        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 534, 536 and 537
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060]
        Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Notice of Public Hearing

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS); notice of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:

          NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to disclose and analyze the potential environmental impacts of proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model year (MY) 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks, which NHTSA recently proposed pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and a reasonable range of alternative standards. To inform decisionmakers and the public, the DEIS compares the potential environmental impacts of the proposed standards and alternative standards reflecting a full range of stringencies, and it analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in proportion to their significance. The DEIS provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts on energy resources, air quality, and climate. The DEIS uses climate modeling and NHTSA's own computer model to provide quantitative estimates of potential impacts on air quality, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, global mean surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such as freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines these impacts on the U.S. and on a global scale. In addition, the DEIS analyzes potential environmental impacts unrelated to climate change.
          NHTSA invites Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public to submit written comments and participate in a public hearing on the DEIS using the instructions set forth in this notice. As described in the PROCEDURAL MATTERS section of this notice, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. To facilitate review of the DEIS, NHTSA has posted the DEIS on its Web site, and it will be available in the Docket identified by the docket number at the beginning of this notice.1
             Copies in hard copy or electronic (CD-ROM) form have been mailed to all stakeholders on NHTSA's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mailing list for the proposed CAFE standards, and NHTSA will mail a copy of the DEIS or a CD-ROM containing the Appendices to any other interested party who requests one. NHTSA will consider the public comments received on the DEIS in preparing final NEPA documents to support final CAFE standards for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks, which NHTSA plans to issue later this year. The agency's NEPA analysis is informing NHTSA's development of those standards.

              1 The DEIS is available at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/ (last visited June 26, 2008).

          DATES:

            Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held on Monday, August 4, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the National Transportation Safety Board Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594. NHTSA recommends that all persons attending the hearing arrive at least 45 minutes early in order to facilitate entry into the Conference Center. If you wish to attend or speak at the hearing, you must register in advance no later than Friday, July 25, 2008, by following the instructions in the PROCEDURAL MATTERS section of this notice. NHTSA will consider late registrants to the extent time and space allow, but NHTSA cannot ensure that late registrants will be able to attend or speak at the hearing.

            Comments: NHTSA must receive written comments on the DEIS by Monday, August 18, 2008. NHTSA will try to consider comments received after that date to the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules allow, but NHTSA cannot ensure that it will be able to do so.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith, Telephone: 202-366-5206, or Mr. Michael Johnsen, Telephone: 202-366-0258, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. E-mail: nhtsa.nepa@dot.gov. Information about the CAFE rulemaking and the NEPA process is also available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.
          Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
          You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.

          Note that all comments received, including any personal information, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to disclose and analyze the potential environmental impacts of proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model year (MY) 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks and a reasonable range of alternative standards.2
           NHTSA recently proposed the standards pursuant to amendments made by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).3

           To inform decisionmakers and the public, the DEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed standards and alternative standards reflecting a range of stringencies, and it analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in proportion to their significance. The DEIS provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts on energy resources, air quality, and climate. The DEIS uses climate modeling and NHTSA's own computer model to provide quantitative estimates of potential impacts on air quality, CO2 emissions, global mean surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such as freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines impacts on the U.S. and on a global scale. In addition, the DEIS analyzes potential environmental impacts unrelated to climate change.

            2 See National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR Pts. 1500-1508, and NHTSA, 49 CFR Pt. 520.

            3 EISA is Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (December 19, 2007). EPCA is codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.

          Background. EPCA sets forth extensive requirements concerning the rulemaking to establish MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards. It requires the Secretary of Transportation 4
           to establish average fuel economy standards at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year and to set them at “the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model year.” When setting “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards, the Secretary is required to “consider technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.” 5
           NHTSA construes the statutory factors as including environmental and safety considerations.6
           NHTSA also considers environmental impacts under NEPA when setting CAFE standards.

            4 NHTSA is delegated responsibility for implementing the EPCA fuel economy requirements assigned to the Secretary of Transportation. 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(a)(8).

            5 49 U.S.C. 32902(a), 32902(f).

            6 See, e.g., Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 956 F.2d 321, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 901 F.2d 107, 120 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).

        As recently amended, EPCA further directs the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Energy (DOE) and the EPA Administrator, to establish separate average fuel economy standards for passenger cars and for light trucks manufactured in each model year beginning with model year 2011 “to achieve a combined fuel economy average for model year 2020 of at least 35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States for that model year.” 7
           In doing so, the Secretary of Transportation is required to increase average fuel economy standards for MY 2011-2020 vehicles through “annual fuel economy standard increases.” 8
           The standards for passenger cars and light trucks must be “based on 1 or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy.” In any single rulemaking, standards may be established for not more than five model years.9
           EPCA also mandates a minimum standard for domestically manufactured passenger cars.10

            7 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 32902(b)(1), 32902(b)(2)(A).

            8 49 U.S.C.A. § 32902(b)(2)(C).

            9 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 32902(b)(3)(A), 32902(b)(3)(B).

            10 49 U.S.C.A. § 32902(b)(4).

        Earlier this year, NHTSA initiated the EIS process for MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards, which include light truck standards for one model year previously covered by a 2006 final rule establishing CAFE standards for MY 2008-2011 light trucks (namely, MY 2011).11
           We did so because a standard for MY 2011 must be issued by the end of March 2009 and achieving an industry-wide combined fleet average of at least 35 miles per gallon for MY 2020 depends, in substantial part, upon setting standards well in advance so as to provide the automobile manufacturers with as much lead time as possible to make the extensive necessary changes to their automobiles.

            11 See Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks Model Years 2008-2011; Final Rule, April 6, 2006.

          The Proposed Action and Possible Alternatives: In its recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA proposed attribute-based (vehicle size) fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks consistent with the “Reformed CAFE” approach NHTSA used to establish standards for MY 2008-2011 light trucks.12
           The NPRM proposes separate standards for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and separate standards for MY 2011-2015 light trucks. This notice briefly describes the proposed standards and the alternatives, which the NPRM and the DEIS discuss in more detail.

            12 Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Model Years 2011-2015; Proposed Rule, 73 FR 24352, May 2, 2008.

        Under the proposed standards, each vehicle manufacturer's required level of CAFE would be based on target levels of average fuel economy set for vehicles of different sizes and on the distribution of that manufacturer's vehicles among those sizes. Size would be defined by vehicle footprint.13
           The level of the performance target for each footprint would reflect the technological and economic capabilities of the industry. The target for each footprint would be the same for all manufacturers, regardless of differences in their overall fleet mix. Compliance would be determined by comparing a manufacturer's harmonically averaged fleet fuel economy levels in a model year with a required fuel economy level calculated using the manufacturer's actual production levels and the targets for each footprint of the vehicles that it produces.

            13 A vehicle's “footprint” is generally defined as “the product of track width [the lateral distance between the centerlines of the base tires at ground, including the camber angle] * * * times wheelbase [the longitudinal distance between front and rear wheel centerlines] * * * divided by 144. * * *” 49 CFR 523.2.

        In developing the proposed standards and the alternatives, NHTSA considered the four EPCA factors underlying maximum feasibility (technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the nation to conserve energy) as well as relevant environmental and safety considerations. NHTSA used a computer model (known as the “Volpe model”) that, for any given model year, applies technologies to a manufacturer's fleet until the manufacturer achieves compliance with the standard under consideration. In light of the EPCA factors, the agency placed monetary values on relevant externalities (both energy security and environmental externalities, including the benefits of reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions). As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA also consulted with EPA and DOE regarding a wide variety of matters.
        After assessing what fuel saving technologies would be available, how effective they are, and how quickly they could be introduced, NHTSA balanced the EPCA factors relevant to standard-setting. The agency used a marginal benefit-cost analysis to set the proposed standards at levels such that, considering the seven largest manufacturers, the cost of the last technology application equaled the benefits of the improvement in fuel economy resulting from that application. That is the level at which net benefits are maximized. Accordingly, NHTSA refers to the proposed standards as “optimized” standards or the “optimized scenario”. In considering further action on the proposed standards and reasonable alternatives, NHTSA also will consider its NEPA analysis.
        NHTSA projects what the industry-wide average fuel economy level would be for passenger cars and for light trucks if each manufacturer produced its expected mix of automobiles and exactly met its obligations under the proposed “optimized” standards for each model year. For passenger cars, the average fuel economy (in miles per gallon, or mpg) would range from 31.2 mpg in MY 2011 to 35.7 mpg in MY 2015. For light trucks, the average fuel economy would range from 25.0 mpg in MY 2011 to 28.6 mpg in MY 2015. The combined industry-wide average fuel economy for all passenger cars and light trucks would range from 27.8 mpg in MY 2011 to 31.6 mpg in MY 2015, if each manufacturer exactly met its obligations under the standards proposed in the NPRM.14

            14 NHTSA notes that it cannot set out the precise level of CAFE that each manufacturer would be required to meet for each model year under the proposed standards, because the level for each manufacturer would depend on that manufacturer's final production figures and fleet mix for a particular model year. That information will not be available until the end of each model year.

        Under the proposed standards, the annual average increase during the five-year period from MY 2011-MY 2015 would be approximately 4.5 percent. The annual percentage increases would be greater in the early years due to the uneven distribution of new model introductions during this period and to the fact that significant technological changes can be most readily made in conjunction with those introductions.15
           Pursuant to EISA's mandate, domestically manufactured passenger car fleets also must meet an alternative minimum standard for each model year. The alternative minimum standard would range from 28.7 mpg in MY 2011 to 32.9 mpg in MY 2015 under NHTSA's proposal.

            15 With the proposed standards, the combined industry-wide average fuel economy would have to increase by an average of 2.1 percent per year from MY 2016-MY 2020 in order to reach EISA's goal of at least 35 mpg by MY 2020. In addition, the NPRM and the DEIS discuss flexibility mechanisms available to manufacturers to meet their obligations.

        In addition to the proposed standards, NHTSA has considered several regulatory alternatives for purposes of both Executive Order 12,866 16

           and its NEPA analysis, which includes a “no action” alternative as required by NEPA. The alternatives, in order of increasing stringency, are:

            16 Exec. Order 12,866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51,735, October 4, 1993, as amended.

        (1) A “no action” alternative of maintaining CAFE standards at the MY 2010 levels of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg for passenger cars and light trucks, respectively.17
           NEPA requires agencies to consider a “no action” alternative in their NEPA analyses, although the recent amendments to EPCA direct NHTSA to set new CAFE standards and do not permit the agency to take no action on fuel economy. (NHTSA also refers to this “no action” alternative as a “no increase” or “baseline” alternative.)

            17 See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).

        (2) An alternative reflecting standards that fall below the optimized scenario by the same absolute amount by which the “25 percent above optimized alternative” (described below) exceeds the optimized scenario. NHTSA refers to this as the “25 percent below optimized alternative”.
        (3) An alternative reflecting the “optimized scenario”, the proposed standards based on applying technologies until net benefits are maximized.
        (4) An alternative reflecting standards that exceed the optimized scenario by 25 percent of the interval between the optimized scenario and an alternative (described below) based on applying technologies until total costs equal total benefits. NHTSA refers to this alternative as the “25 percent above optimized alternative”.
        (5) An alternative reflecting standards that exceed the optimized scenario by 50 percent of the interval between the optimized scenario and the alternative based on applying technologies until total costs equal total benefits. This alternative is known as the “50 percent above optimized alternative”.
        (6) An alternative reflecting standards based on applying technologies until total costs equal total benefits (zero net benefits). This is known as the “TC=TB alternative”.
        (7) A “technology exhaustion alternative” in which NHTSA applied all feasible technologies without regard to cost by determining the stringency at which a reformed CAFE standard would require every manufacturer to apply every technology estimated to be potentially available for its MY 2011-2015 fleet. Accordingly, the penetration rates for particular technologies would vary on an individual manufacturer basis. NHTSA has presented this alternative in order to explore how the stringency of standards would vary based solely on the potential availability of technologies at the individual manufacturer level without regard to the costs to society.
        Under NEPA, the purpose of and need for an agency's action inform the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered in its NEPA analysis.18
           NHTSA believes that these alternatives represent a reasonable range of stringencies to consider for purposes of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of proposed CAFE standards under NEPA, because these alternatives represent a wide spectrum of potential impacts ranging from the current standards to standards based on the maximum technology expected to be available over the period necessary to meet the statutory goals of EPCA, as amended by EISA.19

           However, as discussed in the NPRM and in the DEIS, NHTSA's provisional analysis of these alternatives suggests that some of them may not satisfy the four EPCA factors that NHTSA must apply in setting “maximum feasible” CAFE standards (i.e., technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the nation to conserve energy).

            18 40 CFR 1502.13.

            19 Given EPCA's mandate that NHTSA consider specific factors in setting CAFE standards and NEPA's instruction that agencies give effect to NEPA's policies “to the fullest extent possible,” NHTSA recognizes that a very large number of alternative CAFE levels are potentially conceivable and that the alternatives described above essentially represent several of many points on a continuum of alternatives. Along the continuum, each alternative represents a different way in which NHTSA conceivably could assign weight to each of the four EPCA factors and NEPA's policies. CEQ guidance instructs that “[w]hen there are potentially a very large number of alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives, must be analyzed and compared in the EIS.” CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026, 18027, March 23, 1981 (emphasis original).

          The NEPA Process and the DEIS. In March 2008, NHTSA issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards and opened the NEPA “scoping” process. In that notice, NHTSA described the statutory requirements for the proposed standards, provided initial information about the NEPA process, and initiated scoping by requesting public input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the proposed standards.20
           In April 2008, NHTSA published a supplemental scoping notice providing additional guidance for participating in the scoping process and additional information about the proposed standards and the alternatives NHTSA expected to consider in its NEPA analysis.21
           NHTSA also outlined its plans for its NEPA analysis.22
           NHTSA mailed both Federal Register notices to hundreds of stakeholders and developed a mailing list of interested parties, including Federal agencies with environmental expertise, the Governors of every State and U.S. territory or State NEPA contacts they identified, Indian tribes, organizations representing state and local governments and tribes, the automobile industry, environmental organizations, and other stakeholders interested in the CAFE program. NHTSA received 1,748 comment letters in response to its scoping notices. NHTSA received 11 individual letters commenting on the scope of its NEPA analysis from federal and state agencies, automobile trade associations, environmental organizations, and individuals. The remaining comment letters are form letters from individuals.

            20 See Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR 16615, March 28, 2008.

            21 Supplemental Notice of Public Scoping for an Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR 22913, April 28, 2008.

            22 Id. at 22916.

        In developing the DEIS, NHTSA also consulted with Federal agencies including: CEQ; EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, both of which submitted scoping comments to NHTSA; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the U.S. Department of Commerce; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service within the U.S. Department of the Interior; and the U.S. Forest Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
        NHTSA used the scoping process to help determine “the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered” in the DEIS and to identify the most important issues for analysis.23

           The DEIS consists of a Summary and ten chapters: (1) Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action; (2) The Proposed Action and Alternatives; (3) Affected Environment and Consequences; (4) Cumulative Impacts; (5) Mitigation; (6) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts; Short-Term Uses and Long-term Productivity; Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources; (7) Preparers; (8) References; (9) Distribution List; and (10) Index. Three appendices include sources identified in scoping comments (Appendix A), modeling data for air emissions and climate modeling (Appendix B); and a cost-benefit analysis excerpt from NHTSA's Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (Appendix C).

            23 See 40 CFR §§ 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.

        The DEIS devotes the most detailed analysis to direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed standards and the alternatives on energy, air quality, and climate. Key findings concerning estimated potential impacts on CO2 emissions, global mean surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level rise include the following:
        • Global CO
          2
          Emissions Reductions. Over the 2010 to 2100 timeframe, the range of alternatives NHTSA analyzed would reduce global CO2 emissions (from all sources) by about 18 to 35 billion metric tons of CO2 (based on global emissions of 4.85 trillion metric tons of CO2). The alternatives would slow the expected increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transportation sector over this period.
        • CO
          2
          Concentration and Global Mean Surface Temperature: Estimates for CO2 atmospheric concentrations and global mean surface temperature vary considerably, depending on which global emissions scenario is used as a reference case. Temperature increases are sensitive to climate sensitivity. Yet, projected differences among the CAFE alternatives are small—i.e., CO2 concentrations as of 2100 are within 1.7 to 3.2 parts per million across alternatives, and temperatures are within 0.0006 to 0.012 °C across alternatives—regardless of reference scenario and climate sensitivity.
        • Rainfall: The CAFE alternatives reduce temperature increases slightly and thus reduce increases in precipitation slightly, compared to the “No Action” alternative.
        • Impact on Sea Level Rise: The impact on sea level rise from the alternatives is at the threshold of the climate model's reporting: The alternatives reduce sea level rise by 0.1 cm. Although the model does not report enough significant figures to distinguish between the effects of the alternatives, it is clear that the more stringent the alternative (i.e., the lower the emissions), the lower the temperature (as shown above), and the lower the sea level.
        The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such as freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines impacts on the U.S. and a global scale. In addition, the DEIS qualitatively examines the alternatives' non-climate change related direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on potentially affected resources. Such resources include: Water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice.

        Throughout the DEIS, NHTSA's analysis relies extensively on findings of the United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP), including those presented in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 and the USCCSP's Scientific Assessments of the Effects of Global Change on the United States and Synthesis and Assessment Products.24
           The DEIS also uses applicable CEQ regulations to acknowledge uncertainty and incomplete or unavailable information relevant to NHTSA's NEPA analysis.25

            24 See generally http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm (last visited June 25, 2008) and http://www.climatescience.gov (last visited June 25, 2008).

            25 40 CFR 1502.22; see 40 CFR 1502.21.

        Procedural Matters: The public hearing will be open to the public with advanced registration for seating on a space-available basis. Individuals wishing to register to assure a seat in the public seating area should provide their name, affiliation, phone number, ande-mail address to Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at the beginning of this notice no later than Friday, July 25, 2008. Should it be necessary to cancel the hearing due to an emergency or some other reason, NHTSA will take all available means to notify registered participants by e-mail or telephone.

        The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should contact Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above no later than Friday, July 25, 2008. Any written materials NHTSA presents at the hearing will be available electronically on the day of the hearing to accommodate the needs of the visually impaired. A transcript of the hearing and information received by NHTSA at the hearing will be placed in the docket for this notice at a later date.
        How long will I have to speak at the public hearing?

        Once NHTSA learns how many people have registered to speak at the public hearing, NHTSA will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for lunch and necessary breaks throughout the day. For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, NHTSA prefers that speakers not use technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows). However, if you plan to do so, you must let Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen know by Friday, July 25, 2008, using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. You also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other aids to NHTSA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up. During the week of July 28, NHTSA will post information on its Web site (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov) indicating the amount of time allocated for each speaker and each speaker's approximate order on the agenda for the hearing.
        How can I get a copy of the DEIS?
        The DEIS is available on NHTSA's Web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/ (last visited June 26, 2008), and it will be available in the Docket identified by the docket number at the beginning of this notice. To request a hard copy or a CD-ROM of the DEIS, or to request a CD-ROM containing the Appendices, please contact Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
        How do I prepare and submit written comments?
        It is not necessary to attend or to speak at the public hearing to be able to comment on the issues. NHTSA invites the submission of written comments on the DEIS which the agency will consider in preparing the final NEPA documents to support the new CAFE standards for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks. Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number at the beginning of this notice in your comments.
        Your primary comments cannot exceed 15 pages.26
           However, you may attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit to the length of the attachments.

            26 49 CFR 553.21.

        Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register at 65 FR 19477, April 11, 2000, or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How do I submit confidential business information?
        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
        In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, or submit them electronically, in the manner described at the beginning of this notice.
        Will the agency consider late comments?

        NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules allow, NHTSA will try to consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date, but we cannot ensure that we will be able to do so.27

            27 See 49 CFR 553.23.

        Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some commenters may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material. In addition, you may wish to check two separate dockets relating to the proposed CAFE standards: (1) Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0089, which accompanies NHTSA's NPRM; and (2) Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0069, which accompanies NHTSA's request for manufacturers' product plan information.28

            28 Passenger Car Average Fuel Economy Standards—Model Years 2008—2020 and Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards—Model Years 2008-2020; Request for Product Plan Information, 73 FR 24190, May 2, 2008.

        Comments and information submitted to these dockets may be relevant to NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the proposed CAFE standards.

          Issued: June 27, 2008.
          Ronald Medford,
          Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.

      [FR Doc. 08-1406 Filed 6-30-08; 11:21 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0012; MO 92210-0-0008]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Bay Skipper as Threatened or Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Bay skipper (Euphyes bayensis) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and to designate critical habitat. Based on our review, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing this species may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the species to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

          DATES:

          To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that we receive information on or before September 12, 2011. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on this date. After September 12, 2011, you must submit information directly to the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit information by one of the following methods:
          (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. In the box that reads “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter the docket number for this finding, which is FWS-R4-ES-2011-0012. Check the box that reads “Open for Comment/Submission,” and then click the Search button. You should then see an icon that reads “Submit a Comment.” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
          (2) U.S. Mail or Hand-Delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2011-0012; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information section below for more details).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS, or by telephone 601-321-1122, or facsimile 601-965-4340. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Request for Information
        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on the Bay skipper from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
        (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
        (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
        (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
        (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
        (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.
        (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (c) Disease or predation;
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        If, after the status review, we determine that listing the Bay skipper is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), as per section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time. Therefore, within the geographical range currently occupied by the Bay skipper, we request data and information on:
        (1) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,”
        (2) Where these features are currently found, and
        (3) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection.
        In addition, we request data and information on “specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species” that are “essential to the conservation of the species.” Please provide specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
        Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
        Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this finding will be available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS, Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, which will be subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
        The “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.
        Previous Federal Actions

        The Bay skipper was identified as a candidate for protection under the Act in the November 21, 1991, Federal Register (56 FR 58804). It was assigned a Category 2 status designation, which was given to those species for which there was some evidence of vulnerability, but for which additional biological information was needed to support a proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened. Assigning categories to candidate species was discontinued in 1996 (Notice of Candidate Review; February 28, 1996; 61 FR 7596), and only species for which the Service has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule are now regarded as candidate species. Due to a lack of information on the Bay skipper, it was no longer considered as a candidate species as of 1996.
        Petition History
        On January 4, 2010, we received a petition dated December 29, 2009, from WildEarth Guardians and Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation requesting that the Bay skipper be listed as threatened or endangered and that critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a January 25, 2010, letter to the petitioners, we acknowledged receipt of the petition, and stated that due to prior workload and limited funding, we would not be able to address the petition at that time, but would complete the action when workload and funding allowed. On May 6, 2010, we received a 60-day notice of intent (NOI) to sue under the provisions of the Act from the petitioners, alleging that we failed to make a 90-day finding on the petition to list the Bay skipper as threatened or endangered and to designate critical habitat for the species within 90 days of receipt of the petition. No lawsuit has been filed to date.
        This notice constitutes the 90-day finding on the January 4, 2010, petition to list the Bay skipper as threatened or endangered and that critical habitat be designated under the Act.
        Species Information
        The Bay skipper, a small butterfly, was described as Euphyes bayensis by Shuey (1989) from Bay St. Louis, Hancock County, Mississippi. Shuey (1993) reported on the phylogeny (the history of the evolution of a species) within the Euphyes genus, finding that E. bayensis is a species in the Euphyes dion complex. We accept the characterization of the Bay skipper as a species because the most recent taxonomic accounts currently consider the taxon as valid (e.g., Pelham 2008, p. 93).

        The Bay skipper has a wingspan of 1.5 to 1.75 inches (in) (3.7 to 4.4 centimeters (cm)). Males are black with a large orange patch on the top of the wings, and have a prominent black stigma (defined mark) on the forewing. The females are dark brown with yellow spots on their forewing and a yellow streak on their hindwing. The ventral (bottom) sides of both front and hind wings are a shade of brown that is paler than the dorsal side of the female and have pale yellow spots on the forewing, with two yellow streaks from the base to the margin (Shuey 1989; Vaughan and Shepherd 2005; Butterflies and Moths of North America (BMNA) 2009). The Bay skipper is similar in appearance to the Dion skipper (E. dion), but is distinguished by a brighter shade of orange and narrower black borders on the dorsal (top) side of the wings.

        The life history and habitat requirements of the Bay skipper are poorly known. The adult butterfly has two flight periods: late May and September. The gap between the flight periods suggests that the larvae may aestivate (become dormant) in the summer. The larvae also hibernate during the winter. Aestivating and hibernating larvae are probably in the third or fourth instar (period between molts). The larval foodplant is likely sawgrass (Cladium sp.); however, this has not been verified (NatureServe 2009 as cited in Petition).

          The Bay skipper has been reported from only two locations: Bay St. Louis, Hancock County, Mississippi, and the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (part of the Texas Chenier Plains NWR Complex), Chambers and Jefferson Counties, Texas. It is possible that it occurs in other locations within sawgrass marsh habitat in other Gulf coastal States, but this has never been verified. The lack of records suggests it has a very limited range and is very rare (Vaughan and Shepherd 2005; NatureServe 2009). The Bay St. Louis locality was severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and it is unknown if the species continues to survive in that locality. The Anahuac NWR and surrounding areas were inundated by Hurricane Ike in 2008, and no Bay skippers have since been found at that location (NatureServe 2009; Petition citing David Sarkozi 2009, pers. comm.).

        Evaluation of Information for This Finding
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
        (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (C) Disease or predation;
        (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information must contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
        In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information regarding threats to the Bay skipper, as presented in the petition and available in our files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.
        A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petition asserts that the habitats of both known populations of the Bay skipper are threatened by sea level rise and extreme weather events, and that the Bay St. Louis population is threatened by development (WildEarth Guardians and Xerces Society 2009 (hereafter cited as Petition), p. 9). The petition asserts that the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Texas Chenier Plains NWR Complex, which includes the Anahuac NWR (Service 2008), fails to mention or prescribe protections for the Bay skipper on the Anahuac NWR, and that many of the refuge's management actions (e.g., herbicide use, livestock grazing, prescribed fires, rice farming, water control, land management involving conventional farm machinery) may affect the Bay skipper if conducted in its current or potential habitat (Petition 2009, pp. 10-11).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
        Information in the Service files is consistent with many of the assertions made in the petition. Habitat for the Bay St. Louis population was severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the population may have been impacted. The Anahuac NWR was inundated by Hurricane Ike in 2008. In other words, both of the areas where the Bay skipper is found have experienced hurricane impacts in recent years.

        Tropical storms and hurricanes frequently occur in the northern Gulf of Mexico (NOAA 1999), and some researchers believe an increase in hurricane intensity, duration, and frequency can be attributed to warming sea temperatures (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 5-6). Impacts from these storm events could be compounded by projected sea level rise (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 5-6). The Bay skipper is likely to continue to be subject to hurricane impacts and resulting habitat modification and destruction in these areas.
        We have no information in our files on potential impacts to the species from management actions on the Anahuac NWR or any information on development threats to the Bay St. Louis population. While the CCP does not specifically address protections for the Bay skipper, pesticide use has been prohibited on the NWR, and wetlands are protected. Herbicides are used on the refuge to combat exotic plant species (USFWS 2008; Chapter 3, p. 58; Chapter 4, p. 16).
        In summary, in our evaluation of the petition and information in our files, we find that the petition provides substantial information indicating that listing the Bay skipper may be warranted due to present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range by hurricanes or sea level rise.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petition asserts that collecting is a potential threat to the species (Petition 2009, p. 9). It also notes that small population size and limited distribution render the Bay skipper vulnerable to overutilization (Vaughn and Shepherd 2005).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
        Although the petition notes that small population size and limited distribution render the Bay skipper vulnerable to overutilization, it does not provide information or evidence that collecting may be a threat now or in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, there is no information in our files on overutilization of the Bay skipper from collection. In our evaluation of the petition and information in our files, we have no substantial information indicating that listing the Bay skipper may be warranted due to overutilization.
        C. Disease or Predation
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petition notes that adult and larval butterflies are subject to predation by a wide variety of vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife (e.g., birds, reptiles, amphibians, other insects), and that the likely small size of Bay skipper populations increases their vulnerability to extirpation due to disease or predation (Petition 2009, p. 9).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

        Although the petition notes that adult and larval butterflies are subject to predation, it does not provide any evidence to support the assertion that disease or predation may be a threat to the Bay skipper now or in the foreseeable future, and we have no information in our files about potential impacts to the Bay skipper due to disease or predation. In our evaluation of the petition and information in our files, we find that there is no substantial information indicating that listing the Bay skipper may be warranted due to disease or predation.
        D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petition asserts that the Bay skipper is not adequately protected by Federal or State laws or policies to prevent its endangerment or extinction.
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

        The Bay skipper is classified as an S1 species in both Texas and Mississippi. The S1 designation means that the species is considered “critically imperiled—State level” under the NatureServe construct. However, no formal or regulatory consideration is provided to the species or its habitat as a result of this classification (NatureServe 2009). The Anahuac NWR is covered under a CCP, but this is a guidance document and not a statute or regulation, and therefore not a regulatory mechanism. Possible effects to the Bay skipper from Refuge management activities are addressed under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range. No other potential regulatory mechanisms are discussed in the petition and our review of readily available information indicated there are no existing regulations or laws providing for the protection of this species or its habitat. Because we have no information about existing regulatory mechanisms, we cannot conclude that regulatory mechanisms are inadequate. Therefore, we cannot find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing the Bay skipper may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. However, we will investigate this issue further during the status review.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petition provides information that effects of climate change threaten the Bay skipper, including the increased frequency of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, as well as rising sea levels. The effects of hurricanes and sea level rise were addressed above in A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range. The petition further asserts that the Bay skipper could be harmed by local pesticide and herbicide use, specifically on the Anahuac NWR (Petition 2009, pp. 11-14).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
        We acknowledge that butterflies and their larvae are vulnerable to pesticides; however, the petition does not provide any evidence to indicate that the Bay skipper is being impacted or is likely to be impacted by chemical use, and we have no information in our files about potential impacts to the Bay skipper due to chemical use. In summary, in our evaluation of the petition and information in our files, we find that the petition does not provide substantial information indicating that listing the Bay skipper may be warranted due to other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence. We will investigate the potential impacts of pesticide and herbicide use further during our status review.
        Finding
        On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we determine that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Bay skipper throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding is based on information provided under factor A. The information provided under factors B, C, D, and E was not substantial.
        Because we have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing the Bay skipper may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing the Bay skipper under the Act is warranted.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is Paul Hartfield of the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: June 27, 2011.
          Gregory E. Siekaniec,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-17299 Filed 7-11-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P