A proposed rule published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2022, (87 FR 6455) would amend administrative requirements in the Order regulating the roadside stand exemption, credit for market promotion activities (credit-back), quality control, exempt dispositions, and interest and late charges provisions. The proposed rule allowed a 60-day comment period that ended April 25, 2022.

Prior to the end of the initial comment period, USDA received comments that called into question the process that effectuated the proposed rule. Specifically, the comments said that the recommended modification to 7 CFR 981.441, the administrative requirements for the credit-back provision, was not approved by the Board and was recommended to USDA without Board knowledge.

A review of Board proceedings and meeting minutes shows that the provision was approved by the Board. During the June 17, 2021 Board meeting, the Global Market Development Committee presented the suggested changes to section 981.441 for consideration. The Board voted unanimously to approve. Subsequently, meeting minutes indicating this approval were unanimously approved by the Board in an email vote sent out on July 26, 2021.

The authority to allow for credit-back is found at 7 CFR 981.41(c), “Research and Development; Creditable expenditures,” while regulations implementing this authority are found at 7 CFR 981.441 “Credit for market promotion activities, including paid advertising.” Section 981.441, added in 1994, has been previously amended twice (1999 and 2005).

AMS is reopening the comment period for 15 days to allow for any additional comments on the proposed amendments to the regulations. Specifically, AMS is looking for comments on provisions related to credit-back administrative requirements to determine support for the changes. AMS is also looking for further comment on perceived issues related to the formulation of the recommendation for that provision. Accordingly, the comment period is hereby reopened until July 7, 2022.

Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Authority B. Rulemaking Process C. Deviation From Appendix A II. Background A. Current Standards B. Current Process III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE A. Market and Technology Assessment B. Screening Analysis C. Engineering Analysis D. Markups Analysis E. Energy Use Analysis F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses G. National Impact Analysis IV. Public Participation A. Participation in the Webinar B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution C. Conduct of the Webinar D. Submission of Comments V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Introduction A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B  2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include dehumidifiers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc))

EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Not later than three years after issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))

DOE is publishing this Preliminary Analysis to collect data and information to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including dehumidifiers. EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency (or water efficiency for certain products specified by EPCA) that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. 3 For example, the United States has now rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has committed to reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions in order to limit the rise in mean global temperature. 4 As such, energy savings that reduce GHG emission have taken on greater importance.

Additionally, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the U.S. energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than those of products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in not only site energy use, but also primary energy and full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. 5 Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.

Based on the cumulative full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors, DOE has initially determined the energy savings for the candidate standard levels evaluated in this preliminary analysis rulemaking are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.

DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-0587; Project Identifier AD-2022-00394-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA was notified by the engine manufacturer of the detection of an iron inclusion in a forging, which may reduce the fatigue life of certain LPTR stage 4 disks and LPTR stage 6 disks. The manufacturer's investigation determined that the inclusion is a melt-related defect and that, as a result of the inclusion forming in the forging, certain LPTR stage 4 disks and LPTR stage 6 disks may have reduced material properties and a lower fatigue life capability. Reduced material properties may cause premature LPTR stage 4 disk and LPTR stage 6 disk fracture, which could result in uncontained debris release. As a result of its investigation, the manufacturer published service information that specifies procedures for the removal and replacement of certain LPTR stage 4 disks and LPTR stage 6 disks installed on GEnx-2B67/P model turbofan engines. This condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained debris release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed GE GEnx-2B service bulletin (SB) 72-0448 R00, dated February 7, 2022. This SB describes procedures for removing the affected LPTR stage 4 disks and LPTR stage 6 disks from service.

This proposed AD would require the removal and replacement of certain LPTR stage 4 disks and LPTR stage 6 disks.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 4 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that the affected disk population on engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry would include three LPTR stage 4 disks and one LPTR stage 6 disk.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-0598; Project Identifier AD-2021-01322-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Hassan Ibrahim, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3653; email: hassan.m.ibrahim@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has received reports of WAI valve failure, and determined that a specific aspect of the WAI system was not fully assessed by the system safety analysis conducted during type certification. Fleet data indicates, the WAI valve has failed to open in 50 unique events during the period from November 2013 through March 2019. High temperature bleed air (250-400 °F) can unintentionally flow into the LE slat assemblies due to mechanical failure of the WAI valve or an unintended command from the airfoil and cowl ice protection system (ACIPS) control card. This high temperature bleed air exposure, when the airplane is on the ground and there is minimal airplane speed, can reduce the structural capability of the slat such that affected structure may not be able to withstand design limit load during the next flight cycle (takeoff or landing). The revised software will monitor WAI valve function and annunciate failures.

In addition, Boeing received a report that, during landing, after the A/T had automatically changed to the IDLE A/T mode, the pilot initiated a go-around by manually advancing the throttle levers to more than 50 degrees throttle lever angle. During that incident, the A/T did not disconnect due to advancing the throttle levers, and remained in IDLE mode with the throttle levers automatically returning to an idle setting when released, causing a low speed condition during the go-around. Such a low speed condition can result in a low altitude stall and potential impact with terrain.

Boeing developed new Airplane Information Management System 2 (AIMS-2) Block Point (BP) Version 17C software to address the WAI system failures and A/T not disengaging. Before operators can install AIMS-2 BP Version 17C software updates, if not done already, they must install earlier BP versions of this software to ensure all required software part numbers are installed. Those earlier versions were released to address other unsafe conditions on the affected airplanes. One earlier software update was prompted by an accident at San Francisco International Airport on July 6, 2013 in which the airplane deviated below the intended glideslope and impacted the seawall as it crashed short of the runway. The subsequent investigation determined that insufficient low-speed protection existed in the 777 fleet; AIMS-2 BP Version 17B was developed to expand the A/T system authority and provide an earlier threshold for the low-airspeed alert. AIMS-2 BP V17B inadvertently introduced the failure of the A/T to disconnect after manual throttle advancement during go-around, which led to the subsequent development of AIMS-2 BP V17C. Another concern addressed by earlier software updates is the determination that inadequate flightcrew recognition of, and response to, a multi-channel unreliable airspeed event, can result in loss of control of the airplane.

These conditions, if not addressed, could result in undetected failure of the WAI system and consequent high temperature bleed air flowing into the LE slat assemblies, along with a low speed condition on the ground, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the slat and prevent continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. In addition, the FAA is also issuing this AD to prevent failure of the A/T to disconnect after advancing the throttle levers, or insufficient low energy protection, which could result in controlled flight into terrain, or a multi-channel unreliable airspeed event could result in loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe conditions described previously are likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-31A0342 RB, dated July 19, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for installing new AIMS-2 BP Version 17C software, and doing a software configuration check. For Groups 1, 2, and 3, this service information also specifies concurrent actions (installation of AIMS-2 BP Version 17B software; installation of AIMS-2 and PlaneNet-2 systems; or installation of AIMS-2 and software; depending on configuration).

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0598.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 353 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would remove the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Northwoods Airport, Watersmeets, MI, due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures at this airport, and the airspace is no longer being required.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2022-0766/Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-25.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by decommissioning the Watersmeet NDB and all associated extensions; and removing the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Northwoods Airport, Watersmeet, MI, due to the cancellation and removal of instrument procedures and the airspace is no longer required.

This action is the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Watersmeet NDB which provided guidance to instrument procedures at this airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The Commission is seeking public comment on certain information providers whose activities, in whole or in part, may cause them to meet the definition of “investment adviser” under the Act.

The role of index providers, model portfolio providers, and pricing services (“information providers” or “providers”) has grown in size and scope in recent years, significantly changing the face of the asset management industry. The development and nature of these services may raise investment adviser status issues under the Advisers Act. 1 Investment adviser status, in turn, has regulatory implications, including questions relating to registration under the Advisers Act. In addition, the development and nature of these services may raise questions under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”), including whether an information provider is acting as an “investment adviser” of an investment company under the Investment Company Act. 2 These providers' operations also raise potential concerns about investor protection and market risk, including, for example, the potential for front-running of trades where the providers and their personnel have advance knowledge of changes to the information they generate and potential conflicts of interest where the providers or their personnel hold investments they value or that are constituents of their indexes or models. Some individual information providers of the types we describe below have registered with the Commission as investment advisers (sometimes because of other business in which they engage), and others have not. 3 Some may be prohibited (absent exemptive relief) from Commission registration because, for example, they lack regulatory assets under management. Depending on the facts and circumstances, however, particular information providers may have an ability, perhaps through operations of sufficient size and scope, to affect national markets or otherwise have a “national presence.” Accordingly, we are seeking comment regarding information providers to facilitate consideration of whether regulatory action is necessary and appropriate to further the Commission's mission.

Index providers compile, create the methodology for, sponsor, administer, and/or license market indexes. They typically determine the particular “market” (which may be a sector or other group of securities) that the index measures, the index constituents that measure that market, and the weightings that each constituent receives. Once the index is designed and its methodology is created, index providers determine the index's level (or measurement) pursuant to that methodology. These activities leave room for significant discretion—for example, an index provider typically has the ability to make changes to the index by adding or dropping particular constituents ( i.e., index reconstitution) or modifying their weighting within the index ( i.e., index rebalancing), 4 in some cases without publicly disclosing their index methodologies or rules.

The number and variety of indexes have grown over time, with millions of indexes in the global market. 5 Some are broad-based and widely used, while others are more narrowly focused, including specialized indexes that are designed to be tracked by a particular user. 6 Specialized indexes can be composed of constituents on the basis of a variety of considerations, including “factors” that may be seen to cause certain types of securities to outperform or underperform the market as a whole. Index providers that offer specialized indexes might allow a user to “specify the customization criteria” on which a provider can create an index;  7 offer “flexibility” with respect to the components of the index;  8 and can be “built to the exact specifications of . . . clients, in any major asset class.”  9

Index providers are compensated by licensing indexes to users for the creation of investment products, reporting, and internal use. Generally, index providers license information related to their indexes to two main groups—those that seek to use the index as a benchmark, such as active managers, and those that seek to track the index, such as index funds. Although there are many indexes available and no formal barriers to becoming an index provider, three index providers account for over two-thirds of the market for indexes, totaling approximately $5.0 billion in revenue in 2021. 10

While indexes have historically been associated with passive investing, index providers, particularly those that design specialized indexes, may be making active decisions in designing or administering the index. 11 In some cases, these decisions may be personalized for a particular user, for example designing or modifying an index for the specific purpose of licensing its use by particular investors and/or their advisers to be employed as part of their investment strategy. Whether or not an index is specialized, the index provider's inclusion or exclusion of a particular security in an index drives advisers with clients tracking that index to purchase or sell securities in response.

A model portfolio generally consists of a diversified group of assets (often mutual funds or exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”)) designed to achieve a particular expected return with exposure to corresponding risks. As with indexes, a model portfolio may be rebalanced or have constituent changes over time. 12 These models provide a convenient way to allocate and diversify investments through a single, professionally managed portfolio. For example, an investment adviser can outsource portfolio management to a model portfolio provider and select among several models offering the adviser's clients different risk targets. A stable or more conservative portfolio generally would invest in mutual funds and ETFs that provide a client with low risk exposure and low return volatility, while an aggressive portfolio generally would invest in mutual funds and ETFs that provide the client with higher-risk exposure and higher return volatility.

Model portfolio providers, sometimes referred to as “model originators,” include broker-dealers, asset managers, third-party strategists, asset allocators, and advisers. 13 They design allocation models, may update or rebalance them over time, provide various degrees of customization, and may offer this information on a discretionary or non-discretionary basis. While target allocation models that pursue defined outcomes or investment strategies ( e.g., capital preservation, income) have been most common in the marketplace, there is a growing demand for specialized models that focus on a particular industry or strategy—for example, models that focus on sustainable or “ESG” (environmental, social, and governance) investments. 14

Model portfolio providers may consider the characteristics and investment goals of a general client type, such as whether the investor is focused on retirement or short-term financial management, or may engage in a more detailed, customized analysis when crafting a model portfolio through, for example, the use of direct indexing strategies. 15

This document and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are also available at www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at www.FederalRegister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at www.GovInfo.gov.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period and after FHWA has had the opportunity to review the comments submitted.

The FHWA proposes to establish regulations that would set minimum standards and requirements for projects funded under the NEVI Formula Program and projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV chargers funded under title 23, United States Code. 1 The FHWA is directed by Paragraph (2) under the Highway Infrastructure Program heading in title VIII of division J of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) (enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) (Pub. L. 117-58) (Nov. 15, 2021) to create minimum standards and requirements for NEVI-funded projects. As outlined in statute, the purpose of the NEVI Formula Program is to “provide funding to States to strategically deploy EV charging infrastructure and to establish an interconnected network to facilitate data collection, access, and reliability.” This purpose would be satisfied by creating a convenient, affordable, reliable, and equitable network of chargers throughout the country. Currently, there are no national standards for the installation, operation, or maintenance of EV charging stations, and wide disparities exists among EV charging stations in key components, such as operational practices, payment methods, site organization, display of price to charge, speed and power of chargers, and information communicated about the availability and functioning of each charging station. The FHWA is directed by Section 11129 of BIL, which amends 23 U.S.C. 109, by adding a requirement that EV charging station standards apply to all projects that install EV charging infrastructure using funds provided under title 23, United States Code. This proposed rule does not conflict with or supersede other title 23, United States Code statutory requirements or their implementing regulations. This regulation would enable States to implement federally-funded charging station projects in a standardized fashion across a national EV charging network that can be utilized by all EVs regardless of vehicle brand. Such standards would provide consumers with reliable expectations for travel in an electric vehicle across and throughout the United States and support a national workforce skilled and trained in EVSE installation and maintenance.

The BIL specifically required that minimum standards and requirements be developed related to six areas:

(1) Installation, operation, and maintenance by qualified technicians of EV infrastructure.

The FHWA proposes to require general consistency with regard to the installation, operation, and maintenance and technician qualifications of the NEVI Formula Program projects and projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV chargers that are funded under title 23, United States Code. In terms of standards for the installation, operation, and maintenance of EVSE, charging stations would be required to contain a minimum number and type of chargers capable of supplying electrical charge through prescribed standard charging ports. This regulation would further specify the required minimum density of provided chargers, payment methods, and requirements for customer support services. In terms of technician qualifications, the guidance would provide minimum skill, training, and certification standards for technicians installing, operating, and maintaining EVSE to ensure consistency around quality installation and safety across the network. These proposed requirements would provide the traveling public with reliable expectations for their EV charging experience anywhere that NEVI Formula funds or title 23, United States Code funds are used to construct EV charging infrastructure. In addition to proposed requirements that would be customer-facing, a series of additional proposed requirements would provide less visible, yet critical, standardization and uniformity for how charging stations would be installed, maintained, and operated. These types of proposed requirements would address topics such as the certification of charging equipment, security, long-term stewardship, the qualifications of technicians installing and maintaining charging stations, and the privacy of customer data conveyed. There is also proposed language to explain what the NEVI program income can be used for when there is net income from the sale, use, lease, or lease renewal of real property acquired with NEVI Formula Program funds, or when there is income or revenue earned from the operation of the EV charging station.

(2) Interoperability of EV charging infrastructure.

The proposed requirements relating to interoperability similarly address less visible standardization along the national EV charging network. The FHWA proposes a seamless national network of EV charging infrastructure that can communicate and operate on the same software platforms from one State to another. The FHWA proposes interoperability requirements for charger-to-EV communication to ensure that chargers are capable of the communication necessary to perform smart charge management and Plug and Charge.

(3) Traffic control devices and on-premise signs acquired, installed, or operated.

The FHWA proposes to address requirements about traffic control devices and on-premise signs by cross-referencing other existing requirements contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) found at 23 CFR part 655 and the Highway Beautification regulation at 23 CFR part 750.

(4) Data requested related to a project funded under the NEVI Formula Program, including the format and schedule for the submission of such data.

The FHWA proposes to outline quarterly and annual data submittal requirements that are applicable only to projects funded under the NEVI Formula Program. States would be required to submit quarterly data to identify charging station use, reliability maintenance, and installation cost information. On an annual basis, States would be required to submit identifying information about organizations operating, maintaining, or installing Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) along with information about any certifications of these entities through State or local business opportunity certification programs. Finally, States would be required to submit an annual report describing the community engagement activities conducted in accordance with their approved State EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans.

The proposed regulation would serve an important coordination role by standardizing submissions of large amounts of data from charging stations across the U.S. while providing the Joint Office with the data needed to create the public EV charging database outlined in BIL. The FHWA specifically requests comments on whether the proposed data collection language creates an undue burden on the States with the amount and types of data to be collected and the frequency in which it is to be reported.

(5) Network connectivity of EV charging infrastructure.

The FHWA proposes to outline network connectivity requirements for charger-to-charger network communication, charging network-to-charging network communication, and charging network-to-grid communication. These proposed requirements address standards meant to allow for secure remote monitoring, diagnostics, control, and updates. The FHWA believes these proposed requirements would help address cybersecurity concerns while mitigating against stranded assets (whereby any provider abandons operations at any particular charging station). Proposed network connectivity requirements also would specifically require chargers to be capable of smart charge management and Plug and Charge capabilities by requiring the ability to communicate through Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP) in tandem with ISO 15118.

(6) Information on publicly available EV charging infrastructure locations, pricing, real-time availability, and accessibility though mapping applications.

The FHWA proposes requirements to standardize the communication to consumers of price and availability of each charging station. Specifically outlined in the proposed regulation, States would be required to ensure that basic charging station information (such as location, connector type, and power level), real-time status, and real-time price to charge would be available free of charge to third-party software developers through application programming interface. The FHWA believes these requirements would enable effective communication with consumers about available charging stations and help consumers make informed decisions about trip planning and when and where to charge their EVs. The FHWA also proposes requirements for public transparency when EV charging prices are to be set by a third party. The FHWA believes that this will protect the public from price gouging.

The proposed rule would apply to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, consistent with the definition of the term “State” in 23 U.S.C. 101(a). These proposed regulations would apply to projects funded under the NEVI Formula Program and projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV chargers that are funded with funds made available under title 23, United States Code, with the prioritization of projects along Interstates during the first year in order to create a reliable national network of EV charging infrastructure for those travelling long distances or for multiple hours at a time.

The FHWA requests comment on the proposed approach summarized above and described in detail below to establish a set of minimum standards and requirements for NEVI Formula Program projects and projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV chargers that are funded under title 23, United States Code.

The FHWA requests comment on the consideration, options, and use of information to account for the analysis of the proposed rule, as described in detail in the “Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA)” available in the docket. The PRIA supports this proposed regulation and estimates the costs and benefits associated with establishing minimum standards and requirements, derived from the costs of implementing the proposed regulation for each provision of the rule. All of the topics for the minimum standards and requirements are required under Paragraph (2) under the Highway Infrastructure Program heading in title VIII of division J of BIL. To estimate these costs, the PRIA compares the costs and benefits of proposed provisions to the costs and benefits of the options States would likely choose for their own EVSE programs in the absence of the rule. In many cases, the analysis found that States would likely choose the same requirements that are found in the proposed rule.

The BIL included two new programs with a total of $7.5 billion in dedicated funding to help make EV chargers and alternative fueling facilities accessible to all Americans for long-distance trips. As one of these two new programs, the NEVI Formula Program provides $5 billion as the first major Federal funding program that focuses on a nationwide development of EV charging infrastructure. The FHWA has released program guidance for the NEVI Formula Program, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/alternative_fuel_corridors/nominations/90d_nevi_formula_program_guidance.pdf, as was required by BIL within 90 days of enactment.

This program guidance outlined funding features, information about required State EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans, project eligibility provisions, program administration, and technical assistance and tools. The program guidance also outlined potential topics for these proposed minimum standards and requirements for projects implemented under the NEVI Formula Program.

Several additional DOT funding and finance programs are also available to plan for and build EV chargers; support workforce training for new technologies; and integrate EVs as part of strategies to address commuter, freight, and public transportation needs. For more information see the Federal Funding is Available for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure on the National Highway System released April 22, 2022. 2

The BIL required FHWA to release a set of minimum standards and requirements for the implementation of the NEVI Formula Program under Paragraph (2) under the Highway Infrastructure Program heading in title VIII of division J).

This proposed regulation directly addresses the requirements in BIL. This proposed regulation also directly addresses the EV Charging Stations standards requirement added to 23 U.S.C. 109 by Section 11129 of BIL for projects using title 23, United States Code funds for EV charging infrastructure. Through the provision of minimum standards and requirements, the NEVI Formula Program would help set reliable expectations for the experience of EV charging across the nation. Nothing in this regulation is intended to be construed to prevent States from establishing more stringent EV charging infrastructure requirements towards building a convenient, affordable, reliable, and equitable national charging network.

The BIL required establishment of a Joint Office of Energy and Transportation (Joint Office)  3 in the Department of Transportation and the Department of Energy to study, plan, coordinate, and implement issues of joint concern between the two Agencies. The DOT and DOE coordinated on both the NEVI Formula Program Guidance and development of the minimum standards and requirements found in this proposed rule.

There are no existing national standards for EV charging stations, although there may be some State standards that exist. For any given charging station, the charger manufacturer, charging network, charging network provider, charging station owner, charging station operator, and even the utility providing electricity, may all be different entities, all with different expectations for contracts, maintenance, operations, and customer response. Because EV charging is a relatively new technology, there is wide diversity in the market from small start-up companies to major multi-national corporations. This diversity of entities results in a variety of charging station operations, leaving consumers with a learning curve every time they encounter a new EV charging station. The consumer education required for each use of a new charging station, as well as unreliability of the charging station function and safety issues from the lack of standardized technician qualifications, exacerbates existing hurdles for the widespread adoption of EVs, including range anxiety and safety risks. Range anxiety is a concept whereby consumers fear that a vehicle has insufficient electrical charge to reach its destination or another charging station and would therefore strand the vehicle's occupants. This also includes the anxiety that chargers would not be available where and when needed. Furthermore, the lack of minimum standards for chargers reduces the reliability of a consistent charging experience ( e.g., the charger meets their needs, is working and available, etc.) for consumers when they encounter a new charging station. Beyond standardizing consumer and industry expectations, the proposed regulation would outline minimum standards and requirements to ensure the appropriate use of Federal funds on a new technology and market, and greatly enhance consumer confidence and public safety.

The FHWA believes that the establishment of this regulation would provide a powerful antidote to these issues, create energy independence, and encourage more widespread adoption of EVs because EV consumers would be more confident in the availability, safety, and consistency of EV charging stations.

Accordingly, by encouraging the adoption and expansion in use of EVs, title 23 investments in EV charging infrastructure have the potential to significantly address the transportation sector's outsized contributions to climate change. President Biden, American families, automakers, and autoworkers agree: the future of transportation is electric. The electric car future is cleaner, more equitable, more affordable, and an economic opportunity to support good-paying, union jobs across the installation and maintenance of the charging infrastructure as well as in American supply chains as automakers continue investing in manufacturing clean vehicles and the batteries that power them. 4 Currently, the transportation sector is both the largest source of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 5 and is increasingly vulnerable because of the higher temperatures, more frequent and intense precipitation, and sea level rise associated with the changing climate. Much of existing transportation infrastructure was designed and constructed without consideration of these changes.

The Sixth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released on August 7, 2021, confirms that human activities are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations that have warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years. 6 According to the report, global mean sea level has increased between 1901 and 2018, and changes in extreme events such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts have intensified since the last assessment report in 2014. 7 These changes in extreme events, along with anticipated future changes in these events due to climate change, threaten the reliability, safety and efficiency of the transportation system. At the same time, transportation contributes significantly to the causes of climate change  8 and each additional ton of CO 2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels contributes to future warming and other climate impacts.

By encouraging widespread adoption of a zero-emissions transportation mode, the proposed regulation would supercharge America's efforts to lead the electric future and align with recent Executive Orders (E.O.) 13990, E.O. 14008, and a U.S. target of achieving a 50 to 52 percent reduction from 2005 levels of economy-wide net GHG pollution in 2030, on a course toward reaching net-zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050. 9 Section 1 of E.O. 13990, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021), articulates national policy objectives, including listening to the science, improving public health and protecting the environment, reducing GHG emissions, and strengthening resilience to the impacts of climate change. E.O. 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021), recommits the United States to the Paris Agreement and calls on the United States to begin the process of developing its nationally determined contribution to global GHG reductions. 86 FR at 7620.

E.O. 14008 also calls for a Government-wide approach to the climate crisis and acknowledges opportunities to create well-paying, union jobs to build a modern, sustainable infrastructure, to provide an equitable, clean energy future, and to put the U.S. on a path to achieve net-zero emissions, economywide, no later than 2050. 86 FR at 7622. It also supports the principle set forth in section 213 of E.O. 14008 “to ensure that Federal infrastructure investment reduces climate pollution.” 86 FR at 7626. Reducing the barriers to charging infrastructure will enable the rapid expansion of zero-emission vehicles, a central component of the U.S. Long Term Strategy to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. 10 In line with this E.O. and addressing the climate crisis, enabling wider adoption of EVs may also have significant benefits to equity and environmental justice whereby a national network of EV charging infrastructure reduces disparities in access to transportation infrastructure and health effects. 11

The NEVI Formula Program presents an opportunity to advance both equity and environmental justice for communities that have been underserved by transportation infrastructure and overburdened by costs and environmental harms. When determining where EV charging stations should be located, there should be engagement with rural, underserved, and disadvantaged communities to ensure that diverse views are heard and considered and to ensure that the deployment, installation, operation, and use of EV charging infrastructure achieves equitable and fair distribution of benefits and services. Historically, innovations in clean energy and transportation have not been deployed evenly across communities. This has resulted in underserved, overburdened, and disadvantaged communities being left behind.

Achieving our long-term goals requires the equitable deployment of electric vehicle infrastructure, and NEVI Formula Program funding is the opportunity to ensure these investments benefit disadvantaged communities and create safeguards to prevent or mitigate potential harms. Consideration of the benefits and harms is in accordance with E.O. 13985, which requires the Federal Government to pursue a comprehensive approach to advance racial equity for all, and E.O. 14008, which created the Justice40 Initiative, which established a goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities. 86 FR at 7626. OMB M-21-28 Interim Guidance provides that NEVI Formula Program funding is a Justice40 federal covered program.

Consideration for how benefits of EV charging flow to rural, underserved, and disadvantaged communities will be vital towards ensuring NEVI Formula Program funding is distributed meaningfully and equitably in accordance with E.O. 14008. In the absence of the NEVI Formula Program, the market will not prioritize the installation of important EV chargers densely populated urban communities where the cost of real estate is relatively higher or in sparsely populated rural areas lacking access to transportation alternatives. If access to EV chargers is dictated by these market forces, then rural areas, underserved communities, and disadvantaged communities will experience delayed and diminished access to this clean energy technology and the transportation infrastructure that is vital to a healthy economy. Such outcomes would be at odds with E.O. 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” at 86 FR 7009.

However, the proposed rule would complement the February 10, 2022, NEVI Formula Program Guidance, which encouraged EV chargers to be spaced a maximum distance of 50 miles apart along designated alternate fuel corridors (AFCs), by requiring minimum standards for the development of each station. Providing minimum standards and requirements for the development of each charging station helps to ensure equitable access to clean transportation options and the electric grid across all communities, increasing parity in clean energy technology access and adoption. Over the long-term, according to the DOE, EV ownership is usually less expensive than ownership of gasoline-powered vehicles. 12 Additionally, the low cost of operation makes some EVs less expensive on a monthly basis, compared to equivalent gasoline-powered vehicles, when vehicle purchase price is financed. 13 Thus, increased adoption in these communities could be associated with a community-wide decrease in transportation energy cost burdens. In communities where transportation corridors see a mode-share shift from gasoline-powered vehicles to EVs, there will be a marked reduction in environmental exposures to transportation emissions. Widespread adoption of EVs in the U.S. would also increase our energy resilience by increasing the share of vehicles that operate on energy sources that are domestically produced and regulated and assist in creating energy independence and domestic job creation.

The NEVI Formula Program also addresses the acknowledgement in E.O. 14008 that the path to a net-zero emissions economy provides opportunities to create well-paying, union jobs to build a modern sustainable infrastructure. 86 FR 7622. This proposed rule would outline minimum qualifications for technicians working on-site at charging stations. Minimum skill, training, and certification standards for technicians ensures that the deployment of charging infrastructure will support stable career-track employment for workers across the country, creating more openings for workers to pursue training in the electrical trades—critical occupations for the clean energy transition. By requiring on-site installation, maintenance, and operations to be performed by a well-qualified, highly-skilled, and certified, licensed, and trained workforce, the proposed regulation would also increase the safety and reliability of charging station function and use, and mitigate project delivery issues such as cost overruns and delays.

The proposed regulation would establish minimum standards and requirements specific to the use of NEVI Formula Program funds and funds made available under title 23, United States Code for projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV chargers with the prioritization of projects along Interstates in order to create a reliable national network of EV charging infrastructure for those travelling long distances or for multiple hours at a time. E.O. 14036 also points out that if successfully deployed an interoperable EV charging network can be expected to give EV manufacturers more space to experiment, innovate, and pursue the new ideas leading to more choices, better service, and lower prices especially with regard to the EVs themselves. 86 FR 36987.

The proposed regulation for minimum standards and requirements under the NEVI Formula Program required consultation with relevant stakeholders. The DOT issued a Request for Information (RFI) published in the Federal Register on November 29, 2021 (86 FR 67782). There were 483 comments received in response to the RFI. Commenters included local, State, and regional governments and included those with the full range of experiences installing and operating EV infrastructure. Industry groups and businesses involved with EV infrastructure, ranging from small businesses to trade groups and multi-national corporations, also provided comments. Some comments received were from formal trade organizations: the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC (IBEW), American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), and Laborers' International Union of North America. Nonprofit groups provided feedback as to how the NEVI Formula Program could positively or negatively impact the communities that these groups represented. The FHWA also received comments from individual members of the public to include EV owners and others who would be impacted by the NEVI Formula Program. The FHWA considered this input in the development of this regulation. A discussion of how the most prevalent topics were considered and addressed is provided below.

In addition to the RFI, the White House sponsored 18 stakeholder meetings between November and December 2021, each with multiple organizations attending and each addressing a different stakeholder group. Input from these meetings was also considered during the development of this proposal.

The FHWA inquired to stakeholders how the Buy America provisions would impact the NEVI Formula Program and asked for comments through two Federal Register Request for Information discussed below. As stated in E.O. 14005 published on January 25, 2021, Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America's Workers, Made in America laws, such as the Buy American Act  14 requires the Federal government to buy domestic “articles, materials, and supplies” when they are acquired for public use, subject to exceptions for nonavailability of domestic products, unreasonable cost of domestic products, acquisitions subject to certain trade agreements, and situations where it would not be in the public interest to buy domestic products. 15 The FHWA received significant feedback regarding compliance with Buy America through stakeholder engagement and comments from both the RFI published on November 29, 2021 (86 FR 67782)  16 and a separate RFI specific to Buy America published on November 24, 2021 (86 FR 67115). Unless otherwise specified, all applicable requirements under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, apply to the use of NEVI Formula Program funds and funds made available under title 23, United States Code for projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV chargers, including Buy America requirements at 23 U.S.C. 313. Additionally, the NEVI Formula Program is an infrastructure program subject to the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, div. G sections 70901-70927). Additionally, it is important to note that as expressed in E.O. 14005, Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America's Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

The FHWA acknowledges that the EV charging industry expressed early concerns regarding the difficulty in procuring EV charging equipment that met Buy America compliance. The FHWA also acknowledges that the domestic EV charger manufacturing industry is rapidly adapting with announcements about U.S. manufacturers opening new plants as recently as this calendar year. 17 The comment period for the Buy America RFI closed on January 10, 2022. The RFI was intended to gather information about the shifting manufacturing and assembly processes in the United States for EV chargers and the availability of EV chargers manufactured and assembled in the United States in compliance with Buy America. Continued review of the information received from this RFI may result in updated policy guidance or regulation, as needed.

It is important to also note that several topics raised for concern by comments received from the RFI are not applicable to this proposed regulation because they were outside the scope of the minimum standards and requirements but may be addressed through subsequent guidance.

Some responses to the RFI included various suggestions of station design, in particular vehicle size allowances and pull-through access. Minimum standards for vehicle size in station design are not proposed in this rulemaking. However, States are encouraged to consider large vehicles, including medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (such as electric school buses and delivery vehicles) and vehicles with attached trailers. Pull-through charging stations may provide better access for vehicles pulling a trailer; pull-through charging stations provide ample room to move around a vehicle that may take longer to charge, because they allow vehicles to exit the station without backing up and preclude the need to decouple the trailer to fit within the parking area adjacent to the charger. Front pull-in parking style charging stations may be appropriate in many situations as they allow vehicles to freely access the charger without the potential to be blocked into the location until another vehicle completes charging. Station design consideration is location specific and should provide the public with an efficient, safe, and convenient charging experience.

Other responses to the RFI included suggestion to address emergency situations that could arise for EVs. This proposed rule does not consider minimum standards for traffic incident management specific to emergency situations where EVs lose their charge on the roadway. The proposed minimum standards would address the development of charging stations, and it is recognized that if EVs are able to arrive at charging stations, there are no on-road emergency situations. However, if EVs lose their charge while driving on the roadway, this emergency situation could create a traffic incident. The FHWA requests comments to address this important issue. The FHWA requests specific comment on how traffic incident management, crashes, and emergency situations should be addressed.

Several commenters voiced opinions on the physical safety of the EV charging stations and the consumers as well as cybersecurity concerns. Safety is a top priority at FHWA and must be incorporated in all federally funded projects. Safety was considered throughout the development of the proposed regulations, and this proposed regulation would require States to specifically address physical safety and cybersecurity.

Other comments raised through the RFI include topics that will be addressed by each State through the development of State EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans (as outlined in the NEVI Formula Program Guidance released on February 10, 2022) rather than by the Federal Government through the proposed regulation. For example, FHWA acknowledges that the development of a cohesive reliable national EV charging network will require interstate and regional coordination across State borders. Consideration and discussion of regional coordination is specifically outlined in the NEVI Formula Program Guidance's description of how a State EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan should be formatted. This same section of the NEVI Formula Program Guidance similarly outlines that States are expected to include a discussion of maintenance and operational strategies in their State EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans.

Questions have also arisen about the details of receiving discretionary exceptions to charger spacing requirements along and within the AFCs. Information about discretionary exceptions is included in the NEVI Formula Program Guidance and is not proposed for further discussion within this regulation.

The FHWA invites comments on the proposed minimum standards and requirements and identifies areas where comments may be particularly useful.

Section 680.100 would identify the purpose of the regulation to establish a set of minimum standards and requirements applicable to two types of publicly accessible EV charging projects: those funded under the NEVI Formula Program and those constructed with any funds made available under title 23, United States Code.

The FHWA proposes that the regulation apply to all NEVI Formula Program projects and all publicly accessible EV chargers constructed using funds made available under title 23, United States Code.

The FHWA proposes definitions for the minimum standards and requirements for this regulation. These definitions are provided to identify terms that are common in the EV charging industry but that may not be present elsewhere in 23 U.S.C. or 23 CFR and thus may be unfamiliar in the transportation industry.

The proposed regulation includes procurement process transparency considerations, the minimum number of chargers, connector type, and power level for each EV charging station. These minimum requirements are proposed to provide the public with a predictable user experience of the public charging infrastructure.

Section 680.106(a) explains the expectation of public transparency when EV charging prices are to be set by a third party. Under Paragraph (2) under the Highway Infrastructure Program heading in title VIII of division J of BIL, the FHWA is required to release a set of minimum standards and requirements for the implementation of the NEVI Formula Program, which includes “ information on publicly available electric vehicle charging infrastructure locations, pricing, real-time availability, and accessibility through mapping applications. ” (emphasis added). Since government funds will be, in part, subsidizing these EV charging stations, FHWA proposes there be public disclosure for the documents concerning the operations of EV charging stations where price setting is involved, including the procurement process used, the number of bids received, the identification of the awardee, the proposed contract with the awardee and, in accordance with State law, the financial summary of contract payments (including the price and cost data) and any information describing how prices for EV charging are to be set under the contract. These items shall be made publicly available whether through an announcement, public comment period or other means. The FHWA believes this will protect the public interest in understanding how prices for charging are set or to be determined whenever a private operator is involved in the determination of price. Since the NEVI Formula Program shall be administered as if apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code (1st proviso of paragraph (6) under the “Highway Infrastructure Program” heading in title VIII of division J of Pub. L. 117-58), States would be subject to 23 U.S.C. 112 and implementing procurement regulations for the procurement of construction and design. Additionally, any agreements for the operation and maintenance of an EV charging station are subject to the State procurement policies and procedures per 2 CFR 200.317.

This language is also consistent with FHWA guidance regarding public transparency in public-private partnership (P3) procurements. The FHWA recognizes that some State DOTs do not have the authority to enter into P3 agreements and FHWA is not requiring any State DOT to enter into a P3 for EV charging stations. The proposed requirements would be applicable to any procurement involving NEVI Formula Program funds, any time EV charging prices are to be set by a third party. The FHWA requests comment on what other actions could be proposed to improve transparency during the procurement process in order to ensure the price of EV charging is as transparent as possible.

The proposed regulation outlines the minimum number and type of chargers required in § 680.106(b). In order to provide appropriate charging for EVs in route to their final destinations, FHWA proposes to require Direct Current Fast Chargers (DCFCs), which are the fastest chargers currently available in the public charging marketplace, when installed under the NEVI Formula Program. While DCFCs are more expensive to install and operate, by providing a faster experience, they allow for convenient charging solutions for those vehicles that will be travelling long distances or for multiple hours at a time in comparison to other chargers that would take longer to charge EVs. The FHWA has identified a need to address this type of EV charging in particular, whereby the charging station would typically provide a waypoint stop but not be the final destination of the EV trip and consider that with the consumers that would be using these types of EV charging stations, time is a premium concern. By servicing this waypoint need, FHWA recognizes that charging stations should be built to prioritize convenience over price in order to be effective and determines this is the best option for those EV charging stations located along Interstates. Convenience is also the goal in the proposed requirement for the number of charging ports at each charging station; § 680.106(b) would require a minimum of four charging ports capable of simultaneously charging four EVs. Because even DCFCs typically require a third of an hour to provide sufficient vehicle charge, long queues of EVs waiting to charge could develop at charging stations if there are insufficient charging ports available. In practice, most current new public charging stations include 2-8 charging ports to address the growing demand, with some industry leaders adopting an internal standard minimum of 8 charging ports per station. In an effort to balance the desire to future proof these facilities in order to handle increasing demand, while creating space to avoid unduly burdens on newer entrants to the EV charging market, FHWA proposes a minimum of four charging ports per station. The FHWA proposes that the minimum number of four ports per charging station apply to projects funded with NEVI Formula Program funds only. States can still install less than four ports DCFC charging stations and AC Level 2 charging stations under non-NEVI funded programs. The FHWA requests comments on whether a different number of DCFC ports should be required at NEVI Formula Program funded charging stations.

Section 680.106(c) proposes a requirement that DCFCs connect and communicate with EVs through an industry standard charging port type called the Combined Charging System (CCS). The CCS port is a non-proprietary, accepted standard port in North America developed and endorsed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The CCS connectors are proposed for all DCFCs to accommodate a baseline of vehicles and to accommodate use of adapters that will provide EV charging for all vehicles. The CCS ports represent the most common port type used across all manufacturers of new EVs today. As stated in the 16th proviso of paragraph (2) under the “Highway Infrastructure Program” heading in title VIII of division J of Public Law 117-58, until the Secretary certifies that a State is fully built out on their Alternative Fuel Corridors, NEVI funding is limited to use on EV charging stations along Alternative Fuel Corridors. The program guidance that FHWA released for the NEVI Formula Program, 18 explains that fully built out is inclusive of installing four DCFCs. In an effort to provide redundancy and address different needs of EV drivers, the proposed regulation includes language allowing for the installation of additional AC Level 2 chargers only after the NEVI Formula Program requirements for DCFCs have been met for projects that use NEVI Formula Program funds. Section 680.106(c) would identify the J1772 connector as the proposed connector type requirement for AC Level 2 chargers. The FHWA acknowledges that AC Level 2 chargers may be desired for redundant installation because they are less expensive to install and operate. Section 680.106(c) would further provide for additional flexibility for the provision of charging ports after the aforementioned CCS requirement has been met. This includes adding permanently attached proprietary connectors to DCFCs. In addition, specific to the use of FY22 NEVI Formula Program funds, DCFCs may include permanently attached CHAdeMO connectors for one or more DCFC charging port. The option to install these additional charging connectors is proposed as part of the regulation to allow States the flexibility to address immediate identified needs in their communities while participating in the CCS standard which would be consistent throughout the national network. The FHWA requests comment on how other charging technologies, such as overheard catenary chargers and wireless chargers, should be addressed.

Section 680.106(d) outlines proposed minimum power levels to provide a reliable DCFC experience for convenient EV charging. Requirements for minimum power level capabilities provided at each port are key to ensuring that the DCFCs are able to provide a consistent and speedy charge. Comments received through the RFI indicated that several State DOTs currently require EV charging stations to have the capability to deliver power at or above 150kW per charging port and that this is becoming the prevailing industry preference for DCFC charging. The FHWA encourages the installation of chargers with higher power levels where appropriate to support industry efforts to ensure a consumer's time to charge is at least comparable to filling a gas tank.

The inclusion of a requirement that each DCFC charging port must be at or above 150kW would benefit the charging industry primarily in communicating standards with individual utilities that may not be accustomed to EV industry preferences. Section 680.106(d) would include several such components describing power level requirements for coordination between charging station owners/operators and utility providers. This regulation would also outline minimum requirements for the participation of DCFC and AC Level 2 chargers in smart charge management programs to ensure a consistent charging experience and prioritize charging speed. This section would also outline power level requirements for any AC Level 2 ports, including a proposed requirement that all AC Level 2 chargers have the capability to deliver at least a maximum power level of 6 kW per port simultaneously across all AC ports (these charger types would only be allowed after the minimum requirement in § 680.106(b) is met). The FHWA requests comment on how longer-dwell parking locations and locations that offer battery swapping technology should be addressed.

Section 680.106(e) would require that charging stations be available for use by the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and on a year-round basis, with minor exceptions. The FHWA believes the near constant availability of chargers is key for providing a convenient national EV charging network especially along long-distance travel routes. Consideration should be paid to the need of users to access EVSE during times of emergency such as evacuation from natural disasters, and the risk associated with locating EVSE in base-floodplains, as required by FHWA regulations at 23 CFR 650 Subpart A. Additional consideration may be paid to whether EVSE located in floodplains will not be at risk from their locations being within the projected future base floodplains, as described by the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard in E.O. 14030, Climate-Related Financial Risk (86 FR 27967) and 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input (80 FR 6425.) Isolated or temporary interruption to service or access for maintenance and repairs would not constitute a violation of this proposed requirement. The FHWA requests specific comment on what additional considerations should be contemplated to ensure EVSE resilience/reliability in floodplains and during natural disasters.

Section 680.106(f) outlines proposed requirements for payment methods used at EV charging stations. The proposed regulation would include requirements meant to ensure the interoperability of EV charging stations across the national network by requiring payment methods to adhere to industry standards and also requiring that memberships not be required for use. The interoperability of charging stations is key to ensuring EV drivers can have a consistent payment experience across the country. The proposed regulation also outlines several requirements meant to ensure payment options are secure, equitable, and accessible, while still ensuring that the rule will accommodate future innovations in payment methods. This includes proposed requirements that payment options include contactless payment methods, that contactless payment be accepted from all major debit and credit cards, and that access and service are not restricted by membership or payment method type. The FHWA requests comments on whether there are other factors that could be considered to avoid an instance of creating an EV charging station that is limited to one type of EV consumer wanting to use it or benefiting from its use (sometimes also referred to as a walled garden). Plug and Charge payment capabilities are also required. The FHWA requests comment on the payment methods that are currently proposed including whether non-contactless payment options should be required. The FHWA is not requiring that the sole payment method be credit card, in order to be mindful of the needs of the unbanked and underbanked who may need to pay via another payment method such as the option to purchase a prepaid card to be used at the EV charging station. This section also would require that multilingual access and access for people with disabilities be provided in the creation of payment instructions. The FHWA specifically requests comments on whether the proposed payment method language adequately meets the needs of the unbanked and underbanked as well as strategies to address multilingual access and access for people with disabilities in the creation of EV charging payment instructions. The FHWA also requests comments on whether other payment methods should be required beyond what is currently proposed.

Section 680.106(g) outlines proposed requirements for equipment certification. All EVSE would be required to obtain certification from an Occupational Safety and Health Administration Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. 19 ENERGY STAR certification was considered in the development of this proposed regulation due to its established credentials in certifying energy-efficient products, thus promoting climate benefits such as low energy use and reduced emissions. For AC Level 2 EVSE ENERGY STAR certification is required. For DCFCs 50-350kW, while ENERGY STAR certification exists the product availability is limited therefore certification is not required at this time.

Section 680.106(h) would require States to implement physical and cybersecurity strategies consistent with their State EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans. This section also includes options for both physical security, such as lighting, siting, driver and vehicle safety, fire prevention, tampering, charger locks, and illegal surveillance of payment devices, and cybersecurity strategies that may be addressed in order to mitigate charging infrastructure, grid, and consumer vulnerability associated with the operation of charging stations. The FHWA encourages States to implement policies to safeguard consumer privacy and requests comments on best practices available in the industry.

Section 680.106(i) proposes to establish a requirement for States to maintain charging infrastructure in compliance with the provisions in this proposed regulation for at least 5 years. The period of 5 years was chosen to provide a reasonable useful life while providing sensitivity to the emerging nature of this type of equipment and the fast pace of technological advancements in the EV charging arena. At the conclusion of the 5 year required maintenance period, States can choose to retire the infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life and should consider upgrading or replacing the EVSE if necessary. However, if the EVSE is still functioning to meet its intended purpose after 5 years, States should consider maintaining, or supporting the maintenance of, the EVSE to most efficiently make use of Federal resources. The FHWA requests comments on whether 5 years is a reasonable timeframe to require States to maintain EV charging infrastructure in compliance with these proposed regulations or if another timeframe should be considered.

Section 680.106(j) requires States ensure that the installation and maintenance of EVSE is performed safely by a skilled workforce that has appropriate licenses, certifications, and training. The proposed regulation would further encourage States to utilize a diverse workforce of electricians and other laborers.

The proposed regulation also requires that, with the exception of apprentices, all electricians installing, maintaining, and operating EVSE be certified through the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP). The EVITP refers to a comprehensive training program for the installation of EV supply equipment. To be eligible for EVITP, a participant must be a State licensed or certified electrician or if the participant works in a States that does not license or certify electricians, the participant must provide documentation of a minimum of 8,000 hours of hands-on electrical construction experience. The EVITP was created by a collaboration of industry stakeholders from the private sector and educational institutions. For more information, refer to https://evitp.org/. The FHWA requests comments on whether there should be an alternative to the proposed requirement of certification through the EVITP, such as a U.S. DOL—recognized Registered Apprenticeship EVSE training program.

The FHWA is aware of both support and concerns from some portions of the EV charging industry regarding the EVITP. One concern with the EVITP (as submitted through the RFI comments) is that making it the sole provider of licensing EV technicians would serve to privatize the licensing process or impose a significant hurdle to obtaining qualified electricians to install, operate, or maintain EVSE. The FHWA has addressed this concern by providing an option that States can meet the requirement through another Registered Electrical Apprenticeship program that includes EVSE-specific training. Section 680.106(j) also requires that, for projects where more than one electrician is needed, at least one electrician be an apprentice in a registered electrical apprenticeship program. Section 680.106(j) further requires that all other, non-electrical laborers directly working on EVSE have appropriate licenses, training and certification in support of providing a safe and quality charging station. The FHWA specifically requests comments on how best to utilize the registered apprenticeship system to ensure qualified electricians, whether EVSE-specific training should be required, whether EVITP and its associated costs will impose a significant hurdle to obtaining qualified electricians to install, operate, and maintain EVSE, and what other equivalent EVSE training programs like EVITP should be considered as meeting the requirement.

As stated in the NEVI Formula Program Guidance, FHWA recommends that States take proactive steps to work with training providers, workforce boards, labor unions and other worker organizations, community-based organizations, and non-profits to build a local workforce that will support the EV network. This includes encouraging the expansion of registered apprenticeship programs and apprenticeship readiness or pre-apprenticeship programs that prepare workers for registered apprenticeship. States are encouraged to support training pathways that are inclusive of women, Black, Latino, Asian American Pacific, Indigenous, and other underrepresented groups. There are several sources of funding that can be used to provide financial assistance to such programs, additional information can be found at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/alternative_fuel_corridors/resources/ev_funding_report_2021.pdf. Consistent with Justice40, 20 States should also consider how disadvantaged communities will benefit from this added job growth. The FHWA requests comments regarding the availability of the workforce to meet these proposed requirements.

Section 680.106(k) outlines proposed requirements that EVSE allow for customers to report outages, malfunctions, and other issues with charging infrastructure. This section also would specify that States make these reporting mechanisms accessible and equitable by complying with the American Disabilities Act of 1990 requirements and multilingual access. The proposed regulation would provide States with flexibility to address customer service needs while recognizing the important and varied role customer service requirements could serve. In an effort to identify real-time incidents, FHWA requests comments on customer service strategies to enter any issues as part of the real-time status data that would be outlined in § 680.116(c). The FHWA would also encourage States to provide emergency response information on-site at charging stations. The FHWA also specifically requests comments on customer service strategies to connect charging stations to or provide access for traffic incident management solutions such as the provision of an emergency call box.

Section 680.106(l) proposes requirements to protect customer data privacy. The proposed regulation would require that only the information strictly necessary to provide service to the customer be collected, processed, and retained. The FHWA encourages States to implement policies to safeguard consumer privacy and requests comments on best practices available in the industry.

Section 680.106(m) proposes to explain the purposes for which State DOTs and third parties can use NEVI program income. The requirement of what the net income from the sale, use, lease, or lease renewal of real property acquired can be used for is consistent with 23 U.S.C. 156. The explanation of use for the program income or revenue earned from the operation of an EV charging station mimics the limitations on use of revenues for toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries found in 23 U.S.C. 129.

Proposed § 680.108 outlines minimum interoperability standards for charger communication with EVs. This section outlines and would promote industry standards for charging infrastructure consistent with standards outlined in ISO 15118, incorporated by reference in § 680.120. ISO 15118 is an international standard for EV-to-charger communication. ISO 15118 allows for several innovative techniques that are not yet widely adopted in the domestic EV charging marketplace, but that are of significant interest in the industry for future adoption such as Plug and Charge and smart charge management. As stated in the definitions section, Plug and Charge is a method of initiating charging and payment for charging upon plugging an EV into a charger. Smart charge management is another innovative technique that can provide tremendous benefits to include load management and grid resilience.

In order to address both the desire to position EV charging infrastructure for long-term success and the potential for hesitation from certain parts of the industry to invest in newer technological capabilities provided for through compliance with ISO 15118, proposed regulations would require chargers to conform with ISO 15118 to reciprocate communications with CCS-compliant EVs that have implemented ISO 15118.

Because EV technology is relatively new and evolving across the global market landscape, the regulatory environment for EV chargers is nascent and technological advances are occurring on an international, rather than a national scale. Therefore, one of the most trusted industry and market standards for charger to EV communication is an international group of standards, ISO 15118, developed by the International Electrotechnical Commission and the International Organization for Standardization. The ISO 15118 is recognized as the standard for charger to EV communication and is already used by the many major EV and charger manufacturers with products in the United States. While it is expected that EV communication standards and protocols will be updated on an iterative basis, FHWA understands that ISO 15118 provides an important industry baseline and future versions/iterations of this standard are expected to be implemented as additional software updates are developed to accommodate future vehicles implementing future versions of the international standard. The FHWA acknowledges that there is not a history of unanimous support for ISO 15118; however, FHWA views the prevailing trend of the domestic EV market's reference for ISO 15118 as evidence that it provides an appropriate standard to reference in the proposed rule. 21 The FHWA requests comment on the proposed reference to ISO 15118 and requests information about any other known standards that could be referenced in place of ISO 15118 while maintaining a seamless, uniform, and consistent experience across the national network. The FHWA also requests comment on whether a performance standard ( i.e., a standard that requires outcomes rather than specifying a specific means to an end) would be more appropriate and, if so, what such a performance standard might look like.

This section proposes that minimum standards and requirements regarding traffic control devices and on-premise signage would be set by existing applicable regulations in 23 CFR part 655 and 23 CFR part 750 for NEVI Formula Program projects and projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV charging infrastructure funded under title 23, United States Code. These established regulations cover the traffic signs, signals, and pavement markings as well as directional and official signs adjacent to Interstates and the Federal-aid primary system (respectively). The FHWA is in the process of updating the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which is governed by 23 CFR part 655, through a parallel rulemaking. 22 While the MUTCD is being updated, it currently does allow for and outlines requirements for EV charging signs.

This section would outline the minimum data submittal requirements particular only to NEVI Formula Program projects. Section 680.112 would not apply to other EV charging projects funded through title 23, United States Code. The proposed data submittal requirements in § 680.112 include quarterly data submittal requirements (§ 680.112(b)), annual data submittal requirements (§ 680.112(c)), and a requirement to create an annual community engagement outcomes report (§ 680.112(d)). Throughout this section, FHWA proposes that States ensure data are properly collected, maintained, and submitted in a prescribed format. The FHWA is proposing that the data collected through § 680.112 will be coordinated and maintained by the Joint Office. The FHWA will work with the Joint Office on ways to provide State DOTs with resources to facilitate the data collection and submission, which could include an online data portal, instructions for data formatting, standard reporting templates and automating data collection from charging network providers. The data management role of the Joint Office is consistent with the 26th proviso of paragraph (2) under the “Highway Infrastructure Program” heading in title VIII of division J of Public Law 117-585858, which states that one of the responsibilities of the Joint Office is “data sharing of installation, maintenance, and utilization in order to continue to inform the network build out of zero emission vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure.”

Section 680.112(b) proposes that charging station use, reliability, and maintenance data be collected quarterly. These proposed quarterly data submittals would include data describing basic operations and usage of each charging station such as data that identify charging station locations, charging session metrics, and how much energy has been dispensed per port. Section 680.112(b) also outlines the proposed collection of maintenance and reliability data, such as charging station uptime, the total monthly cost of electricity that the charging station operator must pay to operate on a charging station each month (including demand charges, energy charges [$/kWh], fixed charges, taxes, and all other fees), and the monthly maintenance and repair costs per charging station. Where monthly data is utilized, this data would be required per month for each of the previous three months, provided every quarter.

The FHWA also proposes to require the collection and submittal of charging station construction and charger installation data on a quarterly basis. The proposed regulation would require the submittal of detailed costs, such as the EVSE acquisition and installation costs, details about distributed energy resource acquisition and installation, and grid connection and upgrade costs paid by the charging station operator. Grid connection and upgrade data submittals would only be required specific to the costs on the utility side of the electric meter. Where distributed energy resources are involved, additional data is proposed for submittal regarding distributed energy resource capacity per charging station. The type of data proposed for collection through § 680.112(b) is consistent with the description in BIL of the data the Joint Office is responsible for coordinating.

Through § 680.112(c), FHWA proposes to require the collection of three datasets on an annual basis. Proposed data requirements include identifying information for the organizations that operate, maintain and install the EVSE and whether these organizations participate in State or local business opportunity certification programs such as programs for minority-owned businesses, Veteran-owned businesses, woman-owned businesses, and/or businesses owned by economically disadvantaged individuals for private entities. These datasets are generally more static and require less frequent updates than the proposed data required through § 680.112(b).

Finally, § 680.112(d) would require the creation of a community engagement outcomes report to document, on an annual basis, the community engagement activities conducted in compliance with a State's approved State EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan (these Plans are described in the NEVI Formula Program Guidance, released February 10, 2022). This annual report would document adherence to the community engagement methodology described in approved Plans and would allow States to analyze feedback from the public regarding both successes and opportunities for improvement in NEVI Formula Program implementation. The community engagement plan would allow States to assess ways to improve future NEVI Formula Program projects, thus adapting and protecting future Federal investments.

The proposed regulation would serve an important coordination role by standardizing submissions of large amounts of data from the types of charging stations funded by the NEVI Formula Program across the United States. The proposed regulation would provide the Joint Office with the data needed to create the public EV charging database outlined in BIL. If the data proposed in § 680.112 were not submitted as requested, FHWA and States would be unable to meet intended Program implementation objectives outlined in BIL, such as the sharing of installation, maintenance, and utilization data in order to continue to inform the network build out of zero emission vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure.

The PRIA identifies benefits and costs associated with requirements proposed through § 680.112. While the data submittals will play a key role in assisting FHWA and the Joint Office in both communicating information to consumers and monitoring the effectiveness of the NEVI Formula Program, FHWA recognizes that data collection, maintenance, and submittal can incur large costs for States. The FHWA has included an estimate of burden hours for this data collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 section below and is requesting comment on the number of burden hours associated with this collection. The FHWA requests comment on the frequency of data collection and whether the quarterly and annual timeframes are appropriate.

The FHWA proposes to set minimum standards for the charging network connectivity of EV charging infrastructure to include charging network communication, charging network-to-charging network communication, and charging network-to-grid communication.

Section 680.114(a) outlines several minimum standards for charger-to-charging network communication. These proposed standards reference the Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP), which is an industry standard that is designed to work in tandem with ISO 15118 to enable smart charge management and Plug and Charge communications protocols. The Open Charge Alliance upholds OCPP specifically to address interoperable communication standards between chargers charging networks. As stated in the discussion regarding § 680.108, FHWA recognizes that smart charge management and Plug and Charge are newer technological capabilities not yet widely adopted in the industry and, as such, proposed regulations would require the capability to support these methods through compliance with OCPP, rather than requiring these methods outright. The FHWA recognizes that OCPP is a widely used industry standard for EV charger communication but solicits comments regarding the reference to OCPP and requests information on any alternative standards, including whether a performance standard would be more appropriate and, if so, what such a performance standard might look like.

Several of these minimum standards also help address cybersecurity threats for assets monitored and maintained from remote locations. Covered in this section are requirements that chargers use a secure communication method; that they can receive secure remote software monitoring, management, and updates; and that they can conduct secure real-time authentication and authorization. The standardization of communications protocols proposed through requirements in § 680.114(a) not only facilitate ease of secure remote charger station monitoring and management consistent with existing market standards, but also help mitigate against the installation of stranded assets whereby a charger installed by one company can easily be operated by another should the first voluntarily or involuntarily abandon operations of those chargers at that location. The FHWA retains a keen interest in protecting Federal investments; therefore, by helping to avoid stranding assets, the proposed regulation helps to ensure that EVSE is usable by the public throughout the timeframe of the equipment's' useful lives.

Other charger-to-charging network minimum standards proposed under § 680.114(a) concern data collection to include a proposed requirement that chargers and charging networks securely measure, communicate, store and report real-time data to support the data submittal requirements outlined in §§ 680.112 and 680.116.

The FHWA proposes to include a requirement in § 680.114(b) that, where credential-based electric charge initiation or payment is implemented, charging networks be capable of communicating with other charging networks to enable customers to use a single credential regardless of the charging network responsible for a charging station.

Finally, § 680.114(c) proposes to require that charging networks be capable of secure communication with electric utilities, other energy providers, or local energy management systems. This proposed requirement addresses cybersecurity threats to the electric grid while facilitating a collaborative market environment across private industry and utilities to enable ease of charging. The FHWA requests information about highly regarded EV charging cybersecurity and security resources in order to identify further potential specific associated protocols and standards to include in the final rule.

The FHWA proposes to establish minimum standards and requirements for chargers to communicate their status with consumers and third-party mapping applications. Section 680.116(a) proposes several requirements regarding the communication, display, and structure of the pricing for electrical charging. Chargers would be required to display and base the price of electrical charge in $/kWh. The FHWA is aware that several States restrict the ability to display charge in $/kWh; therefore, FHWA requests comments on how to best require the display and base the price of electrical charge in those States, seeking specific comment on whether $/minute, $/mile, or some other display and base should be considered. Additional pricing requirements would outline how chargers communicate real-time pricing to include proposed requirements regarding the display of pricing and access to information about price structure, including whether providers impose dwell-time fees or additional fees in addition to the price for electricity. The FHWA specifically requests comments on whether additional fees should be allowed or encouraged. These proposed minimum requirements are meant to ensure that consumers can have standard expectations for understanding pricing across the entire national EV charging network. The FHWA also requests comments on whether there are factors that could be considered to avoid an instance of charging the consumer too high a price for electric vehicle charging, especially when demands are high and supplies are limited (sometimes also referred to as price gouging).

Section 680.116(b) also proposes a minimum annual uptime requirement of greater than 97 percent for the charging ports. Comments from the RFI indicated that a minimum uptime requirement is highly desired both from a government and a consumer perspective. Comments also indicated that minimum uptime requirements currently in place for existing EV chargers can range from not specifying a number to requiring 95-99 percent uptime. The FHWA proposes an uptime requirement of at least 97 percent in an effort to provide a reliable national network for EV charging. The FHWA proposes to require that uptime be available as a dataset submitted quarterly (see § 680.112(b)(2)(iii)) and retained for historical review (see § 680.114(a)(4)).

Uptime is calculated for the time when a charger's hardware and software are both online and available for use, or in use, and the charging port successfully dispenses electricity as expected. For the purposes of the required minimum uptime calculation, FHWA proposes that charging port uptime must be calculated on a quarterly basis for the previous 12 months. Charging port uptime percentage would be calculated using the equation μ= ((8760−(T_outage−T_excluded))/8760) × 100 where μ = port uptime percentage, T_outage = total hours of outage in previous year, and where T_excluded = total hours of outage in previous year for reasons outside the charging station operator's control, such as electric utility service interruptions, internet or cellular service provider interruptions, and outages caused by the vehicles, provided that the Charging Station Operator can demonstrate that the charging port would otherwise be operational.

Third-party mapping applications play an important role for consumers by communicating real-time and geolocated information. Recognizing this important role, FHWA proposes in § 680.116(c) that States ensure several data are made available, free of charge, to third party software developers, via application programming interface.

Many of the data proposed for collection through § 680.116(c) are currently being coordinated through the Alternative Fuel Data Center (AFDC). 23 The AFDC collects data through robust data mining and submission requests from a diversity of sources to include trade media, Clean Cities coordinators, the AFDC website, charging station owners, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and industry groups. By proposing to require these data, the proposed regulation would provide an ancillary benefit to another federally funded program by streamlining the data collection burden on the AFDC and thus enabling the AFDC services to be more immediately responsive to real-time updates to provide more accurate information to the public.

Included in this list of data are several static data entries ( i.e., data entries that will rarely change), such as basic charger station descriptive information. This includes a requirement to identify the number of charging ports accessible to persons with disabilities at each charging station. The accessibility of charging ports is of particular interest to the FHWA in identifying compliance with the American Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and promoting equitable access to EV charging. The results of this data field will also help communicate the availability of chargers for those with disabilities through real-time internet searches.

The FHWA also proposes to require the availability to third party software developers of two real-time datasets updated at a frequency that meets reasonable expectations. The two real-time datasets proposed to be required by § 680.116(c) include real-time status of each charging port and real-time price to charge. The proposed real-time dataset requirements reference the Open Charge Point Interface (OPCI) 2.2, which defines the standardized content and format of data needed to communicate status and price. The FHWA acknowledges that there are other references that chargers could use to communicate status and price to charge, but OPCI 2.2 is widely used within the EV charging industry. The FHWA anticipates that consumers will need these real-time data to make decisions as to where and when to charge along the national EV charging network. The FHWA solicits comments regarding the reference to OCPI and requests information on any alternative standards, including whether a performance standard would be more appropriate and, if so, what such a performance standard would look like.

This section would direct NEVI Formula Program projects and projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV charging infrastructure funded under title 23, United States Code to existing applicable requirements under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, 2 CFR part 200, and 23 CFR parts 35 and 36.

The FHWA recognizes the value to the EV charging community of several cited resources to include ISO 15118, Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP), and Open Charge Point Interface 2.2. The FHWA proposes that § 680.120 would incorporate ISO 15118, Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP), and Open Charge Point Interface 2.2 by reference.

The documents that FHWA is proposing to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties, primarily State DOTs and local agencies carrying out Federal-aid highway projects. These documents represent recent refinements that professional organizations have formally accepted. The documents are also available for review at FHWA Headquarters or may be obtained online. The specific standards and specifications are summarized below.

This protocol defines communication between charging network providers, charging station operators, and other entities to improve the EV charging customer experience. The OCPI's primary purpose is to allow roaming, so EV charging customers can use a single credential at charging stations operated by different charging station operators and/or charging network providers. This requires the automated exchange of information, such as identity authentication, charging session authorization, and charging session billing, between charging network providers and charging station operators. The OCPI also defines data content and format to allow these entities to share information about charging stations, such as price, location, and real-time status.

The OCPI is an open protocol with no cost or licensing requirements. The document describing the protocol is made accessible to the general public through the website of its sponsoring organization, EVRoaming Foundation. Changes in version 2.2.1 include addition of data fields such as country code, efficiency improvements, and addition of error messages.

The material may be obtained from the EVRoaming Foundation at https://www.evroaming.org.

Officially titled Electric Road Vehicles: Road Vehicles—Vehicle to Grid Communication Interface, this standard defines the communication between an EV and a charger to allow EV charging through the CCS connector interface or other means of coupling an EV with a charger. The standard consists of six published and active parts, named as follows: ISO 15118-1: General information and use-case definition; ISO 15118-2: Network and application protocol requirements; ISO 15118-3: Physical and data link layer requirements; ISO 15118-4: Network and application protocol conformance test; ISO 15118-5: Physical and data link layer conformance test; and ISO 15118-8: Physical layer and data link layer requirements for wireless communication. Each part is updated and published independently, following change management processes defined by ISO.

Use cases defined in the standard include automated charging customer identification and authorization via Plug and Charge, 24 manual charging customer identification and authorization via RFID card or other method, AC and DC wired charging, and smart charge management. The ISO 15118-1 was updated in 2019 to include use cases for wireless charging, bidirectional power transfer allowing the EV to provide energy to the grid, and electric bus charging via overhead charging devices called pantographs. Charger and EV manufacturers and other industry stakeholders collaborate on the development of the standard but implement the standard independently.

The material may be obtained from the International Organization for Standardization at https://www.iso.org/contact-iso.html.

This protocol provides a method of communication between any type of charger and a charging network to allow remote monitoring and management of one or many chargers. The OCPP is an open protocol with no cost or licensing requirements. Instruction documents and software code for implementing the protocol are made accessible to the general public through the website of its sponsoring organization, Open Charge Alliance. Chargers that conform to OCPP can communicate with any OCPP-compliant charging network. This allows the charging station operators that own the chargers to choose between multiple charging network providers.

The OCPP 2.0.1 was released in March 2020. It made improvements over version 2.0 in the areas of security, compatibility with ISO 15118 related to Plug and Charge, smart charge management, and the extensibility of OCPP. Version 2.0.1 also enhanced capabilities related to charger monitoring, transaction handling, and display of information such as pricing to customers.

The material can be obtained from Open Charge Alliance at https://www.openchargealliance.org.

This standard, officially titled SAE Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice J1772, SAE Electric Vehicle and Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler, defines the charging connector interface between an EV and a charger. It specifies the physical, electrical, and communication requirements of the connector and mating vehicle inlet for both AC Level 2 and DC fast charging. The October 2017 version of the standard refined language, corrected errors found in the previous version, and updated information to reflect the addition of higher-power-capacity DC charging. The standard can be purchased from the sponsoring organization, SAE International at https://www.sae.org.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that the proposed rule would be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866.

The preliminary regulatory impact analysis (PRIA) supports this proposed regulation and estimates the costs and benefits associated with establishing minimum standards and requirements. All of the topics for the minimum standards and requirements are required by BIL. To estimate these costs, the PRIA compared the costs and benefits of proposed provisions to the costs and benefits of the options States would likely choose for their own EVSE programs in the absence of the rule. In many cases, the analysis found that States would likely choose the same requirements that are found in the proposed rule. While many of the costs and benefits in the proposed rule are difficult to quantify, FHWA believes that the benefits justify the costs. The full regulatory impact analysis is available in the docket.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule on small entities and has determined that it is not anticipated to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would impact directly State governments, which are not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Small entities that may be impacted indirectly by a rulemaking are not subject to analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir 1985). Therefore, FHWA certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $168 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). In addition, the definition of “Federal Mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or Tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility.

This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132, and FHWA has determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA also has determined that this proposed rule would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this proposal contains collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA. This proposed rule identifies minimum standards and requirements for the implementation of NEVI Formula Program projects and projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV chargers that are funded with funds made available under title 23, United States Code. The collection of quarterly, annual, and real-time data in support of 23 CFR 680.112(b), 23 CFR 680.112(c), 23 CFR 680.112(d), and 23 CFR 680.116(c) is covered by OMB Control No. 2125-XXXX.

The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under the PRA and has determined the following:

Respondents: 52 State DOTs.

Frequency: Quarterly reporting (23 CFR 680.112(b)). Annual reporting (23 CFR 680.112(c) and 23 CFR 680.112(d)). Real-time reporting (23 CFR 680.116(c)).

Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 58 hours annually to complete, maintain, and submit requested data.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: Approximately 3,016 hours annually.

The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” The proposed rule would establish a regulation on minimum standards and requirements for the NEVI Formula Program to provide funding to States to strategically deploy EV charging infrastructure and to establish an interconnected network to facilitate data collection, access, and reliability. This measure applies to States that receive title 23 Federal-aid highway funds, and it would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and would not preempt Tribal laws. Accordingly, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply and a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has determined that this proposed rule does not raise any environmental justice issues.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

I. What is being proposed?

The DAQ submitted a SIP revision on December 14, 2020, seeking to remove Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from North Carolina's SIP-approved I/M program. The DAQ submitted this SIP revision in response to North Carolina legislation enacted in Session Law 2020-5, House Bill 85, which amended North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) section 143-215.107A(c) to remove these three counties from the North Carolina I/M Program. 1 Specifically, the North Carolina Act requires the elimination of Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from the I/M program, and the retention of the I/M program in 19 counties (Alamance, Buncombe, Cabarrus, Cumberland, Davidson, Durham, Forsyth, Franklin, Gaston, Guilford, Iredell, Johnston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Randolph, Rowan, Union, and Wake).

As explained in Section II, below, sections 187(a)(4) and 182(b)(4) of the CAA require the implementation of an I/M program in certain areas classified as moderate nonattainment or higher for the ozone or CO NAAQS. 2 Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties have never been designated nonattainment for ozone and CO, or any other NAAQS, and are currently in attainment for all NAAQS. These three counties were included in the State's I/M program to provide North Carolina with emissions credit for the NO X SIP Call obligations. See 67 FR 66056 (October 30, 2002). The NO X SIP Call, issued by EPA in 1998, required some states, including North Carolina, to meet statewide NO X emission requirements during the ozone season (May 1 through September 30 control period) to reduce the amount of ground level ozone that is transported across the eastern United States. See 84 FR 8422 (March 8, 2018).

As part of the State's December 14, 2020, submittal requesting removal of Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from North Carolina's SIP-approved I/M program, the State included a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration. Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined by section 171 of the CAA), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Section III, below, provides EPA's analysis of the non-interference demonstration.

For the reasons discussed more fully in Section III, EPA is proposing to find that removal of Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from North Carolina's SIP-approved I/M program (and consequently, the removal of reliance on credits gained from I/M emissions reductions from Lee, Onslow and Rockingham counties in the State's NO X Budget and Allowance Trading Program) will not interfere with North Carolina's obligations under the NO X SIP Call. This proposed finding is based on a number of federal rules and SIP-approved State provisions promulgated and implemented subsequent to the 2002 approval of North Carolina's NO X SIP Call submission. These federal rules and SIP provisions have created significant NO X emission reductions in North Carolina such that the credits gained by the three counties' participation in the I/M program are no longer needed for North Carolina to meet its NO X SIP Call Statewide NO X emissions budget. North Carolina has provided an analysis which supports this proposed finding, and which discusses some of these federal rules and SIP-approved State provisions. See Section III, below.

In addition, North Carolina's SIP revision evaluates the impact that the removal of the I/M program for the Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties would have on the State's ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The SIP revision contains a technical demonstration with revised emissions calculations showing that removing the three counties from the I/M program will not interfere with North Carolina's attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As discussed more fully in Section III, EPA is proposing to find that North Carolina's revised emissions calculations demonstrate that removing Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from the I/M program will not interfere with the State's ability to attain or maintain any NAAQS.

The North Carolina I/M program began in 1982 in Mecklenburg County utilizing a “tail-pipe” emissions test. In 1984, Wake County was first added to the program for CO NAAQS violations. From 1986 through 1991 the program expanded to include Cabarrus, Davidson, Durham, Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, and Union Counties, to address violations of the ozone and/or CO NAAQS. The I/M program was also implemented in Orange County although it was not designated nonattainment for the ozone or CO NAAQS.

In 1999, the North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA) passed legislation (Session law 1999-328) to expand the coverage area for the I/M program to gain additional emission reductions to achieve the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the State. This legislation expanded the I/M program to add 38 counties between July 1, 2003, and July 1, 2006, for a total of 48 counties. 3 4 The I/M program in the expanded coverage area used on-board diagnostic (OBD) rather than tail-pipe testing.

On August 7, 2002, North Carolina submitted a SIP revision to amend the I/M regulations included in the SIP at that time to, among other things, expand the counties subject to the I/M program as discussed above, and to require OBD in the subject counties for all light duty gasoline vehicles with a model year (MY) of 1996 and newer. Additionally, the SIP revision proposed to terminate the tail-pipe testing program on January 1, 2006, for the nine counties subject to continued tail-pipe testing of MY 1995 and older vehicles. EPA approved these changes to North Carolina's I/M program into the SIP on October 30, 2002. See 67 FR 66056.

In 2012, the NCGA enacted Session Law 2012-199 which required North Carolina and the Department of Motor Vehicles to change the I/M program to exempt the three newest MY vehicles with less than 70,000 miles, and the State subsequently submitted a SIP revision to modify the SIP accordingly. EPA approved this SIP revision on February 5, 2015. See 80 FR 6455.

In 2017, the NCGA passed Senate Bill 131, which removed 26 of the 48 counties from the North Carolina I/M program. 5 On November 17, 2017, DAQ submitted to EPA a request to amend its SIP to remove the 26 counties specified in Senate Bill 131 from the I/M program. This submittal also included a CAA section 110(l) demonstration providing support that the removal of the 26 counties from North Carolina's SIP approved I/M program would not interfere with continued attainment and maintenance of all the NAAQS or with any other applicable CAA requirement. EPA approved this SIP revision on September 25, 2018. See 83 FR 48383. In 2019, EPA approved a rolling 20-year timeframe for vehicle MY coverage into the SIP, replacing a specific year-based timeframe for coverage. See 84 FR 47889 (September 11, 2019). This action did not change the counties subject to the I/M program. Id.

After all the aforementioned changes, the remaining counties in the North Carolina I/M program currently include Alamance, Buncombe, Cabarrus, Cumberland, Davidson, Durham, Franklin, Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, Johnston, Iredell, Lee, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Onslow, Randolph, Rockingham, Rowan, Union, and Wake.

On August 7, 2002, North Carolina submitted a SIP revision to EPA as a component of its response to the NO X SIP call requirements. As mentioned previously, the NO X SIP Call required some states to meet statewide NO X emission requirements during the ozone season to reduce the amount of ground level ozone transported across the eastern United States. See 84 FR 8422 (March 8, 2019). In response to the SIP Call, North Carolina's SIP revision expanded the I/M program from 10 counties to 48, pursuant to North Carolina Session Law 1999-328, Section 3.1(d), and incorporated the OBD test procedure.

The expansion to the I/M program helped reduce certain criteria pollutants and their precursors, including NO X , by identifying and requiring the repair of more high-emitting vehicles. The OBD test helps reduce certain criteria pollutants and their precursors by checking the vehicles increasingly advanced OBD systems to monitor the performance of a vehicle's emissions-related components and provides owners with an early warning of malfunctions through the dashboard “check engine” light (also known as a Malfunction Indicator Light). By identifying degrading parts early through the OBD system, owners of these vehicles can perform the type of preventative maintenance that extends the long-term durability of expensive components (catalytic converter, fuel injections, oxygen sensors, and transmissions).

While the addition of 38 counties to the I/M program pursuant to Section 3.1(d) of the 1999 Session law was initially ratified to satisfy the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, it was included in the SIP with the new OBD testing procedure to support the establishment of emission credits for North Carolina's NO X budget and trading program. See 67 FR 66056 (October 30, 2002). On October 30, 2002, EPA approved the I/M rule revision and North Carolina's use of the I/M program credits for the NO X SIP call budget and trading program. Id. The ozone season I/M NO X emissions credit was 914 tons in 2004; 2,078 tons in 2006; and 4,385 tons in 2007 and beyond.

Subsequent to the NO X SIP Call, a number of federal rules, as well as North Carolina SIP provisions, have created significant NO X emission reductions in North Carolina, including ozone season reductions. For stationary sources, including large Electric Generating Units (EGUs), one of these federal rules included the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 2005 and its replacement in 2011, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 6 7 Consequently, any emissions reduction credits derived from the three counties' participation in the expanded I/M program are no longer needed for North Carolina to meet its Statewide NO X emissions budget.

Other federal rules that have created significant NO X emission reductions in the area of mobile-sources include: the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards;  8 nonroad spark ignition engines and recreational engine standards; heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards;  9 and large nonroad diesel engine standards. 10 These mobile source measures, coupled with fleet turnover ( i.e., the replacement of older vehicles that predate the standards with newer vehicles that meet the standards), have resulted in, and continue to result in, large reductions in NO X emissions over time.

In 2002, North Carolina also enacted and subsequently implemented its Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA), which created system-wide annual emissions caps on actual emissions of NO X and SO 2 from coal-fired power plants within the State, the first of which became effective in 2007. The CSA required certain coal-fired power plants in North Carolina to significantly reduce annual NO X emissions by 189,000 tons (or 77 percent) by 2009 (using a 1998 baseline year). This represented about a one-third reduction of the NO X emissions from all sources in North Carolina. See 76 FR 36468, 36470 (June 11, 2011). 11 The CSA's requirement to meet annual emissions caps and disallow the purchase of NO X credits to meet the caps led to a reduction of NO X emissions beyond the requirements of the NO X SIP Call even though the CSA did not limit emissions only during the ozone season. EPA approved the CSA emissions caps into North Carolina's SIP on September 26, 2011. See 76 FR 59250.

North Carolina also has its own SIP-approved State provisions that have helped create significant NO X emission reductions in North Carolina. The majority of these rules are contained in 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Subchapter 02D, Section .1400, Nitrogen Oxides. These rules contain NO X SIP Call requirements and work in conjunction with the CSA to reduce NO X emissions in the State.

Together, implementation of these federal rules and SIP-approved state provisions have created significant NO X emissions reductions since North Carolina's NO X SIP Call emissions budget was approved into the SIP in 2002. These federal rules and State provisions have significantly reduced ozone season NO X emissions from EGUs in particular, resulting in overall emissions levels well below the original NO X SIP Call budget. This last point is illustrated in Table 1, which compares the EGU NO X SIP Call budget to actual emissions in 2007 and 2017 (the attainment base year), as well as 2018 and 2019. Actual EGU emissions in 2007 and 2017, the attainment base year, were 23 percent (7,274 tons) and 60 percent (18,906 tons) below the NO X SIP Call budget for EGUs, respectively. Notably, the entirety of the emissions reduction credits from the expanded I/M program (and used by the State in its NO X emissions budget) only totaled 4,385 tons, of which approximately only 1,000 tons was initially needed to meet the overall budget.

Further, the State has provided modeling results showing that NO X emissions will remain below the NO X SIP Call budgets after removal of the three counties from the I/M program. Table 2 shows the impact of the estimated ozone season NO X emissions increases due to the proposed changes to the I/M program. Despite this increase, EPA expects NO X emissions in 2022 to continue to be lower than the attainment base year in 2017. This is further explained in Section III.C, below. As noted above, in 2019, EGU emissions were 18,462 tons (59 percent) below the NO X SIP Call budget for EGUs. The proposed change to the I/M program, combined with other recently approved changes to North Carolina's SIP-approved I/M program, would reduce the gap between the budget and actual emissions by 950 tons, or about 5.15 percent, to 17,512 tons below the NO X SIP Call budget for EGUs based on 2019 EGU emissions. Thus, based on this EGU-focused analysis, EPA concludes that the ozone season NO X emissions increase associated with the proposed change to the expanded I/M program will not interfere with North Carolina's obligations under the NO X SIP call to meet its Statewide NO X emissions budget.

North Carolina's December 14, 2020, submittal seeks to remove Onslow, Lee, and Rockingham counties from the I/M program contained in the SIP. This removal consequently removes reliance on the I/M reduction credits gained from these three counties' participation in the I/M program in meeting the State's NO X emissions budget. North Carolina has indicated that it no longer needs these reduction credits to meet its obligation under the NO X SIP Call.

In light of the analysis in Section II.B, above, EPA is proposing to find that North Carolina's removal of the three counties from the expanded I/M program contained in its SIP (and the use of I/M emissions reductions generated from those counties as part of the reduction credits in the State's NO X emissions budget) will not interfere with the State's obligations under the NO X SIP Call to meet its Statewide NO X emissions budget. Subsequent to the NO X SIP Call, the promulgation and implementation of a number of federal rules and SIP-approved State provisions, and in particular those impacting EGUs, have created significant NO X emissions reductions in the State that are more than sufficient to offset the I/M reduction credits from Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties to meet its Statewide NO X emissions budget.

Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA evaluates section 110(l) non-interference demonstrations on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a non-interference demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision. There are six NAAQS established to protect human health and the environment. These NAAQS are CO, lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), ozone, particulate matter (PM)—including PM 2.5   12 and PM 10   13 , and SO 2 . Considering modern fuel types and the science and technology related to emissions from motor vehicles, EPA does not believe that there would be any changes in emissions of lead  14 or PM 10   15 resulting from the removal of the I/M program in Lee, Onslow, and Randolph counties from the North Carolina SIP. Furthermore, EPA does not believe that SO 2 air quality would be threatened given the mandatory use of ultra-low sulfur (ULSD) diesel fuel. 16 Therefore, this section is focused on evaluating air quality for NO 2 , ozone, CO, and PM 2.5 . North Carolina is in attainment for all NAAQS.

North Carolina's December 14, 2020, SIP revision included a non-interference demonstration to support the removal of the I/M program in Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham Counties from North Carolina's SIP-approved expanded I/M program. This demonstration addresses all NAAQS with a focus on ozone (through its precursors NO X and VOC) and CO, the criteria pollutants addressed by I/M programs. I/M programs are not designed to address lead and SO 2 emissions, and NO 2 is captured generally through the same measures that target NO X impacts.

Both VOC and NO X emissions contribute to the formation of ozone. The rate of ozone formation can be limited by either VOCs or NO X . When an area has high-NO X conditions and low-VOC conditions, the rate of ozone production is more sensitive to the number of VOCs and is considered a NO X -rich regime. Alternatively, when the atmosphere has high-VOC conditions and low-NO X conditions, the formation of ozone is influenced by a NO X -limited regime, which means ozone formation is more sensitive to changes in NO X concentration. In North Carolina approximately 81 percent of the statewide VOC emissions come from biogenic or natural sources, which cannot be controlled. As a result, North Carolina is NO X -limited for ozone formation, meaning controlling NO X emissions is a more effective way to reduce the formation of ozone. In the three counties being removed, very few anthropogenic sources of NO X exist.

EPA used an emissions inventory comparison to determine whether the three counties would maintain the ozone and CO NAAQS after removal of the I/M program. North Carolina provided much of this data, which it later supplemented with additional data for EPA. This is a long-standing approach EPA uses to determine whether an area can maintain the NAAQS and is very similar to the maintenance demonstrations that support the redesignations of areas from nonattainment to attainment and the second 10-year maintenance plans. EPA has not required photochemical modeling or any other modeling analyses to support these demonstrations. In general, EPA compares future year emissions to emissions in a base year with an attaining design value. 17 If the total future year emissions for the relevant pollutant(s) are less than the total base year emissions, EPA considers that to be a sufficient and reasonable demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS because the base year emissions are at a level sufficient to achieve the NAAQS.

As mentioned above, North Carolina's December 14, 2020, SIP revision included a non-interference demonstration to support the State's request to remove Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from North Carolina's SIP-approved expanded I/M program. This demonstration includes an evaluation of the impact that the removal of the I/M program for these counties would have on North Carolina's ability to attain or maintain any NAAQS in the State.

For North Carolina's non-interference demonstration, EPA used 2017 as an attainment base year  18 and compared the total emissions of NO X , VOC, and CO in 2017 to the total emissions of these pollutants in 2022, the year when the I/M program in Lee, Onslow and Rockingham Counties is expected to end. EPA chose 2017 because that point, nonroad, and non-point data was provided in North Carolina's December 14, 2020, submission as it was the most complete data available to the State at the time of the development of the SIP revision. For consistent comparisons, EPA obtained the 2017 mobile emissions from the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). Tables 3, 4, and 5 provide a summary for Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham Counties of the total emissions for NO X , VOC, and CO in 2017; total emissions for NO X , VOC, and CO in 2022 with the I/M program; and total emissions for NO X , VOC, and CO in 2022 without the I/M program. Table 6 shows the three county total for emissions in 2017, in 2022 with I/M and in 2022 without I/M.

As shown in Table 6 below, the total difference in emissions in 2022 with and without the I/M program in the three counties combined is a decrease of 0.47 tpd for NO X and an increase of 0.20 tpd for VOC. However, the total NO X emissions in 2022 without the I/M program are 11.38 tpd under the total NO X emissions in 2017, and the total VOC emissions in 2022 without the I/M program is 2.07 tpd below the total VOC emissions in 2017. The difference in emissions in 2022 with and without the I/M program is an increase of 5.78 tpd for CO. However, the total CO emissions without the I/M program are 18.66 tpd under the total CO emissions in 2017. Because 2022 total emissions without the I/M program are under total 2017 base year emissions, it is reasonable to conclude that removal of the I/M program in Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham Counties will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Additionally, as shown in Table 7 below, the highest ozone design value associated with 2017 is 5 ppb above the most recently available ozone design value for 2019-2021, thereby providing an additional buffer. 19

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html .

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

EPA is announcing receipt of pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), summaries of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioners, are included in dockets EPA has created for these rulemakings. The dockets for these petitions are available at https://www.regulations.gov .

As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.

PP IN-11643. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0363). Technology Services Group Inc. (1150 18th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036) on behalf of Organisan Corporation (P.O. Box 2085, Carrollton, Georgia 30112) requests to amend an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of nitric acid (CAS Reg. No. 7697-37-2) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (acidifier) in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.910 (limited to no more than 10% by weight in pesticide formulations). The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

PP 2F8996. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0787). SePRO Corporation, 11550 North Meridian Street, Suite 600, Carmel, IN 46032, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.420(b) by removing the existing time-limited tolerances for residues of the herbicide fluridone, including its metabolites and degrades, in or on the specified agricultural commodities of peanut and peanut, hay at 0.1 parts per million (ppm). The enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA), high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection (HLPC/UV), liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS) and QuEChERS are used to measure and evaluate the chemical residues. Contact: RD.

1. PP IN-11599. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0645). This notice of filing corrects the names of Arbuscular mychorrizae species in the previous notice of filing published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2022. Valent BioSciences LLC (1910 Innovation Way, Suite 100, Libertyville, Il. 60048) requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of arbuscular mycorrhizae ( funneliformis mosseae, rhizophagus irregularis, claroideoglomus etunicatum, rhizophagus clarus, claroideoglomus luteum, claroideoglomus claroideum, septoglomus desertícola, gigaspora margarita, paraglomus brasilianum ) for use as an inert ingredient (biostimulant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops pre-harvest under 40 CFR 180.920. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

2. PP IN-11613. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0612). Spring Regulatory Sciences (SRS) on behalf of Lamberti-USA, Inc. (Lamberti), 161 Washington Street, Conshohocken, PA 19428, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of D-Glucopyranose, oligomeric, maleates, C8-16-branched and linear alkyl glycosides, sulfonated, potassium salts (CAS Reg. Nos. 2585031-35-0, 2587364-77-8, and 1228577-37-4) when used as inert ingredients in pesticide formulations applied under 40 CFR 180.910. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD

1. PP 1F8922. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0433). Valent U.S.A. LLC, 4600 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide, inpyrfluxam in or on cotton, undelinted seed at 0.01 ppm, cotton, gin byproducts (gin trash) at 0.02 ppm. The analytical method RM-50C-1 LC/MS/MS and external standardization) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical inpyrfluxam. Contact: RD.

2. PP 1F8924. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0433). Valent U.S.A. LLC, 4600 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide, inpyrfluxam in or on wheat, forage at 0.01 ppm, wheat, grain at 0.01 ppm, wheat, hay at 1.5 ppm, and wheat, straw at 0.3 ppm. The analytical method RM-50C-1 LC/MS/MS and external standardization) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical inpyrfluxam. Contact: RD.

3. PP 1F8942. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0833). Valent U.S.A. LLC, 4600 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide, inpyrfluxam in or on rapeseed, seed (crop subgroup 20A) at 0.01 ppm. The analytical method RM-50C-1 LC/MS/MS and external standardization) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical inpyrfluxam. Contact: RD.

4. PP 1F8979. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0452). Gowan Company, LLC., 370 South Main Street, Yuma, AZ 85364, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the miticide Acynonapyr, 3- endo -[2-propoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-9-[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridyloxy]-9-azabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane) and its metabolites AP, 3- endo -[2-propoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-9-azabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane, and AY, 5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinol in or on almond at 0.03 ppm; almond, hulls at 4.0 ppm; crop group 10, citrus fruits at 0.3 ppm; citrus, oil at 15.0 ppm; orange, dried pulp at 0.7 ppm; grape at 0.6 ppm; raisins at 3.0 ppm; hops at 50.0 ppm; crop group 11, pome fruits at 0.2 ppm; and apple, wet pomace at 0.4 ppm. LC/MS/MS is used to measure and evaluate the chemical acynonapyr and its metabolites (AP, AP-2, AY, AY-3, and AY-1-Glc). Contact: RD.

5. PP 2F8996. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0787). SePRO Corporation, 11550 North Meridian Street, Suite 600, Carmel, IN 46032, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.420(a)(2) for residues of the herbicide fluridone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4(1H)-pyridinone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the raw agricultural commodities of peanut at 0.1 ppm and peanut, hay at 0.15 ppm. ELISA, HLPC/UV, LC/MS/MS, and QuEChERS are used to measure and evaluate the chemical residues. Contact: RD.

Table of Contents I. Background A. Overview of Event Data Recorder Technology and Regulatory History B. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act C. Event Data Recorders Duration Study II. Proposal A. Pre-Crash EDR Recording Duration B. Pre-Crash EDR Recording Frequency C. Benefits D. Costs E. Lead Time III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices I. Background A. Overview of Event Data Recorder Technology and Regulatory History

Event data recorders (EDRs) are devices that are used to record safety information about motor vehicle crashes immediately before and during a crash. The recorded information can aid crash investigators to assess the performance of specific safety equipment before and during a crash. This information can assist the agency and others with identifying potential opportunities for safety improvement in vehicles already on the road, as well as contributing to improve future vehicle designs and more effective safety regulations. This information could also aid first responders in assessing the severity of a crash and estimating the probability of serious injury in vehicles equipped with Advanced Automatic Crash Notification (AACN) systems and can improve defect investigations and crash data collection quality. (See the 2006 final rule establishing the EDR regulation (discussed below) for further details. (71 FR 50998.)

In August 2006, NHTSA established 49 CFR part 563 (part 563), which sets forth requirements for data elements, data capture and format, data retrieval, and data crash survivability for EDRs. (71 FR 50998.) Part 563 does not mandate that vehicles have EDRs, but is instead an “if equipped” standard that applies only to light vehicles required to have frontal air bags that a manufacturer chooses to voluntarily equip with EDRs. 1 Part 563 ensures that all EDRs subject to the regulation capture the same core set of data elements in a crash, standardizes the parameters (format, duration, etc.) of captured data elements, and sets minimum requirements for data survivability. 2 Part 563 further requires that manufacturers of vehicles with EDRs that are subject to part 563 make commercially available a tool for the purpose of imaging  3 the data collected by the EDR.

Tables I and II of part 563 list the various data elements that are covered under the standard. Table I lists data elements that all EDRs subject to part 563 are required to record, along with the recording interval (duration) and sampling frequency. Table II lists data elements that EDRs subject to part 563 are not required to record, but that are subject to part 563 if they are recorded. Table II also provides the recording interval (duration) and sampling frequency for each listed data element. In addition, all data elements in Tables I and II must be reported according to the range, accuracy, and resolution in Table III. As is relevant to this rulemaking, several data elements in both Table I and Table II must be captured for a duration of 5 seconds prior to the crash (speed, engine throttle, service brake, engine RPM, ABS activity, stability control, steering input). NHTSA established this 5-second duration because the agency concluded that it would be long enough to ensure the usefulness of the data in crash reconstruction while also minimizing the risk that the data capture process would over-tax the EDR's microprocessor, which could cause a malfunction that could lead to a loss of data. 4

Part 563 became fully effective on September 1, 2012. The agency estimates that 99.5 percent of model year 2021 passenger cars and other vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds) or less have part 563 compliant EDRs. 5

Section 24303 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law 119-14 (Dec. 4, 2015), requires NHTSA to conduct a study “to determine the amount of time event data recorders installed in passenger motor vehicles should capture and record for retrieval [of] vehicle-related data in conjunction with an event in order to provide sufficient information to investigate the cause of motor vehicle crashes,” and to submit a report containing the findings of this study to Congress. Further, within two years of submitting this report to Congress, NHTSA “shall promulgate regulations to establish the appropriate period during which event data recorders installed in passenger motor vehicles may capture and record for retrieval vehicle-related data to the time necessary to provide accident investigators with vehicle-related information pertinent to crashes involving such motor vehicles.”

As discussed in detail in section C below, NHTSA completed the Event Data Recorders Duration Study required by Section 24303. On September 28, 2018, NHTSA submitted a Report to Congress summarizing the results of the study to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 6 This NPRM begins the process of promulgating regulations to establish appropriate EDR data recording durations as mandated under the FAST Act.