TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY									ES-1

Chapter 1:	Industry Characterization
1.1	Introduction	   1-1

Chapter 2:	Technology and Cost
2.1	Overview of Technologies	2-1
2.2	Technology Principles  -  SI Engines	2-2
2.3	Technology Principles  -  CI Engines	2-8
2.4	Technology Principles - Vehicles	2-14
2.5	Technology Application and Estimated Costs  -  HD Pickups and Vans	2-47
2.6	Technology Application  -  SI Engines	2-63
2.7	Technology Application and Estimated Costs  -  CI Engines	2-69
2.8	Technology Application and Estimated Costs  -  Tractors	2-80
2.9	Technology Application and Estimated Costs  -  Vocational Vehicles	2-109
2.10	Technology Application and Estimated Costs  -  Trailers	2-148
2.11	Natural Gas	2-177
2.12	Technology Costs	2-178
2.13	Package Costs	2-259

Chapter 3:	Test Procedures
3.1	Heavy-Duty Engine Test Procedure	3-1
3.2	Aerodynamic Assessment	3-4
3.3	Tire Rolling Resistance	3-47
3.4	Duty Cycle	3-49
3.5	Tare Weights and Payload	3-55
3.6	Powertrain Test Procedures	3-58
3.7	Hybrid Powertrain Test Procedures	3-63
3.8	Rear Axle Efficiency Test	3-65
3.9	HD Pickup Truck and Van Chassis Test Procedure	3-66
3.10	Alternative Certification Approach	3-69

Chapter 4:	Vehicle Simulation Model
4.1	Purpose and Scope	4-1
4.2	Model Code Description	4-2
4.3	Validation of Phase 2 GEM Simulations	4-10
4.4	EPA and NHTSA HD Vehicle Compliance Model	4-21
4.5	Technology Improvements that Are Recognized in GEM without Simulation	4-33

Chapter 5:	Impacts on Emissions and Fuel Consumption
5.1	Executive Summary	5-1
5.2	Introduction	5-7
5.3	Program Analysis and Modeling Methods	5-9
5.4	Greenhouse Gas Emission and Fuel Consumption Impacts	5-27
5.5	Non-Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts	5-44

Chapter 6:	Health and Environmental Impacts
6.1	Health and Environmental Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants	6-1
6.2	Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG Pollutants	6-32
6.3	Changes in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations, Global Mean Temperature, Sea Level Rise, and Ocean pH Associated with the Program's GHG Emissions Reductions	6-40

Chapter 7:	Vehicle-Related Costs, Fuel Savings &
Maintenance Costs
7.1	Vehicle Costs, Fuel Savings and Maintenance Costs vs. the Less Dynamic Baseline and using Method B	7-1
7.2	Vehicle Costs, Fuel Savings and Maintenance Costs vs. the Dynamic Baseline and Using Method A	7-28
7.3	Key Parameters Used in the Estimation of Costs and Fuel Savings	7-48

Chapter 8.	Economic and Other Impacts
8.1	Framework for Benefits and Costs	8-1
8.2	Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Impacts	8-2
8.3	Analysis of the Rebound Effect	8-9
8.4	Impact on Class Shifting, Fleet Turnover, and Sales	8-28
8.5	Monetized GHG Impacts	8-32
8.6	Quantified and Monetized Non-GHG Health and Environmental Impacts	8-45
8.7	Additional Impacts	8-57
8.8	The Effect of Safety Standards and Voluntary Safety Improvements on Vehicle Weight		8-65
8.9	Petroleum, Energy and National Security impact	8-69
8.10	Summary of Benefits and Costs	8-83
8.11	Employment Impacts	8-87
8.12	Oil Price Sensitivity Analysis	8-98

Chapter 9.	Safety Impacts
0.1 Summary of Supporting HD Vehicle Safety Research
0.2 National Academy of Sciences HD Phase 1 and Phase 2 Reports
0.3 DOT CAFE Model HD Pickup and Van Safety Analysis
0.4 Volpe Research on MD/HD Fuel Efficiency Technologies
0.5 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Research on Low Rolling Resistance Truck Tires
0.6 The Agencies' Assessment of Potential Safety Impacts
CHAPTER 10:	CAFE Model
10.1	HD Pickup and Van Fleet	10-1
10.2	CAFE Model Analysis of Regulatory Alternatives for HD Pickups and Vans	10-12

Chapter 11:	Results of Preferred and Alternative Standards
11.1	What Are the Alternatives that the Agencies Considered?	11-1
11.2	How Do These Alternatives Compare in Overall GHG Emissions Reductions and Fuel Efficiency and Cost?	11-16
11.3	Detailed Technology Projections for Each Category	11-24

Chapter 12:	Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
12.1	Overview of the Regulatory Flexibility Act	12-1
12.2	Need for Rulemaking and Rulemaking Objectives	12-2
12.3	Definition and Description of Small Businesses	12-2
12.4	Summary of Small Entities to which the Rulemaking will Apply	12-3
12.5	Related Federal Rules	12-4
12.6	Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements	12-4
12.7	Regulatory Flexibilities	12-4
12.8	Projected Economic Effects of the Proposed Rulemaking	12-9

Chapter 13:	Natural Gas Vehicles and Engines
13.1	Detailed Life-Cycle Analysis	13-1
13.2	Projecting Natural Gas use in HD Trucks	13-25
13.3	Natural Gas Emission Control Measures	13-37
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
                               List of Acronyms
ug
Microgram
um
Micrometers
2002$
U.S. Dollars in calendar year 2002
2009$
U.S. Dollars in calendar year 2009
A/C
Air Conditioning
ABS
Antilock Brake Systems
ABT
Averaging, Banking and Trading
AC
Alternating Current
ACES
Advanced Collaborative Emission Study
ALVW
Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight
AEO
Annual Energy Outlook
AES
Automatic Engine Shutdown
AHS
American Housing Survey
AMOC
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
AMT
Automated Manual Transmission
ANL
Argonne National Laboratory
APU
Auxiliary Power Unit
AQ
Air Quality
AQCD
Air Quality Criteria Document
AR4
Fourth Assessment Report
ARB
California Air Resources Board
ASL
Aggressive Shift Logic
ASPEN
Assessment System for Population Exposure Nationwide
AT
Automatic Transmissions
ATA
American Trucking Association
ATIS
Automated Tire Inflation System
ATRI
Alliance for Transportation Research Institute
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
ATUS
American Time Use Survey
Avg
Average
BAC
Battery Air Conditioning
BenMAP
Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program
bhp
Brake Horsepower
bhp-hrs
Brake Horsepower Hours
BLS
Bureau of Labor Statistics
BSFC
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
BTS
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
BTS
Bureau of Labor Statistics
BTU
British Thermal Unit
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAAA
Clean Air Act Amendments
CAD/CAE
Computer Aided Design And Engineering
CAE
Computer Aided Engineering
CAFE
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CBI
Confidential Business Information
CCP
Coupled Cam Phasing
CCSP
Climate Change Science Program
Cd
Coefficient of Drag
CDC
Centers for Disease Control
CFD
Computational Fluid Dynamics
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CH4
Methane
CILCC
Combined International Local and Commuter Cycle
CITT
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
CMAQ
Community Multiscale Air Quality
CO
Carbon Monoxide
CO2
Carbon Dioxide
CO2eq
CO2 Equivalent
COFC
Container-on-Flatcar
COI
Cost of Illness
COPD
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
CoV
Coefficient of Variation
CPS
Cam Profile Switching
CRC
Coordinating Research Council
CRGNSA
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
CRR
Rolling Resistance Coefficient
CS
Climate Sensitivity
CSI
Cambridge Systematics Inc.
CSS
Coastal Sage Scrub
CSV
Comma-separated Values
CVD
Cardiovascular Disease
CVT
Continuously-Variable Transmission
CW
Curb Weight
D/UAF
Downward and Upward Adjustment Factor
DCP
Dual Cam Phasing
DCT
Dual Clutch Transmission
DE
Diesel Exhaust
DEAC
Cylinder Deactivation
DEER
Diesel Engine-Efficiency and Emissions Research
DEF
Diesel Exhaust Fluid
DHHS
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Diesel HAD
Diesel Health Assessment Document
DMC
Direct Manufacturing Costs
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
DOC
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
DOD
Department of Defense
DOE
Department of Energy
DOHC
Dual Overhead Camshaft Engines
DOT
Department of Transportation
DPF
Diesel Particulate Filter
DPM
Diesel Particulate Matter
DR
Discount Rate
DRIA
Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis
DVVL
Discrete Variable Valve Lift
EC
European Commission
EC
Elemental Carbon
ECU
Electronic Control Unit
ED
Emergency Department
EERA
Energy and Environmental Research Associates
EFR
Engine Friction Reduction
EGR
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
EHPS
Electrohydraulic Power Steering
EIA
Energy Information Administration (part of the U.S. Department of Energy)
EISA
Energy Independence and Security Act
EMS-HAP
Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollution
EO
Executive Order
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EPS
Electric Power Steering
ERG
Eastern Research Group
ESC
Electronic Stability Control
EV
Electric Vehicle
F
Frequency
FEL
Family Emission Limit
FET
Federal Excise Tax
FEV1
Functional Expiratory Volume
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
FIA
Forest Inventory and Analysis
FMCSA
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FOH
Fuel Operated Heater
FR
Federal Register
FTP
Federal Test Procedure
FVC
Forced Vital Capacity
g
Gram
g/s
Gram-per-second
g/ton-mile
Grams emitted to move one ton (2000 pounds) of freight over one mile
gal
Gallon
gal/1000 ton-mile
Gallons of fuel used to move one ton of payload (2,000 pounds) over 1000 miles
GCAM
Global Change Assessment Model
GCW
Gross Combined Weight
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GEM
Greenhouse gas Emissions Model
GEOS
Goddard Earth Observing System
GHG
Greenhouse Gases
GIFT
Geospatial Intermodal Freight Transportation
GREET
Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation
GSF1
Generic Speed Form one
GUI
Graphical User Interface
GVWR
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
GWP
Global Warming Potential
HABs
Harmful Algal Blooms
HAD
Diesel Health Assessment Document
HC
Hydrocarbon
HD
Heavy-Duty
HDUDDS
Heavy Duty Urban Dynamometer Driving Cycle
HEG
High Efficiency Gearbox
HEI
Health Effects Institute
HES
Health Effects Subcommittee
HEV
Hybrid Electric Vehicle
HFC
Hydrofluorocarbon
HFET
Highway Fuel Economy Dynamometer Procedure
HHD
Heavy Heavy-Duty
HHDDT
Highway Heavy-Duty Diesel Transient
hp
Horsepower
hrs
Hours
HRV
Heart Rate Variability
HSC
High Speed Cruise Duty Cycle
HTUF
Hybrid Truck User Forum
hz
Hertz
IARC
International Agency for Research on Cancer
IATC
Improved Automatic Transmission Control
IC
Indirect Costs
ICCT
International Council on Clean Transport
ICD
International Classification of Diseases
ICF
ICF International
ICM
Indirect Cost Multiplier
ICP
Intake Cam Phasing
IMAC
Improved Mobile Air Conditioning
IMPROVE
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRFA
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information System
ISA
Integrated Science Assessment
JAMA
Journal of the American Medical Association
k
Thousand
kg
Kilogram
KI
kinetic intensity
km
Kilometer
km/h
Kilometers per Hour
kW
Kilowatt
L
Liter
lb
Pound
LD
Light-Duty
LHD
Light Heavy-Duty
LLNL
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's
LRR
Lower Rolling Resistance
LSC
Low Speed Cruise Duty Cycle
LT
Light Trucks
LTCCS
Large Truck Crash Causation Study
LUB
Low Friction Lubes
LUC
Land Use Change
m[2]
Square Meters
m[3]
Cubic Meters
MAGICC
Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change
MCF
Mixed Conifer Forest
MD
Medium-Duty
MDPV
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
mg
Milligram
MHD
Medium Heavy-Duty
MHEV
Mild Hybrid
mi
mile
min
Minute
MM
Million
MMBD
Million Barrels per Day
MMT
Million Metric Tons
MOVES
Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
mpg
Miles per Gallon
mph
Miles per Hour
MSAT
Mobile Source Air Toxic
MRL
Minimal Risk Level
MT
Manual Transmission
MY
Model Year
N2O
Nitrous Oxide
NA
Not Applicable
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAFA
National Association of Fleet Administrators
NAICS
North American Industry Classification System
NAS
National Academy of Sciences
NATA
National Air Toxic Assessment
NCAR
National Center for Atmospheric Research
NCI
National Cancer Institute
NCLAN
National Crop Loss Assessment Network
NEC
Net Energy Change Tolerance
NEI
National Emissions Inventory
NEMS
National Energy Modeling System
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NESCAUM
Northeastern States for Coordinated Air Use Management
NESCCAF
Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future
NESHAP
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NHS
National Highway System
NHTSA
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NiMH
Nickel Metal-Hydride
NIOSH
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
Nm
Newton-meters
NMHC
Nonmethane Hydrocarbons
NMMAPS
National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study
NOX
Nitrogen Oxide
NO2
Nitrogen Dioxide
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx
Oxides of Nitrogen
NPRM
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NPV
Net Present Value
NRC
National Research Council
NRC-CAN
National Research Council of Canada
NREL
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NTP
National Toxicology Program
NVH
Noise Vibration and Harshness
O&M
Operating and maintenance
O3
Ozone
OAQPS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OC
Organic Carbon
OE
Original Equipment
OEHHA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OEM
Original Equipment Manufacturer
OHV
Overhead Valve
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OPEC
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
ORD
EPA's Office of Research and Development
ORNL
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
OTAQ
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Pa
Pascal
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PEF
Peak Expiratory Flow
PEMS
Portable Emissions Monitoring System
PGM
Platinum Group Metal
PHEV
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
PM
Particulate Matter
PM10
Coarse Particulate Matter (diameter of 10 um or less)
PM2.5
Fine Particulate Matter (diameter of 2.5 um or less)
POM
Polycyclic Organic Matter
Ppb
Parts per Billion
Ppm
Parts per Million
Psi
Pounds per Square Inch
PTO
Power Take Off
R&D
Research and Development
RBM
Resisting Bending Moment
REL
Reference Exposure Level
RESS
Rechargeable Energy Storage System
RFA
Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC
Reference Concentration
RFS2
Renewable Fuel Standard 2
RIA
Regulatory Impact Analysis
RPE
Retail Price Equivalent
Rpm
Revolutions per Minute
RSWT
Reduced-Scale Wind Tunnel
S
Second
SAB
Science Advisory Board
SAB-HES
Science Advisory Board - Health Effects Subcommittee
SAE
Society of Automotive Engineers
SAR
Second Assessment Report
SAV
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SBA
Small Business Administration
SBAR
Small Business Advocacy Review
SBREFA
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SCC
Social Cost of Carbon
SCR
Selective Catalyst Reduction
SER
Small Entity Representation
SET
Supplemental Emission Test
SGDI
Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection
SHEV
Strong Hybrid Vehicles
SI
Spark-Ignition
SIDI
Spark Ignition Direct Injection
SO2
Sulfur Dioxide
SOx
Sulfur Oxides
SOA
Secondary Organic Aerosol
SOC
State of Charge
SOHC
Single Overhead Cam
SOX
Oxides of Sulfur
SPR
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
STB
Surface Transportation Board
Std.
Standard
STP
Scaled Tractive Power
SUV
Sport Utility Vehicle
SVOC
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
SwRI
Southwest Research Institute
TAR
Technical Assessment Report
TC
Total Costs
TCp
Total Cost package
TDS
Turbocharging And Downsizing
THC
Total Hydrocarbon
TIAX
TIAX LLC
TMC
Technology & Maintenance Council
TOFC
Trailer-on-Flatcar
Ton-mile
One ton (2000 pounds) of payload over one mile
TPM
Tire Pressure Monitoring
TRBDS
Turbocharging and Downsizing
TRU
Trailer Refrigeration Unit
TSD
Technical Support Document
TSS
Thermal Storage
TTMA
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
TW
Test Weight
U/DAF
Upward and Downward Adjustment Factor
UCT
Urban Creep and Transient Duty Cycle
UFP
Ultra Fine Particles
URE
Unit Risk Estimate
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USGCRP
United States Global Change Research Program
UV
Ultraviolet
UV-b
Ultraviolet-b
VHHD
Vocational Heavy Heavy-Duty
VIN
Vehicle Identification Number
VIUS
Vehicle Inventory Use Survey
VLHD
Vocational Light Heavy-Duty
VMHD
Vocational Medium Heavy-Duty
VMT
Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC
Volatile Organic Compound
VSL
Vehicle Speed Limiter
VTRIS
Vehicle Travel Information System
VVL
Variable Valve Lift
VVT
Variable Valve Timing
WACAP
Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project
WBS
Wide Base Singles
WHR
Waste Heat Recovery
WHTC
World Harmonized Transient Cycle
WHVC
World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle
WRF
Weather Research Forecasting
WTP
Willingness-to-Pay
WTVC
World Wide Transient Vehicle Cycle
WVU
West Virginia University

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Executive Summary
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), on behalf of the Department of Transportation, are each proposing changes to our comprehensive Heavy-Duty National Program that would further reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and increase fuel efficiency for on-road heavy-duty vehicles, responding to the President's directive on February 18, 2014, to take coordinated steps toward the production of even cleaner vehicles.  NHTSA's fuel consumption standards and EPA's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions standards would be tailored to each of the three current regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles:  (1) Combination Tractors; (2) Heavy-duty Pickup Trucks and Vans; and (3) Vocational Vehicles, as well as gasoline and diesel heavy-duty engines.  In addition, the agencies would be adding new standards for combination trailers.  EPA's hydrofluorocarbon emissions standards that currently apply to air conditioning systems in tractors, pickup trucks, and vans, would also be applied to vocational vehicles.
      Table 1 and Table 2 present the rule-related fuel savings, costs, benefits and net benefits in both present value terms and in annualized terms as calculated by NHTSA and EPA, respectively.  Table 3 presents the proposed rule's fully phased-in (MY 2027) numeric standards by vehicle (and engine) subcategory, along with the agencies' projected per vehicle incremental cost and incremental improvement in fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions.
	For HD pickups and vans, the agencies are proposing performance-based standards under which, as for Phase 1, the average fuel consumption and CO2 emission rates required of a manufacturer depend on the mix of vehicles produced by the manufacturer for sale in the U.S.  For each vehicle, the agencies are again proposing to define the work factor as the sum of (a) 75% of the vehicle's maximum payload, 25% of the vehicles maximum towing capacity, and (c) 375 lbs. if the vehicle has four-wheel drive.  The agencies are further proposing that fuel consumption and CO2 emission rate targets will apply to each vehicle based on the vehicle's work factor and fuel type, and that the average fuel consumption and CO2 emission rates required of the manufacturer will be defined as the production-weighted average of these targets.  The proposed fuel consumption targets are linear functions defined by the slopes and intercepts shown below in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Table 4.

Table 1  NHTSA's Estimated 2018-2029 Model Year Lifetime Discounted Costs,
Benefits, and Net Benefits using Method A and Relative to the More Dynamic Baseline and Assuming the 3% Discount Rate SCC Value[a]
(Billions of 2012 Dollars)
                  Lifetime Present Value  -  3% Discount Rate
Vehicle Program
                                    -$25.2
Maintenance
                                     -$1.1
Fuel Savings
                                    $170.1
Benefits
                                     $93.8
Net Benefits
                                     $238
                     Annualized Value  -  3% Discount Rate
Vehicle Program
                                     -$1.0
Maintenance
                                    -$0.04
Fuel Savings
                                     $6.7
Benefits
                                     $3.7
Net Benefits
                                     $9.4
                   Lifetime Present Value - 7% Discount Rate
Vehicle Program
                                     -$17
Maintenance
                                     -$0.6
Fuel Savings
                                     $91.7
Benefits
                                     $66.1
Net Benefits
                                     $140
                     Annualized Value  -  7% Discount Rate
Vehicle Program
                                     -$1.2
Maintenance
                                    -$0.04
Fuel Savings
                                     $6.7
Benefits
                                     $4.8
Net Benefits
                                     $10.2
      Notes:
          [a] For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline, 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1

Table 2  EPA's Estimated 2018-2029 Model Year Lifetime Discounted Costs,
Benefits, and Net Benefits using Method B and Relative to the Less Dynamic Baseline and Assuming the 3% Discount Rate SCC Value[a]
(Billions of 2012 Dollars)
                Lifetime Present Value[c]  -  3% Discount Rate
Vehicle Program
                                     -$25
Maintenance
                                     -$1.1
Fuel Savings
                                     $171
Benefits b
                                      $97
Net Benefits[d]
                                     $242
                   Annualized Value[e]  -  3% Discount Rate
Vehicle Program
                                     -$1.3
Maintenance
                                     -$0.1
Fuel Savings
                                     $8.7
Benefits b
                                     $4.9
Net Benefits[d]
                                     $12.3
                 Lifetime Present Value[c] - 7% Discount Rate
Vehicle Program
                                     -$17
Maintenance
                                     -$0.6
Fuel Savings
                                      $90
Benefits [b]
                                      $65
Net Benefits[d]
                                     $138
                   Annualized Value[e]  -  7% Discount Rate
Vehicle Program
                                     -$1.3
Maintenance
                                     $0.0
Fuel Savings
                                     $7.3
Benefits b
                                     $4.2
Net Benefits[d]
                                     $10.1
          [a] For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline, 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1
          [b] EPA estimated the benefits associated with four different values of a one ton CO2 reduction (model average at 2.5% discount rate, 3%, and 5%; 95[th] percentile at 3%), which each increase over time.  For the purposes of this overview presentation of estimated costs and benefits, however, the benefits shown here use the marginal value deemed to be central by the interagency working group on this topic:  the model average at 3% discount rate, in 2012 dollars.  Chapter 8.5 provides a complete list of values for the 4 estimates. Note that net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits.  The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency.  Refer to Section Chapter 8.5 for more detail.
          [c] Present value is the total, aggregated amount that a series of monetized costs or benefits that occur over time is worth now (in year 2012 dollar terms), discounting future values to the present over the lifetime of each model year vehicle.
          [d] Net benefits reflect the fuel savings plus benefits minus costs.
          [e] The annualized value is the constant annual value through a 30 year lifetime whose summed present value equals the present value from which it was derived. Annualized SCC values are calculated using the same rate as that used to determine the SCC value, while all other costs and benefits are annualized at either 3% or 7%.
Table 3  Summary of Proposed 2027 Standards Including Average Per Vehicle Costs and Projected Improvement
Regulatory Subcategory
CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile (for engines, CO2 Grams per Brake Horsepower-Hour; for hd puv, grams per mile)
Fuel Consumption gallon per 1,000 ton-mile (for engines, gallons per 100 Brake Horsepower-Hour; for hd puv, gallons per 100 miles)
Average Incremental Cost per Vehicle or Engine Relative to Phase 1 Costs in  Model Year 2027 a
Average Percent Fuel Consumption and CO2 Improvement in MY 2027 Relative to MY 2017
Tractors
Class 7 Low Roof Day Cab
                                      87
                                    8.5462
                                    $10,140
                                      19%
Class 7 Mid Roof Day Cab
                                      96
                                    9.4303
                                    $10,140
                                      19%
Class 7 High Roof Day Cab
                                      96
                                    9.4303
                                    $10,099
                                      21%
Class 8 Low Roof Day Cab
                                      70
                                    6.8762
                                    $10,204
                                      19%
Class 8 Mid Roof Day Cab
                                      76
                                    7.4656
                                    $10,204
                                      18%
Class 8 High Roof Day Cab
                                      76
                                    7.4656
                                    $10,209
                                      20%
Class 8 Low Roof Sleeper Cab
                                      62
                                    6.0904
                                    $12,744
                                      22%
Class 8 Mid Roof Sleeper Cab
                                      69
                                    6.7780
                                    $12,744
                                      21%
Class 8 High Roof Sleeper Cab
                                      67
                                    6.5815
                                    $12,842
                                      24%
Trailers
Long Dry Box Trailer
                                      77
                                    7.5639
                                    $1,409
                                      8%
Short Dry Box Trailer
                                      140
                                    13.7525
                                    $1,280
                                      7%
Long Refrigerated Box Trailer
                                      80
                                    7.8585
                                    $1,253
                                      5%
Short Refrigerated Box Trailer
                                      144
                                    14.1454
                                    $1,253
                                      5%
Notes:
[a]  Engine costs are included in average vehicle costs.
Table 3 (cont.) Summary of Proposed 2027 Standards Including Average Per Vehicle Costs and Projected Improvement
Regulatory Subcategory
CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile (for engines, CO2 Grams per Brake Horsepower-Hour; for hd puv, grams per mile)
Fuel Consumption gallon per 1,000 ton-mile (for engines, gallons per 100 Brake Horsepower-Hour; for hd puv, gallons per 100 miles)
Average Incremental Cost per Vehicle or Engine Relative to Phase 1 Costs in  Model Year 2027 [a]
Average Percent Fuel Consumption and CO2 Improvement in MY 2027 Relative to MY 2017
Vocational Diesel
LHD Urban
                                      272
                                    26.7191
                                    $3,489
                                      16%
LHD Multi-Purpose
                                      280
                                    27.5049
                                    $3,490
                                      16%
LHD Regional
                                      292
                                    28.6837
                                    $1,407
                                      16%
MHD Urban
                                      172
                                    16.8959
                                    $4,696
                                      16%
MHD Multi-Purpose
                                      174
                                    17.0923
                                    $4,696
                                      16%
MHD Regional
                                      170
                                    16.6994
                                    $1,395
                                      16%
HHD Urban
                                      182
                                    17.8782
                                    $7,422
                                      16%
HHD Multi-Purpose
                                      183
                                    17.9764
                                    $7,422
                                      16%
HHD Regional
                                      174
                                    17.0923
                                    $4,682
                                      16%
Vocational Gasoline
LHD Urban
                                      299
                                    33.6446
                                    $3,086
                                      12%
LHD Multi-Purpose
                                      308
                                    34.6574
                                    $3,087
                                      12%
LHD Regional
                                      321
                                    36.1202
                                    $1,004
                                      12%
MHD Urban
                                      189
                                    21.2670
                                    $4,327
                                      13%
MHD Multi-Purpose
                                      191
                                    21.4921
                                    $4,327
                                      13%
MHD Regional
                                      187
                                    21.0420
                                    $1,026
                                      13%
HHD Urban
                                      196
                                    22.0547
                                    $7,053
                                      12%
HHD Multi-Purpose
                                      198
                                    22.2797
                                    $7,053
                                      12%
HHD Regional
                                      188
                                    21.1545
                                    $4,313
                                      12%
Diesel Engines[a]
LHD Vocational
                                      553
                                    5.4322
                                     $471
                                      4%
MHD Vocational
                                      553
                                    5.4322
                                     $437
                                      4%
HHD Vocational
                                      533
                                    5.2358
                                     $437
                                      4%
MHD Tractor
                                      466
                                    4.5776
                                    $1,698
                                      4%
HHD Tractor
                                      441
                                    4.3320
                                    $1,698
                                      4%
Class 2b and 3 HD Pickups and Vans[b]
HD Pickup and Van
                                      458
                                    4.8608
                                    $1,357
                                      18%
Notes:
[a]  Engine costs are included in average vehicle costs.  Costs shown for diesel engines are not additive to vehicle costs.
[b] For HD pickups and vans, Table 3 shows results for MY2029, assuming continuation of proposed MY2027 standard.

Figure 1  EPA Proposed CO2 Target Standards and NHTSA Proposed Fuel Consumption Target Standards for Diesel HD Pickups and Vans

Figure 2  EPA Proposed CO2 Target Standards and NHTSA Proposed Fuel Consumption Target Standards for Gasoline HD Pickups and Vans

Described mathematically, EPA's and NHTSA's proposed target standards are defined by the following formulas:
EPA CO2 Target (g/mile) = [a x WF] + b
NHTSA Fuel Consumption Target (gallons/100 miles) =  [c x WF] + d
Where:
      WF = Work Factor = [0.75 x (Payload Capacity + xwd)] + [0.25 x Towing Capacity]
Payload Capacity = GVWR (lb)  -  Curb Weight (lb)
xwd = 500 lb if the vehicle is equipped with 4wd, otherwise equals 0 lb.
Towing Capacity = GCWR (lb)  -  GVWR (lb)
Coefficients a, b, c, and d are taken from Table 1.
Table 4.  Proposed Phase 2 Coefficients for HD Pickup and Van Target Standards
                                Diesel Vehicles
Model Year
                                                                              a
                                                                              b
                                                                              c
                                                                              d
                                                                    2018-2020 a
                                                                         0.0416
                                                                            320
                                                                      0.0004086
                                                                          3.143
                                                                           2021
                                                                         0.0406
                                                                            312
                                                                      0.0003988
                                                                          3.065
                                                                           2022
                                                                         0.0395
                                                                            304
                                                                      0.0003880
                                                                          2.986
                                                                           2023
                                                                         0.0386
                                                                            297
                                                                      0.0003792
                                                                          2.917
                                                                           2024
                                                                         0.0376
                                                                            289
                                                                      0.0003694
                                                                          2.839
                                                                           2025
                                                                         0.0367
                                                                            282
                                                                      0.0003605
                                                                          2.770
                                                                           2026
                                                                         0.0357
                                                                            275
                                                                      0.0003507
                                                                          2.701
                                                                 2027 and later
                                                                         0.0348
                                                                            268
                                                                      0.0003418
                                                                          2.633
                               Gasoline Vehicles
Model Year
                                                                              a
                                                                              b
                                                                              c
                                                                              d
                                                                    2018-2020 a
                                                                          0.044
                                                                            339
                                                                      0.0004951
                                                                          3.815
                                                                           2021
                                                                         0.0429
                                                                            331
                                                                      0.0004827
                                                                          3.725
                                                                           2022
                                                                         0.0418
                                                                            322
                                                                      0.0004703
                                                                          3.623
                                                                           2023
                                                                         0.0408
                                                                            314
                                                                      0.0004591
                                                                          3.533
                                                                           2024
                                                                         0.0398
                                                                            306
                                                                      0.0004478
                                                                          3.443
                                                                           2025
                                                                         0.0388
                                                                            299
                                                                      0.0004366
                                                                          3.364
                                                                           2026
                                                                         0.0378
                                                                            291
                                                                      0.0004253
                                                                          3.274
                                                                 2027 and later
                                                                         0.0369
                                                                            284
                                                                      0.0004152
                                                                          3.196
      Note[:]
      [a] Phase 1 primary phase-in coefficients.  Alternative phase-in coefficients are different in MY2018 only.
	This Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) provides detailed supporting documentation to EPA and NHTSA joint proposal under each of their respective statutory authorities.  Because there are slightly different requirements and flexibilities in the two authorizing statutes, this Draft RIA provides documentation for the primary joint provisions as well as for provisions specific to each agency.
This RIA is generally organized to provide overall background information, methodologies, and data inputs, followed by results of the various technical and economic analyses.  A summary of each chapter of the RIA follows.
Chapter 1:  Industry Characterization.  In order to assess the impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel consumption regulations upon the affected industries, it is important to understand the nature of the industries impacted by the regulations.  The heavy-duty vehicle industries include the manufacturers of Class 2b through Class 8 trucks, engines, trailers and some other equipment.  Of these categories, trailers are the only industry that would be newly regulated under the proposed standards. This chapter provides market information for the trailer industry, as well as the variety of ownership patterns, for background purposes.
Chapter 2:  Technology and Cost.  This chapter presents details of the vehicle and engine technologies and technology packages for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption.  These technologies and technology packages represent potential ways that the industry could meet the CO2 and fuel consumption stringency levels, and they provide the basis for the technology costs and effectiveness analyses.
Chapter 3:  Test Procedures.  Laboratory procedures to physically test engines, vehicles, and components are a crucial aspect of the heavy-duty vehicle GHG and fuel consumption program.  The rulemaking would establish some new test procedures for both engine and vehicle compliance and would revise existing procedures.  This chapter describes the relevant test procedures, including methodologies for assessing engine emission performance, the effects of aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance, as well as procedures for chassis dynamometer testing and their associated drive cycles.
Chapter 4:  Vehicle Simulation Model.  An important aspect of a regulatory program is its ability to accurately estimate the potential environmental benefits of heavy-duty truck technologies through testing and analysis.  Most large truck manufacturers employ various computer simulation methods to estimate truck efficiency for purposes of developing and refining their products.  Each method has advantages and disadvantages.  This section will focus on the use of a type truck simulation modeling that the agencies have developed specifically for assessing tailpipe GHG emissions and fuel consumption for purposes of this rulemaking.  The agencies are proposing to revise the existing simulation model -- the "Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM)" -- as the primary tool to certify vocational vehicles, combination tractor, and combination trailers, Class 2b through Class 8 heavy-duty vehicles that are not heavy-duty pickups or vans) and discuss the model in this chapter.
Chapter 5:  Impacts on Emissions and Fuel Consumption.  This program estimates anticipated impacts from the CO2 emission and fuel efficiency standards.  The agencies quantify fuel use and emissions from the GHGs carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).  In addition to reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and fuel consumption, this program would also influence the emissions of "criteria" air pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and sulfur dioxide (SOX) and the ozone precursors hydrocarbons (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX); and several air toxics (including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein), as described further in Chapter 5.
    The agencies used EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014) to estimate downstream (tailpipe) emission impacts for combination tractors and vocational vehicles, and a spreadsheet model based on emission factors the "GREET" model to estimate upstream (fuel production and distribution) emission changes resulting from the decreased fuel.  For HD pickups and vans, the agencies used DOT's CAFE model to estimate manufacturer responses to the proposed standards.  NHTSA used the CAFE model to estimate emission impacts, and EPA used the CAFE model technology penetration outputs as an input to MOVES to calculate emission impacts.  Based on these analyses, the agencies estimate that this program would lead to 183.4 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2EQ) of annual GHG reduction and 13.4 billion gallons of fuel savings in the year 2050, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
Chapter 6:  Health and Environmental Impacts.  This chapter discusses the health effects associated with non-GHG pollutants, specifically: particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), carbon monoxide and air toxics.  These pollutants would not be directly regulated by the standards, but the standards would affect emissions of these pollutants and precursors.  Reductions in these pollutants are the co-benefits of the rulemaking (that is, benefits in addition to the benefits of reduced GHGs).  This chapter also discusses GHG-related impacts, such as changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, global mean temperature, sea level rise, and ocean pH associated with the program's GHG emissions reductions.
Chapter 7:  Vehicle-Related Costs of the Program.  In this chapter, the agencies present our estimate of the costs associated with the proposed program.  The presentation summarizes the costs associated with new technology expected to be added to meet the GHG and fuel consumption standards, including hardware costs to comply with the air conditioning (A/C) leakage program.  The analysis discussed in Chapter 7 provides our best estimates of incremental costs on a per truck basis and on an annual total basis.  We also present the fuel savings and maintenance costs in this chapter, along with a detailed payback analysis for various vehicle segments.
Chapter 8:  EPA's Economic and Other Impacts Analysis.  This chapter provides EPA's description of the net benefits of the proposed HD National Program.  To reach these conclusions, the chapter discusses each of the following aspects of the analyses of benefits:
Rebound Effect:  The VMT rebound effect refers to the fraction of fuel savings expected to result from an increase in fuel efficiency that is offset by additional vehicle use.
Energy Security Impacts:  A reduction of U.S. petroleum imports reduces both financial and strategic risks associated with a potential disruption in supply or a spike in cost of a particular energy source.  This reduction in risk is a measure of improved U.S. energy security.
Monetized CO2 Impacts:  The agencies estimate the monetized benefits of GHG reductions by assigning a dollar value to reductions in CO2 emissions using recent estimates of the social cost of carbon (SCC).  The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year.
Other Impacts:  There are other impacts associated with the GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards.  Lower fuel consumption would, presumably, result in fewer gallons being refilled and, thus, less time spent refueling.  The increase in vehicle-miles driven due to a positive rebound effect may also increase the societal costs associated with traffic congestion, crashes, and noise.  However, if drivers drive those additional rebound miles, there must be a value to them which we estimate as the value of increased travel.  The agencies also discuss the impacts of safety standards and voluntary safety improvements on vehicle weight.
Chapter 8 also presents a summary of the total costs, total benefits, and net benefits expected under the program.
Chapter 9:  NHTSA and EPA considered the potential safety impact of technologies that improve HD vehicle fuel efficiency and GHG emissions as part of the assessment of regulatory alternatives.  This chapter discusses the literature and research considered by the agencies, which included two National Academies of Science reports, an analysis of safety effects of HD pickups and vans using estimates from the DOT report on the effect of mass reduction and vehicle size on safety, and agency-sponsored safety testing and research..
Chapter 10:  NHTSA CAFE Model.  This chapter describes NHTSA's CAFE modeling system.  The agencies used DOT's CAFE model to estimate manufacturer responses to the proposed standards for HD pickups and vans, and NHTSA also used the CAFE model to estimate emission impacts for this sector.
Chapter 11:  Results of Preferred and Alternative Standards.  The heavy-duty truck segment is very complex.  The sector consists of a diverse group of impacted parties, including engine manufacturers, chassis manufacturers, truck manufacturers, trailer manufacturers, truck fleet owners and the public.  The agencies have largely designed this program to maximize the environmental and fuel savings benefits, taking into account the unique and varied nature of the regulated industries.  In developing this program, we considered a number of alternatives that could have resulted in fewer or potentially greater GHG and fuel consumption reductions than the program we are proposing.  Chapter 9 section summarizes the alternatives we considered.
Chapter 12:  Small Business Flexibility Analysis.  This chapter describes the agencies' analysis of the small business impacts due to the joint program.
Chapter 13:  Natural Gas Vehicles and Engines.  This chapter describes EPA's lifecycle analysis for natural gas used by the heavy-duty truck sector.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7042-7044]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02463]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0107; FRL-9426-03-R9]

Determination To Defer Sanctions; Arizona; Maricopa County; Power
Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an interim
final determination that the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) has submitted a revised rule on behalf of the Maricopa
County Air Quality Department (MCAQD or County) that corrects
deficiencies in its Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) state implementation
plan (SIP) provisions concerning ozone nonattainment requirements for
controlling oxides of nitrogen (NOX) at power plants. This
determination is based on a proposed approval, published elsewhere in
this Federal Register, of MCAQD's Rule 322 regulating that source
category. The effect of this interim final determination is that the
imposition of sanctions that

were triggered by a previous disapproval by the EPA in 2020 is now
deferred. If the EPA finalizes its approval of MCAQD's submission,
relief from these sanctions will become permanent.

DATES: This determination is effective on February 8, 2022. However,
comments will be accepted on or before March 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0107 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 20, 2020 (85 FR 43692), the EPA issued a final disapproval
for MCAQD's Rule 322 that had been submitted by the ADEQ to the EPA for
inclusion into the Arizona SIP. The 2020 action addressed the
requirement that the MCAQD implement reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for emissions sources in ozone nonattainment areas
under the Act. In that action, we determined that the Rule 322
submittal included several deficiencies that precluded our approval of
the rule into the SIP, and thus failed to implement RACT. Therefore,
our 2020 action included a disapproval of the SIP revision under title
I, part D of the Act, relating to requirements for nonattainment areas.
Pursuant to section 179 of the CAA and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31,
this disapproval action under title I, part D started a sanctions clock
for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after the action's
effective date of August 19, 2020, and highway sanctions 6 months
later.
    On June 23, 2021, the MCAQD revised Rule 322 and on June 24, 2021,
ADEQ submitted the SIP revision to the EPA for approval into the
Arizona SIP. The revision is intended to address the disapproval issues
under title I, part D that we identified in our 2020 action. In the
Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we have proposed
approval of the revised MCAQD Rule 322. Based on this proposed approval
action, we are also taking this interim final determination, effective
on publication, to defer imposition of the offset sanctions and highway
sanctions that were triggered by our 2020 action's disapproval, because
we believe that the 2020 submittal corrects the deficiencies that
triggered such sanctions.
    The EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on
this deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our
assessment described in this interim final determination and the
proposed full approval of MCAQD Rule 322 with respect to the title I,
part D deficiencies identified in our 2020 action, we would take final
action to lift this deferral of sanctions under 40 CFR 52.31. If no
comments are submitted that change our assessment, then all sanctions
and any sanction clocks triggered by our 2020 action would be
permanently terminated on the effective date of our final approval of
MCAQD Rule 322.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

    We are making an interim final determination to defer CAA section
179 sanctions associated with our disapproval action on July 20, 2020,
of MCAQD Rule 322 with respect to the requirements of part D of title I
of the CAA. This determination is based on our concurrent proposal to
fully approve Rule 322, which resolves the deficiencies that triggered
sanctions under section 179 of the CAA.
    Because the EPA has preliminarily determined that MCAQD's submittal
of Rule 322 addresses the deficiencies under part D of title I of the
CAA identified in our 2020 action and is fully approvable, relief from
sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, the EPA
is invoking the good cause exception under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for comment before this
action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this action, the
EPA is providing the public with a chance to comment on the EPA's
determination after the effective date, and the EPA will consider any
comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.
    The EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. The EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and,
through its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than
not that the State has submitted a revision to the SIP that corrects
deficiencies under part D of the Act that were the basis for the action
that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public
interest to impose sanctions. The EPA believes that it is necessary to
use the interim final rulemaking process to defer sanctions while the
EPA completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the
State's submittal. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this
action, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day
notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this notice is to
relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action defers sanctions and imposes no additional
requirements. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
     Is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
     Is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C.
801 et seq., and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA
allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than
otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding
that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The
EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in section
II of this preamble, including the basis for that finding.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 11, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the EPA Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see CAA section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 1, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-02463 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48433-48434]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19139]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9535-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.). An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Westlund<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and please refer to the appropriate EPA
Information Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

    EPA ICR Number 1188.11; TSCA Section 5(a); 40 CFR parts 3, 700 and
721; was approved on 07/01/2013; OMB Number 2070-0038; expires on 07/
31/2016; Approved without change.
    EPA ICR Number 2249.03; Tier 1 Screening of Certain Chemicals Under
the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP); was approved on 07/
03/2013; OMB Number 2070-0176; expires on 07/31/2016; Approved without
change.
    EPA ICR Number 1056.11; NSPS for Nitric Acid Plants; 40 CFR part 60
subparts A, G and Ga; was approved on 07/03/2013; OMB Number 2060-0019;
expires on 07/31/2016; Approved without change.
    EPA ICR Number 1783.06; NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Product; 40 CFR part 63 subparts A and III; was approved on 07/23/2013;
OMB Number 2060-0357; expires on 07/31/2016; Approved without change.
    EPA ICR Number 1678.08; NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
Operations; 40 CFR part 63 subparts A and EE; was approved on 07/25/
2013; OMB Number 2060-0326; expires on 07/31/2016; Approved without
change.
    EPA ICR Number 2115.04; NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing; 40 CFR part 63 subparts A and HHHHH; was approved on 07/
25/2013; OMB Number 2060-0535; expires on 07/31/2016; Approved without
change.
    EPA ICR Number 1064.17; NSPS for Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations; 40 CFR part 60 subparts A and MM; was
approved on 07/25/2013; OMB Number 2060-0034; expires on 07/31/2016;
Approved without change.
    EPA ICR Number 1072.10; NSPS for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing;
40 CFR part 60 subparts A and KK; was approved on 07/25/2013; OMB
Number 2060-0081; expires on 07/31/2016; Approved without change.
    EPA ICR Number 1652.08; NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaners/
Halogenated Hazardous Air Pollutants; 40 CFR part 63 subparts A and T;
was approved on 07/25/2013; OMB Number 2060-0273; expires on 07/31/
2016; Approved without change.
    EPA ICR Number 1788.10; NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production;
40 CFR part 63 subparts A and HH; was approved on 07/25/2013; OMB
Number 2060-0417; expires on 07/31/2016; Approved without change.
    EPA ICR Number 1790.06; NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing
and Phosphate Fertilizers Production; 40 CFR part 63 subparts A, AA and
BB; was approved on 07/25/2013; OMB Number 2060-0361; expires on 07/31/
2016; Approved without change.
    EPA ICR Number 1088.13; NSPS for Industrial-Commercial-
Institutional Steam Generating Units; 40 CFR part 60 subparts A and Db;
was approved on 07/31/2013; OMB Number 2060-0072; expires on 07/31/
2016; Approved without change.
    EPA ICR Number 1799.08; NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production
(Renewal); 40 CFR part 63 subparts A and DDD; was approved on 07/25/
2013; OMB Number 2060-0362; expires on 07/31/2016; Approved without
change.

Comment Filed

    EPA ICR Number 2485.01; NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills for which
Construction, Reconstruction or Modification; in 40 CFR part 60
subparts A and BBa; OMB filed comment on 07/16/2013.

Withdrawn and Continue

    EPA ICR Number 0877.11; RadNet (Renewal); Withdrawn from OMB on 07/
15/2013.
    EPA ICR Number 2415.01; Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
Annual Measures Reporting; Withdrawn from OMB on 07/23/2013.

John Moses,
Director, Collections Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-19139 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66448-66451]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26563]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0388]

Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information
Collection Request: Entry Level Driver Training Survey for Commercial
Drivers' Licenses

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval. The purpose of this ICR is to examine, by a one-time
collection of survey data, the relationship of commercial driver
license (CDL) entry level driver training (ELDT), as influenced by any
subsequent employer training that may have been received, to safety
performance of the drivers. The goal of this research is to contribute
to other related research being done evaluating the relationship of CDL
ELDT to subsequent safety performance of the drivers.
    The results of this study, along with others, will provide FMCSA
with information to support its consideration of the congressionally
mandated requirement to establish enhanced minimum training
requirements for CDL entry-level drivers from those currently required
at 49 CFR 380.503. There is no national database that contains or
collects data on the training received by drivers to enable them to
qualify for a CDL.
    Recently licensed freight CDL drivers will be surveyed. (This will
contain both drivers without hazardous material endorsements and drives
with hazardous materials endorsements.) Motorcoach and bus drivers
recently observed to have begun driving such vehicles in the most
recent three years, as indicated by data in MCMIS, will be surveyed.
The goal is to obtain a better understanding of the amount and type of
total training they received, and its composition between that received
before obtaining the CDL, and that received after obtaining the CDL.
Type of training is divided into hours-based versus performance-based.
Data on the amount and type of training received will be collected
using a one-time survey effort. The data will be analyzed to describe
the details of the driver training reported by the survey participants.
    Results of the training survey data will be analyzed in relation to
the safety performance data of the responding drivers available from
two databases: the State-operated Commercial Driver's License
Information System (CDLIS) and the Federally-operated Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS).

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2014-0388 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Services; U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or
you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdfE8-794.pdf.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goettee, Research Division,
Office of Analysis, Research and Technology, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: CDL driving is a specialized skill, distinct in many
ways and more demanding than operating a smaller vehicle such as an
automobile.\1\ In the early 1970's the CDL Program (49 CFR Parts 383
and 384) did not exist.\2\ Thus, there were no standardized national
requirements that prevented a driver from operating a vehicle heavier
than 26,000 lbs. or that carries 16 or more persons without
demonstrating minimum knowledge and skills. Neither the Federal
government nor any State had CDL ELDT requirements. In States that did
have a classified licensing system, only a few required the driver
candidate to be skills-tested in a representative commercial vehicle.
As a result, many drivers were operating large commercial motor
vehicles that they may not have been qualified to drive.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Transportation Safety Board. (1986) Safety
Recommendations H-86-27 through 34. Washington, DC.
    \2\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (1996). Purpose
and scope of this part and responsibility for compliance and
training. 49 CFR, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
    \3\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Commercial
Driver's License Program (CDL/CDLIS). Retrieved from http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration-licensing/cdl/cdl.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, because there was no tracking of existing licenses,
there was no systematic method for preventing drivers from obtaining
multiple licenses from multiple States and spreading convictions of any
traffic violations over those licenses. That allowed them to avoid
having any driver license suspended or revoked in any jurisdiction as a
result of convictions for violations of moving traffic laws and thus
being reported to the National Driver Registry.
    In the early 1980's, before the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(CMVSA) was enacted, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office
of Motor Carriers (the predecessor to FMCSA) determined that there was
a need for technical guidance in the area of truck driver training. At
that time, only a few driver-training institutions offered a structured
curriculum or a standardized training program for any type of
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver.
    In 1986, 32 States issued some form of a classified driver's
license (i.e., a license that makes a distinction between types of
vehicles that the holder may operate). Of these 32 States, 12 required
State-conducted, behind-the-wheel skills testing of all applicants in a
vehicle that represented the type that the driver operated or expected
to operate. The other 20 of those 32 States waived testing if the
applicants met certain conditions, such as certification of training
and testing by their employer; two States recognized training schools.
The remaining 18 States and the District of Columbia did not require
applicants to demonstrate their driving skills in the types of vehicles
they drove or intended to drive, nor did they require certification of
training and testing by the employer or a recognized training school.
Drivers in those States who obtained a driver license to drive a
passenger car were also considered qualified to drive an 18-wheeler or
a three-axle intercity bus.
    In 1986 Congress passed the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act \4\
(CMVSA), and subsequent amendments, explicitly to begin addressing
these issues. Implementation of the CDL Program and its supporting
information system, CDLIS, have been addressing many of these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. Congress, (1986). Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act
of 1986. Title XII of Public Law 99-570, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986
49 U.S.C. 31301 et seq., Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The goal of the CDL program is to ensure that drivers of large
trucks and commercial passenger vehicles possess the knowledge and
skills necessary to obtain a CDL and operate those vehicles on public
highways, and that such drivers are uniformly sanctioned for specified
convictions. The CMVSA established the CDL Program and directed the
Secretary to establish minimum Federal standards that the States must
meet when licensing drivers required to have a CDL and sanctions for
convictions for specified violations. The CMVSA and implementing
regulations apply to virtually anyone who operates a CMV requiring a
CDL in interstate or intrastate commerce, including employees of
Federal, State, and local governments. There are very limited
exceptions.
    One of the issues not addressed by the original CMVSA was
standardizing the ELDT to be received by those drivers before obtaining
a CDL. A 1995 FHWA-sponsored study titled Assessing the Adequacy of
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training (the Adequacy Report)
concluded, among other things, that effective entry-level driver
training needs to include behind-the-wheel instruction on how to
operate a heavy vehicle.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Dueker, R. L. (1995). Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial
Motor Vehicle Driver Training: Final Report (FHWA-MC-96-011).
Washington, DC: U.S. DOT FHWA Office of Motor Carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2004 FMCSA issued a Final Rule for such CDL ELDT, found at 49
CFR 380.503. The requirements of that rule were estimated to take on
average 10

hours of training to accomplish. However, the rule was challenged; the
court determined FMCSA needed to give more attention to its previous
research in establishing meaningful minimum CDL training standards, in
particular with regard to behind-the-wheel training requirements. The
court left the rule in effect but remanded it to FMCSA for further
action. In 2007 FMCSA issued a follow-on Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM), proposing revised ELDT standards for CDL drivers.
    The 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21)
requirement expanded the scope of the needed rule. In January and March
2013, FMCSA held public listening sessions to obtain additional input.
In December 2012, FMCSA tasked its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee (MCSAC) with developing training recommendations; these were
delivered in June 2013. In September 2013, FMCSA withdrew the 2007 NPRM
in order to develop a new proposed rule responsive to the 2007 docket
comments, the MAP-21-directives, input from the listening sessions, the
MCSAC recommendations, and several research projects under way
(including this survey). In March 2014, it was announced that a
negotiated rulemaking was being considered to facilitate the rulemaking
process. On August 19, 2014, the agency announced initiation of the
process with the contracted convener (79 FR 49044).
    Title: Entry Level Driver Training Survey for Commercial Drivers'
Licenses
    OMB Control Number: 2126-00XX.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Respondents: Entry-level interstate \6\ freight and bus/motorcoach
drivers. The goal is to understand what entry-level training general
freight drivers without endorsements received to obtain their CDLs, and
what additional training the hazmat freight (H--non-tanker, X--tanker
endorsements) and bus/motorcoach drivers (P endorsement) received to
obtain the required endorsement(s). Respondents will therefore be from
one of two groups. The first group is CDL drivers newly licensed within
the past three years (for freight--non-hazmat and hazmat). The second
group is drivers first observed operating a motorcoach or bus as
demonstrated by MCMIS data within the last three years, regardless of
when they received their CDL. The criteria for selection of this second
group is different because such drivers could have obtained their CDL
in the past, but only recently obtained training and began driving bus/
motorcoaches. In order to have more safety performance data available,
all drivers must be driving for a carrier authorized to operate
interstate. To avoid specific bias caused by a higher than usual
inspection rate at the border for international drivers, the carriers
must operate solely in the United States.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Intrastate drivers do not cross jurisdictions, and often do
not operate on interstate highways. Therefore, they tend toward
having minimal number of inspections and traffic citations from
either a MCSAP or non-MCSAP officers. This lack of safety
performance data would make it harder to evaluate any relationship
between their training and early subsequent safety performance.
Therefore, due to this lower availability of safety performance
data, intrastate drivers are not included in the target population.
    \7\ Drivers who cross the Canadian and Mexican borders have a
high number of inspections at the border and would bias the sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recent entry-level freight CMV drivers for purposes of this survey
are defined as those who received their initial commercial license
within the past three years. This will be verified by examining the
date the CDL index record was added to the CDLIS index. The drivers
also must have received an inspection within the past 12 months. This
is to verify they were recently, and thus may still be, driving a CMV
for a living. (Previous survey research from CDL drivers, found while
the response rate by CDL drivers was quite low, drivers who were
currently driving were more likely to respond.) Those drivers who also
have an H or X endorsement will automatically be routed to additional
questions regarding training for those endorsements.
    Recent entry-level Bus/Motorcoach (P) CMV drivers are defined as
having had an inspection or crash recorded in MCMIS in the past three
years while driving a bus or motorcoach vehicle.\8\ (As noted above,
entry level bus/motorcoach drivers are defined differently from the
freight drivers because drivers can enter the profession of bus/
motorcoach driving many years after obtaining their CDL.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Neither CDLIS nor MCMIS contains the date when an
endorsement was earned. Therefore, this research assumes that when a
driver has their first inspection operating a motor vehicle
requiring a P endorsement, it is more likely they recently completed
training, likely from the employer, to operate that type vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Number of Invitees: 82,207 drivers will be invited to
participate in the survey.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,399.
    Estimated Time Per Response: Between 12 and 21 minutes per
response, primarily via online technology to a secure Web site for
completing only one survey instrument by the invited drivers. The
necessary login information will be provided in their solicitation
letter. The length of time required depends on which survey instrument
applies to that type of driver (see detailed calculation below.) The
average is 15.4 minutes because of the small number of drivers with H,
X or P endorsements that will be included in the invited sample.
    Expiration Date: N/A. This is a new ICR for a one-time survey.
    Frequency of Response: Once per respondent.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1903 hours [6620 general freight
survey responses x 15 minutes/60 minutes = 1655; 498 hazmat endorsement
freight survey responses x 21 minutes/60 minutes = 174.3; 109 bus
survey responses x 12 minutes/60 minutes = 21.8; 172 motorcoach survey
responses x 18 minutes/60 minutes = 51.6; total estimated burden thus
is 1902.7, rounded to 1903 hours].
    Form(s): MCSA-5890, ``Entry-Level CMV CDL Truck Driver Training
Survey,'' MCSA-5891, ``Entry-Level CMV CDL Bus Driver Training
Survey,'' and MCSA-5892, ``Entry-Level CMV CDL Motorcoach Driver
Training Survey.''

Analysis

    This study will obtain safety performance data from both MCMIS and
CDLIS to analyze the safety performance in relation to the amount and
type of training received by recently licensed CDL drivers who chose to
respond to this survey.
    FMCSA maintains the MCMIS, which contains violations of Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) found during roadside
inspections (including driver out-of-service orders) and crash data
submitted by States supported by Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program (MCSAP) funding. CDLIS Index data are maintained by the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). The
licensing States maintain the detailed CDLIS driver records that
contain convictions on State and local traffic infractions,
suspensions, and revocations.
    This study will ensure confidentiality regarding the identity and
responses of the participating drivers. Only summarized data will be
published. Results of this study will provide FMCSA with information to
support its considerations of establishing minimum entry-level training
requirements for CDL drivers.
    Public Comments Invited: On whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Department, including whether the information
will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates
of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87 on: October 31, 2014.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology and Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-26563 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: February 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 7697-7698]
[DOCID:fr16fe07-138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55265; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to
Its Marketing Fee Program

February 9, 2007.
    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 January 31, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') 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 substantially
prepared by the Exchange. On February 6, 2007, the CBOE submitted
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. CBOE has designated this
proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by CBOE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The CBOE proposes to amend its Marketing Fee Program. The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.cboe.com.

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. CBOE has substantially 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
    CBOE proposes to amend its Marketing Fee Program as it relates to
option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program, which
commenced on January 26, 2007. Currently, 13 option classes are
scheduled to participate in the Penny Pilot Program: Whole Foods
(WFMI), General Electric (GE), Microsoft (MSFT), Ishares Russell 2000
(IWM), Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking StockSM (QQQQ),
SemiConductor Holders (SMH), Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Intel
(INTC), Caterpiller (CAT), Texas Instruments (TXN), Flextronics
International (FLEX), Sun Micro (SUNW), and Agilent Tech, Inc. (A).
    With respect to the option classes participating in the Penny Pilot
Program in which the marketing fee currently is assessed,\5\ the
marketing fee will be assessed at the rate of $.25 per contract,
instead of $.65 per contract. CBOE proposes to implement this change to
the marketing fee beginning on February 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The QQQQs and IWM have been selected to participate in the
Penny Pilot Program. However, the marketing fee currently does not
apply to these classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is not amending its marketing fee program in any other
respects.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act\6\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
CBOE members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is 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 solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act\8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2)\9\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will
take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days
of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \10\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, the
Commission considers the period to commence on February 6, 2007, the
date on which the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2007-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-11. 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of CBOE. 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-CBOE-2007-11 and should be submitted on or before March 9, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-722 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M


"Bill Balek"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 08/04/2008 03:26 PM

To

Jeanne Kasai/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Nancy Fitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

RE: To Mr. Balek RE: comment on changes to pesticide Container-Containment rule

Dear Ms. Kasai:

Thank you for your note of earlier today.

While I do not have photos, I can direct you to the web site of a

company that delivers products in what are often referred to as "portion

control packets".  Please go to the following URLs for examples and

pictures of this packaging system:

1.  http://www.portionpaccorp.com/product-systems/sfspac/

2.  http://www.portionpaccorp.com/product-systems/sfspac/sanitizer/

The second URL takes you to a sanitizer product.  The first URL takes

you to the first page of a product family.

To use these products, custodial staff simply fill a container with

water.  They then open a portion control packet and empty the contents

into the container.  The portion control packet contains a premeasured

quantity of a product concentrate that does not need to be measured.

The entire contents of the packet is simply poured into the container.

The packet is opened to release the product and then can not be

resealed.  Thus it cannot be reused.

Please contact me if you would like additional information.

Sincerely,

Bill Balek, ISSA

800-225-4772

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 12:02 PM

To: Bill Balek

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: To Mr. Balek RE: comment on changes to pesticide

Container-Containment rule

Hello, Mr. Balek:

Thank you for submitting your comments to EPA on the proposed changes to

the pesticide container-containment rule.

Our internal-EPA work group is in the process of reviewing and

discussing the public comments.

I am writing about your comment requesting that certain products be

exempt from the "nonrefillable container" and "do not reuse or refill"

label statements.

It would be most helpful if you could give us examples (photos if

possible) of "products in pre-measured polyethylene sleeve packages

whose contents need to be mixed with water."

Thank you in advance for your assistance!

Jeanne Kasai

EPA - Office of Pesticide Programs

tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>   fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/containers.htm


OTC MM5 Meteorological Model Configuration

Science Options	Configuration	Details/Comments

Model Code	MM5 Version 3.6

	Horizontal Grid Mesh	36km/12km

	36-km grid	149x129 cells

	12-km grid	175x175 cells

	Vertical Grid Mesh	29 layers

	Grid Interaction	No feedback	Two-way nesting

Initialization	Eta first guess fields/LittleR

	Boundary Conditions	Eta first guess fields/LittleR

	Microphysics	Simple Ice

	Cumulus Scheme	Kain-Fritsch	36km/12km grids

Planetary Boundary Layer	High-resolution Blackadar PBL

	Radiation	Simple cooling

	Vegetation Data	USGS	24 Category Scheme

Land Surface Model	Five-Layer Soil model

	Shallow Convection	None

	Sea Surface Temperature	Do not update SST

	Thermal Roughness	Default

	Snow Cover Effects	None

	4D Data Assimilation	Analysis Nudging: 36km/12km

	Integration Time Step	75 seconds

	Simulation Periods	2002

	Platform	Linux Cluster	Done at UMD

 PAGE

 PAGE   1