[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65872-65874]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0935; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-243-AD;
Amendment 39-18652; AD 2016-19-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B,
747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and
747SP series airplanes. This AD was prompted by several reports of
chafing of the wire bundles inside the electrical conduit of the
forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks due
to high vibration. These wire bundles can chafe through the wire
sleeving into the insulation, exposing the wire conductors. This AD
requires replacing the wire bundles inside the electrical conduit of
the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks
with new, improved wire bundles inserted into conduit liners. This AD
also requires adding a revision to the maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to include critical design configuration
control limitations (CDCCLs) for the fuel boost pump wiring. We are
issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the wire bundles and subsequent
arcing between the wiring and the electrical conduit creating an
ignition source in the fuel tanks, which could result in a fire and
consequent fuel tank explosion.

DATES: This AD is effective October 31, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 31,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone:
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0935.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0935; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6505; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The
Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-
200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP
series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on March
8, 2016 (81 FR 12041) (``the SNPRM''). We preceded the SNPRM with a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal
Register on May 1, 2015 (80 FR 24850) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM proposed
to require replacing the wire bundles inside the electrical conduit of
the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks
with new, improved wire bundles inserted into conduit liners. The NPRM
was prompted by several reports of chafing of the wire bundles inside
the electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost pumps of the
numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks due to high vibration. These wire
bundles can chafe through the wire sleeving into the insulation,
exposing the wire conductors. The SNPRM proposed to require a revision
to the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include
CDCCLs for the fuel boost pump wiring. We are issuing this AD to
prevent chafing of the wire bundles and subsequent arcing between the
wiring and the electrical conduit creating an ignition source in the
fuel tanks, which could result in a fire and consequent fuel tank
explosion.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comments received. The Air Line Pilots
Association International, Boeing, and United Airlines supported the
SNPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information:
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2306, dated October
2, 2014. The service information describes procedures for replacing the
wire bundles of the electrical conduit inside the electrical conduit of
the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks.
     Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)
and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-13747-
CMR, Revision June 2014. Among other things, Document D6-13747-CMR
describes CDCCL AWL No. 28-AWL-24 for the fuel boost pump wiring.
     Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 747-400
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document D621U400-9, Revision June
2014. Among other things, Section 9 describes CDCCL AWL No. 28-AWL-35
for the fuel boost pump wiring.
    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 ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 176 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement......................  Up to 53                     $4,600  Up to $9,105.......  Up to $1,602,480.
                                    work[dash]hours x
                                    $85 per hour =
                                    $4,505.
Revise maintenance or inspection   1 work-hour x $85                $0  $85................  $14,960.
 program.                           per hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

Regulatory Findings

    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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-19-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18652; Docket No. FAA-
2015-0935; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-243-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 31, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2011-15-03, Amendment 39-16750 (76 FR 41659,
July 15, 2011). (``AD 2011-15-03'')

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in
any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2306, dated October 2, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by several reports of chafing of the wire
bundles inside the electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost
pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks due to high vibration.
These wire bundles can chafe through the wire sleeving into the
insulation, exposing the wire conductors. We are issuing this AD to
prevent chafing of the wire bundles and subsequent arcing between
the wiring and the electrical conduit creating an ignition source in
the fuel tanks, which could result in a fire and consequent fuel
tank explosion.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Replacement

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace
the wire bundles inside the electrical conduit of the forward and
aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks with new,
improved wire bundles inserted into conduit liners, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-28A2306, dated October 2, 2014. Accomplishing the
replacement required by this paragraph terminates the inspections
required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (n) of AD 2011-15-03.

(h) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
critical design configuration control limitation (CDCCL)
Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) No. 28-AWL-24, ``Fuel Boost Pump
Wires In Conduit Installation--In Fuel Tank,'' of Sub-section C.1,
``Fuel Tank Ignition Prevention,'' of Section C., ``Airworthiness
Limitations--Systems,'' of the Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs) Document D6-13747-CMR, Revision June 2014; or
CDCCL AWL No. 28-AWL-35, ``Fuel Boost Pump Wires In Conduit
Installation--In Fuel Tank,'' of Sub-section B.1, ``Fuel System
Ignition Prevention,'' of Section B, ``Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)--Systems,'' of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)
and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 747-400
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document D621U400-9, Revision June
2014; as applicable.

(i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or CDCCLs

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/
or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs
are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tung Tran, Aerospace
Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2306, dated October 2,
2014.
    (ii) Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)
and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs) Document D6-13747-
CMR, Revision June 2014.
    (iii) Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 747-400
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document D621U400-9, Revision June
2014.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone: 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.>

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 6, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-22188 Filed 9-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST ( in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51  App. V)

SIP Submitted by: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Date Submitted: March 29, 2005 Subject: Additional NOx Requirements Completeness Review Completed by: Rose Quinto and Marilyn Powers Date Completed: May 26, 2005 Administrative Materials ACCEPTABLE EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof. 1. Letter dated March 29, 2005 from Kathleen A. McGinty,

Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to Donald Welsh, Regional Administrator. X 2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order,

consent agreement in final form. That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/ issuance date. 2. The plan was published on December 11, 2004 in the Pennsylvania Bulletin ( Vol. 34, No. 50), effective December 11, 2004. X 3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan. 3. Section 5 of the Air Pollution Control Act ( 35 P. S. § 4005). X 4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan,

including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/ document signed, stamped,

dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation/ document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. 4. Copy of Annex A, 25 Pa Code Chapters 121, 129 and 145,

with an effective date of December 11, 2004. X Administrative Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

2 5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/ issuance of the plan. 5. Section 5 of the Air Pollution Control Act ( 35 P. S. § 4005). X 6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice. 6. Notice of public hearing and public comment period was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on December 11, 2004 Copies of the notarized forms submitted by each newspaper attesting to the advertisement's publication were included. X 7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable. 7. Three public hearings were held on November 18, 20, and 25, 2002. X 8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto. 8. Summary of comments and responses on the proposed rule published on December 11, 2004 in the Pennsylvania Bulletin ( Vol. 34, No. 50), Section F, pages 6511  6524. X Technical Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

3 1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. The plan establishes additional requirements to control NOx emissions from small sources of boilers, turbines and stationary internal combustion units; large stationary internal combustion units and Portland cement kilns. X 2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/ nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area( s). 2. Small sources of boilers, turbines and stationary internal combustion units in Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery,

and Philadelphia Counties. Large stationary internal combustion units and Portland cement kilns across the Commonwealth. X 3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate,

quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision. 3. Not applicable. X 4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. 4. The plan addresses only nonattainment area pollutants for ozone. Therefore, PSD increments and protection ( maintenance) of NAAQS are not applicable. The plan does not concern reasonable further progress. X 5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,

ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used,

justification for use of offsite data ( where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis. 5. Not applicable. No modeling demonstration was required to support the required revision. No additional modeling beyond UAM attainment modeling is needed. X Technical Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

4 6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology. 6. Yes. Sections 129.204, 145.113( c), and 145.143( c). X 7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/ reporting requirements,

where necessary, to ensure emission levels. 7. Yes. Sections 129.204( 2)( iii) and ( iv); 145.113( c)( 1) and ( c)( 2). X 8. Compliance/ enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice. 8 Yes. Sections 129.201( 2), 129, 202( 2), and 145.113( d)  ( f) X 9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies. ( If a policy is not appropriate,

explain why.) 9. No special justifications are required. X 10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. 10. Not applicable because this is not a section 107 request. X


[Federal Register: October 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 63231-63232]
[DOCID:fr14oc10-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63064; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-136]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Rule 1015

October 7, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 30, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 1015, Execution Guarantees
(with the exception of subparagraph (a)(vi)), which is outdated and
should have been deleted previously. The Exchange also proposes to
delete Options Floor Procedure Advice (``Advice'') A-11, which contains
corresponding language. The Exchange proposes to move subparagraph
(a)(vi) of both Rule 1015 and Advice A-11 to Rule 1063.02, which
governs floor broker activity.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at
the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to update and correct
the rules by deleting two outdated rules. Generally, the execution of
orders is now governed by Rules 1080 and 1082, among others. Rule 1015
refers to execution guarantees, disseminated size and ``trade or fade''
provisions that together have become obsolete due to the combination of
the adoption of firm quote obligations in options and increased
automation; specifically, the disseminated size is no longer an
artificial size that requires this rule to apportion responsibility to
``floor traders'' to reach that minimum size. With the advent of an
actual size in options along with automatic execution at the displayed
size, these provisions became outdated.
    With respect to Advice A-11, it tracks the language of Rule 1015.
Historically, Advices replicated the provisions of the Exchange's rules
that were most pertinent for the trading floor community to keep handy,
in lieu of the large, unwieldy rulebook; the Exchange adopted, for many
years, both rules and advices that contained nearly identical language
where the advice was the subject of a fine schedule under the
Exchange's minor rule plan in order for the trading floor to have easy
access to these provisions (which the Exchange printed and distributed)
and in order for those persons who administered fines to have easy
access to consult the applicable fine schedules.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Advices are administered as part of the Exchange's minor
rule plan; the Exchange proposes to remove Advice A-11 from the
minor rule plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to move Rule 1015(a)(vi) to Rule 1063.02
because it governs floor broker behavior and continues to be relevant.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by deleting obsolete provisions and generally providing clarity to the
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
Phlx has satisfied this requirement.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-136 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-136. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/
shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2010-136 and should be
submitted on or before November 4, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25820 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Panel Members for the Meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP)
                            to Consider and Review
Scientific Issues Associated with Insect Resistance Management for SmartStax(TM) Refuge-in-the-Bag, a Plant-Incorporated Protectant (PIP) Corn Seed Blend

                              December 8-9, 2010

Docket number:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0772			OPP Docket Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

FIFRA SAP Chair

Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D.
Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design
University of Michigan Institute for Social Research
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Designated Federal Official

Sharlene R. Matten, Ph.D.
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science Coordination & Policy
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
EPA East Building, MC 7201M
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20460
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members

Janice E. Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, ATS
William L. Giles Distinguished Professor
Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences
College of Veterinary Medicine
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, Mississippi

Kenneth M. Portier, Ph.D.
Program Director, Statistics
American Cancer Society
National Home Office
Atlanta, Georgia

Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.
Professor of Aquatic Ecotoxicology & Environmental Toxicology
Department of Environmental Sciences
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, California

FQPA Science Review Board Members

David A. Andow, Ph.D.
Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Insect Ecology
Department of Entomology
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota

Fred L. Gould, Ph.D.
William Neal Reynolds Professor of Agriculture
Department of Entomology &
Adjunct Professor
Department of Genetics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina

Anthony R. Ives, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Zoology
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin

Jeremy A. Kroemer, Ph.D.
Research Entomologist
USDA-ARS, CICGRU
Genetics Laboratory c/o Insectary
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa

Steven L. Peck, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Integrative Biology
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah

Susan T. Ratcliffe, Ph.D.
Director, USDA North Central Region Integrated Pest Management Center
Department of Crop Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, Illinois

Richard T. Roush, Ph.D.
Professor & Dean
Melbourne School of Land & Environment
University of Melbourne
Victoria, Australia

Mark Sears, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Entomology
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario

Jon J. Tollefson, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Entomology
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa

John K. Westbrook, Ph.D.
Research Meteorologist
Areawide Pest Management Research Unit
USDA, ARS, SPARC
College Station, Texas


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32382-32383]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12807]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP08-306-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System submits
Refund Report in compliance with Ordering Paragraph (C) of Opinion No.
510-A.
    Filed Date: 5/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130520-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-922-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Compliance Filing--Sunrise Retainage to be effective
7/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130520-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-923-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Neg Rate NC 2013-05-20 BP Energy to be effective 5/18/
2013.
    Filed Date: 5/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130520-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-924-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Consolidation of Firm Service Agmts filing to be
effective 6/21/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/21/13.
    Accession Number: 20130521-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-925-000.
    Applicants: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company.
    Description: Annual Fuel Gas Reimbursement Report of Questar
Southern Trails Pipeline Company for 2013.
    Filed Date: 5/21/13.
    Accession Number: 20130521-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/13.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-455-003.

    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Compliance with RP12-455 Reservation Charge Credit to
be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130520-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/13.
    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: May 22, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12807 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69732-69734]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27760]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70880; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
FINRA Rule 8312 (FINRA BrokerCheck Disclosure) To Include Information
About Members and Their Associated Persons of Any Registered National
Securities Exchange That Uses the CRD System for Registration Purposes

November 14, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 1, 2013, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 8312 (FINRA BrokerCheck
Disclosure) to include in BrokerCheck information about members and
their associated persons of any registered national securities exchange
that uses

the Central Registration Depository (``CRD[supreg]'') for registration
purposes. The proposed rule change also would make non-substantive
technical changes to FINRA Rule 8312 to reflect a change in FINRA's
style convention for referencing the CRD system.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA BrokerCheck provides the public with information on the
professional background, business practices, and conduct of FINRA
member firms and their associated persons. The information that FINRA
releases to the public through BrokerCheck is derived from the CRD
system, the securities industry online registration and licensing
database. FINRA member firms, their associated persons, and regulators
report information to the CRD system via the uniform registration
forms. By making most of this information publicly available,
BrokerCheck, among other things, helps investors make informed choices
about the individuals and firms with which they conduct
business.BrokerCheck allows investors and others to obtain registration
information about firms and their associated persons by telephone \3\
and the Internet.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The BrokerCheck Hotline telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    \4\ BrokerCheck is available online at http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, Congress amended Section 15A(i) of the Act \5\ with the
enactment of the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act
(``MPFSPA'').\6\ The amendment requires, among other things, that
FINRA, as a registered securities association, maintain a toll-free
telephone listing and a readily accessible electronic or other process
to receive and promptly respond to inquiries regarding (i) registration
information on its members and their associated persons, and (ii)
registration information on the members and their associated persons of
any registered national securities exchange that uses the CRD system
for the registration of its members and their associated persons (``CRD
Exchange'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(i).
    \6\ Public Law 109-290, 120 Stat. 1317 (2006).
    \7\ For purposes of Section 15A(i) of the Act, registration
information is defined as ``the information reported in connection
with the registration or licensing of brokers and dealers and their
associated persons, including disciplinary actions, regulatory,
judicial, and arbitration proceedings, and other information
required by law, or exchange or association rule, and the source and
status of such information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registration information currently available through
BrokerCheck is limited to firms and individuals that are currently or
were previously registered with FINRA. BrokerCheck does not contain
information regarding firms or individuals whose registrations have
been exclusively with a registered national securities exchange
(although such information is contained in the CRD system).
    The proposed rule change would amend FINRA Rule 8312 to include
these non-FINRA member firms and their associated persons in
BrokerCheck. Specifically, the proposed rule change would make publicly
available in BrokerCheck information about members and their associated
persons of any CRD Exchange.\8\ The information that would be disclosed
through BrokerCheck about CRD Exchange members and their associated
persons would be the same as the information disclosed about FINRA
members and their associated persons pursuant to FINRA Rule 8312. CRD
Exchange members and their associated persons would be able to dispute
inaccuracies in their BrokerCheck reports as provided for in FINRA Rule
8312(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Firms and individuals that have been registered exclusively
with a CRD Exchange will be included in BrokerCheckonly if such
registration occurred on or after August 16, 1999. Filings for those
firms and individuals whose registrations terminated prior to August
16, 1999 were not made electronically so BrokerCheck reports for
such firms and individuals cannot be made in an automated fashion.
See proposed Supplementary Material .03 to FINRA Rule 8312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also would make non-substantive technical
changes to FINRA Rule 8312 to reflect a change in FINRA's style
convention for referencing the CRD system.
    FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days following
Commission approval. The effective date will be no later than 180 days
following publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission
approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
enhance investor protection by providing investors and other users of
BrokerCheck with information regarding the professional background,
business practices, and conduct of additional firms and their
associated persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 15A(i)(1) of the Act,\10\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA maintain a toll-free telephone
listing and a readily accessible electronic or other process to receive
and promptly respond to inquiries regarding registration information on
CRD Exchange members and their associated persons. FINRA believes that
the proposed rule change satisfies this requirement by expanding
BrokerCheck to include registration information about CRD Exchange
members and their associated persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(i)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, Section
15A(i) of the Act requires FINRA to maintain a toll-free telephone
listing and a readily accessible electronic or other process to respond
to inquiries regarding registration information on FINRA members and
their associated persons, as well as CRD Exchange members and their
associated persons. BrokerCheck is the program by which FINRA releases
to the public registration information on its members and their
associated persons and, consistent with Section 15A(i) of the Act,
FINRA intends to expand

BrokerCheck to include CRD Exchange members and their associated
persons. The proposed rule change will enhance consistency with respect
to the information available via BrokerCheck by providing public access
to the same information for FINRA and CRD Exchange members and their
associated persons. Such information allows investors to make informed
choices about the individuals and firms with which they conduct
business. FINRA does not anticipate that the proposed rule change will
impose any costs or burdens on CRD Exchange members or their associated
persons. Specifically, FINRA expects that the only costs associated
with the proposed rule change will involve programming changes to
BrokerCheck, which will be borne by FINRA. No action will be required
on the part of CRD Exchange members or their associated persons to
implement the proposed rule change. In addition, the proposed rule
change will have no impact on the reporting requirements or
registration process for CRD Exchange members or their associated
persons.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2013-047 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2013-047. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2013-047 and should be
submitted on or before December 11, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27760 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE SE.

WASHINGTON DC, 20590	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

August 2, 2016

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Example Compliance Scenarios for the Final HD GHG Phase 2
Trailer Program

FROM:	Jessica Brakora, Engineer, Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO:	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Dockets
NHTSA-2014-0132 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

Introduction

As described in the Phase 2 HD GHG and Fuel Consumption Final
Rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA are adopting the first CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption regulations for trailer manufacturers.  The trailer industry
has no experience with the process for complying with EPA emissions or
NHTSA fuel consumption regulations.  The industry is used to safety
standards that require specific technologies be installed on their
trailers.  In contrast, the box van performance standards of the Phase 2
program offer trailer manufacturers several technology options to
comply.  Additionally, the concept of averaging, which is an optional
compliance flexibility for trailer manufacturers in MY 2027 and later,
may add complexity to a process that is already unfamiliar to vehicle
manufacturers that are not currently regulated.  The purpose of this
memo is to provide a set of hypothetical examples of how a trailer
manufacturer might comply with the Phase 2 standards while meeting the
needs of a variety of customers.

In this memo, we provide example scenarios to illustrate some of the
different compliance options that would be available to trailer
manufacturers in the program.  The first set of scenarios presented is
for model year (MY) 2018, representing the first stage of the phase-in.
A second set of scenarios is presented for MY 2027, when we the program
is fully phased-in.  We performed this analysis in terms of grams of CO2
per ton-mile; use a conversion of 10,180 grams of CO2 per gallon of
diesel to calculate the fuel consumption values.  All calculations were
performed using the attached Excel file.  This Excel file is updated
from the Example Trailer Emissions Calculations template that was
included in the docket at the time of the NPRM.   This updated file can
be used to estimate compliance for trailer manufacturers, but cannot be
used for official compliance.

Compliance Options Available in the Final Trailer Program

In MY 2018 through MY 2026, trailer manufacturers comply with the
trailer program by producing all of their regulated trailers to meet the
standards.  The agencies expect a variety of technology combinations
from several device manufacturers would satisfactorily meet the
standards, and a manufacturer would be able to offer its customers some
flexibility in the choice of technology packages they purchase.
Trailer manufacturers would take on basic recordkeeping and reporting
responsibilities during these years.

Historically, EPA has created provisions that allow vehicle
manufacturers the option of averaging, banking, and trading within their
sales mix, which provides an additional flexibility for manufacturers to
achieve compliance.  Averaging provisions allow a vehicle manufacturer
to produce and sell trailers that under-comply with the standards as
long as they make up for those sales with sufficient over-compliant
trailers.  Banking and trading provisions allow vehicle manufacturers to
carry-over, sell or purchase end-of-year credits generated from
over-compliance.  This final trailer program does not include banking or
trading provisions, since the agencies believe these provisions would
disproportionately impact the large number of small businesses in the
trailer industry.  See the preamble to this rulemaking for a more
detailed discussion of these impacts.

The agencies are adopting averaging provisions as a compliance
flexibility for trailer manufacturers in MYs 2027 and later.  As will be
shown in the examples to follow, an averaging compliance approach would
allow a trailer manufacturer to offer its customers a greater number of
technology options, since not all trailers sold are required to meet the
standards.  Customers would have the option of purchasing technology
packages that meet or exceed the standards, or they could choose to
avoid purchasing some technologies.  Trailer manufacturers that opt for
an averaging compliance approach would have additional recordkeeping
responsibilities in that they must ensure that their sales of adequately
over-compliant trailers exceed their under-compliant sales.  These
manufacturers would also have to submit an additional end-of-year report
describing their averaging strategy.

Summary of Performance Levels for Trailer Technologies

As discussed in the preamble to this rulemaking and its accompanying
RIA, the agencies evaluated several existing technologies and created
metrics to evaluate their performance.    REF _Ref412048314 \h  Table 1
presents performance parameters for aerodynamic technologies, lower
rolling resistance tires, and tire pressure systems (i.e., TPMS or
ATIS), and provides example technologies for reference.  Delta CdA is
the change in drag area, which is a measure of aerodynamic performance.
The tire rolling resistance level (TRRL) is the regulatory term for the
coefficient of rolling resistance (CRR) that a trailer manufacturer uses
in compliance.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 :  Summary of Performance Parameters and
Example Technologies

Aerodynamics	CdA (m2)	Example Technologies

Long Van	Short Van

Bin I 	0.0	No Aero 	No Aero

Bin II 	0.1	Gap Reducer 	Skirts or Tail

Bin III 	0.4	Skirts or Tail 	Skirts + Gap

Bin IV	0.7	Skirts + Gap	Optimized Combinations

Bin V	1.0	Skirts + Tail

	Bin VI	1.4	Optimized Combinations

	Bin VII	1.8	Future Devices/Redesign

	Tire Rolling Resistance	TRRL (kg/ton)	Example Technologies

Level 1 	6.5	Non-Box Trailer Baseline

Level 2	6.0	Box Van Baseline Tires

Level 3	5.1	SmartWay Tires

Level 4	4.7	Top 25% 2014 SmartWay Tires

Tire Pressure System	Effectiveness	Description

No System	0.0%	None

TPMS	1.0%	Tire Pressure Monitoring System

ATIS	1.2%	Automatic Tire Inflation System

The regulations include a list of 12 light-weight components and four
tire/wheel options that a manufacturer could install on its trailers for
weight reduction.  For simplification in this set of examples, we are
limiting the weight reduction options to six packages.  Package 1
substitutes eight dual-wide steel wheels with eight aluminum wheels, and
Package 2 substitutes eight steel wheels with four aluminum wide-based
single wheels and tires.  Package 3 is a combination of weight savings
by installing aluminum trailer chassis (i.e., bogie) components:
suspension assembly (280 lb), and hubs and drums (2 x 80 lb).  Package 4
includes aluminum versions of three components found on the underside of
box trailers:  landing gear (50 lb), a slider box (150 lb), and upper
coupler assembly (430 lb).  Package 5 is a combination of six aluminum
trailer body components:  roof bows (100 lb), rear door surround (150
lb), rear door  (187 lb), floor crossmembers (203 lb), side posts (300),
and the complete floor (375).  Package 6 includes all of the components
in Packages 2-5.    REF _Ref416257947 \h  Table 2  summarizes the weight
savings for each package.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 :  Summary of Weight Reduction Packages
Used in Compliance Examples

Weight Reduction	Description	Weight Reduced (lbs)

Base	Standard Components	0

Package 1	8 Aluminum Dual Wheels	200

Package 2	4 Aluminum Wide-Based Single Wheels	524

Package 3	Trailer Bogie Components	440

Package 4	Trailer Underside Components	630

Package 5	Trailer Body Components	1362

Package 6	WBS Wheels, Bogie, Underside, Body	2956

The performance parameters for aerodynamics and tires are combined with
the cumulative weight savings from any light-weight component
substitutions and the improvement for use of a tire pressure system to
determine CO2 emissions and fuel consumption from a tractor-trailer
vehicle.  The agencies developed an equation for trailer manufacturers
to combine the effects of these technologies and calculate CO2 emissions
for compliance.  The equation is based on the EPA’s heavy-duty vehicle
simulation tool, the Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM), that is used
for compliance by other heavy-duty vehicle sectors.  See RIA Chapter
2.10.5.  Equation 1 is the generic GEM-based compliance equation for box
vans.

∙TRRL + C3∙CdA + C4∙WR)∙C5	(1)

Coefficients C1 to C4 are identified for each trailer type in Table 1 of
40 CFR 1037.515 and copied in the “ForReference” tab of the attached
emissions calculations Excel file.  The performance parameters for tire
rolling resistance and aerodynamic improvements (i.e., TRRL
andCdA) would be obtained from testing performed by the trailer
manufacturer or aerodynamic device or tire manufacturers.  The weight
reduction (WR) value could be a sum of the approved light-weight
components that are installed on the trailer or obtained from off-cycle
testing (see 40 CFR 1037.515(e)).  The constant, C5, is equal to 0.990
(to account for a 1.0 percent improvement) if a trailer has TPMS
installed, or 0.988 (to account for a 1.2 percent improvement) if a
trailer has ATIS installed, otherwise it is 1.0.  Throughout this memo,
Equation 1 is used to calculate the CO2 emissions.  As mentioned
previously, we performed this analysis in terms of grams of CO2 per
ton-mile; use a conversion of 10,180 grams of CO2 per gallon of diesel
to calculate the corresponding fuel consumption values for compliance
with NHTSA’s regulations.

Description of Example Customers

In the examples that follow, we consider a box van manufacturer that
sells a total of 200 long dry vans to four customers with different
needs and preferences for their orders.      REF _Ref416327515 \h  Table
3  introduces the four customers, their preferences, and their order
sizes.  Each customer purchases an equal number of trailers that qualify
as “full-aero” and “partial-aero”.  For simplicity, the
customers and the number of trailers in their orders remain the same in
each scenario presented.  We recognize that manufacturers may produce
more than a single type of trailer, sell more than 200 trailers, and
have more than four customers.  The concepts presented here can be
easily translated to larger production volumes and the other box van
subcategories.  A short description of some of the subcategory
differences is provided at the end of these examples.  Note that
non-aero box vans and non-box trailers are not presented here.  These
trailers have design standards that require manufactures to install a
tire pressure system (TPMS or ATIS) and LRR tires at specific
performance levels.  They do not have numerical standards to calculate.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3 :  Description of Customers for Example
Compliance Scenarios

Customer	Acceptance of Technologies	Units in Order

1	Reluctant to adopt aero	60

2	Reluctant to adopt LRR tires	20

3	Willing to adopt all tech	80

4	Reluctant to adopt ATI	40

Example Compliance Scenarios

In MYs 2018 through 2026, long and short box van manufacturers produce
all of their regulated trailers to meet the standards.  In MY 2027 and
later, these manufacturers would be allowed to use averaging within a
model year, in which case some of their trailer production could
under-comply if enough of their other trailers over-complied.  The first
set of scenarios presents two approaches to meeting the MY 2018
standards for long dry vans for both the full- and partial-aero vans.
The first example allows each customer to choose specific technologies
to avoid.  In the second example, the manufacturer specifies a base
level of technologies such that all trailers will meet the standard and
customers have the option to order additional technologies if desired.
The second set of scenarios describes two approaches to meeting the MY
2027 standards.  One MY 2027 example shows how each customer’s
trailers might comply with the standards and the other uses averaging
such that the long dry van family complies while allowing customers to
avoid adopting some technologies.

MY 2018 Compliance Scenarios

In MY 2018, each of a manufacturer’s regulated trailers must perform
at or better than the applicable standard for the model year.  Below are
descriptions of two example scenarios that adopt this compliance
approach.  The first scenario offers more flexibility for customers to
choose technology packages based on their preferences.  A trailer
manufacturer adopting this approach would likely evaluate several
technology combinations to ensure each of the trailers sold meet the
standards, which may require some additional recordkeeping.  The second
scenario describes a simplistic strategy for achieving the standards for
the given model year.  The trailer manufacturer’s customers in this
second example would still maintain some choice in technology options,
but a minimum set of combinations would be required.  This scenario
would involve the least amount of recordkeeping for the trailer
manufacturer.

Example 1:  MY 2018 Standard Long Dry Van Compliance Scenario

In MY 2018, full- and partial-aero standards are the same (81.3 g
CO2/ton-mi) and the standards can be met with the same technologies.  In
this example, Customer 1 does not like aerodynamic technologies and is
ok with adopting TPMS (for a 1% reduction) and LRR tires at the SmartWay
verification level (5.1 kg/ton).  This customer made up for no
aerodynamic improvements by adopting Package 6 weight reduction (2956
lb).  Customer 2 does not like LRR tires.  Instead, this customer
purchases ATIS (1.2% reduction), skirts at a Bin III level of
performance (0.4 m2 improvement) and Package 1 and Package 5 weight
reduction (200 lb + 1362 lb).  Customer 3 is open to all technologies,
and chooses ATIS, SmartWay tires, and Bin III skirts, but no weight
reduction.  Customer 4 does not like ATIS and chooses SmartWay tires,
Bin III skirts, Package 5 weight reduction, and no tire pressure system.
  REF _Ref458460213 \h  Table 4  shows the performance parameters
applied for each trailer configuration. It’s seen that all trailer
orders meet the standards.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  4 :  Example Performance Parameters for
Four Customers in a MY 2018 Standard Compliance Scenario; MY 2018
standard is 81.3 g CO2/ton-mile

Trailer	Preference	C5	TRRL

(kg/ton)	DCdA

(m2)	Weight Reduction

(lb)	CO2

(g/ton-mi)

Config_Full_1	No Aero	0.990	5.1	0.0	2956	80.8

Config_Full_2	No LRR Tires	0.988	6.0	0.4	1562	81.2

Config_Full_3	All Tech OK	0.988	5.1	0.4	0	81.3

Config_Full_4	No ATIS	1.000	5.1	0.4	1362	80.9

Config_Partial_1	No Aero	0.990	5.1	0.0	2956	80.8

Config_Partial_2	No LRR Tires	0.988	6.0	0.4	1562	81.2

Config_Partial_3	All Tech OK	0.988	5.1	0.4	0	81.3

Config_Partial_4	No ATIS	1.000	5.1	0.4	1362	80.9

Prior to the model year, a manufacturer adopting a similar compliance
strategy as shown in   REF _Ref416334075 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 4
may wish to consider and keep track of which combination of technologies
would result in compliant trailers when deciding the technology packages
to offer to its customers.  The trailer manufacturer would not need to
analyze its sales throughout the year as long as each of the trailers
sold continued to meet the standards.  At the end of the year, this
trailer manufacturer would submit a production report to the agencies
that includes the production volumes and performance of the trailers
sold.  A detailed description of the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements is available in 40 CFR 1037.250.

Example 2:  MY 2018 Simplified Long Dry Van Compliance Scenario

A simplified compliance example is shown in   REF _Ref416348328 \h
Table 5 .  In this example, the trailer manufacturer establishes a base
set of technologies for all of its trailers to ensure that every trailer
was compliant.  Every trailer sold includes at least Bin III aerodynamic
technologies, SmartWay level rolling resistance tires, TPMS, and
aluminum dual wheels which exactly meets the standard at 81.3 g
CO2/ton-mile.  The trailer manufacturer in this scenario would not
restrict the purchase of additional technologies, as demonstrated by
Customers 3 and 4 choosing to purchase trailers with ATIS and additional
light-weight components, respectively.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  5 :  Example Performance Parameters for
Four Customers in a MY 2018 Simplified Compliance Scenario; MY 2018
standard is 81.3 g CO2/ton-mile

Trailer	Preference	C5	TRRL

(kg/ton)	DCdA

(m2)	Weight Reduction

(lb)	CO2

(g/ton-mi)

Config_Full_1	No Aero	0.99	5.1	0.4	200	81.3

Config_Full_2	No LRR Tires	0.99	5.1	0.4	200	81.3

Config_Full_3	All Tech OK	0.988	5.1	0.4	200	81.1

Config_Full_4	No ATIS	0.99	5.1	0.4	1362	80.1

Config_Partial_1	No Aero	0.99	5.1	0.4	200	81.3

Config_Partial_2	No LRR Tires	0.99	5.1	0.4	200	81.3

Config_Partial_3	All Tech OK	0.988	5.1	0.4	200	81.1

Config_Partial_4	No ATIS	0.99	5.1	0.4	1362	80.1

While this simplified compliance scenario reduces the number of options
the manufacturer offers its customers, it maintains a degree of
flexibility by not requiring the use of a single make or model of any
technology.  Several vendors and technology models are available today
that meet these qualifications, and the trailer manufacturer would be
able to allow its customers some choice of specific technologies to
apply.   For example, many of the aerodynamic technologies currently
verified by SmartWay are expected to perform at Bin III levels, so
manufacturers would have many options in terms of device design and
manufacturer.  Similarly, there are many LRR tire options, and several
makes and models of tire pressure systems (i.e., ATIS or TPMS).

The reduced flexibility of this simplified compliance scenario provides
the trailer manufacturer with the lowest compliance burden of the
options evaluated in this memo.  The manufacturer would only need to
evaluate the base technology package that meet the performance criteria
and ensure every trailer sold included, at minimum, that base technology
package.  Any additional technologies added to a trailer would result in
over-compliance and would not benefit the manufacturer in this scenario.
 The manufacturers would still need to submit an end-of-year production
report to summarize the year’s sales and confirm that a baseline
performance package was installed on each trailer sold.

MY 2027 Compliance Scenarios

Beginning in MY 2021, the full- and partial-aero standards no longer
match.  The full-aero standards progressively increase in stringency
until they are fully phased-in by MY 2027.  The standard for full-aero
long box dry vans is 75.7 g CO2/ton-mile in MY 2027, and the trailers
sold by the trailer manufacturer would have to include higher performing
technologies to comply.  The partial-aero stringency increases in MY
2021 to reflect the use of higher-performing LRR tires and the long box
dry van standard remains constant at 80.6 g CO2/ton-mile in the years
that follow.  Example 3 demonstrates on set of options for all trailer
configurations to meet the standards.  In Example 4, the trailer
manufacturer opts to use the averaging provisions to meet the standards.

Example 3:  MY 2027 Standard Long Dry Van Compliance Scenario

In this example, the trailer manufacturer avoids averaging by ensuring
each trailer is sold in a compliant configuration.  Similar to Example
1, the manufacturer allows each customer to choose the technology
combinations.  However, due to the increased stringency, some
technologies cannot be fully avoided as was possible in MY 2018.    REF
_Ref416779299 \h  Table 6  shows the performance parameters applied for
each trailer configuration.

Customer 1 was initially reluctant to include aero on its box vans, but
was given a great deal on a Bin IV aerodynamic package (0.7 m2
improvement) for its full-aero box van order.  It completed its
compliant full-aero van order with advanced tires beyond TRRL 4
performance (4.5 kg/ton), ATIS (1.2% reduction) and Package 6 weight
reduction.  Customer 2 was reluctant to order LRR for its trailers, but
settled on SmartWay-level tires with Bin V aerodynamics, ATIS, and
Package 6 weight reduction for its full-aero trailers.  Customers 3 was
open to most technologies and opted to order trailers with very advanced
aerodynamic improvements (Bin VI), ATIS, TRRL 4 tires and aluminum
wheels on its full-aero order.  To continue to avoid purchasing a tire
pressure system, Customer 4 chose TRRL 4 tires, Bin V aerodynamics, and
Package 6 weight reduction in its full-aero order. The partial-aero box
van orders from each customer were the same as   REF _Ref458460213 \h
Table 4  in Example 1, except that the tire performances increased by
one TRRL; Customer 2 ordered SmartWay-level tires and the others ordered
TRRL 4 tires.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  6 :  Example Performance Parameters for
Four Customers in a MY 2027 Standard Compliance Scenario; MY 2027
standard is 75.7 g/ton-mi for full-aero and 80.6 for partial-aero

Trailer	Preference	C5	TRRL

(kg/ton)	DCdA

(m2)	Weight Reduction

(lb)	CO2

(g/ton-mi)

Config_Full_1	No Aero	0.988	4.5	0.7	2956	75.6

Config_Full_2	No LRR Tires	0.988	5.1	1.0	2956	74.8

Config_Full_3	All Tech OK	0.988	4.7	1.4	200	74.7

Config_Full_4	No ATIS	1.000	4.7	1.0	2956	75.1

Config_Partial_1	No Aero	0.990	4.7	0.0	2956	80.1

Config_Partial_2	No LRR Tires	0.988	5.1	0.4	1562	79.7

Config_Partial_3	All Tech OK	0.988	4.7	0.4	0	80.6

Config_Partial_4	No ATIS	1.000	4.7	0.4	1362	80.2

As noted previously, trailer manufacturers that produce over-compliant
trailers do not receive any benefit from them in a non-averaging
compliance strategy.  However, some trailer manufacturers may consider
the relatively few recordkeeping and reporting requirements to be an
acceptable compromise.  Similar to Example 2, a manufacturer may choose
a minimum set of technologies to its customers to ensure compliance in
MY 2027.  The process is similar to the previous example and an
additional example is not shown for this standard.

Example 4:  MY 2027 Averaging Long Dry Van Compliance Scenario

In this scenario, the trailer manufacturer chose to use the averaging
provisions for its full-aero box vans.  This compliance approach allows
the manufacturer to offer its customers the largest range of technology
options for their trailers.  This example shows that the four
customers’ technology preferences that were outlined previously in
REF _Ref416327515 \h  Table 3  could be better reflected in an averaging
scenario; the customers that wanted fewer (or no) technologies could be
accommodated.  However, it is noted that trailer manufacturer adopting
an averaging scenario would have additional reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and would likely need to monitor both the performance
level and production volume of their trailers sold throughout the model
year to ensure end-of-year compliance.

During the certification application process, a manufacturer that wishes
to use the averaging provisions would identify trailer “subfamilies”
that have similar performance.  The technology packages used in each
subfamily would have unique target performance values, or Family
Emission Limits (FELs).  When averaging is not applied, subfamilies are
not necessary, since every trailer produced would meet the standards.
In an averaging compliance strategy, as described next, a
production-weighted average of the FELs is used to determine compliance.

  REF _Ref416352346 \h  Table 7  illustrates the technology choices of
the four customers for the full-aero box vans in this averaging
scenario, highlighting the values assigned to the technologies they
wished to avoid.  The partial-aero box vans are not eligible for
averaging and are unchanged from Example 3.  The order from Customer 3
in Example 3 included advanced Bin VI aerodynamics, tires with the
lowest rolling resistance, ATIS, and aluminum wheels for a small weight
reduction.  Since Customer 3 has a relatively large order, the trailer
manufacturer was able to promote additional weight-reducing component
substitutions (Packages 3 and 5), which resulted in larger CO2
reductions for the trailer manufacturer.  Customer 3’s order resulted
in CO2 reductions well below what was needed for the manufacturer to
comply with the standard with a value of 72.9 g CO2/ton-mi.  Because of
this over-compliance for part if its production, the manufacturer could
offer trailers with fewer technologies to its other customers.

In Example 3, Customer 1 was willing to order trailers with advanced LRR
tires, ATI systems, and the largest weight reduction option (Package 6)
and reluctantly adopted Bin III aerodynamics.  However, with averaging,
the manufacturer could allow this customer to purchase trailers without
any aerodynamic technologies.  The absence of aerodynamics on these
trailers resulted in under-compliant trailers with an FEL at 79.6
g/ton-mi.  Customer 2 preferred not to adopt LRR tires, but maintained
the ATIS, Bin V aerodynamics and Package 6 weight reduction from Example
3 and the FEL for this order was 76.3 g/ton-mi.  Since Customer 4 was
still willing to order its trailers with Bin V aerodynamics, the TRRL 4
tires, and Package 6 weight reduction, it was able to continue to avoid
a tire pressure system and achieve an over-compliant FEL of 75.1
g/ton-mi.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  7 :  Example Technology Adoption Rates for
Four Customers in a MY 2021 Averaging Scenario with Four Subfamilies; MY
2027 standard for full-aero is 75.7 g/ton-mile

Trailer	Preference	C5	TRRL

(kg/ton)	DCdA

(m2)	Weight Reduction

(lb)	CO2

(g/ton-mi)	Trailer

Order

Config_Full_1	No Aero	0.988	4.5	0.0	2956	79.6	30

Config_Full_2	No LRR Tires	0.988	6.0	1.0	2956	76.3	10

Config_Full_3	All Tech OK	0.988	4.7	1.4	2002	72.9	40

Config_Full_4	No ATIS	1.000	4.7	1.0	2956	75.1	20

In this scenario, each order results in a unique CO2 value.  Therefore,
each trailer order becomes a subfamily within the long dry van family,
and the CO2 results become the FELs for the subfamilies.  The
manufacturer calculated a production-weighted average of all its FELs as
follows: 30% x 79.6 g/ton-mi + 10% x 76.3 g/ton-mi + 40% x 72.9 g/ton-mi
+ 20% x 75.1 g/ton-mi to arrive at the overall compliance level of 75.7
g/ton-mi.  Since this level exactly matches the standard in MY 2027, the
manufacturer would be in compliance with the standard for this model
year.

In summary, Example 4 shows how averaging can give a manufacturer more
flexibility to meet its customers’ individual preferences.
Specifically, 40 percent of the sales in this averaging example did not
meet the overall standard for this model year and 60 percent of the
orders were able to completely avoid a technology.  This strategy could
be valuable for trailer manufacturers that have customers willing to
purchase sufficient numbers of trailers with higher-performing
technologies to offset orders from customers that prefer fewer or
lower-performing technologies.  However, this approach can be
challenging if all of a manufacturer’s customers demand
lower-performing trailers.

The flexibility of averaging comes with an increased compliance burden
in terms of number of subfamilies and CO2 calculations, increased
tracking of sales, and increased end-of-year reporting to the agencies,
as well as the potential for more complex interactions with customers in
sales negotiations.  All trailer manufacturers submit an end-of-year
production report to EPA that summarizes their annual sales.  Trailer
manufacturers that adopt an averaging compliance approach would include
a description of the subfamilies in their application for certification,
and would submit a second end-of-year report that describes their
averaging strategy and the results for each of their subfamilies.  These
manufacturers would not need to ensure that every trailer produced
throughout the year met the standard.  However, they would benefit from
keeping record throughout the year of the volume of sales and an
estimate of the CO2 (and fuel consumption) level for each sale to ensure
that under-complying trailer sales do not account for a majority of the
overall sales for the year.  Otherwise, a manufacturer could be in a
situation where they create a large deficit that will require
significant over-compliance in the following years.

Final Notes

,

4

A

B

摧䚹3

瑹⸠Þ

瑹⸠Þ

n

ƒ

kd

耀ｦ

耀ｦ

耀ｦ

耀ｦ

耀ｦ

耀ｦ

耀ｦ

耀ｦ

h

>

hàc

h

h

 h

hàc

0

hàc

hàc

hàc

h

hàc

h

hàc

h

h

a$gdÅ8

 h

hÅ8

hÅ8

hÅ8

hÅ8

hÅ8

h

gdÅ8

hÅ8

h

 hñ

hÅ8

hÅ8

hÅ8

hÅ8

hÅ8

hÅ8

gdÅ8

4

瑹㣅

a$gdÅ8

h®3

 h

h

hÅ8

more effective to substitute light-weight components in lieu of adopting
other technology options.  The attached Excel template can be used to
repeat the examples presented here and to evaluate other compliance
strategies.

Attachment:  MemoAttachment_ExampleTrailerCO2EmissionsCalcs_FRM.xlsx

 Manufacturers that opt into an averaging program in MY 2027 and later
cannot sell trailers with zero CO2 or fuel consumption improvements
(i.e., “no control” trailers).  The agencies are adopting a maximum
FEL that requires manufacturers to at least meet MY 2018 standards or
better on all trailers.  See 40 CFR 1037.10(a)(5).

Example Compliance Scenarios for the Final HD GHG Phase 2 Trailer
Program, Page   PAGE  8  of   NUMPAGES   10


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71121-71122]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice Of Filings No 2

November 10, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1082-001.
    Applicants: Mojave Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Mojave Pipeline Company, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: Mojave Rate Case Tariff Sheet to be effective 12/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101108-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1283-001.
    Applicants: WestGas InterState, Inc.
    Description: WestGas InterState, Inc. submits tariff filing per
154.203: 11.08.2010 WGI Baseline Correction to be effective 9/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101108-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1107-001.
    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: Baseline Compliance to be effective 9/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101109-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1181-001.
    Applicants: Horizon Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Horizon Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Compliance Filing Pursuant to FERC Order in Docket No.
RP10-1181, to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101109-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1206-001.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Compliance Filing Pursuant to FERC Order in Docket
No. RP10-1206-001, to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101109-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1209-001
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Compliance Filing Pursuant to FERC Order in Docket No.
RP10-1209 to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101109-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1216-001.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Hardy Storage Company, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: NAESB V 1.9 Compliance 11.9.10 to be effective 9/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101109-5144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1248-001.
    Applicants: Central Kentucky Transmission Company
    Description: Central Kentucky Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.203: NAESB V 1.9 Compliance 11.9.10 to be effective 9/
17/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101109-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1137-002.
    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: ACA Correction No. 2 to be effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101110-5054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1150-001.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC submits
Compliance Filing, to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101110-5041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1151-001.
    Applicants: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC
    Description: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.203: NAESB 1.9 Compliance to be effective 11/1/
2010.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101110-5044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1153-001.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: NAESB 1.9 Compliance to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101110-5042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1180-001.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
Correction to NAESB 1.9 Compliance Filing, to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101110-5043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public

Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on
the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29318 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 44998]
[DOCID:fr30jy10-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

[DOT Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0074]

The Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) Aviation Safety
Subcommittee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation.

ACTION: The Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC): Aviation
Safety Subcommittee; Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the
Secretary of Transportation, announces a meeting of the FAAC Aviation
Safety Subcommittee, which will be held August 24, 2010, in Chicago,
Illinois. This notice announces the date, time, and location of the
meeting, which will be open to the public. The purpose of the FAAC is
to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of
Transportation to ensure the competitiveness of the U.S. aviation
industry and its capability to manage effectively the evolving
transportation needs, challenges, and opportunities of the global
economy. The Aviation Safety Subcommittee will receive a briefing from
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials on the agency's
activities associated with the list of priority safety issues developed
during the first meeting. The subcommittee will also develop a work
plan for future meetings.

DATES: The meeting will be held on August 24, 2010, at 1 p.m. Central
Daylight Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Boeing Company, 100 North
Riverside Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60606.
    Public Access: The meeting is open to the public. (See below for
registration instructions.)
    Public Comments: Persons wishing to offer written comments and
suggestions concerning the activities of the advisory committee or
subcommittee should file comments in the Public Docket (Docket Number
DOT-OST-2010-0074 at www.regulations.gov) or alternatively through the
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>e-mail address. If comments and suggestions are intended
specifically for the Aviation Safety Subcommittee, the term ``Aviation
Safety'' should be listed in the subject line of the message. To ensure
such comments can be considered by the subcommittee before its August
24, 2010, meeting, public comments must be filed by close of business
on Monday, August 16, 2010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of an FAAC Aviation Safety
Subcommittee meeting taking place on August 24, 2010, at 1 p.m. Central
Daylight Time, at The Boeing Company, 100 North Riverside Plaza,
Chicago, Illinois 60606. The subcommittee will--
    1. Receive a briefing from the FAA on existing safety activities
associated with the list of priority safety issues developed during the
previous meeting.
    2. Discuss any necessary revisions to the priority list.
    3. Develop a work plan for future meetings.

Registration

    Because of space constraints and planning considerations, persons
desiring to attend must pre-register through e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The term ``Registration: Safety Subcommittee'' must be listed in the
subject line of the message, and admission will be limited to the first
25 persons to pre-register and receive a confirmation of their pre-
registration. No arrangements are being made for audio or video
transmission, or for oral statements or questions from the public at
the meeting. Minutes of the meeting will be posted on the FAAC Web site
at http://www.dot.gov/FAAC.

Request for Special Accommodation

    The DOT is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for
all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because
of a disability, please send a request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with the term
``Special Accommodations'' listed in the subject line of the message by
close of business on August 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tony Fazio, Deputy Director, Office of
Accident Investigation and Prevention, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 27, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Designated Federal Official, Future of Aviation Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-18722 Filed 7-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P