rapidly as possible. Other commenters, recognizing that economic practicability is also relevant, have argued essentially that because more stringent CAFE standards produce less CO
In the context of climate change, NHTSA believes it is hard to say that increasing CAFE standards is necessary to avoid destructive or wasteful use of energy as compared to somewhat-less-rapidly-increasing CAFE standards. The most stringent of the regulatory
Consumer costs are the remaining issue considered in the context of the need of the U.S. to conserve energy. NHTSA has argued in the past, somewhat paternalistically, that CAFE standards help to solve consumers' “myopia” about the value of fuel savings they could receive, when buying a new vehicle if they chose a more fuel-efficient model. There has been extensive debate over how much consumers do (and/or should) value fuel savings and fuel economy as an attribute in new vehicles, and that debate is addressed in Section II.E. For purposes of considering the need of the U.S. to conserve energy, the question of consumer costs may be closer to whether U.S. consumers
Again, when EPCA originally passed, Congress was trying to protect U.S. consumers from the negative effects of another gasoline price shock. It appears much more likely today that oil prices will rise only moderately in the future and that price shocks are less likely. Accordingly, it is reasonable to believe that U.S. consumers value future fuel savings accurately and choose new vehicles based on that view. This is particularly true, since Federal law requires that new vehicles be posted with a window sticker providing estimated costs or savings over a five year period compared to average new vehicles.
Given the discussion above, NHTSA tentatively concludes that the need of the U.S. to conserve energy may no longer function as assumed in previous considerations of what CAFE standards would be maximum feasible. The overall risks associated with the need of the U.S. to conserve oil have entered a new paradigm with the risks substantially lower today and projected into the future than when CAFE standards were first issued and in the recent past. The effectiveness of CAFE standards in reducing the demand for fuel combined with the increase in domestic oil production have contributed significantly to the current situation and outlook for the near- and mid-term future. The world has changed, and the need of the U.S. to conserve energy, at least in the context of the CAFE program, has also changed.
Of the other factors under 32902(g), the changes are perhaps less significant. We continue to believe that technological feasibility,
The effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy is similarly not limiting during this rulemaking time frame. As discussed above, the analysis projects that safety standards will add some mass to new vehicles during this time frame and accounts for Tier 3 compliance in estimates of technology effectiveness, but neither of these things appear likely to make it significantly harder for industry to comply with more stringent CAFE standards. In terms of EPA's GHG standards, as also discussed above, NHTSA and EPA's coordination in this proposal should make the two sets of standards similarly binding, although differences in compliance provisions remain such that which standards are more binding will vary somewhat between manufacturers and over time.
The remaining factor to consider is economic practicability. NHTSA has typically defined economic practicability, as discussed above, as whether a given CAFE standard is “within the financial capability of the industry but not so stringent as” to lead to “adverse economic consequences, such as a significant loss of jobs or unreasonable elimination of consumer choice.” As part of that definition, NHTSA looks at a variety of elements that can lead to adverse economic consequences. All of the alternatives considered today arguably raise economic practicability issues. NHTSA believes there could be potential for unreasonable elimination of consumer choice, loss of U.S. jobs, and a number of adverse economic consequences under nearly all if not all of the regulatory alternatives considered today.
If a potential CAFE standard requires manufacturers to add technology to new vehicles that consumers do not want, or to skip adding technology to new vehicles that consumers do want, it would seem to present issues with elimination of consumer choice. Depending on the extent and expense of required fuel saving technology, that elimination of consumer choice could be unreasonable.
When deciding on which new vehicle to purchase, American consumers
Consumers not being interested in better fuel economy can take two forms: First, it can dampen sales of vehicles with the additional technology required to meet the standards, and second, it can increase sales of vehicles that do not help manufacturers meet the standards (such as vehicles that fall significantly short of their fuel economy targets, due to higher levels of performance (
Consumer decisions to purchase relatively low-fuel economy vehicles might seem irrational if gasoline prices were expected to rebound in the future, but current indicators suggest this is not particularly likely. Although we know of no clear “tipping point” for gasoline prices at which American consumers suddenly become more interested in fuel economy over other attributes, In addition, EIA's latest AEO 2018 suggests, based on current assumptions, that per-gallon prices are likely to stay under $4 through 2050.
Thus, if manufacturers are not currently able to sell higher-fuel economy vehicles without heavy subsidization, particularly HEVs, PHEVs, and EVs, it seems unlikely that their ability to do so will improve unless consumer preferences change or fuel prices rise significantly, either of which seem unlikely. Today's analysis indicates, perhaps predictably, that electrification rates must increase as stringency increases among the options the agencies are considering.
Manufacturers have commented to the agencies that “Although automakers are offering more of these models every year, with improved technology and options, sales of these vehicles are not growing,” noting that even for hybrid
If the evidence indicates that hybrid sales are declining as gasoline prices remain low, it seems reasonable to conclude that consumers will not choose to buy more of them going forward as gasoline prices are forecast to remain low. This is consistent with the analysis discussed in Section II.E, that even while some consumers may be willing to pay between $2,000 and $3,000 more for vehicles with electrified technologies, that incremental willingness-to-pay falls well short of the additional costs projected for HEVs, PHEVs, and EVs. This trend may well extend beyond electrification technologies to other technologies. When costs for fuel economy-improving technology exceed the fuel savings, consumers may very well be unwilling to pay the full cost for vehicles with higher fuel economy that would be increasingly needed as to comply as the stringency of the alternatives increases.
If consumers are not willing to pay the full cost for vehicles with higher fuel economy, it seems reasonably foreseeable that they will consider vehicles made more expensive by higher CAFE standards to be not “available” to them to purchase—or put more simply, that they will be turned off by more expensive vehicles with technologies they do not want, and seek instead to purchase cheaper vehicles without that technology (or with different technologies, such as those that improve performance or safety). Manufacturers have long cross-subsidized vehicle models in their lineups in order to recoup costs in cases where they do not believe they can pass the full costs of development and production forward as price increases for the vehicle model in question. Given that this cross-subsidization is ongoing, however, and possibly deepening as manufacturers have had to meet increasingly stringent CAFE standards over the past several years, it is unclear how much additional distribution of costs could be supported by the market. Certainly, if CAFE standards continue to increase in stringency as gasoline prices stay relatively low and consumer willingness to pay for significant additional fuel economy improvements remains correspondingly low, then additional cross-subsidization of products to try to ease those products into consumer acceptance seems likely to impair consumer choice, insofar as the vehicles they want to buy will cost more and may have technology for which they are unwilling to pay. Models that have historically been able to bear higher percentages of the cross-subsidization burden may not be able to bear much more—a pickup truck buyer, for example, may eventually decide to purchase a used vehicle, another type of vehicle, or a pickup made by a different manufacturer rather than pay the extra cost that the manufacturer is trying to recoup from higher-fuel economy vehicles that had to be artificially discounted to be sold. We seek comment on the effect of fuel economy standards on cross-subsidization across models.
Moreover, assuming that manufacturers try to pass the costs of those technologies on to consumers in the form of higher new vehicle prices, rather than absorbing them and hurting profitability, this can affect consumers' ability to afford new vehicles. The analysis assumes that the increased cost of meeting standards is passed on to consumers through higher new vehicle prices, and looks at those increases as a one-time payment. In the context of, for example, a $30,000 new vehicle, another $2,000 may not seem significant to some readers. Yet manufacturers and dealers have repeatedly commented to NHTSA that the overall price of the vehicle is less relevant to the majority of consumers than the monthly payment amount, which is a significant factor in consumers' ability to purchase or lease a new vehicle. Amortizing a $2,000 price increase over, for example, 48 months may also not seem like a large amount to some readers, even accounting for interest payments. Yet the corresponding up-front and monthly costs may pose a challenge to low-income or credit-challenged purchasers. As discussed previously, such increased costs will price many consumers out of the market—leaving them to continue driving an older, less safe, less efficient, and more polluting vehicle, or purchasing another used vehicle that would likewise be less safe, less efficient, and more polluting than an equivalent new vehicle.
For example, the average MY 2025 prices estimated here under the baseline and proposed CAFE standards are about $34,800 and $32,750, respectively (and $34,500 and $32,550 under the baseline and proposed GHG standards). The buyer of a new MY 2025 vehicle might thus avoid the following purchase and first-year ownership costs under the proposed standards:
While the buyer of the average vehicle would also purchase somewhat more fuel under the proposed standards, this difference might average only five gallons per month during the first year of ownership.
Over the last decade, as vehicle sales have rebounded in the wake of the recession, historically low interest rates and increases in the average duration of financing terms have helped manufacturers and dealers keep consumers' monthly payments low. These trends (low interest rates and longer loan periods), along with pent-up demand for new vehicles, have helped keep vehicle sales high. As interest rates have increased, and most predict will continue to rise, monthly payments will foreseeably increase, and the ability to offset such increases by extending finance terms to account for increased finance charges and vehicle prices due to CAFE standards is limited by the fact that doing so increases the amount of time before consumers will have positive equity in their vehicles (and able to trade in the vehicle for a newer model). This reduces the mechanisms that manufacturers, captive finance companies, dealers, and independent lenders have in order to maintain sales at comparable levels. In other words, if vehicle sales have not already hit the breaking point, they may be close.
The increasing risk that manufacturers and dealers will hit a wall in their ability to keep monthly payments low may fall disproportionately on new and low-income buyers. To build on the discussion above, manufacturers often purposely cross-subsidize the prices of entry-level vehicles to keep monthly payments low and attract new and young consumers to their brand. Higher CAFE standard stringency leads to higher costs for technology across manufacturers' fleets, meaning that more and more cross-subsidization becomes necessary to maintain affordability for entry-level vehicle purchasers. While this is clearly an economic issue for industry, it may also slow fleet-wide improvement in vehicle characteristics like safety—both in terms of manufacturers having to divert resources to adding technology to vehicles that consumers do not want and then figuring out how to get consumers to buy them and in terms of new vehicles potentially becoming unaffordable for certain groups of consumers, meaning that they must either defer new vehicle purchases or turn to the used vehicle market, where levels of safety may not be comparable. We seek comment on these considerations.
Alternatively, rather than or in addition to continuing to cross-subsidize fuel economy improvements that consumers are unwilling to pay for directly, manufacturers may choose to try to improve their compliance position under higher CAFE standards by restricting sales of certain vehicle models or options. If consumers tend to want the 6-cylinder engine version of a vehicle rather than the 4-cylinder version, for example, the manufacturer may choose to make fewer 6-cylinders available. This solution, if chosen, would directly impact consumer choice. It seems increasingly likely that this solution could be chosen as CAFE stringency increases.
In terms of risks to employment, today's analysis focuses on employment as a function of estimated changes in vehicle price in response to different levels of standards and assumes that all cost increases to vehicle models are passed forward to consumers in the form of price increases for that vehicle model. As Section VII.C on today's sales and employment analysis indicates, the sales function of the CAFE model appears fairly accurate at predicting sales trends but does not presume that sales are particularly responsive to changes in vehicle price. We are concerned, however, that the sales model as it currently functions may miss two key points about potential future sales and employment effects.
First, the analysis does not account for the risk discussed above that manufacturers and dealers may not be able to continue keeping monthly new vehicle payments low, for a variety of reasons. Interest rates and inflation may rise; further lengthening loan terms may not be practical as they increase the period of time that the purchaser has negative equity (which has secondary impacts described above). While these may be not-entirely-negative things for the economy as a whole, they would create negative pressure on vehicle sales or employment associated with those sales.
Second, as the cost of compliance increases with CAFE stringency, it is possible that manufacturers may shift
There may be other adverse economic consequences besides those discussed above. If manufacturers seek to avoid losing sales by absorbing the additional costs of meeting higher CAFE standards, it is foreseeable that absorbing those costs would hurt company profits. If manufacturers choose that approach year after year to avoid losing market share, continued falling profits would lead to negative earnings reports and risks to companies' long-term viability. Thus, even if sales levels are maintained despite higher standards, it seems possible that industry could face adverse economic consequences.
More broadly, when gasoline prices stay relatively low (as they are expected to remain through the lifetime of nearly all vehicles covered by the rulemaking time frame), higher stringency standards are increasingly less cost-beneficial. As shown and discussed in Section VII.C, the analysis of consumer impacts shows that consumers recoup only a portion of the costs associated with increasing stringency under all of the alternatives. The fuel savings resulting from each of the alternatives is substantially less than the costs associated with the alternative, meaning that net savings for consumers improves as stringency decreases. Figure V-2 below illustrates this trend.
We recognize that this is a significantly different analytical result from the 2012 final rule, which showed the opposite trend. Using the projections available to the agencies for the 2012 rulemaking, all of the alternatives considered in that rulemaking were projected to have net savings to consumers and to society overall, and those net savings improved as stringency increased. Put simply, the result is different today from what it was in 2012 because the facts and the analysis are also different. While the differences in the facts and the analysis are described extensively in Section II above and in the PRIA accompanying this proposal, a few noteworthy ones include:
• In 2012, we assumed in the main analysis that manufacturers would add no more technology than needed for compliance, while today's analysis assumes logically that manufacturers will add technologies that pay for themselves within 2.5 years, consistent with manufacturer information on payback period.
• In 2012, we measured impacts of the post-2017 standards relative to compliance with pre-2017 standards, which meant that a lot of cost-effective technology attributable to the 2017-2020 standards was “counted” toward the 2025 standards.
• In 2012, we used analysis fleets based on 2008 or 2010 technology. Today's analysis uses a 2016-based analysis fleet.
These three points above mean that, overall, the current analysis fleet reflects the application of much additional technology than the 2012-final-rule analysis fleet reflected. When technology is used by the analysis fleet, it is “unavailable” to be used again for compliance with future standards because the same technology cannot be used twice (once by a manufacturer for its own reasons and then again by the model to simulate manufacturer responses to higher standards). Some of this would happen necessarily in an updated rulemaking because a later-in-time analysis fleet inevitably includes more technology; in this particular case, 2016 happened to be a somewhat technology-heavy year, and 2008 and 2010 (the fleets used in 2012) arguably did not reflect the state of technology in 2012 well.
Furthermore, readers should note the following changes:
• Estimates of effectiveness and cost are different for a number of technologies, as discussed in Section II above and in Chapter 6 of the PRIA, and indirect costs are determined using the RPE rather than the ICM;
• Fuel prices forecasts are considerably lower in AEO 2017 than they were in AEO 2012;
• The current analysis uses a rebound effect value of 20% instead of 10%;
• The current analysis newly accounts for price impacts on fleet turnover;
• The social cost of carbon is different and accounts only for domestic (not international) impacts;
• The current analysis does not attempt to purposely limit the appearance of potential safety effects, and the value of a statistical life is higher than in 2012.
All of these changes, together, mean that the standards under any of the regulatory alternatives (compared to the preferred alternative) are more expensive and have lower benefits than if they had been calculated using the inputs and assumptions of the 2012 analysis. This, in turn, helps lead the agency to a different conclusion about what standards might be maximum feasible in the model years covered by the rulemaking. NHTSA has thus both relied on new facts and circumstances in developing today's proposal and reasonably rejected prior facts and analyses relied on in the 2012 final rule.
By directing NHTSA to determine maximum feasible standards by considering the four factors, Congress recognized that “maximum feasible” may change over time as the agency assessed the relative importance of each factor.
NHTSA tentatively concludes that proposing CAFE standards that hold the MY 2020 curves for passenger cars and light trucks constant through MY 2026 would be the maximum feasible standards for those fleets and would fulfill EPCA's overarching purpose of energy conservation in light of the facts before the agency today and as we expect them to be in the rulemaking time frame. In the 2012 final rule that established CAFE standards for MYs 2017-2021, and presented augural CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025, NHTSA stated that “maximum feasible standards would be represented by the mpg levels that we could require of the industry before we reach a tipping point that presents risk of significantly adverse economic consequences.”
Today, the relative importance of the need of the U.S. to conserve energy has changed when compared to the beginning of the CAFE program and a great deal even since the 2012 rulemaking. As discussed above, the effectiveness of CAFE standards in reducing the demand for fuel combined with the increase in domestic oil production have contributed significantly to the current situation and outlook for the near- and mid-term future. The world has changed, and the need of the U.S. to conserve energy may no longer disproportionately outhweigh other statutorily-mandated considerations such as economic practicability—even when considering fuel savings from potentially more-stringent standards.
Thus, while more stringent standards may be possible, insofar as production-ready technology exists that the industry could physically employ to reach higher standards, it is not clear that higher standards are now economically practicable in light of current U.S. consumer needs to conserve energy. While vehicles can be built with advanced fuel economy-improving technology, this does not mean that consumers will buy the new vehicles that might be required to include such technology; that industry could continue to subsidize their production and sale; or that adverse economic consequences would not result from doing so. The effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government is minimal when the two agencies regulating the same aspects of vehicle performance are working together to develop those regulations. Therefore, NHTSA views the determination of maximum feasible standards as a question of the appropriateness of standards given that their need—either from the societal-benefits perspective in terms of risk associated with gasoline price shocks or other related catastrophes, or from the private-benefits perspective in terms of consumer willingness to purchase new vehicles with expensive technologies that may allow them to save money on future fuel purchases—seems likely to remain low for the foreseeable future.
When determining the maximum feasible standards, and in particular the economic practicability of higher standards, we also note that the proposed standards have the most positive effect on on-road safety as compared to the alternatives considered. The analysis indicates that, compared to the baseline standards defining the No-Action alternative, any regulatory alternatives under consideration would improve overall highway safety. Some of this estimated reduction is attributable to vehicles, themselves, being generally safer if they do not apply as much mass reduction to passenger cars as might be applied under the baseline standards. Additionally, the analysis estimates that the alternatives to the baseline standards would cause the fleet to turn over to newer and safer vehicles, which will also be more fuel efficient than the vehicles being replaced, more quickly than otherwise anticipated. Furthermore, the analysis estimates that the alternatives to the baseline standard would involve reduced overall demand for highway travel. As discussed above in Section II.F, and in Chapter 11 of the accompanying PRIA, most of the estimated overall improvement in highway safety from this proposal is attributable to reduced travel demand (attributable to the rebound effect) and accelerated turnover to safer vehicles. The trend in these results is clear, with the less stringent alternatives producing the greatest estimated improvement in highway safety and the proposed standards producing the most favorable outcomes from a highway safety perspective. These considerations bolster our determination that the proposed standards are maximum feasible based upon current and projected technology for the model years in question.
Standards that retain the MY 2020 curves through MY 2026 will save fuel
NHTSA recognizes that the Ninth Circuit has previously held that NHTSA must consider whether a “backstop” is necessary for the CAFE standards based on the EPCA factors in 49 U.S.C. 32902(f), given that the overarching purpose of EPCA is energy conservation.
As in 2010, NHTSA believes that additional backstop standards are not necessary. The current proposal is based on the agency's best current understanding of the need of the U.S. to conserve energy now and going forward, in light of changed circumstances and balanced against the other EPCA factors. We seek comment on how an additional backstop standard might be constructed that addresses the concerns raised in the 2010 final rule and that also does not obviate the agency's assessment of what CAFE levels would be maximum feasible.
We seek comment on all aspects of the above discussion.
Title II of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides for comprehensive regulation of mobile sources, authorizing EPA to regulate emissions of air pollutants from all mobile source categories. Under Section 202(a)
This proposed rule would implement 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” (CAA 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 (see section 202(a)(2)), lead time necessary for compliance (section 202(a)(2)), safety (see
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)). EPA has interpreted a similar statutory provision, CAA section 231, as follows:
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. See,
This interpretation was upheld as reasonable in
As noted above, EPA has found that the elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
In this section, EPA discusses the factors, data and analysis the Administrator has considered in the selection of the EPA's proposed revised GHG emission standards for MYs 2021 and later. EPA requests comment on all aspects of the proposed revised standards, including all Alternatives discussed in this section and section IV of this preamble.
As discussed in Sections I and V.B of this preamble, the primary purpose of Title II of the Clean Air Act is the protection of public health and welfare. EPA's light-duty vehicle GHG standards serve this purpose, as the GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles have been found by EPA to endanger public health and welfare (see EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding for on-highway motor vehicles), and the goal of these standards is to reduce these emissions that contribute to climate change.
CAA section 202(a)(2) states when setting emission standards for new motor vehicles, the standards “shall take effect after 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.” 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(2). That is, when establishing emissions standards, the Administrator must consider both the lead time necessary for the development of technology which can be used to achieve the emissions standards and the resulting costs of compliance on those entities that are directly subject to the standards.
The Administrator is not limited to consideration of the factors specified in CAA section 202(a)(2) when establishing standards for light-duty vehicles. In addition to feasibility and cost of compliance, the Administrator may (and historically has) considered such factors as safety, energy use and security, degree of reduction of both GHG and non-GHG pollutants,
The analysis of alternatives supports the Administrator's consideration of a range of alternative standards, from the existing standards to several alternatives that are less stringent. Specifically, the analysis supports the consideration of this range of alternative standards due to factors relevant under the EPA's authority pursuant to section 202(a), such as GHG emissions reductions, the necessary technology and associated lead-time, the costs of compliance on automakers, the impact on consumers with respect to cost and vehicle choice, and effects on safety. These factors, and the Administrator's proposed conclusion, after consideration of these factors, indicate that Alternative 1 represents the most appropriate standards for model years 2021 and beyond are discussed further below.
When EPA establishes emissions standards under section 202, it considers both what technologies are currently available and what technologies under development may become available. For today's proposal, EPA takes note of the analysis of the potential penetration into the future vehicle fleet of a wide range of technologies that both reduce CO
If the Administrator's consideration of the appropriateness of the standards were based solely on an assessment of technology availability and development, the Administrator might consider a wide range of standards to be appropriate. As shown in Sections VII.B.2 and VIII.B.1.b), and in PRIA Chapter 6.3.2, the projected penetration of technologies varies across the Alternatives presented in today's proposal. In general, the existing EPA standards are projected to result in the highest penetration of advanced technologies, in particular mild hybrid and strong hybrid technologies. Lower stringency Alternatives in general are projected to result in lower penetration of technologies, in particular for the mild hybrid and strong hybrid technologies, with the Preferred Alternative projected to result in the lowest level of electrification technology penetration. For example, the existing CO
EPA is required to consider costs in compliance before setting standards under section 202(a). Compared to the proposed standards, the EPA MY 2020-2025 standards announced in 2012 would cost the automotive industry an estimated total of $260 billion for the vehicles produced from MY 2016 through MY 2029, as shown in Table VIII-9. The additional per-vehicle technology costs for these previously-issued standards would be an estimated $2,260 in MY 2030, relative to the proposed standards, as shown in Table VIII-31 and Table VIII-32. Especially considering the change in reference point, these costs are considerably larger than EPA projected in 2012. Less stringent standards would be less burdensome. For example, compared to the proposed standards, Alternative 8 is projected to increase the per-vehicle cost by $1,510 (also in MY 2030), Alternative 6 increases the per-vehicle costs by $1,120, and Alternative 4 increases the per-vehicle costs by $490.
In addition to the costs to the automotive industry described above, which could be passed on to consumers, the analysis estimates increased costs for the consumer for changes in maintenance, financing, insurance, taxes, and other fees, as shown in Table VIII-31 and Table VIII-32. Considering these additional costs, EPA's previously-issued standards for MYs 2020-2025 would increase the projected per-vehicle costs in MY 2030 to an estimated $2,810 relative to the proposed standards, at a seven percent discount rate. The lower the increased stringency of the Alternative, the lower the total per-vehicle costs increase for the consumer. For example, Alternative 8 increases the total costs for the consumer on a per-vehicle basis by $2,270 (in MY 2030 compared to the costs of the proposed standards), Alternative 6 increases the costs to the consumer by $1,400 per-vehicle, and Alternative 4 increases the costs by $610 per-vehicle, all at a seven percent discount rate.
The analysis also projects the fuel savings for the vehicle owner over the life of the vehicles that come with lower levels of CO
As discussed above, the purpose of CO
As discussed previously, the EPA CO
At the same, the Administrator recognizes that automotive customers are a diverse group, that automotive companies do not all compete for the same segments of the market, and that increasing stringency in the standards can be expected to have different effects not just on certain vehicle segments but on certain manufacturers who have developed market strategies around those vehicle segments. The Administrator further recognizes that the diversity of the automotive customer base, combined with the analysis, raises concerns that the existing standards, if they are not adjusted, may not continue to fulfill the agency's goal of providing sufficient manufacturer flexibility to meet consumer needs and consumer choice preferences. The analysis projects that high penetrations of hybridized vehicles would be required to achieve the previously-issued EPA MYs 2021-2025 standards, specifically 37% mild hybrid penetration and 21% strong hybrids for the new vehicle fleet in MY 2030 (See Table VIII-24). For the passenger car fleet, the projection is 20% mild hybrid and 24% strong hybrid, and for the light-truck fleet 56% mild hybrid and 17% strong hybrid (See Table VIII-26 and Table VIII-28).
The Administrator is concerned that this projected level of hybridization, and the associated vehicle costs, arising from the existing standards may be too high from a consumer-choice perspective. While consumers have benefited from improvements over several decades in traditional vehicle technologies, such as advancements in
EPA notes that in the EPA's annual Manufacturer Performance Report on the compliance status of the automotive companies for the EPA GHG standards, EPA has reported that emissions trading has occurred a number of times in the past several years.
The automotive industry is highly competitive, and firms may be reluctant to base their future product strategy on an uncertain future credit availability. As can be seen in Table VIII-24, the analysis projects that lower levels of stringency (Alternatives 1-8) will require lower penetrations of mild hybrids and strong hybrids as compared to the 2012 EPA standards. For example, Alternative 8 projects a 34% penetration of mild and strong hybrid new vehicle sales in MY 2030, Alternative 6 projects a 22% penetration of these technologies, Alternative 4 projects an eight percent penetration, and Alternative 2 projects a four percent penetration of mild and strong hybrids in MY 2030. The EPA proposal, Alternative 1, projects a two percent penetration of mild hybrids and a two percent penetration of strong hybrids. These are levels similar to what auto manufacturers are selling today, suggesting that auto companies will be able to produce vehicles in the future that meet the full range of needs from consumers, thus preserving consumer choice.
EPA has long considered the effects on safety of its emission standards. See 45 FR 14496, 14503 (1980) (“EPA would not require a particulate control technology that was known to involve serious safety problems.”). More recently, EPA has considered the potential impacts of emissions standards on safety in past rulemakings on GHG standards, including the 2010 rule which established the 2012-2016 light-duty vehicle GHG standards, and the 2012 rule which previously established the 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle GHG standards. Indeed, section 202(a)(4)(A) specifically prohibits the use of an emission control device, system or element of design that will cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety. 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(4)(A).
The proposal's safety analysis projects that the 2012 EPA GHG standards for MYs 2021 and later would increase vehicle fatalities due to several reasons, namely increased vehicle prices resulting in delayed turnover of the vehicle fleet to newer, safer vehicles, increased fatalities and accidents due the rebound effect, and passenger car mass reduction. The assessment is discussed in Section 0 of this preamble and is detailed in Chapter 11 of the PRIA. The assessment projects that Alternative 1, which includes no change in the GHG emissions standards for MY 2021 and later, would yield the lowest number of vehicle fatalities. The analysis projects that, compared to the proposed standards, the previously-issued EPA standards would increase highway fatalities by 15,680 over the lifetime of vehicles produced through MY 2029 (See Table VII-89).
EPA views the potential impacts of emission standards on safety as an important consideration in determining the appropriate standards under section 202. The analysis projects adverse impacts on safety that are significantly different from the analysis included and considered in the 2012 rule which established the MY 2021-25 GHG standards and the 2016 Draft Technical Assessment Report. As discussed previously in this document, previous analyses limited the amount of mass reduction assumed for certain vehicles, while acknowledging that manufacturers would not necessarily choose to avoid mass reductions in the ways that the agencies assumed. The current analysis eliminates this constraint. The Administrator considers this difference to be a significant factor indicating that it is appropriate to consider a range of alternative revised standards, including Alternative 1, the preferred alternative.
As discussed in this section, the Administrator is required to consider a number of factors when establishing emission standards under Section 202(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act: The standards “shall take effect after 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.” 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(2). For this proposal, the Administrator has considered a wide range of potential emission standards (Alternatives 1 through 9), ranging from the existing EPA MY 2021 to MY 2025 standards, through a number of less stringent alternatives, including Alternative 1, the preferred Alternative. In addition to technological feasibility, lead-time, and the costs of compliance, the Administrator has also considered the impact of various standards on projected emissions reductions, consumer choice, and vehicle safety. The Administrator believes the existing EPA standards for MY 2021 and later, considered as a whole, are too stringent. The Administrator gives particular consideration to the high projected costs of the standards and the impact of the standards on vehicle safety. The analysis projects that, compared to the proposed standards, the previously-
The Administrator recognizes that Alternative 1 is projected to result in less CO
Accomplishing the goals of EPCA requires a set of uniform national fuel economy standards. Achieving this national standard requires the agencies to clearly discuss the extent to which state and local standards are expressly or impliedly preempted. As described herein, doing so is fundamental to the effectiveness of the new proposed set of fuel economy standards and to the critical importance of ensuring that the proposed Federal standards will constitute uniform national requirements, as Congress intended. This is also a fundamental reason that EPA is proposing the withdrawal of CAA preemption waivers granted to California relating to its GHG standards and Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate.
NHTSA has asserted the preemption of certain State emissions standards under EPCA a number of times in CAFE rulemakings dating back to 2002.
During the period between the NPRM and the final rule for MYs 2008-2011 light trucks, California separately requested that the EPA grant a waiver of CAA preemption, pursuant to Section 209 of that act, for its Greenhouse Gas Emissions regulation. If EPA granted the waiver, the CAA would under certain circumstances allow other states to adopt the same regulation pursuant to CAA Section 177, without being preempted by the CAA.
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in
In March 2008, EPA denied California's request for a waiver of CAA preemption.
A number of significant actions happened in quick succession at the beginning of the prior Administration. The first day post-inauguration, CARB petitioned for reconsideration of EPA's denial of a waiver of CAA preemption for California's GHG emissions standards for 2009 and later model year vehicles.
Less than two months later, in July 2009, EPA granted California's January 2009 request for reconsideration of the CAA preemption waiver denial, allowing California to establish its own GHG standards under the CAA.
In the subsequent MYs 2012-2016 CAFE rulemaking, NHTSA elected to defer consideration of EPCA preemption concerns because of the “consistent and coordinated Federal standards that apply nationally under the National Program.”
Present circumstances require NHTSA to address the issue of preemption. Despite past attempts by NHTSA and EPA to harmonize their respective and related regulations, the automotive industry and U.S. consumers now face regulatory uncertainty and increased costs, in no small part as a result of California's separate GHG emissions and ZEV program. NHTSA and EPA now seek to address these concerns with this rulemaking proposal, in the interest of regulatory certainty and the clear prospect for disharmony with conflicting state requirements.
EPCA's express preemption language is broad and clear:
When an average fuel economy standard prescribed under this chapter is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average fuel economy standard under this chapter.
Unlike the CAA, EPCA does not allow for a waiver of preemption. Nor does EPCA allow for states to establish or enforce an identical or equivalent regulation. In a further indication of Congress' intent to ensure that state regulatory schemes do not impinge upon EPCA's goals, the statute preempts state laws merely
The Supreme Court has interpreted similar statutory preemption language on several occasions, concluding that a state law “relates to” a Federal law if it “has a connection with or refers to” the subject of the Federal law.
One of Congress' objectives in EPCA was to create a national fuel economy standard, as clearly expressed in 49 U.S.C. 32919(a). In addition to the statute's plain language, which controls, the legislative history of that provision further confirms that Congress intended the provision to be broadly preemptive. As Congress debated proposals that would eventually become EPCA, the Senate bill
In enacting EISA, Congress did not repeal or amend EPCA's express preemption provision. Congress did, however, adopt a savings provision regarding the effect of EISA, and the amendments made by it:
We understand this statutory language to prevent EISA from limiting pre-existing authority or responsibility conferred by any law or from authorizing violation of any law. By the same token, the savings provision does not purport to expand pre-existing authority or responsibility. Thus, to the extent that EPCA's express preemption provision limited State authority and responsibility
This broad statutory preemption provision also necessarily governs state regulations over greenhouse gas emissions. GHG emissions, and particularly CO
EPCA has specified since its inception that compliance with CAFE standards is to be determined in accordance with test and calculation procedures established by EPA.
In mandating Federal fuel economy standards under EPCA, Congress has expressly preempted any state laws or regulations relating to fuel economy standards. A state requirement limiting tailpipe CO
Given that substantially reducing CO
Moreover, state standards that have the effect of regulating tailpipe CO
Likewise, a state law prohibiting
While EPCA expressly preempts state tailpipe CO
Similarly, state safety requirements may have a merely incidental impact on fuel economy and not relate to fuel economy. For instance, a state may mandate that children traveling in motor vehicles sit in child safety seats. Child safety seats add weight, and added weight has an impact on fuel economy. This impact is merely incidental, however, and does not directly relate to fuel economy standards.
Likewise, EPA has recognized that California may apply for a waiver of CAA preemption for vehicle emissions, which must be granted in certain circumstances. That said, EPCA does preempt any regulation limiting or prohibiting CO
Additionally, NHTSA notes that some suggest that insofar as carbon dioxide emissions cause global climate change, they indirectly worsen air quality by (1) increasing formation of smog, because the chemical process that forms ground-level ozone occurs faster at higher temperatures, and (2) increasing ragweed pollen, which can cause asthma attacks in allergy sufferers. Comment is sought on the extent to which the zero-tailpipe-emissions vehicles compelled to be sold by California's ZEV program reduce temperatures in the parts of California which are in non-attainment for ozone and which contain dense populations of allergy sufferers.
NHTSA invites comments on the extent to which a state standard can have some incidental impact on fuel economy or CO
When a state establishes a standard related to fuel economy, it does so in violation of EPCA's preemption statute and the standard is therefore void
Federal preemption is rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
While both the CAA and EPCA may preempt state laws limiting GHG emissions from motor vehicles, avoiding preemption (by waiver or otherwise) under one Federal law has no bearing on the other Federal law's preemptive effect. Section 209 of the CAA, which provides for the possible waiver of CAA preemption, makes clear that waiver of preemption under that statute operates only to relieve “application of this
The Vermont and California Federal district court decisions mentioned above involved challenges to a California Air Resources Board regulation establishing vehicle tailpipe GHG emission standards. The courts concluded that EPCA did not preempt such standards. In both decisions, the courts placed much weight upon the fact that California had petitioned EPA for a waiver of CAA preemption pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7543(b).
NHTSA and EPA do not agree with the district courts' express preemption analyses. EPCA preempts state laws and regulations “
The district court in
The court's premise that preemption provisions and principles do not apply is not based on precedent and is not supported by applicable law. In fact, the district court in
In their appeals of the
The
In support of its position, the
NHTSA believes that the district court misread EPCA to the point of turning it on its head. As discussed previously in this document, the “federal standards” definition discussed by the court existed in a self-contained scheme allowing manufacturers to petition NHTSA for modification of the fuel economy requirements
As discussed above in the “other standards” section of this rulemaking, NHTSA further believes that the district courts in
Because California standards to combat smog (not GHG regulations) “by reason of section 209(b)” could be considered to reduce federal fuel economy standards for three years, the district courts erroneously believed that state CO
NHTSA believes that the district courts in
The courts' view suggests an apparent misunderstanding of the underlying concerns and purposes of the requirement to consider other standards. There is no hint in the histories of either EPCA or EISA of an intent to give other standards special, much less superior, status under EPCA. The limited concerns and purpose were to ensure that any adverse effects of other standards on fuel economy considered in connection with the fuel economy standards. Those concerns are evident in a 1974 report, entitled “Potential for Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Improvement,” submitted to Congress by the Department of Transportation and EPA.
Notwithstanding that state standards limiting or prohibiting tailpipe CO
State regulation of CO
A critical objective of EPCA was to establish a single national program to regulate vehicle fuel economy. Congress, in passing EPCA, accomplished this objective by providing broad preemptive power established in the language codified at 49 U.S.C. 32919(a). Other congressional objectives underlying EPCA include avoiding serious adverse economic effects on manufacturers and maintaining a reasonable amount of consumer choice among a broad variety of vehicles. To guide the agency toward the selection of standards meeting these competing objectives, Congress specified four factors that NHTSA must consider in determining the maximum feasible level of average fuel economy and thus the level at which each standard must be set. As discussed above, since the only practical way to reduce tailpipe CO
For the same reasons, a state regulation
The Vermont and California district court decisions discussed above addressed conflict preemption. The
NHTSA disagreed with the two district court rulings at the time and continues to do so now. We note that the Vermont decision was appealed and briefed (including an Amicus Brief filed by the United States) prior to the stay and withdrawal of the litigation pursuant to the National Program arrangement described previously. NHTSA was not a party to those cases and is not bound by these decisions. Those erroneous decisions further support the need for NHTSA, as the agency with expert authority to interpret EPCA, to reaffirm its longstanding view of the preemption provision. Moreover, EPA, as the agency charged with administering the CAA, further determines that CAA waivers do not “federalize” state standards; therefore, state standards directly affecting fuel economy are subject to EPCA preemption even if there is a CAA waiver in place.
Another form of EPCA-preempted state regulation is a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate. Such laws require that a certain number or percentage of vehicles sold or delivered for sale within a state must be ZEVs, vehicles that produce neither smog-forming nor CO
California's ZEV mandate represents the most prominent example. California initially launched its ZEV mandate in 1990 to force the development and deployment of ZEVs to reduce smog-forming emissions. As California's Low Emission Vehicle and EPA's Tier 3 standards for criteria pollutant emissions have become increasingly stringent, the greater impact of California's ZEV mandate is the reduction of tailpipe GHG emissions. In its latest iteration the ZEV mandate no longer focuses on tailpipe smog forming emissions, a fact that CARB acknowledged in 2012 when applying for a waiver for its Advanced Clean Car Program, in stating “[t]here is no criteria emissions benefit from including the ZEV proposal in terms of vehicle (tank-to-wheel or TTW) emissions. The LEV III criteria pollutant fleet standard is responsible for those emission reductions in the fleet; the fleet would become cleaner regardless of the ZEV regulation because manufacturers would adjust their compliance response to the standard by making less polluting conventional vehicles.”
In its current configuration, the ZEV mandate requires manufacturers to generate credits based upon the number of vehicles delivered for retail sale. Vehicles earn varying amounts of ZEV credits depending upon technology and range, with some vehicles earning several credits. Manufacturers delivering for sale certain plug-in hybrid
The EPA has granted a waiver of CAA preemption under Section 209 of the CAA for California's Advanced Clean Car program, which includes California's ZEV mandate in addition to California's GHG regulation and LEV program. Nine other states have elected to adopt the ZEV mandate pursuant to Section 177 of the CAA
Accordingly, manufacturers must endeavor to design, produce, and deliver for sale significant numbers of vehicles that produce zero tailpipe CO
For the reasons outlined above, the California ZEV mandate is expressly and impliedly preempted by EPCA. While EPA had previously granted a waiver of CAA preemption for California's Advanced Clean Car Program, which includes the California ZEV mandate, this waiver has no effect on EPCA preemption of the ZEV mandate, as described above.
Given the importance of an effective, smooth functioning national program to regulate fuel economy and in light of the failure of two Federal district courts to consider NHTSA's analysis and carefully crafted position on preemption, NHTSA is considering taking the further step of summarizing that position in an appendix to be added to the parts in the Code of Federal Regulations setting forth the passenger car and light truck CAFE standards. That proposed regulatory text may be found at the end of this preamble.
NHTSA considers its proposed decision on the maximum feasible CAFE standards for MY 2021-2026 to be severable from its decision on EPCA preemption. Our proposed interpretation of 49 U.S.C. 32919 does not depend on our decision to finalize and a court's decision to uphold, the CAFE standards being proposed today under 49 U.S.C. 32902. NHTSA solicits comment on the severability of these actions.
EPA's regulation of new motor vehicles under Title II generally preempts state standards in the same subject area. Section 209(a) of the Act provides that:
“No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require certification, inspection or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.”
However, Title II affords special treatment to California: Subject to certain conditions, it may obtain from EPA a waiver of section 209(a) preemption. Specifically, section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the Administrator, after an opportunity for public hearing, to waive application of the prohibitions of section 209(a) to California, if California determines that its State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.
But California's ability to obtain a waiver is not unlimited. The statute provides that “no such waiver will be granted” if the Administrator finds
EPA is proposing to withdraw the January 9, 2013 waiver of preemption for California's Advanced Clean Car (ACC) program, Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) standards that are applicable to new model year (MY) 2021 through 2025. 78 FR 2145 (January 9, 2013.)
EPA therefore proposes to make findings under sections 209(b)(1)(B) and (C), either of which, as discussed above, independently triggers the statutory prohibition that “no such waiver will be granted.”
In addition, EPA proposes to conclude that States may not adopt California's GHG standards pursuant to section 177 because the text, context, and purpose of section 177 support the conclusion that this provision is limited to providing States the ability, under certain circumstances and with certain conditions, to adopt and enforce standards designed to control criteria pollutants to address NAAQS nonattainment.
In December 2005, California for the first time applied to EPA for a preemption waiver for GHG standards for MY 2009 and following. EPA denied this request in March 2008, relying on the second prong under section 209(b)(1)(B) and finding that California did not need those standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. In doing so, it noted that GHG standards, unlike prior standards for which California had requested and received waivers, are designed to address
As a general matter, EPA had historically interpreted section 209(b)(1)(B) to require EPA to consider whether, to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions in California, the state needs to have its own separate new motor vehicle program
In its 2008 waiver denial, EPA proceeded under two alternative constructions of the statute. Under both of these constructions, EPA determined that it was a reasonable interpretation of section 209(b)(1)(B) to require a separate review of California's need for standards designed to address a global air pollution problem and its effects, as distinct from other portions of California's new motor vehicle program, which up until then had been designed to address local or regional air pollution problems.
EPA in the 2008 waiver denial also applied a second, alternative construction of section 209(b)(1)(B). Under this alternative construction, EPA considered whether the impacts of climate change in California were sufficiently different enough from the impacts felt in the rest of the country such that California could be considered to need its GHG standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions—interpreting “compelling and extraordinary conditions” to mean environmental
The next year, following a presidential election and change in administration, EPA reconsidered the 2008 denial at California's request. On reconsideration, EPA reversed course and granted a waiver for California's GHG standards. 74 FR 32744 (July 9, 2009). In granting the waiver, EPA reverted to its historical interpretation of section 209(b)(1)(B), under which it had construed “compelling and extraordinary conditions” to mean environmental problems caused by conditions specific to California and/or effects experienced to a unique degree or in a unique manner in California, and under which it had evaluated California's need for its own, separate new motor vehicle program as a whole, rather than California's need for the specific aspects of its separate program for which it was seeking a waiver. In reverting to this determination, the EPA necessarily determined that it makes no difference whether California seeks a waiver to implement separate standards in response to its own specific, local air pollution problems, or whether California seeks a waiver to implement separate standards designed to address a global air pollution problem.
Since 2009, EPA has continued to adhere to this interpretation and application of section 209(b)(1)(B) when reviewing CARB's waiver requests, regardless of whether the waiver was requested with regard to standards designed to address traditional, local environmental problems, or global climate issues. In this proposal, the EPA proposes to determine that this reversion to the pre-2008 interpretation was not appropriate.
On January 9, 2013, EPA granted CARB's request for a waiver of preemption to enforce its ACC program regulations pursuant to CAA section 209(b). 78 FR 2112. The ACC program is a single coordinated package comprising regulations for ZEV and low-emission vehicles (LEV) regulations,
The ACC program regulations impose multiple and varying complex compliance obligations that have simultaneous, and sometimes overlapping, deadlines with each
Up until the ACC program waiver request, CARB had relied on the ZEV requirements as a compliance option for reducing criteria pollutants. Specifically, California first included the ZEV requirement as part of its first LEV program, which was then known as LEV I, that mandated a ZEV sales requirement that phased-in starting with the 1998 MY through 2003 MY. EPA issued a waiver of preemption for these regulations on January 13, 1993 (58 FR 4166 (January 13, 1993). Since this initial waiver of preemption, California has made multiple amendments to the ZEV requirements and EPA has subsequently granted waivers for those amendments. In the ACC program waiver request California also included a waiver of preemption request for ZEV amendments that related to 2012 MY through 2017 MY and imposed new requirements for 2018 MY through 2025 MY (78 FR 2118-9). Regarding the ACC program ZEV requirements, CARB's waiver request noted that there was no criteria emissions benefit in terms of vehicle (tank-to-wheel—TTW) emissions because its LEV III criteria pollutant fleet standard was responsible for those emission reductions.
Under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, EPA may reconsider a grant of a waiver of preemption and withdraw same if the Administrator makes any one of the three findings in section 209(b)(1)(A), (B) and (C). EPA's authority to reconsider and withdraw the grant of a waiver for the ACC program is implicit in section 209(b) given that the authority to revoke a grant of authority is implied in the authority for such a grant. Further support for EPA's authority is based on the legislative history for section 209(b), and the judicial principle that agencies possess inherent authority to reconsider their decisions.
When California submits a package of standards for EPA review pursuant to CAA section 209, EPA has long interpreted the statute as authorizing EPA to approve certain provisions and defer action on others. EPA believes this approach of partially approving submissions is implicit in section 209, particularly given the fact that EPA's evaluation of the technological feasibility of standards is best understood as in effect an evaluation of each standard for each year (
EPA is proposing to withdraw the grant of a waiver of preemption for California to enforce the GHG and ZEV standards of the ACC program for MY 2021-2025. EPA proposes to withdraw due to separate proposed findings under section 209(b)(1)(B), and (C).
Under section 209(b)(1)(B), EPA is proposing to find that California does not need its ZEV and GHG standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions in California. EPA is proposing to find that CARB does not need its own GHG and ZEV standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions in California given that “compelling and extraordinary conditions” mean environmental problems with causes and effects in California whereas GHG emissions present global air pollution problems. Additionally, California does not need the ZEV requirements to meet “compelling and extraordinary” conditions in California given that it allows manufacturers to generate credits in section 177 states as a means to satisfy those manufacturers' obligations to comply with the mandate that a certain percentage of their vehicles sold in California be ZEV (or be credited as such from sales in section 177 States).
Under section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA is proposing to find that CARB's GHG and ZEV standards are not consistent with section 202(a) based on changed circumstances since the January 2013 waiver. Specifically, the agency is, in this action, jointly proposing with NHTSA revisions to the Federal GHG and fuel economy standards based on proposed conclusions that the current (or augural) standards for MY 2021 through 2025 are not feasible. The proposed findings in this notice call into question CARB's projections and assumptions that underlay the technological feasibility findings for its waiver application for the GHG standards and thus the technological findings made by EPA in 2013 in connection with the grant of the waiver for the ACC program.
Similarly, with regard to ZEV standards, this notice also raises questions as to CARB's technological projections for ZEV-type technologies, which are a compliance option for both the ZEV mandate and GHG standards. As also previously discussed, above, CARB's ZEV regulations include the travel provision, which previously allowed manufacturers to earn credit for ZEVs sold in California (which, despite very slow ZEV sales, far outpaces any other State in these sales) to comply with credit requirements in section 177 States. Starting with MY 2018, this provision only applies to FCVs. When the travel provision was adopted, it was anticipated that by MY 2018, incentives of this type for BEV sales would no longer be necessary—
As described above, EPA is proposing to withdraw the waiver with respect to California's ZEV standards based on findings made pursuant to sections 209(b)(1)(B) and 209(b)(1)(C). EPA is proposing to withdraw the waiver with respect to California's GHG standards based on findings made under these three prongs as well as a separate finding made under section 209(b)(1)(B). Additionally, because the ZEV and GHG standards are closely interrelated, as demonstrated by the description above of their complex, overlapping compliance regimes, EPA is proposing to withdraw the waiver of preemption for ZEV standards under the second and third prongs of section 209(b)(1).
EPA believes that a finding made pursuant to any of the prongs of section 209(b)(1) is an independent and
Additionally, under CAA section 177, States that have designated nonattainment areas may opt to adopt and enforce standards that are identical to standards for which EPA has granted a waiver of preemption to California under CAA section 209(b). For States that have adopted the ZEV standards, the consequence of any final withdrawal action would be that they cannot implement these standards. (A State may not “make attempt[s] to enforce” California standards for which EPA has not waived preemption.
EPA is taking comments on all aspects of this proposal.
Here, the Administrator is proposing the withdrawal of a previously granted waiver of preemption. As discussed in section III.A. below, EPA proposes to find that there is clear and compelling evidence that California's protectiveness determination for its ZEV and GHG standards was arbitrary and capricious.
In
The court upheld the Agency's position that denying a waiver required “clear and compelling evidence” to show that proposed enforcement procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's standards.
With respect to the consistency finding,
As the agency has consistently explained, although
The role of the Administrator in considering California's application for a preemption waiver is to make a reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the waiver decision. The Administrator is required to “consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality and . . . thereafter assess such material evidence against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the waiver.”
As the court in
The instant action involves a decision whether to withdraw a previous grant of a waiver of preemption as compared to the initial evaluation of and decision whether to grant a waiver request from California. Specifically, as discussed in Section III, below, EPA is proposing findings for the withdrawal of preemption for CARB's ACC program under multiple criteria set out in section 209(b)(1). For example, EPA is proposing to withdraw the waiver based
Furthermore, that decision entails matters not only of policy judgment but of statutory interpretation, chief among which is the question of what is the appropriate inquiry under section 209(b)(1) when the Administrator is faced with a request for a preemption waiver for standards designed to address a global environmental problem. EPA has previously expressed the view that certain waiver requests might call for the Administrator to exercise judgment in determining California's need for particular standards, under section 209(b)(1)(B). Specifically, in the March 6, 2008 GHG waiver denial, EPA posited that it was neither required nor appropriate for the Agency to defer to California on the statutory interpretation of the Clean Air Act, including the issue of the confines or limits of state authority established by section 209(b)(1)(B), especially given that EPA's evaluation of California's request for a waiver to enforce GHG standards would relate to the limits of California's authority to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, instead of particular regulatory provisions that California was seeking to enforce. There, EPA construed section 209(b)(1)(B) as calling for either a consideration of environmental problems with
EPA is, thus, soliciting comments on the appropriate burden and standard of proof for withdrawing a previously issued waiver, taking into consideration that different approaches may apply to the various criteria of Section 209(b) and that EPA is not merely responsible for evaluating a request by California and comments thereon but is proposing withdrawal of a grant of preemption.
Section 209(b)(1)(B) provides that no waiver of section 209(a) preemption will be granted if the Administrator finds that California does not need “such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” EPA is proposing to withdraw the grant of waiver of preemption for CARB's GHG and ZEV standards for 2021 MY through 2025 MY based on a finding that California does not
Up until the 2008 GHG waiver denial, EPA had interpreted section 209(b)(1)(B) as requiring a consideration of California's need for a separate motor vehicle program designed to address local or regional air pollution problems and not whether the specific standard that is the subject of the waiver request is necessary to meet such conditions (73 FR 12156; March 6, 2008). Additionally, California typically would seek a waiver of particular aspects of its new motor vehicle program up until the ACC program waiver request. In the 2008 GHG waiver denial, which was a waiver request for only GHG emissions standards, however, EPA determined that its prior interpretation of section 209(b)(1)(B) was not appropriate for GHG standards because such standards are designed to address global air pollution problems in contrast to local or regional air pollution problems specific to and caused by conditions specific to California (73 FR 12156-60).
In the 2008 denial, EPA further explained that its previous reviews of California's waiver request under section 209(b)(1)(B) had usually been cursory and undisputed, as the fundamental factors leading to California's air pollution problems—geography, local climate conditions (like thermal inversions), significance of the motor vehicle population—had not changed over time and over different local and regional air pollutants. These fundamental factors applied similarly for all of California's air pollution problems that are local or regional in nature.
In the 2008 denial, EPA noted that atmospheric concentrations of GHG are substantially uniform across the globe, based on their long atmospheric life and the resulting mixing in the atmosphere. Therefore, with regard to atmospheric GHG concentrations and their environmental effects, the California-specific causal factors that EPA had considered when reviewing previous waiver applications under section
EPA then applied the reasoning laid out above to the GHG standards at issue in the 2008 waiver denial. Having limited the meaning of this provision to situations where the air pollution problem was local or regional in nature, EPA found that California's GHG standards did not meet this criterion.
In the 2008 waiver denial, EPA also applied an alternative interpretation where EPA would consider effects of the global air pollution problem in California in comparison to the effects on the rest of the country and again addressed the GHG standards separately from the rest of California's motor vehicle program. Under this alternative interpretation, EPA considered whether impacts of global climate change in California were sufficiently different from impacts on the rest of the country such that California could be considered to need its GHG standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. EPA determined that the waiver should be denied under this alternative interpretation as well.
Under section 209(b)(1)(B), EPA cannot grant a waiver request if EPA finds that California “does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” The statute does not define the phrase “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” and EPA considers the text of section 209(b)(1)(B), and in particular the meaning and scope of this phrase, to be ambiguous.
There are reasons to doubt that the phrase “such State standards” in section 209(b)(1)(B) is intended to refer to
Furthermore, reading the phrase “such State standards” as requiring EPA always and only to consider California's entire program in the aggregate limits the application of the criterion. Once EPA had determined that California needed its
The application of the phrase “such State standards” to state standards in the aggregate may have appeared more reasonable in the context of, for example, the 1984 PM waiver request, as opposed to the present context, as it relates to an application for a waiver with regard to GHG and ZEV standards.
Additional relevant legislative history supports a decision to examine California's need for GHG standards “in the context of global climate change.”
The EPA thus, believes that it is appropriate, in evaluating California's need for a waiver under section 209(b)(1)(B), to examine California's program as a whole to the extent that the problem is designed to address local or regional air pollution problems, particularly in light of the fact that the State's aggregate analysis under the root text of 209(1)(b)(1) is designed in part to permit California to adopt standards for some criteria pollutants that are less stringent than the Federal standards as a trade-off for standards for other criteria pollutants, where the levels of criteria pollutants addressed by California's standards are caused by conditions specific to California, and contribute primarily to environmental effects that are specific to California. EPA could also review California's GHG standards themselves even where, as in the instant ACC waiver package, the waiver request is for a single coordinated package of requirements and amendments that include standards designed to address global environmental effects caused by a globally distributed a globally distributed pollutant, such as GHGs as well as requirements for a compliance mechanism that could likely address both criteria pollutants and GHG emissions, which in this instance are the ZEV requirements. The EPA further notes that in keeping with its pre-2008 interpretation, its review of California's ACC program request under section 209(b)(1)(B) was cursory and undisputed, given that view that the fundamental factors leading to California's air pollution problems—geography, local climate conditions (like thermal inversions), significance of the motor vehicle population—had not changed over time and over different local and regional air pollutants. Additionally, as previously explained, up until the ACC program waiver, California had relied on the ZEV requirements as a compliance mechanism for criteria pollutants as compared to the ACC program, where CARB for the first time relied on it for GHG emissions reductions. Here, as previously explained, CARB specifically noted that that there was no criteria emissions benefit for its ZEV standards in terms of vehicle emissions because its LEV III criteria pollutant fleet standard was responsible for those emission
EPA is proposing to withdraw the waiver of preemption of the GHG and ZEV standards on two alternative grounds: (1) California “does not need” the standards “to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions,” under section 209(b)(1)(B); (2) even if California does have compelling and extraordinary conditions in the context of global climate change, California does not “need” these standards under section 209(b)(1)(B) because they will not meaningfully address global air pollution problems of the sort associated with GHG emissions. EPA is interpreting section 209(b)(1)(B) to permit the Agency to specifically review California's need for GHG standards—
In the alternative, EPA believes that even if California has compelling and extraordinary conditions, California does not need these standards under section 209(b)(1)(B) because they will not meaningfully address global air pollution problems like the kinds associated with GHG emissions. EPA believes that the number of motor vehicles in California bears no significant relationship to the levels of GHGs in California. This is because GHGs emissions from cars located in California are relatively small part of the global pool of GHG emissions. Thus, GHG emissions of motor vehicles in California do not affect California's conditions related to global climate change in any way different from emissions from vehicles and other pollution sources all around the world. Similarly, the GHG emissions from cars in California become one part of the global pool of GHG emissions that affect the atmosphere globally and are distributed throughout the world, resulting in basically a uniform global atmospheric concentration. This is in contrast to the kinds of motor vehicle emissions normally associated with ozone levels, such as VOCs and NO
In justifying the need for its GHG standards, CARB extensively described climatic conditions in California. “Record-setting fires, deadly heat waves, destructive storm surges, loss of winter snowpack—California has experienced all of these in the past decade and will experience more in the coming decades. California's climate—much of what makes the state so unique and prosperous—is already changing, and those changes will only accelerate and intensify in the future. Extreme weather will be increasingly common as a result of climate change. In California, extreme events such as floods, heat waves, droughts and severe storms will increase in frequency and intensity. Many of these extreme events have the potential to dramatically affect human health and well-being, critical infrastructure and natural systems” (78 FR 2129). CARB also provided a summary report on the third assessment from the California Climate Change Center (2012), which described dramatic sea level rises and increases in temperatures (78 FR 2129). These are similar, if not identical to, the justifications that EPA addressed and rejected in the 2008 GHG waiver denial. Notably, in the 2008 denial EPA observed that some of these events—increased temperatures, heat waves, sea level rises, wildfires—were also
EPA believes that any effects of global climate change would apply to the nation, indeed the world, in ways similar to the conditions noted in California.
As also previously indicated, California is to demonstrate “compelling and extraordinary circumstances
The ACC program waiver contained references to the potential GHG benefits or attributes of CARB's GHG and ZEV standards program (78 FR 2114, 2130-2131). CARB repeatedly touted the benefits of both the ZEV and GHG standards as it related to the GHG emissions reductions in California. In one instance, CARB stated that the ACC program regulations for the 2017 through 2025 MYs were designed to respond to California's identified goals of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 and in the near term to reduce GHG levels to 1990 levels by 2020 (78 FR 2114, 2130-31). CARB's Resolution 12-11, (January 26, 2012).
Under section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA cannot grant a waiver request if EPA finds that California's “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.”
As previously explained, the MY 2021 through 2025 Federal and CARB GHG standards were the results of collaboration between CARB and EPA. The respective standards are equally stringent and have the same lead time. (78 FR 2135) CARB's GHG standards also rely on emerging technology that are similar to the ones for the Federal GHG standards, including ZEV-type technologies (78 FR 2136-7). Most importantly, CARB's feasibility finding, and EPA's decision to grant the waiver, noted a “deemed to comply” provision that allowed manufacturers of advanced technology vehicles to comply with CARB GHG standards through compliance with the Federal GHG standards as well as utilize the EPA accounting provisions for these vehicles (78 FR 2136). Revisions to the Federal GHG standards, in light of the technology development and availability assessment for those standards, would therefore, implicate the technological feasibility findings that served as the underpinning for EPA's grant of CARB's GHG standards waiver.
Further, because EPA believes that the ZEV and GHG standards are intertwined as shown in some of the program complexities discussed above, EPA believes that this provides further justification for withdrawing the waiver of preemption for both standards, under section 209(b)(1)(C). For example, in the waiver request CARB stated that the “ZEV regulation must be considered in conjunction with the proposed LEV III amendments. Vehicles produced as a result of the ZEV regulation are part of a manufacturer's light-duty fleet and are therefore included when calculating fleet averages for compliance with the LEV III GHG amendments.” CARB's Initial Statement of Reasons at 62-63, which is in the docket for the waiver decision.
Similarly, with regard to CARB's ZEV standards, EPA is now cognizant that certain ZEV sales requirements mandated by CARB are technologically infeasible within the provided lead-time for purposes of CAA 209(b)(1)(C). Specifically, today's proposal also raises questions as to CARB's technological projections for ZEV-type technologies, which are a compliance option for both the ZEV mandate and GHG standards. CARB's ZEV regulations also include the travel provision, which allowed manufacturers of ZEVs sold in California to count toward compliance in section 177 States, but which was limited to FCVs starting with MY 2018. The manufacturer credit system was premised on ever increasing numbers of ZEVs that would be sold in each of the section 177 States. Challenges for ZEVs in these States include lack of market penetration, consumer demand levels that are lower than projections at the time of the grant of the ACC waiver in 2013, and lack of or slow development of necessary infrastructure. This in turn means that manufacturers in section 177 States are unlikely to meet CARB's projections that their sales in those States will generate the necessary credits as CARB projected to support the ZEV sales requirement mandate in the lead time provided.
Today's proposal indicates challenges for the adoption of all ZEV technologies such as lack of required infrastructure and a lower level of consumer demand for FCVs in both California and individual section 177 States, and EPA believes it is now unlikely that manufacturers will be able to generate requisite credits in section 177 States in the lead time provided. In short, EPA is now of the view that CARB's projections and assumptions that underlay its ACC program and its 2013 waiver application were overly ambitious and likely will not be realized within the provided lead time. Thus, EPA is also proposing to find that CARB's ZEV standards for MY 2021 through 2025 are not technologically feasible and therefore, are not consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C).
In prior waivers of Federal preemption, under section 209(b), EPA has explained that California's standards are not consistent with section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet those requirements, given appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time. California's accompanying enforcement procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the Federal and California test procedures were inconsistent.
EPA also relies on two key decisions handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for guidance regarding the lead time requirements of section 202(a):
Given this time frame [a 1980 decision on 1985 model year standards], we feel that there is
With regard to appropriate lead time in the section 209(b) waiver context, EPA considers whether adequate control technology is presently available or already in existence and in use at the time CARB adopts standards for which it seeks a waiver. If adequate control technology is not presently available, EPA determines whether CARB has provided adequate lead time for the development and application of necessary technology prior to the effective date of applicable standards. As explained above, considerations under this criterion include adequacy of lead time, technological feasibility and costs as well as test procedures consistency. Notably, there are similar considerations for Federal standards setting under section 202(a). For example, in adopting the MY 2017 through 2025 GHG standards, section 202(a) required and EPA found in October 2012 that the MY 2017 through 2025 GHG standards are feasible in the lead time provided and that technology costs were reasonable (77 FR 62671-73; October 15, 2012). Even where technology is available, EPA can consider hardships that could result to manufacturers from either a short lead time or not granting a compliance extension.
Where CARB relies on emerging technology (
EPA will make a consistency finding where CARB provides for longer lead time in instances in of emerging or unavailable technology at the time CARB adopts its standards. In sum, EPA's review of CARB's technological feasibility involves both evaluations of predictions for future technological advances and presently available technology. EPA also believes that a longer lead time would allow CARB “modify its standards if the actual future course of technology diverges from expectation.”
As previously mentioned above, costs considerations are also tied to the compliance timing for a particular standard and are thus, relevant for purposes of the consistency determination called for by the third waiver criterion under section 209(b)(1)(C). In evaluating compliance costs for CARB standards, EPA considers the actual cost of compliance in the time provided by applicable California regulations. Compliance costs “
In terms of waiver practice, EPA has previously taken the position that technology control costs must be excessive for EPA to find that California's standards are inconsistent with section 202(a).
EPA cannot grant a waiver, under section 209(b)(1)(C), if California's “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section [202(a)].” Relevant legislative history from the 1967 CAA amendments indicates that EPA is to grant a waiver unless it finds that there is “inadequate time to permit the development of the necessary technology given the cost of compliance within that time period.” This is similar to language found in section 202(a), which is discussed below. Additional relevant legislative history indicates that EPA is not to grant a waiver where “California standards are not consistent with the intent of section 202(a) of the Act, including economic practicability and technological feasibility.” The cross-reference to section 202(a) is an indication of the role EPA plays in reviewing California's waiver request under section 209(b)(1)(C).
With regard to section 202(a), standards promulgated under section 202(a)(1) “shall take effect after 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). Pertinent legislative history from the 1970 and 1977 amendments indicate that EPA “was expected to press for the development and application of improved technology rather than be limited by that which exists today.” S. Rep. No. 1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 24 (1970); H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 273 (1977). In sum, EPA believes that section 202(a) allows for a projection of lead time as to future technological developments.
As previously mentioned, today's proposal now cast significant doubts on EPA's predictions for future and timely availability of emerging technologies for compliance with Federal GHG standards for MY 2021-2025. It highlights in
With regard to the ZEV standards, CARB's waiver request contained projections and explanations for ZEVs that included projected sales of FCVs in both California and section 177 States. Specifically, CARB's projections, at the time, were that nearly every vehicle manufacturer would be introducing BEVs and PHEVs within the next one to three years, and five manufacturers would be commercially introducing FCVs by 2015.
Technological challenges may serve as basis for either a future compliance deadline extension or modifications to the federal GHG standards that would be consistent with today's proposal and would then raise questions as to CARB's predictions and projections of technological feasibility and costs. At this time, however, CARB has shown no indication that it intends to either extend the compliance deadline for or modify its standards by providing additional compliance flexibilities. EPA believes it is reasonable, therefore, to consider any expected hardship that would be posed to manufacturers if EPA does not withdraw CARB's waiver.
Finally, the agency is acting on the likelihood of increased compliance costs as shown in today's proposal. (These are costs that will likely be passed on to consumers in most instances.). As previously explained, because compliance technologies that California relied on for both ZEV and GHG standards are similar to the technologies considered by EPA in evaluating the feasibility of standards for MYs 2021 through 2025, economies of scale were expected to drive down both manufacturing and technology costs. The EPA, however, now expects that manufacturers may no longer be willing to commit to investments for a limited market as compared to the broader national market, which was contemplated by the federal and California GHG standards.
Today's proposal also confirms slower pace of development of ZEV technology and differences in projected manufacturing costs in states that have adopted these standards under section 177 as well as lower consumer demands for FCVs. The EPA also now expects that the pace of technological developments as it relates to infrastructure for FCVs will slow down.
As previously mentioned EPA is proposing to withdraw the grant of waiver for both standards on grounds that they are not consistent with section 202(a). In light of all the foregoing, the agency finds that is necessary and reasonable to reconsider the grant of waiver for CARB's GHG and ZEV standards. EPA requests comments on all aspects of this proposal, especially specific costs for the ZEV requirements as it relates to MYs 2021 through 2025.
As explained above, CAA section 177 provides that other States, under certain circumstances and with certain conditions, may “adopt and enforce” standards that are “identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been granted for [a given] model year.” 42 U.S.C. 7507. The EPA proposes to determine that this section does not apply to CARB's GHG standards.
In this regard, the EPA notes that the section is titled “New motor vehicle emission standards in nonattainment areas” and that its application is limited to “any State which has [state implementation] plan provisions approved under this part”—
Therefore, the text, context, and purpose of section 177 suggest, and the EPA proposes to conclude, that it is limited to providing States the ability, under certain circumstances and with certain conditions, to adopt and enforce standards identical to those for which California has obtained a waiver—provided that those standards are designed to control criteria pollutants to address NAAQS nonattainment. EPA solicits comment on how and when this new interpretation should be adopted and implemented, if finalized (
EPA considers its proposed decision on the appropriate federal standards for light duty greenhouse gas vehicles for MY 2021-2025 to be severable from its decision on withdrawing the ACC waiver, particularly with respect to the requirements of CAA 209(b)(1)(B). Our proposed interpretation of CAA 209(b)(1)(B), and our evaluation of the ACC waiver under that provision, does not depend on our decision to finalize, and a court's decision to uphold, the light duty vehicles standards being proposed today under CAA 202(a). EPA solicits comment on the severability of these actions, particularly with respect to the other criteria of CAA 209(b).
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA provides in which Federal courts of appeal petitions of review of final actions by EPA must be filed. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the Agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) such action is locally or regionally applicable, but “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Separate and apart from whether a court finds this action to be locally or regionally applicable, the Administrator is proposing to find that any final action resulting from this rulemaking is based on a determination of “nationwide scope or effect” within the meaning of section 307(b)(1).
This decision, when finalized, will affect persons in California and those manufacturers and/or owners/operators of new motor vehicles nationwide who must comply with California's new motor vehicle requirements. For instance, manufacturers may generate credits in section 177 states as a means to satisfy those manufacturers' obligations to comply with the mandate that a certain percentage of their vehicles sold in California be ZEV (or be credited as such from sales in section 177 States). In addition, because other states have adopted aspects of California's ACC program this decision would also affect those states and those persons in such states, which are located in multiple EPA regions and federal circuits. For these reasons, EPA determines and finds for purposes of section 307(b)(1) that any final withdrawal action would be of national applicability, and also that such action would be based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1). Pursuant to section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judicial review of any final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section 307(b)(2).
New CAFE and CO
This section summarizes various impacts of the preferred alternative (
Today's analysis presents results for individual model years in two different ways. The first way is similar to past rulemakings and shows how manufacturers could respond in each model year under the proposed standards and each alternative covering MYs 2021/2-2026. The second, expanding on the information provided in past rulemakings, evaluates incremental impacts of new standards proposed for each model year, in turn. In past rulemaking analyses, NHTSA modeled year-by-year impacts under the aggregation of standards applied in all model years, and EPA modeled manufacturers' hypothetical compliance with a single model years' standards in that model year. Especially considering multiyear planning effects, neither approach provides a clear basis to attribute impacts to specific standards first introduced in each of a series of model years. For example, of the technology manufacturers applied in MY 2016, some would have been applied even under the MY 2014 standards, and some were likely applied to position manufacturers toward compliance with (including credit banking to be used toward) MY 2018 standards. Therefore, of the impacts attributable to the model year 2016
Additionally, today's analysis includes impacts on new vehicle sales volumes and the use (
Effects were evaluated from four perspectives: The social perspective, the manufacturer perspective, the private perspective, and the physical perspective. The social perspective focuses on economic benefits and costs, setting aside economic transfers such as fuel taxes but including economic externalities such as the social cost of CO
This analysis does not explicitly identify “co-benefits” from its proposed action to change fuel economy standards, as such a concept would include all benefits other than cost savings to vehicle buyers. Instead, it distinguishes between private benefits—which include economic impacts on vehicle manufacturers, buyers of new cars and light trucks, and owners (or users) of used cars and light trucks—and external benefits, which represent indirect benefits (or costs) to the remainder of the U.S. economy that stem from the proposal's effects on the behavior of vehicle manufacturers, buyers, and users. In this accounting framework, changes in fuel use and safety impacts resulting from the proposal's effects on the number of used vehicles in use represent an important component of its private benefits and costs, despite the fact that previous analyses have failed to recognize these effects. The agency's presentation of private costs and benefits from its proposed action clearly distinguishes between those that would be experienced by owners and users of cars and light trucks produced during previous model years and those that would be experienced by buyers and users of cars and light trucks produced during the model years it would affect. Moreover, it clearly separates these into benefits related to fuel consumption and those related to safety consequences of vehicle use. This is more meaningful and informative than simply identifying all impacts other than changes in fuel savings to buyers of new vehicles as “co-benefits.”
For the social perspective, the following effects for model years through 2029 as operated throughout those vehicles' useful lives are summarized:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For the manufacturer perspective, the following effects for the aggregation of model years 2017-2029 are summarized:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For the private perspective, the following effects for the MY 2030 fleet are summarized:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For the physical perspective, the following effects for model years through 2029 as operated throughout those vehicles' useful lives are summarized:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Below, this section tabulates results for each of these four perspectives and does so separately for the proposed CAFE and CO
While the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires NHTSA to prepare an EIS documenting estimating environmental impacts of the regulatory alternatives under consideration in CAFE rulemakings, NEPA does not require EPA to do so for EPA rulemakings. CO
In terms of all estimated impacts, including estimated costs and benefits, results of today's analysis are different for CAFE and CO
As mentioned above, analysis was conducted to examine the sensitivity of results to changes in key inputs. Following the detailed consideration of potential environmental impacts, this section concludes with a tabular summary of results of this sensitivity analysis.
As mentioned above, impacts are presented from two different perspectives for today's proposal. From either perspective, overall impacts are the same. The first perspective, following the approach taken by NHTSA in past CAFE rulemakings, examines impacts of the overall proposal—
As mentioned above, impacts are presented from two different perspectives for today's proposal. From either perspective, overall impacts are the same. The first perspective, taken above in VI.A, examines impacts of the overall proposal —
Today's proposal directly involves the fuel economy and average CO
Today's proposal does
Following decades of successful regulation of criteria pollutants and air toxics, modern vehicles are already vastly cleaner than in the past, and it is expected that new vehicles will continue to improve. For example, the following chart shows trends in new vehicles' emission rates for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO
Because new vehicles are so much cleaner than older models, it is expected that under any of the alternatives considered here for fuel economy and CO
While the differences in fuel use and CO
As indicated, for most of the coming two decades, it is estimated that, even as fuel consumption and CO
As the analysis affirms, while fuel economy and CO
The remainder of this section summarizes the impacts on fuel consumption and emissions for both the proposed CAFE standards and the proposed CO
Section V discusses, among other things, the need of the Nation to conserve energy, providing context for the estimated impacts on national-scale fuel consumption summarized below. Corresponding to these changes in fuel consumption, the agencies estimate that today's proposal will impact CO
Although this proposal focuses on standards for fuel economy and CO
Today's analysis reflects the combined result of several underlying impacts, all discussed above. CAFE and CO
In addition to affecting fuel consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases, this rule would influence “non-GHG” pollutants,
As shown in Table VII-80, it is estimated in 2025 the light duty vehicle CAFE scenarios would result in reductions of NO
In 2035, Table VII-82 shows decreases in total CO result from all CAFE scenarios, while NO
As shown in Table VII-84 through Table VII-87, it is estimated that the proposed program would result in small changes for air toxic emissions compared to total U.S. inventories across all sectors. In 2025, it is estimated the scenarios evaluated would reduce total acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, butadiene, and formaldehyde, toxics as compared to the baseline. This result is caused by greater VMT rebound miles assumed in the augural scenario and fewer rebound VMT in scenarios 1-8, and fewer older vehicles in the scenarios as compared to the baseline. Similarly, in 2035, acetaldehyde, benzene, butadiene, acrolein, and formaldehyde would all be reduced as compared to the baseline. As is the case with criteria emissions, upstream toxic emissions generally increase in the evaluated scenarios as compared to the baseline because of the greater amount of gasoline and diesel being refined and distributed.
For the downstream analysis, emission factors in grams per mile for VOC, CO, NO
For the purposes of this emission analysis, it is assumed that all gasoline in the timeframe of the analysis is blended with 10% ethanol (E10). While electric vehicles have zero tailpipe
To determine the impacts of increased fuel production on upstream emissions, the impact of increased gasoline consumption by light-duty vehicles on the extraction and transportation of crude oil, refining of crude oil, and distribution and storage of finished gasoline was estimated. To assess the resulting increases in domestic emissions, the fraction of increased gasoline consumption that would be supplied by additional domestic refining of gasoline, and the fraction of that gasoline that would be refined from domestic crude oil was estimated. Using NEMS, it was estimated that 50% of increased gasoline consumption would be supplied by increased domestic refining and that 90% of this additional refining would use imported crude petroleum. Emission factors for most upstream emission sources are based on the DOE Argonne National Laboratory's GREET 2017 model,
Emission factors for electricity upstream emissions were also based on GREET 2017. GREET allows the user to either select a region of the country for the electricity upstream emissions or to use the U.S. average of electricity emissions. The regional emission factors reflect the specific mix of fuels used to generate electricity in the selected region. The U.S. mix provides an average of electricity-related emissions (in grams per million Btu) in the U.S. in a given calendar year. The GREET 2017 U.S. mix emission factors were used for the analysis. In order to capture projected changes in upstream emissions over time, upstream emission factors for gasoline, diesel, and electricity were taken from the GREET 2017 model in five year increments, beginning in 1995 and ending in 2040.
For the downstream analysis of emissions, there are a number of uncertainties associated with the method, such as: Emission factors are based on samples of tested vehicles and these samples may not represent average emissions for the full in-use fleet; and there is considerable uncertainty in estimating total vehicle use (VMT). For the upstream analysis of emissions, there are uncertainties related to the projection of emissions associated with fossil fuel extraction, refining, and mode split for transportation of fuels. In addition, projections for electricity-related upstream emissions are based on assumptions about the fuels and technologies used to generate electricity which may not represent actual conditions through 2050.
This section discusses health effects associated with exposure to some of the criteria and air toxic pollutants impacted by the proposed vehicle standards.
Particulate matter is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles range in size from those smaller than 1 nanometer (10-9 meter) to more than 100 micrometers (µm, or 10-6 meter) in diameter (for reference, a typical strand of human hair is 70 µm in diameter and a grain of salt is approximately 100 µm). Atmospheric particles can be grouped into several classes according to their aerodynamic and physical sizes. Generally, the three broad classes of particles include ultrafine particles (UFPs, generally considered as particulates with a diameter less than or equal to 0.1 µm [typically based on physical size, thermal diffusivity or electrical mobility]), “fine” particles (PM
Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions; the former are often referred to as “primary” particles, and the latter as “secondary” particles. Particle concentration and composition varies by time of year and location, and, in addition to differences in source emissions, is affected by several weather-related factors, such as temperature, clouds, humidity, and wind. A further layer of complexity comes from particles' ability to shift between solid/liquid and gaseous phases, which is influenced by concentration and meteorology, especially temperature.
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions (
Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM is associated with a broad range of health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in the 2009 Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA), which was used as the basis of the 2012 NAAQS.
EPA has concluded that “a causal relationship exists” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM
As summarized in the final rule promulgating the 2012 PM NAAQS, and discussed extensively in the 2009 PM ISA, the available scientific evidence significantly strengthens the link between long- and short-term exposure to PM
The 2009 PM ISA examined the association between cardiovascular effects and long-term PM
As detailed in the 2009 PM ISA, extended analyses of seminal epidemiological studies, as well as more recent epidemiological studies conducted in the U.S. and abroad, provide strong evidence of respiratory-related morbidity effects associated with long-term PM
The body of scientific evidence detailed in the 2009 PM ISA is still limited with respect to associations between long-term PM
In addition to evaluating the health effects attributed to short- and long-term exposure to PM
For PM
For UFPs, the 2009 PM ISA concluded that the evidence was “suggestive of a causal relationship” between short-term exposures and cardiovascular effects, including changes in heart rhythm and vasomotor function (the ability of blood vessels to expand and contract). It also concluded that there was evidence “suggestive of a causal relationship” between short-term exposure to UFPs and respiratory effects, including lung function and pulmonary inflammation, with limited and inconsistent evidence for increases in ED visits and hospital admissions. Scientific evidence was “inadequate to infer a causal relationship” between short-term exposure to UFPs and additional health effects including premature mortality as well as long-term exposure to UFPs and all health outcomes evaluated.
The 2009 PM ISA conducted an evaluation of specific groups within the general population potentially at increased risk for experiencing adverse health effects related to PM exposures.
Ground-level ozone pollution is typically formed through reactions involving VOC and NO
The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is complex. Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed in a cyclical set of chemical reactions, many of which are sensitive to temperature and sunlight. When ambient temperatures and sunlight levels remain high for several days and the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and its precursors can build up and result in more ozone than typically occurs on a single high-temperature day. Ozone and its precursors can be transported hundreds of miles downwind from precursor emissions, resulting in elevated ozone levels even in areas with low local VOC or NO
This section provides a summary of the health effects associated with exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone.
For short-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that respiratory effects, including lung function decrements, pulmonary inflammation, exacerbation of asthma, respiratory-related hospital admissions, and mortality, are causally associated with ozone exposure. It also concludes that cardiovascular effects, including decreased cardiac function and increased vascular disease, and total mortality are likely to be causally associated with short-term exposure to ozone, and that evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between central nervous system effects and short-term exposure to ozone.
For long-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that respiratory effects, including new onset asthma, pulmonary inflammation and injury, are likely to be causally related with ozone exposure. The Ozone ISA characterizes the evidence as suggestive of a causal relationship for associations between long-term ozone exposure and cardiovascular effects, reproductive and developmental effects, central nervous system effects and total mortality. The evidence is inadequate to infer a causal relationship between chronic ozone exposure and increased risk of lung cancer.
Finally, inter-individual variation in human responses to ozone exposure can result in some groups being at increased risk for detrimental effects in response to exposure. In addition, some groups are at increased risk of exposure due to their activities, such as outdoor workers or children. The Ozone ISA identified several groups that are at increased risk for ozone-related health effects. These groups are people with asthma, children and older adults, individuals with reduced intake of certain nutrients (
Oxides of nitrogen (NO
The most recent review of the health effects of oxides of nitrogen completed by EPA can be found in the 2016 Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria (Oxides of Nitrogen ISA).
In evaluating a broader range of health effects, the 2016 ISA for Oxides of Nitrogen concluded evidence is “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship” between short-term NO
The 2016 ISA for Oxides of Nitrogen concluded that people with asthma, children, and older adults are at increased risk for NO
Sulfur dioxide (SO
Information on the health effects of SO
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas emitted from combustion processes. Nationally, particularly in urban areas, the majority of CO emissions to ambient air come from mobile sources.
Information on the health effects of CO can be found in the January 2010 Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide (CO ISA) associated with the 2010 evaluation of the NAAQS.
Controlled human exposure studies of subjects with coronary artery disease show a decrease in the time to onset of exercise-induced angina (chest pain) and electrocardiogram changes following CO exposure. In addition, epidemiologic studies observed associations between short-term CO exposure and cardiovascular morbidity, particularly increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions for coronary heart disease (including ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and angina). Some epidemiologic evidence is also available for increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for congestive heart failure and cardiovascular disease as a whole. The CO ISA concludes that a causal relationship is likely to exist between short-term exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity. It also concludes that available data are inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exists between long-term exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity.
Animal studies show various neurological effects with in-utero CO exposure. Controlled human exposure studies report central nervous system and behavioral effects following low-level CO exposures, although the findings have not been consistent across all studies. The CO ISA concludes the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship with both short- and long-term exposure to CO and central nervous system effects.
A number of studies cited in the CO ISA have evaluated the role of CO exposure in birth outcomes such as preterm birth or cardiac birth defects. There is limited epidemiologic evidence of a CO-induced effect on preterm births and birth defects, with weak evidence for a decrease in birth weight. Animal toxicological studies have found perinatal CO exposure to affect birth weight, as well as other developmental outcomes. The CO ISA concludes the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between long-term exposures to CO and developmental effects and birth outcomes.
Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of associations between short-term CO concentrations and respiratory morbidity such as changes in pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms, and hospital admissions. A limited number of epidemiologic studies considered copollutants such as ozone, SO
Finally, the CO ISA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term concentrations of CO and mortality. Epidemiologic evidence suggests an association exists between short-term exposure to CO and mortality, but limited evidence is available to evaluate cause-specific mortality outcomes associated with CO exposure. In addition, the attenuation of CO risk estimates which was often observed in copollutant models contributes to the uncertainty as to whether CO is acting alone or as an indicator for other combustion-related pollutants. The CO ISA also concludes that there is not likely to be a causal relationship between relevant long-term exposures to CO and mortality.
Diesel exhaust consists of a complex mixture composed of particulate matter, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, carbon monoxide, nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds and numerous low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons. A number of these gaseous hydrocarbon components are individually known to be toxic, including aldehydes, benzene and 1,3-butadiene. The diesel particulate matter present in diesel exhaust consists mostly of fine particles (<2.5 µm), of which a significant fraction is ultrafine particles (< 0.1 µm). These particles have a large surface area which makes them an excellent medium for adsorbing organics, and their small size makes them highly respirable. Many of the organic compounds present in the gases and on the particles, such as polycyclic organic matter, are individually known to have mutagenic and carcinogenic properties.
Diesel exhaust varies significantly in chemical composition and particle sizes between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, acceleration, deceleration), and fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel). Also, there are emissions differences between on-road and nonroad engines because the nonroad engines are generally of older technology. After being emitted in the engine exhaust, diesel exhaust undergoes dilution as well as chemical and physical changes in the atmosphere. The lifetime for some of the compounds present in diesel exhaust ranges from hours to days.
In EPA's 2002 Diesel Health Assessment Document (Diesel HAD), exposure to diesel exhaust was classified as likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures, in accordance with the revised draft 1996/1999 EPA cancer guidelines.
In the absence of a cancer unit risk, the Diesel HAD sought to provide additional insight into the significance of the diesel exhaust cancer hazard by estimating possible ranges of risk that might be present in the population. An exploratory analysis was used to characterize a range of possible lung cancer risk. The outcome was that environmental risks of cancer from long-term diesel exhaust exposures could plausibly range from as low as 10-5 to as high as 10-3. Because of uncertainties, the analysis acknowledged that the risks could be lower than 10-5, and a zero risk from diesel exhaust exposure could not be ruled out.
Non-cancer health effects of acute and chronic exposure to diesel exhaust emissions are also of concern to EPA. EPA derived a diesel exhaust reference
It is important to note that the Diesel HAD also briefly summarizes health effects associated with ambient PM and discusses EPA's then-annual PM
Since 2002, several new studies have been published which continue to report increased lung cancer risk with occupational exposure to diesel exhaust from older engines. Of particular note since 2011 are three new epidemiology studies which have examined lung cancer in occupational populations, for example, truck drivers, underground nonmetal miners and other diesel motor-related occupations. These studies reported increased risk of lung cancer with exposure to diesel exhaust with evidence of positive exposure-response relationships to varying degrees.
In light of the growing body of scientific literature evaluating the health effects of exposure to diesel exhaust, in June 2012 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a recognized international authority on the carcinogenic potential of chemicals and other agents, evaluated the full range of cancer-related health effects data for diesel engine exhaust. IARC concluded that diesel exhaust should be regarded as “carcinogenic to humans.”
Light-duty vehicle emissions contribute to ambient levels of air toxics that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects. The population experiences an elevated risk of cancer and other noncancer health effects from exposure to the class of pollutants known collectively as “air toxics.”
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database lists benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) by all routes of exposure and concludes that exposure is associated with additional health effects, including genetic changes in both humans and animals and increased proliferation of bone marrow cells in mice.
A number of adverse noncancer health effects including blood disorders, such as pre-leukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been associated with long-term exposure to benzene. The most sensitive noncancer effect observed in humans, based on current data, is the depression of the absolute lymphocyte count in blood. EPA's inhalation reference concentration (RfC) for benzene is 30 µg/m3. The RfC is based on suppressed absolute lymphocyte counts seen in humans under occupational exposure conditions. In addition, recent work, including studies sponsored by the Health Effects Institute, provides evidence that biochemical responses are occurring at lower levels of benzene exposure than previously known.
EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
In 1991, EPA concluded that formaldehyde is a carcinogen based on nasal tumors in animal bioassays.
The conclusions by IARC and NTP reflect the results of epidemiologic research published since 1991 in combination with previous animal, human and mechanistic evidence. Research conducted by the National Cancer Institute reported an increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer and specific lymph hematopoietic malignancies among workers exposed to formaldehyde.
Health effects of formaldehyde in addition to cancer were reviewed by the Agency for Toxics Substances and
EPA released a draft Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde—Inhalation Assessment through the IRIS program for peer review by the National Research Council (NRC) and public comment in June 2010.
Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA's IRIS database as a probable human carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in rats, and is considered toxic by the inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes.
The primary noncancer effects of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.
EPA most recently evaluated the toxicological and health effects literature related to acrolein in 2003 and concluded that the human carcinogenic potential of acrolein could not be determined because the available data were inadequate. No information was available on the carcinogenic effects of acrolein in humans and the animal data provided inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity.
Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats, rabbits, and hamsters have been observed after subchronic exposure to acrolein.
Acrolein is extremely acrid and irritating to humans when inhaled, with acute exposure resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation, mucus hypersecretion and congestion. The intense irritancy of this carbonyl has been demonstrated during controlled tests in human subjects, who suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal sensory reactions within minutes of exposure.
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs). One of these compounds, naphthalene, is discussed separately below. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Cancer is the major concern from exposure to POM. Epidemiologic studies have reported an increase in lung cancer in humans exposed to diesel exhaust, coke oven emissions, roofing tar emissions, and cigarette smoke; all of these mixtures contain POM compounds.
Naphthalene is found in small quantities in gasoline and diesel fuels. Naphthalene emissions have been measured in larger quantities in both gasoline and diesel exhaust compared with evaporative emissions from mobile sources, indicating it is primarily a product of combustion. Acute (short-term) exposure of humans to naphthalene by inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact is associated with hemolytic anemia and damage to the liver and the nervous system.
Naphthalene also causes a number of chronic non-cancer effects in animals, including abnormal cell changes and growth in respiratory and nasal tissues. The current EPA IRIS assessment includes noncancer data on hyperplasia and metaplasia in nasal tissue that form the basis of the inhalation RfC of 3 µg/m
In addition to the compounds described above, other compounds in gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions from motor vehicles will be affected by this action. Mobile source air toxic compounds that will potentially be impacted include ethylbenzene, propionaldehyde, toluene, and xylene. Information regarding the health effects of these compounds can be found in EPA's IRIS database.
Locations in close proximity to major roadways generally have elevated concentrations of many air pollutants emitted from motor vehicles. Hundreds of such studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals, concluding that concentrations of CO, NO, NO
A large-scale review of air quality measurements in the vicinity of major roadways between 1978 and 2008 concluded that the pollutants with the steepest concentration gradients in vicinities of roadways were CO, ultrafine particles, metals, elemental carbon (EC), NO, NO
For pollutants with relatively high background concentrations relative to near-road concentrations, detecting concentration gradients can be difficult. For example, many aldehydes have high background concentrations as a result of photochemical breakdown of precursors from many different organic compounds. This can make detection of gradients around roadways and other primary emission sources difficult. However, several studies have measured aldehydes in multiple weather conditions and found higher concentrations of many carbonyls downwind of roadways.
In the past 15 years, many studies have been published with results reporting that populations who live, work, or go to school near high-traffic roadways experience higher rates of numerous adverse health effects, compared to populations far away from major roads.
Numerous reviews of this body of health literature have been published as well. In 2010, an expert panel of the Health Effects Institute (HEI) published a review of hundreds of exposure, epidemiology, and toxicology studies.
Health outcomes with few publications suggest the possibility of other effects still lacking sufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions. Among these outcomes with a small number of positive studies are neurological impacts (
In addition to health outcomes, particularly cardiopulmonary effects, conclusions of numerous studies suggest mechanisms by which traffic-related air pollution affects health. Numerous studies indicate that near-roadway exposures may increase systemic inflammation, affecting organ systems, including blood vessels and lungs.
Several studies suggest that some factors may increase susceptibility to the effects of traffic-associated air pollution. Several studies have found stronger respiratory associations in children experiencing chronic social stress, such as in violent neighborhoods or in homes with high family stress.
The risks associated with residence, workplace, or schools near major roads are of potentially high public health significance due to the large population in such locations. According to the 2009 American Housing Survey, more than 22 million homes (17% of all U.S. housing units) were located within 300 feet of an airport, railroad, or highway with four or more lanes. This corresponds to a population of more than 50 million U.S. residents in close proximity to high-traffic roadways or other transportation sources. Based on 2010 Census data, a 2013 publication estimated that 19% of the U.S. population (more than 59 million people) lived within 500 meters of roads with at least 25,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT), while about 3.2% of the population lived within 100 meters (about 300 feet) of such roads.
In light of these concerns, EPA has required through the NAAQS process that air quality monitors be placed near high-traffic roadways for determining concentrations of CO, NO
EPA and DOT continue to research near-road air quality, including the types of pollutants found in high concentrations near major roads and health problems associated with the mixture of pollutants near roads.
Environmental justice (EJ) is a principle asserting that all people deserve fair treatment and meaningful involvement with respect to environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA seeks to provide the same degree of protection from environmental health hazards for all people. DOT shares this goal and is informed about the potential environmental impacts of its rulemakings through its NEPA process (see NHTSA's DEIS). As referenced below, numerous studies have found that some environmental hazards are more prevalent in areas where non-white, Hispanic and people with low socioeconomic status (SES) represent a higher fraction of the population compared with the general population. In addition, compared to non-Hispanic whites, some subpopulations defined by race and ethnicity have been shown to have greater levels of some health conditions during some life stages. For example, in 2014, about 13% of Black, non-Hispanic and 24% of Puerto Rican children were estimated to currently have asthma, compared with eight percent of white, non-Hispanic children.
As discussed in the DEIS, concentrations of many air pollutants are elevated near high-traffic roadways. If minority populations and low-income populations disproportionately live near such roads, then an issue of EJ may be present. We reviewed existing scholarly literature examining the potential for disproportionate exposure among people with low SES, and we conducted our own evaluation of two national datasets: The U.S. Census Bureau's American Housing Survey for calendar year 2009 and the U.S. Department of Education's database of school locations.
Publications that address EJ issues generally report that populations living near major roadways (and other types of
People with low SES often live in neighborhoods with multiple environmental stressors and higher rates of health risk factors, including reduced health insurance coverage rates, higher smoking and drug use rates, limited access to fresh food, visible neighborhood violence, and elevated rates of obesity and some diseases such as asthma, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease. Although questions remain, several studies find stronger associations between air pollution and health in locations with such chronic neighborhood stress, suggesting that populations in these areas may be more susceptible to the effects of air pollution.
Two national databases were analyzed that allowed evaluation of whether homes and schools were located near a major road and whether disparities in exposure may be occurring in these environments. The American Housing Survey (AHS) includes descriptive statistics of over 70,000 housing units across the nation. The study survey is conducted every two years by the U.S. Census Bureau. The second database we analyzed was the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data, which includes enrollment and location information for schools across the U.S.
In analyzing the 2009 AHS, the focus was on whether or not a housing unit was located within 300 feet of “4-or-more lane highway, railroad, or airport.”
In examining schools near major roadways, the Common Core of Data (CCD) from the U.S. Department of Education, which includes information on all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts nationwide, was examined.
Overall, there is substantial evidence that people who live or attend school near major roadways are more likely to be non-white, Hispanic ethnicity, and/or low SES. The emission reductions from these proposed standards will likely result in widespread air quality improvements, but the impact on pollution levels in close proximity to roadways will be most direct. Thus, these proposed standards will likely help in mitigating the disparity in racial, ethnic, and economically based exposures.
Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is transparent to visible light.
EPA is working to address visibility impairment. Reductions in air pollution from implementation of various programs associated with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) provisions have resulted in substantial improvements in visibility and will continue to do so in the future. Because trends in haze are closely associated with trends in particulate sulfate and nitrate due to the relationship between their concentration and light extinction, visibility trends have improved as emissions of SO
In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized visibility's value to society by establishing a national goal to protect national parks and wilderness areas from visibility impairment caused by manmade pollution.
EPA has also concluded that PM
The welfare effects of ozone can be observed across a variety of scales,
The most recent Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone presents more detailed information on how ozone affects vegetation and ecosystems.
Wet and dry deposition of ambient particulate matter delivers a complex mixture of metals (
Adverse impacts to human health and the environment can occur when particulate matter is deposited to soils,
The ecological effects of acidifying deposition and nutrient enrichment are detailed in the Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur-Ecological Criteria.
Building materials including metals, stones, cements, and paints undergo natural weathering processes from exposure to environmental elements (
Emissions from producing, transporting, and combusting fuel contribute to ambient levels of pollutants that contribute to adverse effects on vegetation. Volatile organic compounds, some of which are considered air toxics, have long been suspected to play a role in vegetation damage.
Research suggests an adverse impact of vehicle exhaust on plants, which has in some cases been attributed to aromatic compounds and in other cases to nitrogen oxides.
Changes in emissions of non-GHG pollutants due to these rules will impact air quality. Information on current air quality and the results of our air quality modeling of the projected impacts of these rules are summarized in the following section.
Nationally, levels of PM
There are two primary NAAQS for PM
There are many areas of the country that are currently in nonattainment for the annual and 24-hour primary PM
The EPA has already adopted many mobile source emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient PM concentrations. As a result of these and other federal, state and local programs, the number of areas that fail to meet the PM
The primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone are eight-hour standards with a level of 0.07 ppm. The most recent revision to the ozone standards was in 2015; the previous eight-hour ozone primary standard, set in 2008, had a level of 0.075 ppm. As of April 22, 2016, there were 44 ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, composed of 216 full or partial counties, with a population of more than 120 million.
States with ozone nonattainment areas are required to take action to bring those areas into attainment. The attainment date assigned to an ozone nonattainment area is based on the area's classification. The attainment dates for areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS are in the 2015 to 2032 timeframe, depending on the severity of the problem in each area. Nonattainment area attainment dates associated with areas designated for the 2015 NAAQS will be in the 2020-2037 timeframe, depending on the severity of the problem in each area.
EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient ozone levels. As a result of these and other federal, state and local programs, eight-hour ozone levels are expected to improve in the future. However, even with the implementation of all current state and federal regulations, there are projected to be counties violating the ozone NAAQS well into the future.
On April 6, 2018, based on a review of the full body of scientific evidence, EPA issued a decision to retain the current national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for oxides of nitrogen (NO
The EPA is currently reviewing the primary SO
There are two primary NAAQS for CO: An eight-hour standard (9 ppm) and a one-hour standard (35 ppm). The primary NAAQS for CO were retained in August 2011. There are currently no CO nonattainment areas; as of September 27, 2010, all CO nonattainment areas have been redesignated to attainment.
The past designations were based on the existing community-wide monitoring network. EPA is making changes to the ambient air monitoring requirements for CO. The new requirements are expected to result in approximately 52 CO monitors operating near roads within 52 urban areas by January 2015 (76 FR 54294, August 31, 2011).
Because DPM is part of overall ambient PM and cannot be easily distinguished from overall PM, we do not have direct measurements of DPM in the ambient air. DPM concentrations are estimated using ambient air quality modeling based on DPM emission inventories. DPM emission inventories are computed as the exhaust PM emissions from mobile sources combusting diesel or residual oil fuel. DPM concentrations were recently estimated as part of the 2011 NATA. Areas with high concentrations are clustered in the Northeast, Great Lake States, California, and the Gulf Coast States and are also distributed throughout the rest of the U.S. The median DPM concentration calculated nationwide is 0.76 μg/m3.
The most recent available data indicate that the majority of Americans continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects. The levels of air toxics to which people are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds of activities in which they engage, as discussed in detail in EPA's most recent Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule. According to the National Air Toxic Assessment (NATA) for 2015, mobile sources were responsible for 50% of outdoor anthropogenic toxic emissions and were the largest contributor to cancer and noncancer risk from directly emitted pollutants. Mobile sources are also large contributors to precursor emissions which react to form air toxics. Formaldehyde is the largest contributor to cancer risk of all 71 pollutants quantitatively assessed in the 2011
Full-scale photochemical air quality modeling is necessary to accurately project levels of criteria pollutants and air toxics. For the final rule, a national-scale air quality modeling analysis will be performed to analyze the impacts of the standards on PM
Section VI.D.2 of the preamble present projections of the changes in criteria pollutant and air toxics emissions because of the proposed vehicle standards; the basis for those estimates is set out in Chapter 10 of the PRIA. The atmospheric chemistry related to ambient concentrations of PM
In addition, the agencies seek comment on whether there are any other health and environmental impacts associated with advancements in technologies that should be considered. For example, the use of technologies and other strategies to reduce fuel consumption and/or GHG emissions could have effects on a vehicle's life-cycle impacts (
As discussed at the beginning of this section, results presented today reflect the agencies' best judgments regarding many different factors. Based on analyses in past rulemakings, the agencies recognize that some analytical inputs are especially uncertain, some are likely to exert considerable influence over specific types of estimated impacts, and some are likely to do so for the bulk of the analysis. To explore the sensitivity of estimated impacts to changes in model inputs, analysis was conducted using alternative values for a range of different inputs. Results of this sensitivity analysis are summarized below, and detailed model inputs and outputs are available on NHTSA's website.
The remaining tables in the section summarize various estimated impacts as estimated for all of the cases included in the sensitivity analysis.
As discussed above, a range of regulatory alternatives are being considered. Section III defines the proposed preferred alternative, and Section IV defines the no-action alternative as well as the other seven alternatives. The potential impacts of each alternative in each case relative to the no-action alternative were estimated. For the preferred alternative, these impacts are presented above on an incremental basis, such that the impacts attributed separately to standards proposed in each model year. To facilitate comparison of different alternatives, total estimated impacts (
Tables in the remaining section summarize these estimated impacts for each alternative, considering the same measures as shown above for the preferred alternative. As for the preferred alternative, social costs and benefits, private costs and benefits, and environmental and energy impacts were evaluated, and were done so separately for CAFE and CO
This analysis does not explicitly identify “co-benefits” from its proposed action to change fuel economy standards, as such a concept would include all benefits other than cost savings to vehicle buyers. Instead, it distinguishes between private benefits—which include economic impacts on vehicle manufacturers, buyers of new cars and light trucks, and owners (or users) of used cars and light trucks—and external benefits, which represent indirect benefits (or costs) to the
Like the preferred alternative, all other alternatives involve standards less stringent than the no-action alternative. Therefore, as discussed above, incremental benefits and costs for each alternative are negative—in other words, each alternative involves foregone benefits and avoided costs. Environmental and energy impacts are correspondingly negative, involving foregone avoided CO
As discussed above, more detailed results are available in the PRIA and DEIS accompanying today's notice, as well as in underlying model output files posted on NHTSA's website.
2. CO
As discussed in Section II.E, the analysis includes estimates of impacts on U.S. auto industry labor, considering the combined impact of changes in sales volumes and changes in outlays for additional fuel-saving technology. Note: This analysis does not consider the possibility that potential new jobs and plants attributable to increased stringency will not be located in the United States, or that increased stringency will not lead to the relocation of current jobs or plants to foreign countries. Compared to the no-action alternative (
The employment analysis was focused on automotive labor because adjacent employment factors and consumer spending factors for other goods and services are uncertain and difficult to predict. How direct labor changes may affect the macro economy and possibly change employment in adjacent industries were not considered. For instance, possible labor changes in vehicle maintenance and repair were not considered, nor were changes in labor at retail gas stations considered. Possible labor changes due to raw material production, such as production of aluminum, steel, copper, and lithium were not considered, nor were possible labor impacts due to changes in production of oil and gas, ethanol, and electricity considered. Effects of how consumers could spend money saved due to improved fuel economy were not analyzed, nor were effects of how consumers would pay for more expensive fuel savings technologies at the time of purchase analyzed; either could affect consumption of other goods and services, and hence affect labor in other industries. The effects of increased usage of car-sharing, ride-sharing, and automated vehicles were not analyzed. How changes in labor from any industry could affect gross domestic product and possibly affect other industries as a result were not estimated.
Also, no assumptions were made about full-employment or not full-employment and the availability of human resources to fill positions. When the economy is at full employment, a fuel economy regulation is unlikely to have much impact on net overall U.S. employment; instead, labor would primarily be shifted from one sector to another. These shifts in employment impose an opportunity cost on society, approximated by the wages of the employees, as regulation diverts workers from other activities in the economy. In this situation, any effects on net employment are likely to be transitory as workers change jobs (
The tables presented below summarize these results for regulatory alternatives under consideration. While values are reported as thousands of job-years, changes in labor utilization would not necessarily involve the same number of changes in actual jobs, as auto industry employers may use a range of strategies (
Vehicle classification, for purposes of the light-duty CAFE and CO
In EPCA, Congress designated some vehicles as passenger automobiles and some as non-passenger automobiles. Vehicles “capable of off-highway operation” are, by statute,
One of the “truck-like characteristics” that allows manufacturers to classify vehicles as light trucks is having at least three rows of seats as standard equipment, as long as it also “permit[s] expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other non-passenger-carrying purposes through the removal or stowing of foldable or pivoting seats so as to create a flat, leveled cargo surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.”
The first issue is how to identify the “forwardmost point of installation” and how the location impacts the available cargo floor area and volume behind the seats. Seating configurations have evolved considerably over the last 20 years, as minivan seats are now very complex in design providing far more ergonomic functionality. For example, the market demand for increased rear seat leg room and the installation of rear seat air bag systems has resulted in the introduction of adjustable second row seats—second-row seats that remain upright, unable to articulate and stow into the vehicle floor. These seats provide adjustable leg room by sliding forward or backward on sliding tracks and aim to provide expanded cargo carrying room by moving forward against the back of the front seats. Earlier seating designs had fixed attachment points on the vehicle floor, and it was easy to identify the “forwardmost point of installation” because it was readily observable and did not change. When seats move forward and backward on sliding tracks, the “forwardmost point of installation” is less readily identifiable. Some manufacturers have argued that the forwardmost point of installation is the forwardmost point where the seat attaches to the sliding track with the seat positioned at its
The second issue is what makes a surface “flat and leveled.” Many SUVs have three rows of designated seating positions, where the second row has “captain's seats” (
• Does the cargo surface need to be flat and level in exactly the same plane, or does it fulfill the intent of the criterion and provide appropriate cargo-carrying functionality for the cargo surface to be other than flat and level in the same plane?
• Does the cargo surface need to be flat and level across the entire surface, or are (potentially large) gaps in that surface consistent with the intent of the criterion and providing appropriate cargo-carrying functionality? Should panels to fill gaps be required?
• Certain third row seats are located on top the rear axle causing them to sit higher and closer to the vehicle roof. When these seats fold flat the available cargo-carrying volume is reduced. Is cargo-carrying functionality better ensured by setting a minimum amount
For a vehicle to qualify as off-highway capable, in addition to either having 4WD or a GVWR more than 6,000 pounds, the vehicle must also have four out of five characteristics indicative of off-highway operation. These characteristics include:
NHTSA's regulations require manufacturers to measure these characteristics when a vehicle is at its curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure.
Approach angle, breakover angle, and departure angle are relevant to determining off-highway capability. Large approach and departure angles ensure the front and rear bumpers and valance panels have sufficient clearance for obstacle avoidance while driving off-road. The breakover angle ensures sufficient body clearance from rocks and other objects located between the front and rear wheels while traversing rough terrain. Both the approach and departure angles are derived from a line tangent to the front (or rear) tire static loaded radius arc extending from the ground near the center of the tire patch to the lowest contact point on the front or rear of the vehicle. The term “static loaded radius arc” is based upon the definitions in SAE J1100 and J1544. The term is defined as the distance from wheel axis of rotation to the supporting surface (ground) at a given load of the vehicle and stated inflation pressure of the tire (manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure).
The static loaded radius arc is easy to measure, but the imaginary line tangent to the static loaded radius arc is difficult to ascertain in the field. The approach and departure angles are the angles between the line tangent to the static loaded radius arc, as explained above, and the level ground on which the test vehicle rests. Simpler measurements, that provide good approximations for the approach and departure angles, involve using a line tangent to the outside diameter or perimeter of the tire, or a line that originates at the geometric center of the tire contact patch, and extends to the lowest contact point on the front or rear of the vehicle. The first method provides an angle slightly greater than, and the second method provides an angle slightly less than, the angle derived from the true static loaded radius arc. When appropriate, the agency would like the ability to measure these angles in the field to verify data submitted by the manufacturers used to determine light truck classification decisions. The agency understands that the term static loaded radius arc is unclear to many manufacturers. NHTSA seeks comment on what the effect would be if we replaced reference to the “static loaded arc radius,” with simpler terms like, “outside perimeter of the tire,” or “geometric center of the tire contact patch.” NHTSA would consider using the outside perimeter of the tire as a reliable method for ensuring repeatability and reproducibility and accepts that the approach would provide slightly larger approach and departure angles, thereby making it slightly easier to qualify as “off-highway capable.”
NHTSA regulations define “running clearance” as “the distance from the surface on which an automobile is standing to the lowest point on the automobile, excluding unsprung weight.”
The agency is aware of vehicle designs that incorporate rigid (
NHTSA regulations also state that front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters are another of the criteria that can be used for designating a vehicle as off-highway capable.
The agency believes this definition may be outdated because of vehicle design changes including axle system components and independent front and rear suspension components. In the past, traditional light trucks with and without 4WD systems had solid rear axles with center-mounted differentials on the axle. For these trucks, the rear axle differential was closer to the ground than any other axle or suspension system component. This traditional axle design still exists today for some trucks with a solid chassis (also known as body-on-frame configuration). Today, many SUVs and CUVs that qualify as light trucks are constructed with a unibody frame
NHTSA seeks comment on whether (and if so, how) to revise the definition of axle clearance in light of these issues. NHTSA seeks comment on what unsprung axle components should be considered when determining a vehicle's axle clearance. Should the definition be modified to account for axles without differentials? NHTSA also seeks comment on whether the axle subframes surrounding the axle components but affixed directly to the vehicle unibody, as sprung mass (lower to the ground than the axles) should be considered in the allowable running clearance discussed above. Finally, should NHTSA consider replacing both the running and axle clearance criteria with a single ground clearance criterion that considers all components underneath the vehicle that impact a vehicle's off road capability?
The CAFE and CO
If these are the only two vehicles the manufacturer produces, the manufacturer's required CAFE level is determined by calculating the sales-weighted harmonic average of the targets applicable at the hatchback and sedan footprints (about 41 mpg for the hatchback and about 33 mpg for the sedan), and the manufacturer's achieved CAFE level is determined by calculating the sales-weighted harmonic average of the hatchback and sedan fuel economy levels (48 mpg for the hatchback and 25 mpg for the sedan). Depending on the relative mix of hatchbacks and sedans the manufacturer produces, the manufacturer produces a fleet for which the required and achieved levels are equal, or produce a fleet that either earns (if required CAFE is less than achieved CAFE) or applies (if required CAFE is greater than achieved CAFE) CAFE credits. Although the arithmetic is different for CO
There are thus two parts to the foundation of compliance with CAFE and CO
The CAFE and CO
If standards are set at levels that are appropriate/maximum feasible, then the need for extensive compliance flexibilities should be low. Comment is sought on whether and how each agency's existing flexibilities might be amended, revised, or deleted to avoid these potential negative effects. Specifically, comment is sought on the appropriate level of compliance flexibility, including credit trading, in a program that is correctly designed to be both appropriate and feasible. Comment is sought on allowing all incentive-based adjustments to expire except those that are mandated by statute, among other possible simplifications to reduce market distortion, improve program transparency and accountability, and improve overall performance of the compliance programs.
It is further noted that compliance is a measure of how a manufacturer's fleet performance compares to
The following sections discuss NHTSA's compliance and enforcement program, EPA's compliance and enforcement program, and seek comment on a variety of options with respect to the compliance flexibilities currently available under each program. More broadly, the agencies are taking the opportunity with this rulemaking to seek comment and suggestions relating
NHTSA's CAFE enforcement program is largely dictated by statute. As discussed earlier in this notice, each vehicle manufacturer is subject to separate CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks, and for the passenger car standards, a manufacturer's domestically-manufactured and imported passenger car fleets are required to comply separately.
EPA calculates the fuel economy level of each fleet produced by each manufacturer, and transmits that information to NHTSA;
NHTSA then determines the manufacturer's compliance with each applicable standard and notifies manufacturers if any of their fleets have fallen short. Manufacturers have the option of paying civil penalties on any shortfall or can submit credit plans to NHTSA. Credits can either be earned or purchased and can be used either in the year they were earned or in several years prior and following, subject to various statutory constraints.
EPCA and EISA specify several flexibilities that are available to help manufacturers comply with CAFE standards. Some flexibilities are defined by statute—for example, while Congress required that NHTSA allow manufacturers to transfer credits earned for over-compliance from their car fleet to their truck fleet and vice versa, Congress also limited the amount by which manufacturers could increase their CAFE levels using those transfers.
NHTSA and EPA have previously developed other compliance flexibilities for the CAFE program under EPA's EPCA authority to calculate manufacturer's fuel economy levels. As finalized in the 2012 final rule for MYs 2017 and beyond, EPA provides manufacturers “credits” under EPA's program and fuel economy “adjustments” or “improvement values” under NHTSA's program for: (1) Technologies that cannot be measured on the 2-cycle test procedure,
The following sections outline how NHTSA determines whether manufacturers are in compliance with the CAFE standards for each model year, and how manufacturers may use compliance flexibilities to comply, or address non-compliance by paying civil penalties. As mentioned above, some compliance flexibilities are prescribed by statute and some are implemented through EPA's EPCA authority to measure fuel economy, such as fuel consumption improvement values for air conditioning efficiency and off-cycle technologies. This proposal includes language updating and clarifying existing regulatory text in this area. Comment is sought on these changes, as well as on the general efficacy of these flexibilities and their role in the fuel economy and GHG programs.
Moreover, the following sections explain how manufacturers submit data and information to the agency—NHTSA is proposing to implement a new standardized template for manufacturers to use to submit CAFE data to the agency, as well as standardized templates for reporting credit transactions. Additionally, NHTSA is proposing to add requirements that specify the precision of the fuel savings adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4. These new proposals are intended to streamline reporting and data collection from manufacturers, in addition to helping the agency use the best available data to inform CAFE program decision making.
Finally, NHTSA provides an overview of CAFE compliance data for MYs 2011 through 2018 to demonstrate how manufacturers have responded to the progressively increasing CAFE standards for those years. NHTSA believes that providing this data is important because it gives the public a better understanding of current compliance trends and the potential impacts that CAFE compliance in those model years may have on the future model years addressed by this rulemaking.
This is, of course, only an overview description of CAFE compliance. NHTSA also granted a petition for rulemaking in 2016 requesting a number of changes to compliance-related topics.
EPCA, as amended by EISA, requires a manufacturer to submit reports to the Secretary of Transportation explaining whether the manufacturer will comply with an applicable CAFE standard for the model year for which the report is made; the actions a manufacturer has taken or intends to take to comply with
To implement these reporting requirements, NHTSA issued 49 CFR part 537, “Automotive Fuel Economy Reports,” which specifies three types of CAFE reports that manufacturers must submit to comply. Manufacturers must first submit a pre-model year (PMY) report containing a manufacturer's projected compliance information for that upcoming model year. The PMY report must be submitted before December 31st of the calendar year prior to the corresponding model year. Manufacturers must then submit a mid-model year (MMY) report containing updated information from manufacturers based upon actual and projected information known midway through the model year. The MMY report must be submitted by July 31 of the given model year. Finally, manufacturers must submit a supplementary report anytime the manufacturer needs to correct previously submitted information.
Manufacturers submit both non-confidential and confidential versions of CAFE reports to NHTSA. Confidential reports differ in that they include estimated production sales information that is withheld from public disclosure to protect each manufacturer's competitive sales strategies.
Manufacturer reports include information on light-duty automobiles and medium-duty passenger vehicles for each model year and describe projected and actual fuel economy standards, fuel economy performance values, production volumes, information on vehicle design features (
NHTSA uses PMY, MMY, and supplemental reports to help the agency and manufacturers anticipate potential compliance issues as early as possible, and help manufacturers plan compliance strategies. NHTSA also uses the reports for auditing purposes, which helps manufacturers correct errors prior to the end of the model year and accordingly, submit accurate final reports to EPA. Additionally, NHTSA issues public reports twice a year that provide a summary of manufacturers' final and projected fleet fuel economy performances values.
Throughout the model year, NHTSA also conducts vehicle testing as part of its footprint validation program, to confirm the accuracy of track width and wheelbase measurements submitted in manufacturer's reports.
NHTSA ultimately determines a manufacturer's compliance based on CAFE data EPA receives in final model year reports. EPA verifies the information, accounting for NHTSA and EPA testing, and forwards the information to NHTSA. A manufacturer's final model year report must be submitted to EPA no later than 90 days after December 31 of the model year.
NHTSA is proposing changes to CAFE reporting requirements with the intent to streamline reporting and data collection from manufacturers, in addition to helping the agency use the best available data to inform CAFE program decision-making. The agency requests comments on the following reporting requirements.
In a 2015 rulemaking, NHTSA proposed to amend 49 CFR part 537 to require a new data format for light-duty vehicle CAFE reports.
Some manufacturers contend that the changes in reporting requirements may be one source of confusion. NHTSA is aware that manufacturers seem to be confused about what footprint data is required because of the modification to the base tire definition
Problems with inaccurate or missing data have become an even greater issue for manufacturers planning to use the new procedures for A/C efficiency and off-cycle technologies, and incentives
Therefore, as part of this rulemaking, NHTSA is proposing to adopt a standardized template for reporting all required data for PMY, MMY, and supplemental CAFE reports. The template will be available through the CAFE Public Information Center (PIC) website. NHTSA is also proposing to make the PMY and MMY reports exactly the same; many manufacturers already submit PMY reports and then update the MMY reports with the same type of information. NHTSA believes that this approach will further simplify reporting for manufacturers. Further, NHTSA is expanding its CAFE reporting requirements for manufacturers to provide additional vehicle descriptors, common EPA carline codes, and more information on emerging technologies. Additional data columns will be included in the reporting template for manufacturers to identify these emerging technologies.
NHTSA believes adopting a standardized template will ensure manufacturers provide the agency with all the necessary data in a simpler, compliant format. The template would organize the required data in a standardized and consistent manner, adopt formats for values consistent with those provided to EPA, and calculate manufacturer's target standards. This will also help NHTSA code CAFE electronic data for use in the agency's electronic database system. Overall, these changes are anticipated to drastically reduce manufacturer and government burden for reporting under both EPCA/EISA and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
NHTSA seeks comment on the use of a standardized reporting template, or on any possible changes to the proposed standardized template, which is located in NHTSA's docket for review. Information on fuel consumption improvement technologies (
A credit trade is defined in 49 CFR 536.3 as the receipt by NHTSA of an instruction from a credit holder to place its credits in the account of another credit holder. Traded credits are moved from one credit holder to the recipient credit holder within the same compliance category for which the credits were originally earned. If a credit has been traded to another credit holder and is subsequently traded back to the originating manufacturer, it will be deemed not to have been traded for compliance purposes. NHTSA does not administer trade negotiations between manufacturers and when a trade document is received the agreement must be issued jointly by the current credit holder and the receiving party. NHTSA does not settle contractual or payment issues between trading manufacturers.
NHTSA created its CAFE database to maintain credit accounts for manufacturers and to track all credit transactions. Credit accounts consist of a balance of credits in each compliance category and vintage held by the holder. While maintaining accurate credit records is essential, it has become a challenging task for the agency given the recent increase in credit transactions. Manufacturers have requested NHTSA approve trade or transfer requests not only in response to end-of-model year shortfalls but also during the model year when purchasing credits to bank for future model years.
To reduce the burden on all parties, encourage compliance, and facilitate quicker NHTSA credit transaction approval, the agency is proposing to add a required template to standardize the information parties submit to NHTSA in reporting a credit transaction. Presently, manufacturers are inconsistent in submitting the information required by 49 CFR 536.8, creating difficulty for NHTSA in processing transactions. The template NHTSA is proposing is a simple spreadsheet that trading parties fill out. When completed, parties will be able to click a button on the spreadsheet to generate a transaction letter for the parties to sign and submit to NHTSA, along with the spreadsheet. Using this template simplifies the credit transaction process, and ensures that trading parties are following the requirements for a credit transaction in 49 CFR 536.8(a).
Additionally, the template includes an acknowledgement of the fraud/error provisions in 49 CFR 536.8(f), and the finality provisions of 49 CFR 536.8(g). NHTSA seeks comment on this approach, as well as on any changes to the template that may be necessary to better facilitate manufacturer credit transaction requests. The agency's proposed template is located in NHTSA's docket for review. The finalized template would be available on the CAFE PIC site for manufacturers to use.
Though entities are permitted to trade CAFE credits, there is limited public information available on credit transactions.
The lack of information regarding credit transactions means entities wishing to trade credits have little, if any, information to determine the value of the credits they seek to buy or sell. It is widely assumed that the civil penalty for noncompliance with CAFE standards largely determines the value of a credit, because it is logical to assume that manufacturers would not purchase credits if it cost less to pay noncompliance penalties instead, but it is unknown how other factors affect the value. For example, a credit nearing the end of its five-model-year lifespan would theoretically be worth less than a credit with its full five-model-year lifespan remaining. In the latter case, the credit holder would value the credit more, as it can be used for a longer period of time.
In the interest of facilitating a transparent, efficient credit trading
EPCA, as amended by EISA, required the Secretary of Transportation to establish an adjustment factor to ensure total oil savings are preserved when manufacturers trade credits.
In establishing the adjustment factor, NHTSA did not specify the exact precision of the output of the equation in 49 CFR 536.4(b). NHTSA's standard practice has been round to the nearest four decimal places (
NHTSA is proposing to add requirements to 49 CFR 536.4 specifying the precision of the adjustment factor by rounding to four decimal places (
After manufacturers complete certification testing and submit their final compliance values to EPA, EPA verifies the data and issues final CAFE reports to manufacturers and NHTSA. NHTSA then identifies the manufacturers' compliance categories (
If the average fuel economy level of the vehicles in a compliance category falls below the applicable fuel economy standard, NHTSA provides written notification to the manufacturer that it has not met that standard. The manufacturer is required to confirm the shortfall and must either submit a plan indicating how it will allocate existing credits, or if it does not have sufficient credits available in that fleet, how it will earn, transfer and/or acquire credits, or pay the appropriate civil penalty. The manufacturer must submit a credit allocation plan or payment within 60 days of receiving agency notification.
NHTSA approves a credit allocation plan unless it finds the proposed credits are unavailable or that it is unlikely that the plan will result in the manufacturer earning sufficient credits to offset the projected shortfall. If a plan is approved, NHTSA revises the manufacturer's credit account accordingly. If a plan is rejected, NHTSA notifies the manufacturer and requests a revised plan or payment of the appropriate penalty. Similarly, if the manufacturer is delinquent in submitting a response within 60 days, NHTSA takes action to immediately collect a civil penalty. If NHTSA receives and approves a manufacturer's plan to carryback future earned credits within the following three years in order to comply with current regulatory obligations, NHTSA will defer levying fines for non-compliance until the date(s) when the manufacturer's approved plan indicates that the credits will be earned or acquired to achieve compliance. If the manufacturer fails to acquire or earn sufficient credits by the plan dates, NHTSA will initiate non-compliance proceedings.
In the event that a manufacturer does not comply with a CAFE standard even after the consideration of credits, EPCA provides that the manufacturer is liable for a civil penalty.
A manufacturer is liable to the Federal government for a civil penalty if it does not comply with its applicable average fuel economy standard, after considering credits available to the manufacturer.
As previously mentioned, the potential civil penalty rate is currently $5.50 for each tenth of a mpg that a manufacturer's average fuel economy falls short of the average fuel economy standard for a model year, multiplied by the total volume of those vehicles in the compliance category.
Since the inception of the CAFE program, NHTSA has collected a total of $890,427,578 in CAFE civil penalty payments. Generally, import manufacturers have paid significantly more in civil penalties than domestic manufacturers, with the majority of payments made by import manufacturers for passenger cars and
Prior to the CAFE credit trade and transfer program, several manufacturers opted to pay civil penalties instead of complying with CAFE standards. Since NHTSA introduced trading and transferring, manufacturers have largely traded or transferred credits in lieu of paying civil penalties. NHTSA assumes that buying and selling credits is a more cost-effective strategy for manufacturers than paying civil penalties, in part because it seems logical that the price of a credit is directly related to the civil penalty rate and decreases as a credit life diminishes.
Under EPCA, manufacturers are allowed to exclude emergency vehicles from their CAFE fleet
Per 49 U.S.C. 32902(d), NHTSA established requirements for exempted small volume manufacturers in 49 CFR part 525, “Exemptions from Average Fuel Economy Standards.” The small volume manufacturer exemption is available for any manufacturer whose projected or actual combined sales (whether in the United States or not) are fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the model year two years before the model year for which the manufacturer seeks to comply. The manufacturer must submit a petition with information stating that the applicable CAFE standard is more stringent than the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the manufacturer can achieve. NHTSA must then issue by
There are several compliance flexibilities that manufacturers can use to achieve compliance with CAFE standards beyond applying fuel economy-improving technologies. Some compliance flexibilities are statutorily mandated by Congress through EPCA and EISA, specifically program credits, including the ability to carry-forward, carry-back, trade and transfer credits, and special fuel economy calculations for dual- and alternative-fueled vehicles (discussed in turn, below). However, 49 U.S.C. 32902(h) expressly prohibits NHTSA from considering the availability of statutorily-established credits (either for building dual- or alternative-fueled vehicles or from accumulated transfers or traders) in determining the level of the standards. Thus, NHTSA may not raise CAFE standards because manufacturers have enough of those credits to meet higher standards. This is an important difference from EPA's authority under the CAA, which does not contain such a restriction, and which flexibility EPA has assumed in the past in determining appropriate levels of stringency for its program.
NHTSA also promulgated compliance flexibilities in response to EPA's exercise of discretion under its EPCA authority to calculate fuel economy levels for individual vehicles and for fleets. These compliance flexibilities, which were first introduced in the 2012 rule for MYs 2017 and beyond, include air conditioning efficiency improvement and “off cycle” adjustments, and incentives for advanced technologies in full size pick-up trucks, including incentives for mild and strong hybrid electric full-size pickup trucks and performance-based incentives in full-size pickup trucks. As explained above, comment is sought on all of these adjustments and incentives.
Generating, trading, transfer, and applying CAFE credits is fundamentally governed by statutory mandates defined by Congress. As discussed above in Section X.B.1., program credits are generated when a vehicle manufacturer's fleet over-complies with its determined standard for a given model year, meaning its vehicle fleet achieved a higher corporate average fuel economy value than the amount required by the CAFE program for that model year. Conversely, if the fleet average CAFE level does not meet the standard, the fleet would incur debits (also referred to as a shortfall). A manufacturer whose fleet generates credits in a given model year has several options for using those credits, including credit carry-back, credit carry-forward, credit transfers, and credit trading.
Credit “carry-back” means that manufacturers are able to use credits to offset a deficit that had accrued in a prior model year, while credit “carry-forward” means that manufacturers can bank credits and use them towards compliance in future model years. EPCA, as amended by EISA, requires NHTSA to allow manufacturers to carry back credits for up to three model years, and to carry forward credits for up to five model years.
Credit “transfer” means the ability of manufacturers to move credits from their passenger car fleet to their light truck fleet, or vice versa. As part of the EISA amendments to EPCA, NHTSA was required to establish by regulation a CAFE credit transferring program, now codified at 49 CFR part 536, to allow a manufacturer to transfer credits between its car and truck fleets to achieve compliance with the standards. For example, credits earned by overcompliance with a manufacturer's car fleet average standard could be used to offset debits incurred because of that manufacturer's not meeting the truck fleet average standard in a given year. However, EISA imposed a cap on the amount by which a manufacturer could raise its CAFE standards through transferred credits: 1 mpg for MYs 2011-2013; 1.5 mpg for MYs 2014-2017; and 2 mpg for MYs 2018 and
In their 2016 petition for rulemaking, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Global Automakers (Alliance/Global or Petitioners) asked NHTSA to amend the definition of “transfer” as it pertains to compliance flexibilities.
In the 2012-2016 final rule, NHTSA stated:
NHTSA interprets EISA not to prohibit the banking of transferred credits for use in later model years. Thus, NHTSA believes that the language of EISA may be read to allow manufacturers to transfer credits from one fleet that has an excess number of credits, within the limits specified, to another fleet that may also have excess credits instead of transferring only to a fleet that has a credit shortfall. This would mean that a manufacturer could transfer a certain number of credits each year and bank them, and then the credits could be carried forward or back `without limit' later if and when a shortfall ever occurred in that same fleet.
Following that final rule, NHTSA clarified via interpretation that the transfer cap from EISA does not limit how many credits may be
NHTSA believes the transfer caps in 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) are still properly read to limit the application of credits in excess of those values. NHTSA understands that the language in the 2012-2016 final rule could be read to suggest that the transfer cap applies at the time credits are transferred. However, NHTSA believes its subsequent interpretation—that the transfer cap applies at the time the credits are used—is a more appropriate, plain language reading of the statute. While manufacturers have approached NHTSA with various interpretations that would allow them to circumvent the EISA transfer cap, NHTSA believes it is improper to ignore a transfer cap Congress clearly articulated. Therefore, NHTSA proposes to deny Alliance/Global's petition to revise the definition of “transfer” in 49 CFR 536.3.
Credit “trading” means the ability of manufacturers to sell credits to, or purchase credits from, one another. EISA allowed NHTSA to establish by regulation a CAFE credit trading program, also now codified at 49 CFR part 536, to allow credits to be traded between vehicle manufacturers. EISA also prohibits manufacturers from using traded credits to meet the minimum domestic passenger car CAFE standard.
Under 49 CFR part 536, credit holders (including, but not limited to manufacturers) have credit accounts with NHTSA where they can, as outlined above, hold credits, use them to achieve compliance with CAFE standards, transfer credits between compliance categories, or trade them. A credit may also be cancelled before its expiration date, if the credit holder so chooses. Traded and transferred credits are subject to an “adjustment factor” to ensure total oil savings are preserved, as required by EISA. EISA also prohibits credits earned before MY 2011 from being traded or transferred.
As discussed above, NHTSA is concerned with the potential for compliance flexibilities to have unintended consequences. Given that the credit trading program is optional under EISA, comment is sought on whether the credit trading provisions in 49 CFR part 536 should cease to apply beginning in MY 2022.
Under NHTSA's credit trading regulations, a fuel savings adjustment factor is applied when trading occurs between manufacturers, but not when a manufacturer carries credits forward or carries back credits within their own fleet. The Alliance/Global requested that NHTSA require manufacturers to apply the fuel savings adjustment factor when credits are carried forward or carried back within the same fleet, including for existing, unused credits.
Per EISA, total oil savings must be preserved in NHTSA's credit trading program.
When NHTSA initially considered the preservation of oil savings, the agency explained how one credit is not necessarily equal to another. For example, the fuel savings lost if the average fuel economy of a manufacturer falls one-tenth of an mpg below the level of a relatively low standard are greater than the average fuel savings gained by raising the average fuel economy of a manufacturer one-tenth of a mpg above the level of a relatively high CAFE standard.
Alliance/Global stated that while carry forward and carry back credits have been used for many years, the CAFE standards did not change during the Congressional CAFE freeze, meaning credits earned during those years were associated with the same amount of fuel savings from year to year.
NHTSA has tentatively decided to deny Alliance/Global's request to apply the fuel savings adjustment factor to credits that are carried forward or carried back within the same fleet, to the extent that the request would impact credits carried forward or backward retroactively within manufacturer's compliance fleets (
However, NHTSA seeks comment on whether the agency should apply the fuel savings adjustment factor to credits that are carried forward or carried back within the same fleet beginning with MY 2021.
NHTSA uses a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimate as part of its fuel savings adjustment equation to ensure that when traded or transferred credits are used, fuel economy credits are adjusted to ensure fuel oil savings is preserved.
Alliance/Global requested that NHTSA apply fixed VMT estimates to the fuel savings adjustment factor for MYs 2011-2016, similar to how NHTSA handles MYs 2017-2021. NHTSA rejected a similar request from the Alliance in the 2017 and later rulemaking, citing lack of scope, and expressing concern about the potential loss of fuel savings.
Alliance/Global argue that data from MYs 2011-2016 demonstrate that no fuel savings would have been lost, as NHTSA had originally been concerned about. Alliance/Global assert that by not revising the MY 2012-2016 VMT estimates, credits earned during that timeframe were undervalued. Therefore, Alliance/Global argue that NHTSA should retroactively revise its VMT estimates to “reflect better the real world fuel economy results.”
Such retroactive adjustments could unfairly penalize manufacturers for decisions they made based on the regulations as they existed at the time. As Alliance/Global acknowledge, adjusting vehicle miles travelled estimates would disproportionately affect manufacturers that have a credit deficit and were part of EPA's Temporary Lead-time Allowance Alternative Standards (TLAAS). The TLAAS program sunsets for model years 2021 and later. Given some manufacturers would be disproportionately harmed were we to accept Alliance/Global's suggestion, NHTSA has tentatively decided to deny Alliance/Global's request to retroactively change the agency's VMT schedules for model years 2011-2016. Alliance/Global's suggestion that a TLAAS manufacturer would be allowed to elect either approach does not change the fact that manufacturers in the TLAAS program made production decisions based on the regulations as understood at the time.
As discussed at length in prior rulemakings, EPCA, as amended by EISA, encouraged manufacturers to build alternative-fueled and dual- (or flexible-) fueled vehicles by providing special fuel economy calculations for “dedicated” (that is, 100%) alternative fueled vehicles and “dual-fueled” (that is, capable of running on either the alternative fuel or gasoline/diesel) vehicles.
Dedicated alternative fuel automobiles include electric, fuel cell, and compressed natural gas vehicles, among others. NHTSA's provisions for dedicated alternative fuel vehicles in 49 U.S.C. 32905(a) state that the fuel economy of any dedicated automobile manufactured after 1992 shall be measured based on the fuel content of the alternative fuel used to operate the automobile. A gallon of liquid alternative fuel used to operate a dedicated automobile is deemed to contain .15 gallon of fuel. Under EPCA, for dedicated alternative fuel vehicles, there are no limits or phase-out for this special fuel economy calculation, unlike for duel-fueled vehicles, as discussed below.
EPCA's statutory incentive for dual-fueled vehicles at 49 U.S.C. 32906 and the measurement methodology for dual-fueled vehicles at 49 U.S.C. 32905(b) and (d) expire in MY 2019; therefore, NHTSA had to examine the future of these provisions in the 2017 and later CAFE rulemaking.
In the 2012 final rule for MYs 2017 and beyond, EPA finalized criteria that would provide an adjustment to the fuel economy of a manufacturer's full size pickup trucks if the manufacturer employed certain defined hybrid technologies for a significant quantity of those trucks.
EPA established limits on the vehicles eligible to qualify for these credits; a truck must meet minimum criteria for bed size and towing or payload
At the time of developing this proposal, no manufacturer has claimed these full-size pickup truck credits. Some vehicle manufacturers have announced potential collaborations, research projects, or possible future introduction these technologies for this segment.
A/C efficiency and off-cycle fuel consumption improvement values (FCIVs) are compliance flexibilities made available under NHTSA's CAFE program through EPA's EPCA authority to calculate fuel economy levels for individual vehicles and for fleets. NHTSA modified its regulations in the 2012 final rule for MYs 2017 and beyond to reflect the fact that certain flexibilities, including A/C efficiency improving technologies and off-cycle technology fuel consumption improvement values (FCIVs), may be used as part of the determination of a manufacturers' CAFE level.
A/C is a virtually standard automotive accessory, with more than 95% of new cars and light trucks sold in the United States equipped with mobile air conditioning systems. A/C use places load on an engine, which results in additional fuel consumption; the high penetration rate of A/C systems throughout the light duty vehicle fleet means that they can significantly impact the total energy consumed, as well as GHG emissions resulting from refrigerant leakage.
“Off-cycle” technologies are those that reduce vehicle fuel consumption and CO
For example, air conditioning is turned off during 2-cycle testing. Any air conditioning system efficiency improvements that reduce load on the engine and improve fuel economy cannot be measured on the tests. Additionally, the city cycle includes less time at idle than today's real world driving, and the highway cycle is relatively low speed (average speed of 48 mph and peak speed of 60 mph). Other off-cycle technologies that improve fuel economy at idle, such as stop start, and those that improve fuel economy to the greatest extent at expressway speeds, such as active grille shutters which improve aerodynamics, receive less than their real-world benefits in the 2-cycle compliance tests.
Since EPA established its GHG program for light duty vehicles, NHTSA and EPA sought to harmonize their respective standards, despite separate statutory authorities limiting what the agencies could and could not consider. For example, for MYs 2012-2016, NHTSA was unable to consider improvements manufacturers made to passenger car A/C efficiency in calculating compliance.
Of the two agencies, EPA was the first to establish an off-cycle technology program. For MYs 2012-2016, EPA allowed manufacturers to request off-cycle credits for “new and innovative technologies that achieve GHG reductions that are not reflected on current test procedures . . .”
At that time (starting with MY 2017), NHTSA considered off-cycle technologies and A/C efficiency improvements when assessing compliance with the CAFE program. Accounting for off-cycle technologies and A/C efficiency improvements in the CAFE program allowed manufacturers to design vehicles with improved fuel
It is important to note some important differences between consideration given to A/C efficiency improvement and off-cycle technologies, and other flexibilities in the CAFE program. NHTSA accounts for A/C efficiency and off-cycle improvements through EPA test procedural changes that determine
Illustrative of this confusion, in the 2016 Alliance/Global petition, the Petitioners asked NHTSA to avoid imposing unnecessary restrictions on the use of credits. Alliance/Global referenced language from an EPA report that stated compliance is assessed by measuring the tailpipe emissions of a manufacturer's vehicles, and then reducing vehicle compliance values depending on A/C efficiency improvements and off-cycle technologies.
Alliance/Global say because of this process, “technology credits earned in the current model year must be immediately applied toward any deficits in the current model year. This approach forces manufacturers to use their credits in a sub-optimal way, and can result in stranded credits.”
NHTSA therefore proposes to deny Alliance/Global's request because what the petitioners
To alleviate confusion, and to ensure consistency in nomenclature, NHTSA is proposing to update language in its regulations to reflect that the use of the term “credits” to refer to A/C efficiency and off-cycle technology adjustments—should actually be termed fuel consumption improvement values (FCIVs).
As discussed above, NHTSA and EPA jointly administer the off-cycle program. The 2016 Alliance/Global petition requested that NHTSA and EPA make various adjustments to the off-cycle program; specifically, the petitioners requested that the agencies should:
• re-affirm that technologies meeting the stated definitions are entitled to the off-cycle credit at the values stated in the regulation;
• re-acknowledge that technologies shown to generate more emissions reductions than the pre-approved amount are entitled to additional credit;
• confirm that technologies not in the null vehicle set but which are demonstrated to provide emissions reductions benefits constitute off-cycle credits; and
• modify the off-cycle program to account for unanticipated delays in the approval process by providing that applications based on the 5-cycle methodology are to be deemed approved if not acted upon by the agencies within a specified timeframe (for instance 90 days), subject to any subsequent review of accuracy and good faith.
With respect to Alliance/Global's request regarding off-cycle technologies that demonstrate emissions reductions greater than what is allowable from the menu, today's preferred alternative retains this capability. As was the case for model years 2017-2021, a manufacturer is still eligible for a fuel consumption improvement value other than the default value provided for in the menu, provided the manufacturer demonstrates the fuel economy improvement.
The Alliance/Global's requests to streamline aspects of the A/C efficiency and off-cycle programs in response to the issues outlined above have been considered. Among other things, the Alliance/Global requested the agencies consider providing for a default acceptance of petitions for off-cycle credits, provided that all required information has been provided, to accelerate the processing of off-cycle credit requests. While it is agreed that any continuation of the A/C efficiency and off-cycle program should incorporate programmatic improvements, there are significant concerns with the concept of default accepting petition requests that do not address program issues like uncertainty in quantifying program benefits, or general program administration. Comment is requested comment on these issues.
Additionally, for a discussion of the consideration of inclusion of the off-cycle program in future CAFE and GHG standards, see Section X.D.
For model years 2012 through 2016, NHTSA was unable
In the Alliance/Global petition for rulemaking, the Petitioners requested that NHTSA and EPA revisit the average efficiency benefit calculated by EPA applicable to model years 2012 through 2016. The Alliance/Global argued that A/C efficiency improvements were not properly acknowledged in the CAFE program, and that manufacturers that exceeded the A/C efficiency improvements estimated by the agencies. The Petitioners request that EPA amend its regulations such that manufacturers would be entitled to additional A/C efficiency improvement benefits retroactively.
NHTSA has tentatively decided to retain the structure of the existing A/C efficiency program, and not extend it to model years 2010 through 2016. Likewise, EPA has tentatively decided not to modify its regulations to change the way A/C efficiency improvements are accounted for. It is believed this is appropriate as manufacturers decided what fuel economy-improving technologies to apply to vehicles based on the standards as finalized in 2010.
As described above, NHTSA first allowed manufacturers to generate off-cycle technology fuel consumption improvement values equivalent to CO
The Alliance/Global petition for rulemaking asked NHTSA to reconsider calculating fuel economy for model years 2010 through 2016 to include off-cycle adjustments allowed under EPA's program during that period. The Petitioners argued that NHTSA incorrectly stated the agency had taken off-cycle adjustments into consideration when setting standards for model years 2017 through 2025, but not for model years 2010-2016. The Alliance/Global also argued that because neither NHTSA nor EPA considered off-cycle adjustments in formulating the stringency of the 2012-2016 standards, NHTSA should retroactively grant manufacturers off-cycle adjustments for those model years as EPA did. Doing so, they say, would maintain consistency between the agencies' programs.
Pursuant to the Alliance/Global request, NHTSA has reconsidered the idea of granting retroactive credits for model years 2010 through 2016. For the reasons that follow, NHTSA has tentatively decided that manufacturers should not be granted retroactive off-cycle adjustments for model years 2010 through 2016.
Of the two agencies, EPA was the first to establish an off-cycle technology program. For model years 2012 through 2016, EPA allowed manufacturers to request off-cycle credits for “new and innovative technologies that achieve GHG reductions that are not reflected on current test procedures. . .”
The Alliance/Global petition cites a statement in the 2012-2016 final rule as affirmation that NHTSA took off-cycle adjustments into account in formulating the 2012-2016 stringencies, and therefore should allow manufacturers earn off-cycle benefits in model years that have already passed. In particular, Alliance/Global point to a general statement where NHTSA, while discussing consideration of the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, stated that that rulemaking resulted in consistent standards across the program.
The fact that NHTSA had not taken off-cycle adjustments into consideration in setting its 2012-2016 standards makes granting this request inappropriate. Doing so would result in a question as to whether the 2012-2016 standards were maximum feasible under 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(2)(B). If NHTSA had not considered industry's ability to earn off-cycle adjustments—an incentive that allows manufacturers to utilize technologies other than those that were being modeled as part of NHTSA's analysis—the agency could have concluded more stringent standards were maximum feasible. Additionally, granting off-cycle adjustments to manufacturers retroactively raises questions of equity. NHTSA issued its 2012-2016 standards without an off-cycle program, and manufacturers had
It is worth noting that in the model years 2017 and later rulemaking, NHTSA and EPA did include off-cycle technologies in establishing the stringency of the standards. As Alliance/Global note, NHTSA and EPA limited their consideration to start-stop and active aerodynamic features, because of limited technical information on these technologies. At that time, the agencies stated they “have virtually no data on the cost, development time necessary, manufacturability, etc [sic] of these technologies. The agencies thus cannot project that some of these technologies are feasible within the 2017-2025 timeframe.”
This proposal examines how manufacturers could respond to potential future CAFE and CO
Figure X-2 through Figure X-5 provide a graphical overview of fuel economy performance and standards for model years 2011 to 2018. There are separate graphs for the total overall industry fleet and each of the three compliance categories, domestic and import passenger cars and light trucks. Fuel economy performance is compared against the overall industry fuel economy standards for each model year. Fuel economy performance values include any increases from dual-fueled vehicles and for vehicles equipped with fuel consumption improving technologies.
As shown in the figures, manufacturers fuel economy performance for the total fleet (the combination of all vehicles produced for sale during the model year) and for each compliance fleet are better than CAFE standards through MY 2015. On average, the total fleet exceeds CAFE standards by approximately 0.9 mpg for MYs 2011 to 2015. Comparatively, domestic and import passenger cars exceeded standards on average by 2.1 mpg and 2.3 mpg, respectively. On aveage, light truck manufacturers fell short of standards by 0.3 mpg on average over MYs 2011-2015.
For MYs 2016-2018 the overall industry is or is estimated to fall short of CAFE standards for the overall fleet and for light trucks and for import passenger cars fleets individually. For MYs 2016-2018, the total fleet has an average shortfall of 0.5 mpg. The largest individual shortfalls are 1.4 mpg for the light truck fleet in MY 2016 and 2.8 mpg for the import passenger car fleet in MY 2018. Domestic passenger car fleets are
Figure X-6 provides a historical overview of the industry's use of CAFE compliance flexibilities for addressing shortfalls. MY 2015 is the latest model year for which CAFE compliance is complete. Historically, manufacturers have generally resolved credit shortfalls first by carrying forward any earned credits and then applying traded credits. In model years 2014 and 2015, the amount of credit shortfalls are almost the same as the amount of carryforward and traded credits. Manufacturers occastionally carryback credits or opt to transfer earned credits between their fleets to resolve compliance shortfalls. Trading credits from another manufacturer and transferring them across fleets occurs far more frequently. Also, credit trading has taken the place of civil penalty payments for resolving compliance shortfalls. Only a handful of manufacturers have had to make civil penalty payments since the implementation of the credit trading program.
In today's rule, NHTSA is proposing to make minor technical revisions to correct typographical mistakes and improper references adopted in the agency's 2016 Phase 2 medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency rulemaking.
1.
2.
3.
EPA is requesting comment on a variety of “enhanced flexibilities” whereby EPA would make adjustments to current incentives and credits provisions and potentially add new flexibility opportunities to broaden the pathways manufacturers would have to meet standards. Such an approach would support the increased application of technologies that the automotive industry is developing and deploying that could potentially lead to further long-term emissions reductions and allow manufacturers to comply with standards while reducing costs.
One category of flexibilities such as off-cycle credits and credit banking involve credits that are based on real world emissions reductions and do not represent a loss of overall emissions benefits or a reduction in program stringency, yet offer manufacturers with potentially lower-cost or more efficient paths to compliance. Another category of flexibilities described below as incentives, such as incentives for advanced technologies, hybrid technologies, and alternative fuels, do
Automakers and other stakeholders have expressed support for this type of approach. For example, Ford recently stated “[w]e support increasing clean car standards through 2025 and are not asking for a rollback. We want one set of standards nationally, along with additional flexibility to help us provide more affordable options for our customers.”
EPA has received input from automakers and other stakeholders, including suppliers and alternative fuels industries, supporting a variety of program flexibilities.
The concepts include but are not limited to:
EPA received input from automakers that these incentives should be extended and available to all light-duty trucks (
• Streamlining the program in ways that would give auto manufacturers more certainty and make it easier for manufacturers to earn credits;
• Expanding the current pre-defined off-cycle credit menu to include additional technologies and increasing credit levels where appropriate;
• Eliminating or increasing the credit cap on the pre-defined list of off-cycle technologies and revising the thermal technology credit cap; and
• A role for suppliers to seek approval of their technologies.
Under EPA's existing regulations, there are three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle technology credits. The first is a predetermined list or “menu” of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies that may be used beginning for MY 2014.
EPA requests comments on changes to the off-cycle process that would streamline the program. Currently, under the third pathway, manufacturers submit an application that includes their methodology to be used to determine the off-cycle credit value and data that then undergoes a public review and comment process prior to an EPA decision regarding the application. Each manufacturer separately submits an application to EPA that must go through a public review and comment process even if the manufacturer uses a methodology previously approved by EPA. For example, under the current program, multiple manufacturers have submitted applications for high efficiency alternators and advanced air conditioning compressors using similar methodologies and producing similar levels of credits.
EPA requests comment on revising the regulations to allow all auto manufacturers to make use of a methodology once it has been approved by EPA without the subsequent applications from other manufacturers undergoing the public review process. This would reduce redundancy present in the current program. Manufacturers would need to provide EPA with at least the same level of data and detail for the technology and methodology as the firm that went through the public comment process.
EPA also requests comment on revising the regulations to allow EPA to, in effect, add technologies to the pre-approved credit menu without going through a subsequent rulemaking. For example, if one or more manufacturers submit applications with sufficient supporting data for the same or similar technology, the data from that application(s) could potentially be used by EPA as the basis for adding technologies to the menu. EPA is requesting comment on revising the regulations to allow EPA to establish through a decision document a credit value, or scalable value as appropriate, and technology definitions or other criteria to be used for determining whether a technology qualifies for the new menu credit. This streamlined process of adding a technology to the menu would involve an opportunity for public review but not a formal rulemaking to revise the regulations, allowing EPA to add technologies to the menu in a timely manner, where EPA believes that sufficient data exists to estimate an appropriate credit level for that technology across the fleet. In this process, EPA could issue a decision document, after considering public comments, making the new menu credits available to all manufacturers (effectively adding the technology to the menu without changing the regulations each time). By adding technologies to the menu, EPA would eliminate the need for manufacturers to subsequently submit individual applications for the technologies after the first application was approved.
In addition, EPA requests comments on modifying the menu through this current rulemaking to add technologies. As noted above, EPA has received data from multiple manufacturers on high efficiency alternators and advanced air conditioning compressors that could serve as the basis for new menu credits for these technologies.
In 2014, EPA approved additional credits for Mercedes-Benz
The menu currently includes a fleetwide cap on credits of 10 g/mile
The current GHG rule contains a CO
As mentioned above, EPA has heard from many suppliers and their trade associations an interest in allowing suppliers to have a role in seeking off-cycle credits for their technologies. EPA requests comment on providing a pathway for suppliers, along with at least one auto OEM partner, to submit off-cycle applications for EPA approval. Auto manufacturers would remain entirely responsible for the full useful life emissions performance of the off-cycle technology as is currently the case, including, for example, existing responsibilities for defect reporting and the prohibition on defeat devices. Under such an approach, an application submitted by a supplier and vehicle manufacturer would establish a credit and/or methodology for demonstrating credits that all auto manufacturers could then use in their subsequent applications. This process could include full-vehicle simulation modeling that is compatible with EPA's ALPHA simulation tool. EPA requests comment on requiring that the supplier be partnered in a substantive way with one or more auto manufacturers to ensure that there is a practical interest in the technology prior to investing resources in the approval process. The supplier application would be subject to public review and comment prior to an EPA decision. However, once approved, the subsequent auto manufacturer applications requesting credits based on the supplier methodology would not be subject to public review. EPA also requests comments on a concept where supplier (with at least one auto manufacturer partner) demonstrated credits would be available provisionally for a limited period of time, allowing manufacturers to implement the technology and collect data on their vehicles in order to support a continuation of credits for the technology in the longer term. Also, the provisional credits could be included under the menu credit cap since they would be based on a general analysis of the technology rather than manufacturer-specific data. EPA requests comments on all aspects of this approach.
Among the possible approaches, the most basic credits could be awarded to manufacturers that produce vehicles with connected or automated technologies. For connected vehicles, a set amount of credit could be provided for each vehicle capable of Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) or Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communications. One possible example is to provide a set amount of credit, using the off-cycle menu, for any vehicle that can
The rationale for providing credits for vehicle automation is similar to that for connected vehicles. EPA could provide a set credit for vehicles that achieve some specific threshold of automation, perhaps based on the industry standard SAE definitions (SAE J3016). Individual autonomous vehicles might achieve some emissions reductions, but the impact may increase as larger numbers of autonomous vehicles are on the road and can coordinate and provide system efficiencies. Providing credits for autonomous vehicles, again through a set credit, would provide manufacturers a clear incentive to bring these technologies to market. It would be important for any such program to incentivize only those approaches that could reasonably be expected to provide additional contributions to overall emission reductions, taking system effects into account. As above, EPA believes that any near-term incentive program should include some demonstration that the technologies are truly new and have some connection to environmental benefits overall.
A number of stakeholders have also requested that EPA consider credits for automated and connected vehicles that are placed in ridesharing or other high mileage applications, where any potential environmental benefits could be multiplied due to the high utilization of these vehicles. That is, credits could take into account that the per-mile emission reduction benefits would accrue across a larger number of miles for shared-use vehicles. There are likely many possible approaches that could accomplish this objective. As one example, a manufacturer who owns or partners with a shared-use mobility entity could receive credit for ensuring that their autonomous vehicles are used throughout the life of the vehicle in shared-use fleets rather than as personally owned vehicles. Such credits would be based off of the assumption that total vehicle miles travelled would be higher and, therefore, generate more emission reduction benefits, under the former case. Credits could be based off of the CO
As suggested by this partial list of examples, a variety of approaches would be possible to incentivize the use of these technologies. EPA seeks comment on these and related approaches to incentivize autonomous and connected vehicle technologies where they would have the most beneficial effect on future emissions.
To illustrate how additional flexibilities would translate to a reduction in the stringency of the standards, EPA analyzed several examples as described below.
Table X-6 shows three examples of scenarios for how enhanced flexibilities could impact overall program stringency. Example A reduces the stringency of the EPA CO
EPA solicits comment on the individual options for flexibilities and on the potential for combining them as described in these example scenarios. For example, EPA solicits comments on how to take these flexibilities into account in considering the level of the standards and whether, for a given level of overall stringency, the factors discussed in Section V above, regarding EPA Justification for the Proposed GHG Standards, would support a relatively less stringent standard with fewer flexibilities or a relatively more stringent standard with more flexibilities. EPA also solicits comment on whether any flexibilities or combinations of flexibilities in particular are more or less consistent with the Administrator's rationale for proposing Alternative 1.
As stated in the 2012 NPRM and final rules for MYs 2017 and beyond, the purpose of the off-cycle improvement incentive is to encourage the introduction and market penetration of off-cycle technologies that achieve real-world benefits.
By the 2012 final rule, NHTSA and EPA had determined that it was appropriate, under EPA's EPCA authority for testing and calculation procedures, for the agencies to provide a fuel economy adjustment factor for off-cycle technologies.
The Draft TAR included an extended discussion of the history and technological underpinnings of the A/C efficiency and off-cycle FCIV measurement procedures;
As part of this rulemaking, alternatives were considered that phase out the A/C efficiency and off-cycle compliance flexibilities to reassess the benefits and costs of including these flexibilities in the agencies' respective programs. The A/C efficiency and off-cycle programs have been the subject of discussion and debate since the MYs 2017 and beyond final rule. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Global Automakers petitioned the agencies to streamline aspects of both agencies' A/C efficiency and off-cycle programs as part of a 2016 request to more broadly harmonize the CAFE and GHG programs (further discussion of the Alliance/Global petition is located above). On the other hand, other stakeholders have questioned the purpose and efficacy of the off-cycle credit program, specifically, whether the agencies are accurately capturing technology benefits and whether the programs are unrealistically inflating manufacturers' compliance values. There are two factors that may be important to consider at this time, (1) manufacturer's increasing use of A/C efficiency and off-cycle technologies to achieve compliance in light of the program's increasing complexity; and (2) the questions of whether the agencies are accurately accounting for
Since the 2012 final rule for MYs 2017 and beyond and the Draft TAR, manufacturers have increasingly utilized A/C efficiency and off-cycle technology to achieve either credits under the GHG program, or fuel consumption improvement values (FCIVs) under the CAFE program. A/C efficiency and off-cycle technology use ranges among manufacturers, from some manufacturers claiming zero grams/mile (or the equivalent under the CAFE program), to some manufacturers claiming 7 grams/mile in MY 2016.
These issues have not been raised
Concurrent with the Alliance/Global's petition for the agencies to take action on various aspects of the A/C efficiency and off-cycle programs, other stakeholders raised issues about the programs that could be discussed at this time. For example, ACEEE commented on the Draft TAR that “an off-cycle technology that is common in current vehicles and is not reflected in the stringency of the standards has no place in the off-cycle credit program. The purpose of the program is to incentivize adoption of fuel saving technology, not to provide loopholes for manufacturers to achieve the standards on paper.”
Compare these comments with EPA's 2017
Next, when manufacturers are increasingly reliant on A/C efficiency and off-cycle technology to achieve compliance, agency administration of the flexibility becomes more significant. The Alliance commented that the industry “needs the off-cycle credit program to function effectively to fulfill the significant role that will be needed for generating large quantities of credits from [off-cycle] emission reduction.”
[c]ase-by-case approvals for off-cycle credit applications is excessively burdensome due to slow agency response and unnecessary testing. The procedures for granting off-cycle GHG credits are not being implemented per the provisions of the regulation and are not functioning to the level necessary for industry for long-term compliance. Without timely processing, EPA works against its stated intent of `provid[ing] an incentive for CO
Notably, the agencies' implementation of the off-cycle credit provisions has been described as “underperforming.”
The Alliance's “primarily regulatory need” as of the 2016 Draft TAR was “a renewed focus on removing all obstacles that are having the unintended result of slowing investment and implementation of [credit] technologies.”
These comments highlight the challenges to assure improvement values from A/C efficiency and off-cycle technologies reflect verifiable, real-world fuel economy improvements, are attributable to specific vehicle models, are based on repeatable test procedures and are developed through a transparent process with appropriate opportunities for public comment. There is a belief this process and these considerations are important to assure the integrity and fairness of the A/C and off-cycle procedures. The menu and 5-cycle test methodologies are predefined and are not subject to the in-depth review that proposed new test procedures are subject to. Comment is sought on whether and how menu-based A/C and off-cycle credits should be implemented.
Next, the potential for technology benefits to be over-counted is worth mention, but it is noted that aspects of this issue are being addressed in this rulemaking. As stated in the 2012 final rule for MYs 2017 and beyond, fuel saving technologies integral to basic vehicle design (
Broadly, there is agreement with the concept that capturing real-world driving behavior is essential to accurately measure the true benefits of A/C efficiency and off-cycle technologies. One example where this holds true is in particular component testing as measured with the federal standardized testing procedure. For example, the federal test procedures provide specific guidance on how a vehicle should be installed on the dynamometer, if the vehicle's windows should be open or closed, and the vehicle's tire pressure. On the other hand, the regulations provide no specific guidance on how other components should be tested so the agencies and manufacturers can most accurately quantify benefits.
For example, to more accurately capture the benefit of a high efficiency alternator on the 2-cycle or 5-cycle test, the vehicle would need to run more systems that draw power from the alternator, like the infotainment system or temperature controlled seats. There is not guidance for these additional components in the tests as they are currently performed due to the complexity of systems available in the light duty vehicle market. Essentially, it is uncertain how to define in regulations what component systems need to be on or off during testing to accurately capture the benefit of component synergies. Developing guidance on specific systems would also likely require a significant amount of time and resources. Comment is sought on specific technologies that may be receiving more benefit based on the current test procedures, or more generally, any other issues related to integrated component testing.
It is noted, however, that the optional 5-cycle test procedure for determining A/C and off-cycle improvement values over-counts benefits. The 5-cycle test procedure weighs the 2-cycle tests used for compliance with three additional test cycles to better represent real-world factors impacting fuel economy and GHG emissions, including higher speeds and more aggressive driving, colder temperature operation, and the use of air conditioning. However, the current regulations erroneously do not require that the 2-cycle benefit be subtracted from the 5-cycle benefit, resulting in a credit calculation that is artificially too high and not reflecting actual real-world emission reductions that were intended. Since the 5-cycle test procedures include the 2-cycle tests used for compliance, it is believed the 2-cycle benefit should be subtracted from the 5-cycle benefit to avoid over-counting of benefits. Manufacturers interested in generating credits under the 5-cycle pathway identified this issue to the agencies, and have asked EPA to clarify the regulations. This issue is discussed in Section X.C, above, and comment is sought on how to implement this correction.
The CAFE model was used to assess the economic, technical, and environmental impacts of alternatives that kept the A/C efficiency and off-cycle programs as is and alternatives that phased those programs out. As described fully in Section II.B, the CAFE model is a software simulation that begins with a recently produced fleet of vehicles and applies cost effective technologies to each manufacturers' fleet year-by-year, taking into consideration vehicle refresh and redesign schedules and common parts among vehicles. The CAFE model outputs technology pathways that manufacturers could use to comply with the proposed policy alternatives.
For this NPRM, the modeling analysis uses the off-cycle credits submitted by each manufacturer for MY 2017 compliance and carries these forward to future years with a few exceptions. Several technologies described in Section II.D are associated with off-cycle credits. In particular, stop-start systems, integrated starter generators, and full hybrids are assumed to generate off-cycle credits when applied to improve fuel economy. Similarly, higher levels of aerodynamic improvements are assumed to require active grille shutters on the vehicle, which also qualify for off-cycle credits. The analysis assumes that any off-cycle credits that are associated with actions outside of technologies discussed in Section II.D (either chosen from the pre-approved menu or petitioned for separately) remain at levels identified by manufacturers in MY 2017. Any additional off-cycle credits that accrue as the result of explicit technology application are calculated dynamically in each year, for each alternative. This method allows for the capture of benefits and costs from A/C efficiency and off-cycle technologies as compared to an alternative where those technologies are not used for compliance purposes.
In considering potential future actions regarding the A/C efficiency and off-cycle flexibilities, it was recognized that removing the programs immediately would present a considerable challenge for manufacturers. Based on compliance and mid-model year data for MY 2017, the first model year that NHTSA accepted FCIVs for CAFE compliance, manufacturers have reported A/C efficiency and off-cycle FCIVs at
Throughout the joint CAFE and GHG programs, the agencies have phased out flexibility and incentive programs rather than ending those programs abruptly, such as with the alternative fuel vehicle program (as mandated by EISA)
The MY 2016 fleet final compliance data to identify the starting point for the FCIV phase-out was reviewed.
A lower
The modeling results indicated no significant change in the fleet average achieved fuel economy, which is expected because the model only applies technologies to a manufacturers' fleet until the standard is met. However, the change in regulatory costs, average vehicle prices, societal costs, and societal net benefits is noteworthy. Without A/C efficiency and off-cycle technologies available, the CAFE model applied more costly technologies to the fleet. This trend was less noticeable with the low stringency alternative; however, the advanced technology required to meet the high stringency alternative without A/C efficiency or off-cycle technology was more expensive. Similarly, although the CAFE model only applied technology to the fleet until the fleet met the standards, alternatives that did not employ A/C efficiency and off-cycle technologies saved more fuel and reduced GHG emissions more than alternatives that did employ the A/C efficiency and off-cycle technologies, and in significantly higher amounts for the higher stringency alternative. On average, the modeling shows that phasing out the A/C efficiency and off-cycle programs decreases fuel consumption over the “no change” scenario but confirms that manufacturers will have to apply costlier technology to meet the standards.
The slight difference in fleet performance under the different alternatives confirms how the CAFE model considers the universe of applicable technologies and
NHTSA and EPA request comment on all aspects of this NPRM. This section describes how you can participate in this process.
In this NPRM, there are many issues common to both NHTSA's and EPA's proposals. For the convenience of all parties, comments submitted to the NHTSA docket will be considered comments to the EPA docket and vice versa. An exception is that comments submitted to the NHTSA docket on NHTSA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be considered submitted to the EPA docket. Therefore, commenters only need to submit comments to either one of the two agency dockets, although they may submit comments to both if they so choose. Comments that are submitted for consideration by only one agency should be identified as such, and comments that are submitted for consideration by both agencies should also be identified as such. Absent such identification, each agency will exercise its best judgment to determine whether a comment is submitted on its proposal.
Further instructions for submitting comments to either the NHTSA or the EPA docket are described below.
When submitting comments, please remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the
Any confidential business information (CBI) submitted to one of the agencies will also be available to the other agency. However, as with all public comments, any CBI information only needs to be submitted to either one of the agencies' dockets and it will be available to the other. Following are specific instructions for submitting CBI to either agency:
In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above.
NHTSA and EPA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
If a comment is received too late for us to practicably consider in developing a final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
You may read the materials placed in the dockets for this document (
NHTSA and EPA will jointly host two public hearings on the dates and locations to be announced in a separate notice. At all hearings, both agencies will accept comments on the rulemaking, and NHTSA will also accept comments on the EIS.
NHTSA and EPA will conduct the hearings informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of each hearing, to be posted in the dockets as soon as it is available, and keep the official record of each hearing open for 30 days following that hearing to allow you to submit supplementary information.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, this action is an “economically significant regulatory action” because if adopted, it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, EPA and NHTSA submitted this action to the OMB for review and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. The benefits and costs of this proposal are described above and in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA), which is located in the docket and on the agencies' websites.
The rule, if adopted, would also be significant within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The benefits and costs of this proposal are described above and in the PRIA, which is located in the docket and on NHTSA's website.
This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in PRIA, which is located in the docket and on the agencies' websites.
Executive Order 13211 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. If the regulatory action meets either criterion, the agencies must evaluate the adverse energy effects of the proposed rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered.
The proposed rule seeks to establish passenger car and light truck fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas emissions standards. An evaluation of energy effects of the proposed action and reasonably feasible alternatives considered is provided in NHTSA's Draft EIS and in the PRIA. To the extent that EPA's CO
Concurrently with this NPRM, NHTSA is releasing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR part 1500, and NHTSA, 49 CFR part 520. NHTSA prepared the Draft EIS to analyze and disclose the potential environmental impacts of the proposed CAFE standards and a range of alternatives. The Draft EIS analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and analyzes impacts in proportion to their significance.
The Draft EIS describes potential environmental impacts to a variety of resources. Resources that may be affected by the proposed action and alternatives include fuel and energy use, air quality, climate, land use and development, hazardous materials and regulated wastes, historical and cultural resources, noise, and environmental justice. The Draft EIS also describes how climate change resulting from global GHG emissions (including the U.S. light duty transportation sector under the Proposed Action and alternatives) could affect certain key natural and human resources. Resource areas are assessed qualitatively and quantitatively, as appropriate, in the Draft EIS.
NHTSA has considered the information contained in the Draft EIS as part of developing its proposal. The Draft EIS is available for public comment; instructions for the submission of comments are included inside the document. NHTSA will simultaneously issue the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, pursuant to 49
The CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401
The air quality of a geographic region is usually assessed by comparing the levels of criteria air pollutants found in the ambient air to the levels established by the NAAQS (taking into account, as well, the other elements of a NAAQS: Averaging time, form, and indicator). Concentrations of criteria pollutants within the air mass of a region are measured in parts of a pollutant per million parts (ppm) of air or in micrograms of a pollutant per cubic meter (μg/m
When the measured concentrations of a criteria pollutant within a geographic region are below those permitted by the NAAQS, EPA designates the region as an attainment area for that pollutant, while regions where concentrations of criteria pollutants exceed Federal standards are called nonattainment areas. Former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance with the NAAQS are designated as maintenance areas. Each State with a nonattainment area is required to develop and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) documenting how the region will reach attainment levels within time periods specified in the CAA. For maintenance areas, the SIP must document how the State intends to maintain compliance with the NAAQS. When EPA revises a NAAQS, each State must revise its SIP to address how it plans to attain the new standard.
No Federal agency may “engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve” any activity that does not “conform” to a SIP or Federal Implementation Plan after EPA has approved or promulgated it.
(1) The Transportation Conformity Rule
(2) The General Conformity Rule
The proposed CAFE standards and associated program activities are not developed, funded, or approved under title 23 or chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C. Accordingly, this action and associated program activities are not subject to transportation conformity. Under the General Conformity Rule, a conformity determination is required where a Federal action would result in total direct and indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or precursor originating in nonattainment or maintenance areas equaling or exceeding the rates specified in 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1) and (2). As explained below, NHTSA's proposed action results in neither direct nor indirect emissions as defined in 40 CFR 93.152.
The General Conformity Rule defines direct emissions as “those emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors that are caused or initiated by the Federal action and originate in a nonattainment or maintenance area and occur at the same time and place as the action and are reasonably foreseeable.”
Indirect emissions under the General Conformity Rule are “those emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors (1) That are caused or initiated by the federal action and originate in the same nonattainment or maintenance area but occur at a different time or place as the action; (2) That are reasonably foreseeable; (3) That the agency can practically control; and (4) For which the agency has continuing program responsibility.”
As the CAFE program uses performance-based standards, NHTSA cannot control the technologies vehicle manufacturers use to improve the fuel economy of passenger cars and light trucks. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot control consumer purchasing (which affects average achieved fleetwide fuel economy) and driving behavior (
In addition, NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to control the actual VMT by drivers. As the extent of emissions is directly dependent on the operation of motor vehicles, changes in any emissions that result from NHTSA's proposed standards are not changes the agency can practically control or for which the agency has continuing program responsibility. Therefore, the proposed CAFE standards and alternative standards considered by NHTSA would not cause indirect emissions under the General Conformity Rule, and a general conformity determination is not required.
The NHPA (54 U.S.C. 300101
The FWCA (16 U.S.C. 2901
The Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451
The agencies conclude that the CZMA is not applicable to this proposal because it does not involve an activity within, or outside of, the nation's coastal zones that affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone. NHTSA has, however, conducted a qualitative review in its Draft EIS of the related direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, positive or negative, of the alternatives on potentially affected resources, including coastal zones.
Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA federal agencies must ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of any federally listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of these species. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). If a federal agency determines that an agency action may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, it must initiate consultation with the appropriate Service—the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce, depending on the species involved—in order to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
Pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, the agencies have considered the effects of the proposed standards and have reviewed applicable ESA regulations, case law, and guidance to determine what, if any, impact there might be to listed species or designated critical habitat. The agencies have considered issues related to emissions of CO
These Orders require Federal agencies to avoid the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Executive Order 11988 also directs agencies to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains through evaluating the potential effects of any actions the agency may take in a floodplain and ensuring that its program
In this proposal, the agencies are not occupying, modifying and/or encroaching on floodplains. The agencies, therefore, conclude that the Orders are not applicable to this action. NHTSA has, however, conducted a review of the alternatives on potentially affected resources, including floodplains, in its Draft EIS.
These Orders require Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the agency head finds that there is no practicable alternative to such construction and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harms to wetlands that may result from such use. Executive Order 11990 also directs agencies to take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands in “conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.” DOT Order 5660.1a sets forth DOT policy for interpreting Executive Order 11990 and requires that transportation projects “located in or having an impact on wetlands” should be conducted to assure protection of the Nation's wetlands. If a project does have a significant impact on wetlands, an EIS must be prepared.
The agencies are not undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands. The agencies, therefore, conclude that these Orders do not apply to this proposal. NHTSA has, however, conducted a review of the alternatives on potentially affected resources, including wetlands, in its Draft EIS.
The MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712) provides for the protection of certain migratory birds by making it illegal for anyone to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export” any migratory bird covered under the statute.
The BGEPA (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) makes it illegal to “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import” any bald or golden eagles.
The agencies conclude that the MBTA, BGEPA, and Executive Order 13186 do not apply to this proposal because there is no disturbance, take, measurable negative impact, or other covered activity involving migratory birds or bald or golden eagles involved in this rulemaking.
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303), as amended, is designed to preserve publicly owned park and recreation lands, waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and historic sites. Specifically, Section 4(f) provides that DOT agencies cannot approve a transportation program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or any land from a historic site of national, State, or local significance, unless a determination is made that:
(1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land, and
(2) The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from the use.
These requirements may be satisfied if the transportation use of a Section 4(f) property results in a de minimis impact on the area.
NHTSA concludes that Section 4(f) is not applicable to its proposal because this rulemaking is not an approval of a transportation program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
With respect to GHG emissions, EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it impacts the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. The increases in CO
For non-GHG co-pollutants such as ozone, PM
NHTSA has also evaluated whether its proposal would have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. The agency includes its analysis in Section 7.5 (
This action is subject to E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is an economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866, and the agencies have reason to believe that the environmental health or safety risks related to this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. Specifically, children are more vulnerable to adverse health effects related to mobile source emissions, as well as to the potential long-term impacts of climate change. Pursuant to E.O. 13045, NHTSA and EPA must prepare an evaluation of the environmental health or safety effects of the planned regulation on children and an explanation of why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agencies. Further, this analysis may be included as part of any other required analysis.
This preamble and NHTSA's Draft EIS discuss air quality, climate change, and their related environmental and health effects, noting where these would disproportionately affect children. The Administrator has also discussed the impact of climate-related health effects on children in the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009). Additionally, this preamble explains why the agencies' proposal is preferable to other alternatives considered. Together, this preamble and NHTSA's Draft EIS satisfy the agencies' responsibilities under E.O. 13045.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The agencies considered the impacts of this notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and certify that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following is the agencies' statement providing the factual basis for this certification pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Small businesses are defined based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.
NHTSA believes that the rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on the small vehicle manufacturers because under 49 CFR part 525, passenger car manufacturers making less than 10,000 vehicles per year can petition NHTSA to have alternative standards set for those manufacturers. These manufacturers do not currently meet the 27.5 mpg standard and must already petition the agency for relief. If the standard is raised, it has no meaningful impact on these manufacturers—they still must go through the same process and petition for relief. Given there already is a mechanism for relieving burden on small businesses, which is the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.
EPA believes this rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. EPA is exempting from the CO
EPA regulations allow small businesses to voluntarily waive their small business exemption and optionally certify to the CO
Executive Order 13132 requires federal agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” The Order defines the term “Policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects 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.” Under the Order, agencies may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or the agencies consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The agencies complied with Order's requirements.
See Section VI above for further detail on the agencies' assessment of the federalism implications of this proposal.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,”
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule will be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance costs only on vehicle manufacturers. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for 2016 results in $148 million (111.416/75.324 = 1.48).
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, of more than $148 million annually, but it will result in the expenditure of that magnitude by vehicle manufacturers and/or their suppliers. In developing this proposal, NHTSA and EPA considered a variety of alternative average fuel economy standards lower and higher than those proposed. The proposed fuel economy standards for MYs 2021-2026 are the least costly, most cost-effective, and least burdensome alternative that achieve the objective of the rule.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA and EPA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as “performance-based or design-specific technical specification and related management systems practices.” They pertain to “products and processes, such as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or material.”
Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If the agencies do not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
For CO
There are currently no voluntary consensus standards that NHTSA administers relevant to today's proposed CAFE standards.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32902(j)(1), NHTSA submitted this proposed rule to the Department of Energy for review.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13,
To this end, NHTSA seeks to continue to collect information to ensure compliance with its CAFE program. NHTSA intends to reinstate its previously-approved collection of information for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) reports specified in 49 CFR part 537 (OMB control number 2127-0019), add the additional burden for reporting changes adopted in the October 15, 2012 final rule that recently came into effect (see 77 FR 62623), and account for the change in burden as proposed in this rule as well as for other CAFE reporting provisions required by Congress and NHTSA. NHTSA is also changing the name of this collection to more accurately represent the breadth of all CAFE regulatory reporting. Although NHTSA seeks to add additional burden hours to its CAFE report requirement in 49 CFR 537, the agency believes there will be a reduction in burden due to the standardization of data and the streamlined process. NHTSA is seeking public comment on this collection.
In compliance with the PRA, this notice announces that the information collection request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to OMB for review and comment. The ICR describes
Summary of the collection of information: As part of this rulemaking, NHTSA is reinstating and modifying its previously-approved collection for CAFE-related collections of information. NHTSA and EPA have coordinated their compliance and reporting requirements in an effort not to impose duplicative burden on regulated entities. This information collection contains three different components: Burden related NHTSA's CAFE reporting requirements, burden related to CAFE compliance, but not via reporting requirements, and information gathered by NHTSA to help inform CAFE analyses. All templates referenced in this section will be available in the rulemaking docket for comment.
NHTSA seeks to reinstate
To implement this statute, NHTSA issued 49 CFR part 537, “Automotive Fuel Economy Reports,” which adds additional definition to § 32907. The first report, the PMY report must be submitted to NHTSA before December 31 of the calendar year prior to the corresponding model year and contain manufacturers' projected information for that upcoming model year. The second report, the MMY report must be submitted by July 31 of the given model year and contain updated information from manufacturers based upon actual and projected information known midway through the model year. Finally, the last report, a supplementary report, is required to be submitted anytime a manufacture needs to correct information previously submitted to NHTSA.
Compliance reports must include information on passenger and non-passenger automobiles (trucks) describing the projected and actual fuel economy standards, fuel economy performance values, production sales volumes and information on vehicle design features (
Further, NHTSA is modifying this collection to account for additional information manufacturers are required to include in their reports. In the 2017 and beyond final rule,
In addition to a list of all fuel consumption improvement technologies utilized in their fleet, 49 CFR 537 requires manufacturers to report the make, model type, compliance category, and production volume of each vehicle equipped with each technology and the associated fuel consumption improvement value (FCIV). NHTSA is proposing to add the reporting and enforcement burden hours and cost for these new incentives to this collection. Manufacturers can also petition the EPA and NHTSA, in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1868-12 or 40 CFR 86.1869-12, to gain additional credits based upon the improved performance of any of the new incentivized technologies allowed for model year 2017. EPA approves these petitions in collaboration with NHTSA and any adjustments are taken into account for both programs. As a part the agencies' coordination, NHTSA provides EPA with an evaluation of each new technology to ensure its direct impact on fuel economy and an assessment on the suitability of each technology for use in increasing a manufacturer's fuel economy performance. Furthermore, at times, NHTSA may independently request additional information from a manufacturer to support its evaluations. This information along with any research conclusions shared with EPA and NHTSA in the petitions is required to be submitted in manufacturer's CAFE reports.
NHTSA is seeking to change the burden hours for its CAFE reporting requirements in 49 CFR part 537. NHTSA plans to reduce the total amount of time spent collecting the required reporting information by standardizing the required data and streamlining the collection process using a standardized reporting template. The standardized template will be used by manufacturers to collect all the required CAFE information under 49 CFR 537.7(b) and (c) and provides a format which ensures accuracy, completeness and better alignment with the final data provided to EPA.
NHTSA is proposing a new standardized template for manufacturers buying CAFE credits and for manufacturers submitting credit transactions in accordance with 49 CFR part 536. In 49 CFR part 536.5(d), NHTSA is required to assess compliance with fuel economy standards each year, utilizing the certified and reported CAFE data provided by the Environmental Protection Agency for enforcement of the CAFE program pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32904(e). Credit values are calculated based on the CAFE data from the EPA. If a manufacturer's vehicles in a particular compliance category performs better than its required fuel economy standard, NHTSA adds credits to the manufacturer's account for that compliance category. If a manufacturer's vehicles in a particular compliance category performs worse than the required fuel economy standard, NHTSA will add a credit deficit to the manufacturer's account and will provide written notification to the manufacturer concerning its failure to comply. The manufacturer will be required to confirm the shortfall and must either: Submit a plan indicating how it will allocate existing credits or earn, transfer and/or acquire credits or pay the equivalent civil penalty. The manufacturer must submit a plan or payment within 60 days of receiving notification from NHTSA.
NHTSA is proposing for manufacturers to use the credit transaction template any time a credit transaction request is sent to NHTSA. For example, manufacturers that purchase credits and want to apply them to their credit accounts will use the credit transaction template. The template NHTSA is proposing is a simple spreadsheet that trading parties fill out. When completed, parties will be able to click a button on the spreadsheet to generate a joint transaction letter for the parties to sign and submit to NHTSA, along with the spreadsheet. NHTSA believes these changes will significantly reduce the burden on manufacturers in managing their CAFE credit accounts.
Finally, NHTSA is accounting for the additional burden due to existing CAFE program elements. In 49 CFR part 525, small volume manufacturers submit petitions to NHTSA for exemption from an applicable average fuel economy standard and to request to comply with a less stringent alternative average fuel economy standard. In 49 CFR part 534, manufacturers are required to submit information to NHTSA when establishing a corporate controlled relationship with another manufacturer. A controlled relationship exists between manufacturers that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, one or more other manufacturers. Accordingly, manufacturers that have entered into written contracts transferring rights and responsibilities to other manufacturers in controlled relationships for CAFE purposes are required to provide reports to NHTSA. There are additional reporting requirements for manufacturers submitting carry back plans and when manufacturers split apart from controlled relationships and must designate how credits are to be allocated between the parties.
As discussed in Section II., in setting CAFE standards, NHTSA creates an analysis fleet from which to model potential future economy improvements. To compose this fleet, the agency uses a mixture of compliance data and information from other sources to best replicate the fleet from a recent model year. While refining the analysis fleet, NHTSA occasionally asks manufacturers for information that is similar to information submitted as part of EPA's final model year report (
Information like this, which is used to verify and supplement the data used to create the analysis fleet, is tremendously valuable to generating an accurate analysis fleet, and setting maximum feasible standards. The more accurate the analysis fleet is, the more accurate the modeling of what technologies could be applied will be. Therefore, NHTSA is accounting for the burden on manufacturers to provide the agency with this additional information. In almost all instances, manufacturers already have the information NHTSA seeks, but it might need to be reformatted or recompiled. Because of this, NHTSA believes the burden to provide this information will often be minimal.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the agencies solicit comments from the public to better inform the rulemaking process. These comments are posted, without edit, to
Fuel economy.
Fuel economy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 32901, 32902, and 32903, and delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Chapter V as follows:
49 U.S.C 32901, delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
49 U.S.C. 32902; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(c) * * *
(d) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each manufacturer shall also meet the minimum fleet standard for domestically manufactured passenger automobiles expressed in Table IV:
(a) The fleet average fuel economy performance of all passenger automobiles that are manufactured by a manufacturer in a model year shall be determined in accordance with procedures established by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under 49 U.S.C. 32904 and set forth in 40 CFR part 600. For model years 2017 to 2026, a manufacturer is eligible to increase the fuel economy performance of passenger cars in accordance with procedures established by EPA set forth in 40 CFR 600, Subpart F, including any adjustments to fuel economy EPA allows, such as for fuel consumption improvements related to air conditioning efficiency and off-cycle technologies.
(1) A manufacturer that seeks to increase its fleet average fuel economy performance through the use of technologies that improve the efficiency of air conditioning systems must follow the requirements in 40 CFR 86.1868-12. Fuel consumption improvement values resulting from the use of those air conditioning systems must be determined in accordance with 40 CFR 600.510-12(c)(3)(i).
(2) A manufacturer that seeks to increase its fleet average fuel economy performance through the use of off-cycle technologies must follow the requirements in 40 CFR 86.1869-12. A manufacturer is eligible to gain fuel consumption improvements for predefined off-cycle technologies in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b) or for technologies tested using EPA's 5-cycle methodology in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c). The fuel consumption improvement is determined in accordance with 40 CFR 600.510-12(c)(3)(ii).
(b) A manufacturer is eligible to increase its fuel economy performance through use of an off-cycle technology requiring an application request made to EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d). The request must be approved by EPA in consultation with NHTSA. To expedite NHTSA's consultation with EPA, a manufacturer shall concurrently submit its application to NHTSA if the manufacturer is seeking off-cycle fuel economy improvement values under the CAFE program for those technologies. For off-cycle technologies that are covered under 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d), NHTSA will consult with EPA regarding NHTSA's evaluation of the specific off-cycle technology to ensure its impact on fuel economy and the suitability of using the off-cycle technology to adjust the fuel economy performance. NHTSA will provide its views on the suitability of the technology for that purpose to EPA. NHTSA's evaluation and review will consider:
(1) Whether the technology has a direct impact upon improving fuel economy performance;
(2) Whether the technology is related to crash-avoidance technologies, safety critical systems or systems affecting safety-critical functions, or technologies designed for the purpose of reducing the frequency of vehicle crashes;
(3) Information from any assessments conducted by EPA related to the application, the technology and/or related technologies; and
(4) Any other relevant factors.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a) Express Preemption:
(1) To the extent that any state law or regulation regulates or prohibits tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles, such a law or regulation relates to average fuel economy standards within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 32919.
(A) Automobile fuel economy is directly and substantially related to automobile tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide;
(B) Carbon dioxide is the natural by-product of automobile fuel consumption;
(C) The most significant and controlling factor in making the measurements necessary to determine the compliance of automobiles with the fuel economy standards in this Part is their rate of tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions;
(D) Almost all technologically feasible reduction of tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide is achievable through improving fuel economy, thereby reducing both the consumption of fuel and the creation and emission of carbon dioxide;
(E) Accordingly, as a practical matter, regulating fuel economy controls the amount of tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide, and regulating the tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide controls fuel economy.
(2) As a state law or regulation related to fuel economy standards, any state law or regulation regulating or prohibiting tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles is expressly preempted under 49 U.S.C. 32919.
(3) A state law or regulation having the direct effect of regulating or prohibiting tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions or fuel economy is a law or regulation related to fuel economy and expressly preempted under 49 U.S.C. 32919.
(b) Implied Preemption:
(1) A state law or regulation regulating tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles, particularly a law or regulation that is not attribute-based and does not separately regulate passenger cars and light trucks, conflicts with:
(A) The fuel economy standards in this Part;
(B) The judgments made by the agency in establishing those standards; and
(C) The achievement of the objectives of the statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 329) under which those standards were established, including objectives relating to reducing fuel consumption in a manner and to the extent consistent with manufacturer flexibility, consumer choice, and automobile safety.
(2) Any state law or regulation regulating or prohibiting tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles is impliedly preempted under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329.
(3) A state law or regulation having the direct effect of regulating or prohibiting tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions or fuel economy is impliedly preempted under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329.
49 U.S.C. 32902; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(a) * * *
(b) The fleet average fuel economy performance of all light trucks that are manufactured by a manufacturer in a model year shall be determined in accordance with procedures established by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under 49 U.S.C. 32904 and set forth in 40 CFR part 600. For model years 2017 to 2026, a manufacturer is eligible to increase the fuel economy performance of light trucks in accordance with procedures established by EPA set forth in 40 CFR part 600, subpart F, including any adjustments to fuel economy EPA allows, such as for fuel consumption improvements related to air conditioning efficiency, off-cycle technologies, and hybridization and other performance-based technologies for full-size pickup trucks that meet the requirements specified in 40 CFR 86.1803.
(1) A manufacturer that seeks to increase its fleet average fuel economy performance through the use of technologies that improve the efficiency of air conditioning systems must follow the requirements in 40 CFR 86.1868-12. Fuel consumption improvement values resulting from the use of those air conditioning systems must be determined in accordance with 40 CFR 600.510-12(c)(3)(i).
(2) A manufacturer that seeks to increase its fleet average fuel economy performance through the use of off-cycle technologies must follow the requirements in 40 CFR 86.1869-12. A manufacturer is eligible to gain fuel consumption improvements for predefined off-cycle technologies in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b) or for technologies tested using the EPA's 5-cycle methodology in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c). The fuel consumption improvement is determined in accordance with 40 CFR 600.510-12(c)(3)(ii).
(3) The eligibility of a manufacturer to increase its fuel economy using hybridized and other performance-based technologies for full-size pickup trucks must follow 40 CFR 86.1870-12 and the fuel consumption improvement of these full-size pickup truck technologies must be determined in accordance with 40 CFR 600.510-12(c)(3)(iii).
(c) A manufacturer is eligible to increase its fuel economy performance through use of an off-cycle technology requiring an application request made to EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d). The request must be approved by EPA in consultation with NHTSA. To expedite NHTSA's consultation with EPA, a manufacturer shall concurrently submit its application to NHTSA if the manufacturer is seeking off-cycle fuel economy improvement values under the CAFE program for those technologies. For off-cycle technologies that are covered under 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d), NHTSA will consult with EPA regarding NHTSA's evaluation of the specific off-cycle technology to ensure its impact on fuel economy and the suitability of using the off-cycle technology to adjust the fuel economy performance. NHTSA will provide its views on the suitability of the technology for that purpose to EPA. NHTSA's evaluation and review will consider:
(1) Whether the technology has a direct impact upon improving fuel economy performance;
(2) Whether the technology is related to crash-avoidance technologies, safety critical systems or systems affecting safety-critical functions, or technologies designed for the purpose of reducing the frequency of vehicle crashes;
(3) Information from any assessments conducted by EPA related to the application, the technology and/or related technologies; and
(4) Any other relevant factors.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a) Express Preemption:
(1) To the extent that any state law or regulation regulates or prohibits tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles, such a law or regulation relates to average fuel economy standards within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 32919.
(A) Automobile fuel economy is directly and substantially related to automobile tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide;
(B) Carbon dioxide is the natural by-product of automobile fuel consumption;
(C) The most significant and controlling factor in making the measurements necessary to determine the compliance of automobiles with the fuel economy standards in this Part is their rate of tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions;
(D) Almost all technologically feasible reduction of tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide is achievable through improving fuel economy, thereby reducing both the consumption of fuel and the creation and emission of carbon dioxide;
(E) Accordingly, as a practical matter, regulating fuel economy controls the amount of tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide, and regulating the tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide controls fuel economy.
(2) As a state law or regulation related to fuel economy standards, any state law or regulation regulating or prohibiting tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles is expressly preempted under 49 U.S.C. 32919.
(3) A state law or regulation having the direct effect of regulating or prohibiting tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions or fuel economy is a law or regulation related to fuel economy and expressly preempted under 49 U.S.C. 32919.
(b) Implied Preemption:
(1) A state law or regulation regulating tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles, particularly a law or regulation that is not attribute-based and does not separately regulate passenger cars and light trucks, conflicts with:
(A) The fuel economy standards in this Part;
(B) The judgments made by the agency in establishing those standards; and
(C) The achievement of the objectives of the statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 329) under which those standards were established, including objectives relating to reducing fuel consumption in a manner and to the extent consistent with manufacturer flexibility, consumer choice, and automobile safety.
(2) Any state law or regulation regulating or prohibiting tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles is impliedly preempted under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329.
(3) A state law or regulation having the direct effect of regulating or prohibiting tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions or fuel economy is impliedly preempted under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329.
49 U.S.C. 32902 and 30101; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Calculate the equivalent fuel consumption test group results as follows for spark-ignition vehicles and alternative fuel spark-ignition vehicles. CO
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Calculate the equivalent fuel consumption test group results as follows for spark-ignition vehicles and alternative fuel spark-ignition vehicles. CO
(d) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) Calculate equivalent fuel consumption FCL values for spark-ignition engines and alternative fuel spark-ignition engines. CO
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(E) * * *
The term (CO
49 U.S.C. 32903; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(c)
(c) * * *
(1) Entities trading credits must generate and submit trade documents using the NHTSA Credit Template (OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1475). Entities shall fill out the NHTSA Credit Template and use it to generate a credit trade summary and credit trade confirmation, the latter of which shall be signed by both trading entities. The credit trade confirmation serves as an acknowledgement that the parties have agreed to trade credits, and does not dictate terms, conditions, or other business obligations. Managers legally authorized to obligate the sale and purchase of the traded credits must sign the trade confirmation. The completed credit trade summary and a PDF copy of the signed trade confirmation must be submitted to NHTSA. The NHTSA Credit Template is available for download at
(d) * * *
(6) Credit allocation plans received from a manufacturer will be reviewed and approved by NHTSA. Use the NHTSA Credit Template (OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1475) to record the credit transactions requested in the credit allocation plan. The template is a fillable form that has an option for recording and calculating credit transactions for credit allocation plans. The template calculates the required adjustments to the credits. The credit allocation plan and the completed transaction template must be submitted to NHTSA. NHTSA will approve the credit allocation plan unless it finds that the proposed credits are unavailable or that it is unlikely that the plan will result in the manufacturer earning sufficient credits to offset the subject credit shortfall. If the plan is approved, NHTSA will revise the respective manufacturer's credit account accordingly. If the plan is rejected, NHTSA will notify the respective manufacturer and request a revised plan or payment of the appropriate fine.
49 U.S.C. 32907, delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(d) Beginning with MY 2019, each manufacturer shall generate reports required by this part using the NHTSA CAFE Projections Reporting Template (OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1474). The template is a fillable form.
(1) Select the option to identify the report as a pre-model year report, mid-model year report, or supplementary report as appropriate;
(2) Complete all required information for the manufacturer and for all vehicles produced for the current model year required to comply with CAFE standards. Identify the manufacturer submitting the report, including the full name, title, and address of the official responsible for preparing the report and a point of contact to answer questions concerning the report.
(3) Use the template to generate confidential and non-confidential reports for all the domestic and import passenger cars and light truck fleet produced by the manufacturer for the current model year. Manufacturers must submit a request for confidentiality in accordance with 49 CFR 512 to withhold projected production sales volume estimates from public disclosure. If the request is granted, NHTSA will withhold the projected production sales volume estimates from public disclose until all the vehicles produced by the manufacturer have been made available for sale (usually one year after the current model year).
(4) Submit confidential reports and requests for confidentiality to NHTSA on CD-ROM in accordance with Part 537.12. Email copies of non-confidential
(5) Confidentiality Requests.
(i) Manufacturers can withhold information on projected production sales volumes under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and 15 U.S.C. 2005(d)(1). In accordance, the manufacturer must:
(A) Show that the item is within the scope of sections 552(b)(4) and 2005(d)(1);
(B) Show that disclosure of the item would result in significant competitive damage;
(C) Specify the period during which the item must be withheld to avoid that damage; and
(D) Show that earlier disclosure would result in that damage.
(ii) [Reserved]
(e) Each report required by this part must be based upon all information and data available to the manufacturer 30 days before the report is submitted to the Administrator.
(b)
(c) Exceptions. The pre-model year report, mid-model year report, and supplementary report(s) submitted by an incomplete automobile manufacturer for any model year are not required to contain the information specified in § 537.7(c)(4)(xv) through (xviii) and (c)(5). The information provided by the incomplete automobile manufacturer under § 537.7(c) shall be according to base level instead of model type or carline.
(a) * * *
(2) Provide a report with the information required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section by each domestic and import passenger automobile fleet, as specified in part 531 of this chapter, and by each the light truck fleet, as specified in part 533 of this chapter, for the current model year.
(3) Provide the information required by paragraph (a)(1) for pre- and mid-model year reports using the NHTSA CAFE Projections Reporting Template, OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1474. The required reporting template can be downloaded from
(b) * * *
(3) State the projected required fuel economy for the manufacturer's passenger automobiles and light trucks determined in accordance with 49 CFR 531.5(c) and 49 CFR 533.5 and based upon the projected sales figures provided under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. For each unique model type and footprint combination of the manufacturer's automobiles, provide the information specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section and the CAFE Projections Reporting Template, OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1474.
(i) In the case of passenger automobiles:
(A) Beginning model year 2013, base tire as defined in 49 CFR 523.2,
(B) Beginning model year 2013, front axle, rear axle and average track width as defined in 49 CFR 523.2,
(C) Beginning model year 2013, wheelbase as defined in 49 CFR 523.2, and
(D) Beginning model year 2013, footprint as defined in 49 CFR 523.2.
(E) The fuel economy target value for each unique model type and footprint entry listed in accordance with the equation provided in 49 CFR parts 531.
(4) State the projected final required fuel economy that the manufacturer anticipates having if changes implemented during the model year will cause the targets to be different from the target fuel economy projected under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(5) State whether the manufacturer believes that the projections it provides under paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(4) of this section, or if it does not provide an average or target under those paragraphs, the projections it provides under paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of this section, sufficiently represent the manufacturer's average and target fuel economy for the current model year for purposes of the Act. In the case of a manufacturer that believes that the projections are not sufficiently representative for those purposes, state the specific nature of any reason for the insufficiency and the specific additional testing or derivation of fuel economy values by analytical methods believed by the manufacturer necessary to eliminate the insufficiency and any plans of the manufacturer to undertake that testing or derivation voluntarily and submit the resulting data to the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR 600.509.
(c) * * *
(1) For each model type of the manufacturer's automobiles, provide the information specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section in the NHTSA CAFE Projections Reporting Template (OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1474) and list the model types in order of increasing average inertia weight from top to bottom.
(2)(i) Combined fuel economy; and
(ii) Projected sales for the current model year and total sales of all model types.
(3) For each vehicle configuration whose fuel economy was used to calculate the fuel economy values for a model type under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, provide the information specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section in the NHTSA CAFE Projections Reporting Template (OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1474).
(7) * * *
(i) Provide a list of each air conditioning efficiency improvement technology utilized in your fleet(s) of vehicles for each model year. For each technology identify vehicles by make and model types that have the technology, which compliance category those vehicles belong to and the number of vehicles for each model equipped with the technology. For each compliance category (domestic passenger car, import passenger car and light truck) report the air conditioning fuel consumption improvement value in gallons/mile in accordance with the equation specified in 40 CFR 600.510-12(c)(3)(i).
(ii) Provide a list of off-cycle efficiency improvement technologies utilized in your fleet(s) of vehicles for each model year that is pending or approved by EPA. For each technology identify vehicles by make and model types that have the technology, which compliance category those vehicles belong to, the number of vehicles for each model equipped with the technology, and the associated off-cycle credits (grams/mile) available for each technology. For each compliance
(iii) Provide a list of full-size pick-up trucks in your fleet that meet the mild and strong hybrid vehicle definitions. For each mild and strong hybrid type, identify vehicles by make and model types that have the technology, the number of vehicles produced for each model equipped with the technology, the total number of full size pick-up trucks produced with and without the technology, the calculated percentage of hybrid vehicles relative to the total number of vehicles produced and the associated full-size pickup truck credits (grams/mile) available for each technology. For the light truck compliance category calculate the fleet Pick-up Truck fuel consumption improvement value in gallons/mile in accordance with the equation specified in 40 CFR 600.510-12(c)(3)(iii).
(a) * * *
(3) Each manufacturer whose pre- or mid-model year report omits any of the information specified in § 537.7(b) or (c) shall file a supplementary report containing the information specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(4) Each manufacturer whose pre- or mid-model year report omits any of the information specified in § 537.5(c) shall file a supplementary report containing the information specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) All of the information omitted from the pre- or mid-model year report under § 537.7(b) and (c); and
(ii) Such revisions of and additions to the information submitted by the manufacturer in its pre-model year report regarding the automobiles produced during the current model year as are necessary to reflect the information provided under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section.
(4) The supplementary report required by paragraph (a)(4) of this section must contain:
(i) All information omitted from the pre-model year report under § 537.6(c)(2); and
(ii) Such revisions of and additions to the information submitted by the manufacturer in its pre-model year report regarding the automobiles produced during the current model year as are necessary to reflect the information provided under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.
(c)(1) Each report required by paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section must be submitted in accordance with § 537.5(c) not more than 45 days after the date on which the manufacturer determined, or could have determined with reasonable diligence, that a report is required under paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section.
Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 85 and 86 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) If the OEM complied with the nitrous oxide (N
(iv) Optionally, through model year 2020, compliance with greenhouse gas emission requirements may be demonstrated by comparing emissions from the vehicle prior to the fuel conversion to the emissions after the fuel conversion. This comparison must be based on FTP test results from the emission data vehicle (EDV) representing the pre-conversion test group. The sum of CO
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) For passenger automobiles with a footprint of less than or equal to 41 square feet, the gram/mile CO
(B) For passenger automobiles with a footprint of greater than 56 square feet, the gram/mile CO
(C) For passenger automobiles with a footprint that is greater than 41 square feet and less than or equal to 56 square feet, the gram/mile CO
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) For light trucks with a footprint of less than or equal to 41 square feet, the gram/mile CO
(B) For light trucks with a footprint that is greater than 41 square feet and less than or equal to the maximum footprint value specified in the table below for each model year, the gram/mile CO
(D) For light trucks with a footprint greater than the minimum value specified in the table below for each model year, the gram/mile CO
(f)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Through model year 2020, manufacturers may generate credits applicable to the CO
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |