        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 533
        [Docket No. 2002-11419]
        RIN 2127-AI70
        Correction to Request for Comments; National Academy of Sciences Study and Future Fuel Economy Improvements, Model Years 2005-2010

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

          ACTION:
          Correction to request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This document contains corrections to the request for comments on the National Academy of Sciences study and future fuel economy improvements for model years 2005-2010, which was published on Thursday, February 7, 2002 (67 FR 5767).

          DATES:
          The comment deadline remains May 8, 2002.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For non-legal issues, call Ken Katz, Lead Engineer, Consumer Programs Division, Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, at (202) 366-0846, facsimile (202) 493-2290, electronic mail, kkatz@nhtsa.dot.gov. For legal issues, call Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-5263.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The request for comments that is the subject of this correction seeks information that will assist the agency in developing a proposal for light truck CAFE standards for model years beyond 2004. NHTSA currently plans to cover some or all of model years 2005 to 2010 in the proposal. The agency is seeking information that will help it assess the extent to which manufacturers can improve light truck fuel economy during those years, the benefits and costs to consumers of fuel economy improvements, the benefits to the nation of reducing fuel consumption, and the number of model years that should be covered by the proposal.
        Need for Correction
        As published, the appendix to the request for comments contains errors, which are in need of clarification.
        Correction of Publication
        Accordingly, the publication on February 7, 2002 (67 FR 5767) is corrected in the appendix as follows:
        On page 5775, definition number 1, which set forth a number of definitions as follows: “ ‘Automobile,’ ‘fuel economy,’ ‘manufacturer,’ and ‘model year,’ have the meaning given them in Section 501 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 2001,” refers to a statutory section that has been recodified. Definition number 1 is corrected to read “ ‘Automobile,’ ‘fuel economy,’ ‘manufacturer,’ and ‘model year,’ have the meaning given them in Section 32901 of Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code, 49 U.S.C. 32901.”
        On page 5775, definition number 3, “Basic engine,” item (i) the parenthetical phrase “(in cubic inches)” is corrected to read “(in liters).”
        On page 5775, definition number 4, “Domestically manufactured” which stated: “ ‘Domestically manufactured’ is used as defined in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act.,” is corrected to read “ ‘Domestically manufactured’ is used as defined in Section 32904(b)(2) of Chapter 329, 49 U.S.C. 32904(b)(2).”
        On page 5775, definition number 16, “Transmission class” contains a typographical error in the citation of the regulation referenced in the definition. The first sentence of the definition, which stated: “ ‘Transmission class’ is used as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-05(22)(a),” is corrected to read “ ‘Transmission class’ is used as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-85(a)(22).”
        On page 5775, definition number 17, “Truckline,” which stated: “ ‘Truckline’ means the name assigned by the Environmental Protection Agency to a different group of vehicles within a make or car division in accordance with that agency's 1994 model year pickup, van (cargo vans and passenger vans are considered separate truck lines), and special purpose vehicle criteria” is corrected to read, “ ‘Truckline’ means the name assigned by the Environmental Protection Agency to a different group of vehicles within a make or car division in accordance with that agency's 2001 model year pickup, van (cargo vans and passenger vans are considered separate truck lines), and special purpose vehicle criteria.”
        On page 5776, specification number 3, item f, which stated “Estimated power absorption unit (PAU) setting, in hp” is corrected to read, “Estimated power absorption unit (PAU) setting, in hp. Alternately, the total road load horsepower at 50 miles per hour can be provided.”
        On page 5776, specification number 5, inadvertently skipped the letter d when listing the standards or equipment the agency is seeking comment on. Specification number 5 is corrected to read as follows:
        5. Relative to MY 2001 levels, for MYs 2005-2010, please provide information, by truckline and as an average effect on a manufacturer's entire light truck fleet, on the weight and/or fuel economy impacts of the following standards or equipment:
        a. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS 208) Automatic Restraints
        b. FMVSS 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact
        c. Voluntary installation of safety equipment (e.g., antilock brakes)
        d. Environmental Protection Agency regulations
        e. California Air Resources Board requirements
        f. Other applicable motor vehicle regulations affecting fuel economy.
        On page 5776, specification number 6, the phrase “provide the requested information for each of items ‘6a’ through ‘6o’ is corrected to read “provide the requested information for each of items ‘6a’ through ‘6q’ ”.
        On page 5777, specification number 8, the phrase “ ‘a’ through ‘k’ ”, which appears in the first paragraph and the third paragraph, is corrected to read “ ‘a’ through ‘i’ ”.
        On page 5777, specification number 8, item g, the sentence “Average PAU setting: Provide the value and show whether the value (or estimated value) is based on coastdown testing (T) or calculated from the vehicle frontal area (C). Round the PAU value to one decimal Place” is corrected to read “Average PAU setting: Provide the value and show whether the value (or estimated value) is based on coastdown testing (T) or calculated from the vehicle frontal area (C). Round the PAU value to one decimal Place. Alternately, the total road load horsepower at 50 miles per hour can be provided.”

        On page 5777, specification number 11, the sentence “For each new or redesigned vehicle identified in response to Question 3 and each new engine or fuel economy improvement identified in your response to Questions 3, 5, and 6, provide your best estimate of the following, in terms of constant 1996 dollars:” is corrected to read “For each new or redesigned vehicle identified in response to Question 3 and each new engine or fuel economy improvement identified in your response to Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6, provide your best estimate of the following, in terms of constant 2001 dollars:'
        On page 5777, specification number 12, the sentence “Please provide respondent's actual and projected U.S. light truck sales, 4x2 and 4x4, 0-8,500 lbs. GVWR and 8501-10,000 lbs., GVWR for each model year from 1996 through 2002, inclusive.” is corrected to read “Please provide respondent's actual and projected U.S. light truck sales, 4x2 and 4x4, 0-8,500 lbs. GVWR and 8501-10,000 lbs., GVWR for each model year from 2001 through 2004, inclusive.”
        The corrected Appendix is printed in its entirety below:

          Appendix
          I. Definitions
          As used in this appendix—
          1. “Automobile,” “fuel economy,” “manufacturer,” and “model year,” have the meaning given them in Section 32901 of Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code, 49 U.S.C. 32901.
          2. “Cargo-carrying volume,” “gross vehicle weight rating” (GVWR), and “passenger-carrying volume” are used as defined in 49 CFR 523.2.
          3. “Basic engine” has the meaning given in 40 CFR 600.002-85(a)(21). When identifying a basic engine, respondent should provide the following information:
          (i) Engine displacement (in liters).
          (ii) Number of cylinders or rotors.
          (iii) Number of valves per cylinder.
          (iv) Cylinder configuration (V, in-line, etc.).
          (v) Number of carburetor barrels, if applicable.
          (vi) Other engine characteristics, abbreviated as follows:

          DD—Direct Injection Diesel
          ID—Indirect Injection Diesel
          TB—Throttle Body Fuel Injection S.I. (Spark Ignition)
          MP—Multipoint Fuel Injection S.I.
          TD—Turbocharged Diesel
          TS—Turbocharged S.I.
          FFS—Feedback Fuel System
          2C—Two-stroke engines
          VVT—Variable valve timing
          VVLT—Variable valve lift and timing
          SOHC—Single overhead camshaft
          DOHC—Dual overhead camshafts
          CYDA—Cylinder deactivation
          IVT—Intake valve throttling
          CVA—Camless valve actuation
          VCR—Variable compression ratio
          LBFB—lean burn-fast burn combustion

          4. “Domestically manufactured” is used as defined in Section 32904(b)(2) of Chapter 329, 49 U.S.C. 32904(b)(2).
          5. “Light truck” means an automobile of the type described in 49 CFR Part 523.5.
          6. A “model” of light truck is a line, such as the Chevrolet C1500 or Astro, Ford F150 or E150, Jeep Wrangler, etc., which exists within a manufacturer's fleet.
          7. “Model Type” is used as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-85(a)(19).
          8. “Percent fuel economy improvements” means that percentage which corresponds to the amount by which respondent could improve the fuel economy of vehicles in a given model or class through the application of a specified technology, averaged over all vehicles of that model or in that class which feasibly could use the technology. Projections of percent fuel economy improvement should be based on the assumption of maximum efforts by respondent to achieve the highest possible fuel economy increase through the application of the technology. The baseline for determination of percent fuel economy improvement is the level of technology and vehicle performance with respect to acceleration and gradeability for respondent's 2001 model year light trucks in the equivalent class.
          9. “Percent production implementation rate” means that percentage which corresponds to the maximum number of light trucks of a specified class, which could feasibly employ a given type of technology if respondent made maximum efforts to apply the technology by a specified model year.
          10. “Production percentage” means the percent of respondent's light trucks of a specified model projected to be manufactured in a specified model year.
          11. “Project” or “projection” refers to the best estimates made by respondent, whether or not based on less than certain information.
          12. “Redesign” means any change, or combination of changes, to a vehicle that would change its weight by 50 pounds or more or change its frontal area or aerodynamic drag coefficient by 2 percent or more.
          13. “Relating to” means constituting, defining, containing, explaining, embodying, reflecting, identifying, stating, referring to, dealing with, or in any way pertaining to.
          14. “Respondent” means each manufacturer (including all its divisions) providing answers to the questions set forth in this appendix, and its officers, employees, agents or servants.
          15. “Test Weight” is used as defined in 40 CFR 86.082-2.
          16. “Transmission class” is used as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-85(22). When identifying a transmission class, respondent also must indicate whether the type of transmission, and whether it is equipped with a lockup torque converter (LUTC), a split torque converter (STC), and/or a wide gear ratio range (WR) and specify the number of forward gears or whether the transmissions a continuously variable design (CVT). If the transmission is of a hybrid type, that should also be indicated.
          17. “Truckline” means the name assigned by the Environmental Protection Agency to a different group of vehicles within a make or car division in accordance with that agency's 2001 model year pickup, van (cargo vans and passenger vans are considered separate truck lines), and special purpose vehicle criteria.
          18. “Utility vehicle” means a form of light truck, either two-wheel drive (4x2) or four-wheel drive (4x4), and is exemplified by a Jeep Wrangler or Cherokee, a Chevrolet Blazer, Ford Explorer, or a Toyota Land Cruiser.
          19. The term “van” is used as defined in 40 CFR 86.082-2.
          20. “Variants of existing engines” means versions of an existing basic engine that differ from that engine in terms of displacement, method of aspiration, induction system or that weigh at least 25 pounds more or less than that engine.
          II. Assumptions
          All assumptions concerning emission standards, damageability regulations, safety standards, etc., should be listed and described in detail by the respondent.
          III. Specifications
          1. Identify all light truck models currently offered for sale in MY 2001 whose production you project discontinuing before MY 2005 and identify the last model year in which each will be offered.
          2. Identify all basic engines offered by respondent in MY 2001 light trucks which respondent projects it will cease to offer for sale in light trucks before MY 2005, and identify the last model year in which each will be offered.

          3. Does the respondent currently project offering for sale for the time period of MY 2005-2010 any new or redesigned light trucks, including vehicles smaller than those now produced? If so, provide the following information for each model (e.g., Chevrolet C1500, Ford F150). Model types which are essentially identical except for their nameplates (e.g., Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager) may be combined into one item. See Table A for a sample format; 4x2 and 4x4 light trucks are different models.
          a. Body types to be offered for sale (e.g., regular cab, super cab).
          b. Description of basic engines, or power sources (i.e., fuel cell) including optional horsepower and torque ratings, if any; displacement; number and configuration of cylinders; type of fuel injection system; fuel type; number of valves per cylinder, and whether it is 2-cycle or 4-cycle or uses variable valve timing.
          c. Transmission type (manual, automatic, number of forward speeds, hybrid, overdrive, etc., as applicable), including gear ratios and final drive, alternative ratios offered, driveline configuration, and special features such as torque converter lockup clutches, electronic controls or CVT design.
          d. (i) The range of GVW ratings to be offered for each body type.
          (ii) The range of test weights for each body type.
          e. All wheelbases.

          f. Estimated power absorption unit (PAU) setting, in hp. Alternately, the total road load horsepower at 50 miles per hour can be provided.

          g. The range of projected EPA composite fuel economies for each body type in the initial model year of production.
          h. Projected introduction date (model year).
          i. Projected sales for each model year from the projected year of introduction through MY 2010, expressed both as an absolute number of units sold and as percentage of all light trucks sold by respondent.
          j. Projections of:
          (i) Existing models replaced by new models.
          (ii) Reduced sales of respondent's existing models as a result of the sale of each of the new models.
          (iii) New sales not captured from any of the respondent's existing models.
          4. Does respondent project introducing any variants of existing basic engines or any new basic engines, other than those mentioned in your response to Question 3, in its light truck fleets in MYs 2005-2010? If so, for each basic engine or variant indicate:
          a. The projected year of introduction,
          b. Type (e.g., spark ignition, direct injection diesel, 2-cycle, alternative fuel use),
          c. Displacement,
          d. Type of induction system (e.g., fuel injection with turbocharger, naturally aspirated),
          e. Cylinder configuration (e.g., V-8, V-6, I-4),
          f. Number of valves per cylinder (e.g., 2, 3, 4, 6),
          g. Horsepower and torque ratings,

          h. Models in which engines are to be used, giving the introduction model year for each model if different from “a,” above. (See Table B for a sample format.)
          5. Relative to MY 2001 levels, for MYs 2005-2010, please provide information, by truckline and as an average effect on a manufacturer's entire light truck fleet, on the weight and/or fuel economy impacts of the following standards or equipment:
          a. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS 208) Automatic Restraints
          b. FMVSS 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact
          c. Voluntary installation of safety equipment (e.g., antilock brakes)
          d. Environmental Protection Agency regulations
          e. California Air Resources Board requirements.
          f. Other applicable motor vehicle regulations affecting fuel economy.
          6. For each of the model years 2005-2010, and for each light truck model projected to be manufactured by respondent (if answers differ for the various models), provide the requested information for each of items “6a” through “6q” listed below:
          (i) description of the nature of the technological improvement;
          (ii) the percent fuel economy improvement averaged over the model;
          (iii) the basis for your answer to 6(ii), (e.g., data from dynamometer tests conducted by respondent, engineering analysis, computer simulation, reports of test by others);
          (iv) the percent production implementation rate and the reasons limiting the implementation rate;
          (v) a description of the 2001 baseline technologies and the 2001 implementation rate; and
          (vi) the reasons for differing answers you provide to items (ii) and (iv) for different models in each model year. Include as a part of your answer to 6(ii) and 6(iv) a tabular presentation, a sample portion of which is shown in Table C.
          a. Improved automatic transmissions. Projections of percent fuel economy improvements should include benefits of lock-up or bypassed torque converters, electronic control of shift points and torque converter lock-up, and other measures which should be described.
          b. Improved manual transmissions. Projections of percent of fuel economy improvement should include the benefits of increasing mechanical efficiency, using improved transmission lubricants, and other measures (specify).
          c. Overdrive transmissions. If not covered in “a” or “b” above, project the percentage of fuel economy improvement attributable to overdrive transmissions (integral or auxiliary gear boxes), two-speed axles, or other similar devices intended to increase the range of available gear ratios. Describe the devices to be used and the application by model, engine, axle ratio, etc.
          d. Use of engine crankcase lubricants of lower viscosity or with additives to improve friction characteristics or accelerate engine break-in, or otherwise improved lubricants to lower engine friction horsepower. When describing the 2001 baseline, specify the viscosity of and any fuel economy-improving additives used in the factory-fill lubricants.
          e. Reduction of engine parasitic losses through improvement of engine-driven accessories or accessory drives. Typical engine-driven accessories include water pump, cooling fan, alternator, power steering pump, air conditioning compressor, and vacuum pump.

          f. Reduction of tire rolling losses, through changes in inflation pressure, use of materials or constructions with less hysteresis, geometry changes (e.g., increased aspect ratio), reduction in sidewall and tread deflection, and other methods. When describing the 2001 baseline, include a description of the tire types used and the percent usage rate of each type.

          g. Reduction in other driveline losses, including losses in the non-powered wheels, the differential assembly, wheel bearings, universal joints, brake drag losses, use of improved lubricants in the differential and wheel bearing, and optimizing suspension geometry (e.g., to minimize tire scrubbing loss).
          h. Reduction of aerodynamic drag.
          i. Turbocharging or supercharging.
          j. Improvements in the efficiency of 4-cycle spark ignition engines including (1) increased compression ratio; (2) leaner air-to-fuel ratio; (3) revised combustion chamber configuration; (4) fuel injection; (5) electronic fuel metering; (6) interactive electronic control of engine operating parameters (spark advance, exhaust gas recirculation, air-to-fuel ratio); (8) variable valve timing or valve lift; (9) multiple valves per cylinder; (10) friction reduction by means such as low tension piston rings and roller cam followers; (11) higher temperature operation; and (12) other methods (specify).
          k. Naturally aspirated diesel engines, with direct or indirect fuel injection.
          l. Turbocharged or supercharged diesel engines with direct or indirect fuel injection.
          m. Stratified-charge reciprocating or rotary engines, with direct or indirect fuel injection.
          n. Two cycle spark ignition engines.
          o. Use of hybrid drivetrains.
          p. Use of fuel cells; provide a thorough description of the fuel cell technology employed, including fuel type and power output.
          q. Other technologies for improving fuel economy or efficiency.
          7. For each model of respondent's light truck fleet projected to be manufactured in each of MYs 2005-2010, describe the methods used to achieve reductions in average test weight. For each specified model year and model, describe the extent to which each of the following methods for reducing vehicle weight will be used. Separate listings are to be used for 4x2 light trucks and 4x4 light trucks.
          a. Substitution of materials.

          b. “Downsizing” of existing vehicle design to reduce weight while maintaining interior roominess and comfort for passengers, and utility, i.e., the same or approximately the same, payload and cargo volume, using the same basic body configuration and driveline layout as current counterparts.
          c. Use of new vehicle body configuration concepts, which provides reduced weight for approximately the same payload and cargo volume.
          8. For each model year 2005-2010, list all projected light truck model types and provide the information specified in “a” through “i” below for each model type.
          The information should be in tabular form, with a separate table for each model year. Each grouping is to be subdivided into separate listings for models with 4x2 and 4x4 drive systems. Engines having the same displacement but belonging to different engine families are to be grouped separately. The vehicles are to be sorted first by truckline, second by basic engine, and third by transmission type. For these groupings, the average test weights are to be placed in ascending order. List the categories in terms “a” through “i” below in the order specified from left to right across the top of the table. Include in the table for each model year the total sales-weighted harmonic average fuel economy and average test weight for imported and domestic light trucks for each truckline and for all of the respondent's light trucks.
          a. Truckline, e.g., C1500, F-150, B-150. Model types which are essentially identical except for their nameplates (e.g., Chevrolet S-10/GMC S-15 and Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager) may be combined into one line item.
          b. Light truck vehicle type, e.g., compact pickup, cargo van, passenger van, utility, truck-based station wagon, and chassis cab. Other light truck designations, which are adequately defined, can be used if these are not suitable.

          c. Basic engine: Include the engine characteristics used in Definition 3.

          d. Transmission class (e.g., A3, L4, A40D, M5, CVT): Include the characteristics used in Definition 16.
          e. Average ratio of engine speed to vehicle speed in top gear (N/V), rounded to one decimal place.
          f. Average test weight.
          g. Average PAU setting: Provide the value and show whether the value (or estimated value) is based on coastdown testing (T) or calculated from the vehicle frontal area (C). Round the PAU value to one decimal Place. Alternately, the total road load horsepower at 50 miles per hour can be provided.
          h. Composite fuel economy (Sales weighted, harmonically averaged over the specified vehicles, rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg).
          i. Projected sales for the vehicles described in each line item.
          9. For each transmission identified in response to 8(d) above, provide a listing showing whether the transmission is manual or automatic, the gear ratios for the transmission, and the models which will use the transmission.

          10. Indicate any MY 2005-2010 light truck model types which have higher average test weights than comparable MY 2001 model types. Describe the reasons for any weight increases (e.g., increased option content, less use of premium materials) and provide supporting justification.
          11. For each new or redesigned vehicle identified in response to Question 3 and each new engine or fuel economy improvement identified in your response to Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6, provide your best estimate of the following, in terms of constant 2001 dollars:
          (a) Total capital costs required to implement the new/redesigned model or improvement according to the implementation schedules specified in your response. Subdivide the capital costs into tooling, facilities, launch, and engineering costs.
          (b) The maximum production capacity, expressed in units of capacity per year, associated with the capital expenditure in (a) above. Specify the number of production shifts on which your response is based and define “maximum capacity” as used in your answer.
          (c) The actual capacity that is planned to be used each year for each new/redesigned model or fuel economy improvement.
          (d) The increase in variable costs per affected unit, based on the production volume specified in (b) above.
          (e) The equivalent retail price increase per affected vehicle for each new/redesigned model or improvement. Provide an example describing methodology used to determine the equivalent retail price increase.
          12. Please provide respondent's actual and projected U.S. light truck sales, 4x2 and 4x4, 0-8,500 lbs. GVWR and 8501-10,000 lbs., GVWR for each model year from 2001 through 2004, inclusive. Please subdivide the data into the following vehicle categories:
          i. Standard Pickup Heavy (e.g., C2500/3500, F-250/350, Ram 2500/3500)
          ii. Standard Pickup Light (e.g., C1500, F-150, Ram 1500)
          iii. Compact Pickup (e.g., S-10, Ranger, Dakota)
          iv. Standard Cargo Vans Heavy (e.g., G3500, E-250/350, B3500)
          v. Standard Cargo Vans Light (e.g., G1500/2500, E-150, B1500/2500)
          vi. Standard Passenger Vans Heavy (e.g., G3500, E-250/350, B3500)
          vii. Standard Passenger Vans Light (e.g., G1500/2500, E-150, B1500/2500)
          viii. Compact Cargo Vans (e.g., Astro, Aerostar, Mini Ram Van)
          ix. Compact Passenger Vans (e.g., Astro, Villager, Voyager)
          x. Standard Utilities (e.g., K1500 Tahoe, Expedition)
          xi. Compact Utilities (e.g., Blazer, Explorer, Wrangler, RAV4)
          xii. Other (e.g., Suburban) See Table D for a sample format.
          13. Please provide your estimates of projected total industry U.S. light (0-10,000 lbs, GVWR) truck sales for each model year from 2005 through 2010, inclusive. Please subdivide the data into 4x2 and 4x4 sales and into the vehicle categories listed in the sample format in Table E.
          14. Please provide your company's assumptions for U.S. gasoline and diesel fuel prices during 2005 through 2010.
          15. Please provide projected production capacity available for the North American market (at standard production rates) for each of your company's light truckline designations during MYs 2005-2010.
          16. Please provide your estimate of production lead-time for new models, your expected model life in years, and the number of years over which tooling costs are amortized.

            Note:
            The parenthetical numbers in Tables A through E refer to the items in section III, specifications.

            Table A.—New Models—Model: A-1 Standard Pickup
            [Drivetrain Configuration: 4x2, Front Engine/Rear Drive]

              Body type (3a.)
              Passenger volume, ft 3

              Number of seating positions
              Cargo volume, ft 3

              Wheelbase, in. (3e.)
              PAU Setting, hp. (3f.)

              Regular cab, short bed
              50
              3
              48
              115
              7.5

              Regular cab, long bed
              50
              3
              64
              133
              7.8

              Extended cab, long bed
              75
              4
              64
              151
              8.2

              Crew cab, long bed
              100
              6
              64
              170
              9.0

              Engine options (3b.)
              Config./number of cyl.

              Fuel system

              Hp @ RPMTorque @ RPM

              160 CID, Turbocharged 1

              I-4
              MPI
              140 @ 4200
              90 @ 3400

              235 CID
              V-6
              TBI
              150 @ 3800
              125 @ 2800

              235 CID, 4-valve 2

              V-6
              MPI
              180 @ 4500
              130 @ 3200

              285 CID
              V-8
              MPI
              200 @ 4200
              150 @ 3000

              1 Not available with crew cab.

              2 Available with automatic transmission only.

              Ratios (3c.)
              Transmission type
              Manual overdrive
              Manual creeper

              Automatic with
                electronic
                controls
                and TCLU

              1st Gear
              4.50
              6.50
              3.20

              2nd Gear
              3.00
              3.60
              2.50

              3rd Gear
              1.75
              1.80
              1.50

              4th Gear
              1.00
              1.00
              1.00

              5th Gear
              0.80

              Reverse Gear
              4.70
              6.10
              3.00

              Torque Converter

              2.10

              Axle
              3.54/3.73
              3.54/3.73
              3.23/3.54

            Table B.—New Engines

              Body type (3a.)
              Range of GVWR
                (3d.(i))

              Range of test weights
                (3d.(ii))

              Range of composite fuel economy ratings (3g.)

              Regular Cab, Short Bed
              6,050-7,000
              4,250-4,500
              16.0-17.5

              Regular Cab, Long Bed
              6,100-7,200
              4,250-4,500
              16.0-17.2

              Extended Cab, Long Bed
              6,100-7,400
              4,500-5,000
              15.5-17.0

              Crew Cab, Long Bed
              6,300-7,800
              4,500-5,000
              14.5-16.5

              Model year
              Production (3i)

              Share of fleet, % (3i)

              Notes (3h, 3j)

              2001
              36,000
              5
              Mid-year introduction, North American production.

              2002
              78,000
              10

              2004
              110,000
              13
              Extended cab introduced.

              2005
              120,000
              14
              Facelift.

              Model year (3j.)
              New model designation
              Model replaced or augmented
              Sales derived from old model
              Additional sales
                anticipated

                New Models

              2002
              A—Std Pickup
              T—Std Pickup
              20,000
              10,000

              2003
              A—Std Pickup
              T—Std Pickup
              50,000
              30,000

            Table C.—Technology Improvements

              Technological improvement
              Percent
              Percent production share
              2002
              2003
              004
              2005
              2006

              (6a.) Improved Auto Trans.:

              LT-1
              7.0
              0
              0
              15
              25
              55

              LT-2
              6.5
              0
              0
              0
              20
              25

              LT-3
              5.0
              0
              10
              30
              60
              60

              (6b) Improved Manual Trans.:

              LV-1
              1.0
              2
              5
              5
              5
              5

              U-1
              0.7
              0
              0
              0
              8
              10

              1 Percent fuel economy improvement.

              Year of introduction by model (4a./h.)
              Type (4b.)
              Displacement, L. (4c.)

              Induction system (4d.)
              Configuration (4c.)
              Valves per cylinde
                r(4f.)

              Horsepower @ rpm (4g.)
              Torque, lb-ft @ rpm (4g.)

                New/Redesigned Engines

              2002—Std Pickups
              2-cycle Diesel
              4.42
              Turbo-charged, Direct injection
              W-9
              3
              250@4000
              190@3500

              2004—Std Vans

            Table D.—Actual and Projected U.S. Sales Amalgamated Motors 2WD Light Truck Sales Projections

              Model line
              Model year
              2001
              2002
              2003
              2004
              2005
              etc.

              0-8,500 lbs.GVWR:

              Std Pickup Heavy
              43,500

              Std Pickup Light
              509,340

              Compact Pickup
              120,000

              Std Cargo Van Heavy
              60,000

              Std Cargo Van Light
              20,000

              Compact Cargo Van
              29,310

              Std Passenger Van Heavy
              54,196

              Std Passenger Van Light
              38,900

              Compact Passenger Van
              30,000

              Std Utility
              53,800

              Compact Utility
              44,000

              Other (Specify)

              8,501-10,000 Lbs.GVWR:

              Std Pickup Heavy
              5,500

              Std Vans Heavy
              4,000

              Other (Specify)

              Total
              1,012,546

            Table E.—Total U.S. Truck Sales

              Model type
              2001
              2002
              2003
              2004
              2005
              2002

              1. 2WD Light Trucks

              a. Pickup

              Compact

              Mid-size

              Standard

              b. Cargo Vans

              Compact

              Standard

              c. Passenger Vans

              Compact

              Standard

              d. Utilities

              Compact

              Standard

              Pass. Car Based

              e. Truck Based Station Wagons

              f. Other (Specify)

              2. 4WD Light Trucks [Same Breakout as 2WD]

              3. Total Light Trucks [2WD + 4WD]

            Dated: April 16, 2002.
            Stephen R. Kratzke,
            Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

      [FR Doc. 02-9736 Filed 4-17-02; 3:21 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 030818203-3203-01; I.D. 071503D]
        RIN 0648-AR32
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Observer Program

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to amend regulations governing the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program). This action is necessary to amend current regulations to provide flexibility in the deployment of observers in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the coast of Alaska. This action is intended to ensure continued collection of high quality observer data to support the management objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs) and to promote the goals and objectives contained in those FMPs.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by October 3, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments may be mailed to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Durall. Hand delivery or courier delivery of comments may be sent to NMFS, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420, Juneau, AK 99801. Comments may also be sent via facsimile to 907-586-7557. Comments will not be accepted if submitted by email or the Internet. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this proposed regulatory action and the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the Extension of the Interim North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program beyond 2002 are available from NMFS at the above address, or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at (907) 586-7228.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jason Anderson, 907-586-7228 or jason.anderson@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) in the Exclusive Economic Zone under the FMPs. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
        The Council adopted and NMFS implemented the Interim Groundfish Observer Program (Interim Program) in 1996, which superseded the North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan (Research Plan). The requirements of the Interim Program were extended through 1997 (61 FR 56425, November 1, 1996), again through 1998 (62 FR 67755, December 30, 1997), again through 2000 (63 FR 69024, December 15, 1998), again through 2002 (65 FR 80381, December 21, 2000), and again through 2007 (67 FR 72595, December 6, 2002). The Interim Program provides the framework for the collection of data by observers to obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries managed under the FMPs. Further, it authorizes mandatory observer coverage requirements for vessels and shoreside processors and establishes vessel, processor, and contractor responsibilities relating to the Observer Program.

        A final rule to amend regulations governing observer coverage requirements for vessels and shoreside processors in the North Pacific Groundfish Fisheries was published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2003 (68 FR 715). The intent of the final rule was to address concerns about: (1) Shoreside processor observer coverage; (2) shoreside processor observer logistics; (3) observer coverage requirements for vessels fishing with groundfish pot gear; and (4) confidentiality of observer personal information. This proposed rule is intended to correct and clarify specific provisions of the January 7, 2003, final rule.
        This proposed rule would amend the current regulations to allow an observer to be housed: (1) On a stationary floating processor; (2) on a vessel he or she will be assigned to for a time period prior to the vessel's departure from port necessary to coordinate the vessel observer's deployment logistics and vessel departure plans; (3) on a vessel for 24 hours following the completion of an offload where the observer has duties and is scheduled to disembark; and (4) on a vessel for 24 hours following the vessel's arrival in port when the observer is scheduled to disembark.
        Subsequent to publication of the January 7, 2003, final rule, Observer Program staff received comments from two separate observer providers concerned with their ability to effectively deploy observers under the current regulations at § 679.50 (i)(2)(vi). In order to account for potential logistics problems, both observer providers described a common practice whereby observers are flown to their port of departure 3 or 4 days before the vessel is scheduled to depart. Flight cancellations and delays due to weather are common so fishing companies often request that observers arrive prior to their anticipated departure date.
        Observers often arrive at their assigned vessel and encounter delays in the vessel's departure. Vessel operators are often unable to predict exactly when they will be able to leave port for a fishing trip due to weather, mechanical failure, labor disputes, and other unanticipated problems. These delays result in periods of time where an observer may be housed on an assigned vessel that is not traveling to fishing grounds or actively involved in fishing.
        As observers arrive, they move onto their assigned vessels and await departure. Under current regulations, observers may not be housed on vessels they are assigned to until 24 hours prior to their departure time. In their attempt to mitigate potential logistical problems and expenses, observer providers may, at times, be in violation of current regulations. This action is meant to provide fishing operations with planning flexibility to deal with these uncertainties, and give observer providers improved opportunities to serve their customers.
        The action would have an effect on observers equivalent to the lengthening of a fishing trip. Observers would receive normal contracted compensation for the additional days spent on vessels. Moreover, fishing operations would pay for the extra days of observer availability. This would provide an incentive to the fishing operation to only contract for the additional days that were absolutely necessary to deal with the departure uncertainty.
        The proposed regulations also provide for housing aboard stationary floating processors. Current regulations at 679.50(i)(2)(vi)(B) govern the housing requirements for observers assigned to shoreside processing facilities and for observers between vessel or shoreside assignments while still under contract to an observer provider. Observers are commonly deployed to stationary floating processors and catcher vessels delivering to stationary floating processors. Stationary floating processors are often in remote locations and observers are commonly housed on these stationary floating processors before, after, and in between catcher vessel assignments and while assigned to a stationary floating processor. During review of current regulations at 679.50(i)(2)(vi)(B) and (C), NMFS realized stationary floating processors were not accounted for as possible accommodations for observers deployed to catcher vessels delivering to these stationary floating processors. This action would extend the requirements to observers being deployed in these circumstances. Given the remoteness of these stationary floating processors, NMFS considers the practice of housing observers deployed to catcher vessels delivering to stationary floating processors reasonable. Accommodation requirements at 679.50(i)(2)(vi)(B) for observers being housed on stationary floating processors are the same as those for a licensed hotel, motel, bed and breakfast, or other shoreside accommodations.
        Regulations at 679.50(i)(2)(vi)(C) would be amended to clarify that these housing requirements apply to observers under contract.

        Further, during review of these regulations, NMFS noticed that 679.50(i)(2)(vi)(C)(2) and (3) were the same. The proposed amendment to the regulations would clarify NMFS intent by accounting for two housing situations where the observer is scheduled to disembark the vessel. First, the observer could be housed on a vessel for up to 24 hours following the completion of an offload where the observer has duties and is scheduled to disembark. This accounts for assignments to catcher boats which target pollock and the observer is required to monitor the offload for prohibited species. Second, the observer could be housed on a vessel for 24 hours following the vessel's arrival in port where the observer is scheduled to disembark. This accounts for assignments to all other vessels where the observer's duties are complete upon arrival to port.
        This proposed rule would amend regulations at 679.50(i)(2)(vi)(D) by moving text to the preamble. It is a requirement that observers are provided housing within the standards outlined in the regulations. Therefore, it is implied that alternative housing must be arranged if the conditions in paragraph D are not met. This statement is interpretive and does not change the intent of NMFS.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared to evaluate the impacts of this action on directly regulated small entities in compliance with the requirements of Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The reasons for the action, its objectives, and its legal basis have been described earlier in the preamble. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
          ADDRESSES).
        For the proposed actions, the small regulated entities include: (1) Fishing vessels with observer coverage requirements and total annual gross revenues of less than $3.5 million from all the operation's commercial activity taken together; (2) processing facilities with observer coverage requirements and fewer than 500 employees, when all their affiliated operations, worldwide, are combined; (3) the CDQ groups; and (4) observer providers. Therefore about 330 small regulated entities could be affected by the proposed rule, or about 215 if the catcher vessels in the AFA pollock cooperatives are excluded.
        The preferred alternative does not appear to have adverse impacts on small entities. The alternative would amend the current regulations to allow an observer to be housed: (1) On a stationary floating processor; (2) on a vessel he or she will be assigned to for a time period prior to the vessel's departure from port necessary to coordinate the vessel observer's deployment logistics and vessel departure plans; (3) on a vessel for 24 hours following the completion of an offload where the observer has duties and is scheduled to disembark; and (4) on a vessel for 24 hours following the vessel's arrival in port when the observer is scheduled to disembark. This alternative provides better opportunities to deal with the uncertainties associated with vessel operations and subsequent placement of the observer.
        The status quo is the alternative to the preferred action. The status quo would not clarify the regulations or provide fishing operations with additional flexibility to deal with the uncertainties  associated with the deployment of observers. The status quo was rejected because it would not accomplish the objectives of the action, and because it would have a relatively adverse impact on small entities.
        This regulation does not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on the regulated small entities. This analysis did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed action.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: August 27, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
          1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.

          2. In § 679.50, paragraphs (i)(2)(vi)(B), (C), and (D) are revised to read as follows:

            § 679.50
            Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December 31, 2007.

            (i) * * *
            (2) * * *
            (vi) * * *
            (B) Except as provided in paragraphs (i)(2)(vi)(C) and (i)(2)(vi)(D) of this section, each observer deployed to a shoreside processing facility or stationary floating processor, and each observer between vessel, stationary floating processor or shoreside assignments while still under contract with a permitted observer provider, shall be provided with accommodations at a licensed hotel, motel, bed and breakfast, stationary floating processor, or other shoreside accommodations for the duration of each shoreside assignment or period between vessel or shoreside assignments. Such accommodations must include an assigned bed for each observer and no other person may be assigned that bed for the duration of that observer's stay. Additionally, no more than four beds may be in any room housing observers at accommodations meeting the requirements of this section.
            (C) An observer under contract may be housed on a vessel he or she will be, or currently is, assigned to for a period not to exceed:
            (1) The time period prior to the vessel's departure from port necessary to coordinate the vessel observer's deployment logistics and vessel departure plans;
            (2) Twenty-four hours following the completion of an offload when the observer has duties and is scheduled to disembark; or
            (3) Twenty-four hours following the vessel's arrival in port when the observer is scheduled to disembark.
            (D) During all periods an observer is housed on a vessel, the observer provider must ensure that the vessel operator or at least one crew member is aboard.

      [FR Doc. 03-22456 Filed 9-2-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 16
        RIN 1018-AG70
        Injurious Wildlife Species; Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus); Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Economic Analysis

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and availability of supplemental information.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment and draft economic analysis for public comment. These documents supplement the information in the proposed rule to add all forms (diploid and triploid) of live black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus), gametes, and viable eggs to the list of injurious fish, mollusks, and crustaceans under the Lacey Act. We are also soliciting public comments on all aspects of the proposed rule.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted on or before October 31, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:

          The documents are available from the Chief, Division of Environmental Quality, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop 322, Arlington, Virginia 22203; FAX (703) 358-1800. They also are available on our webpage at http://contaminants.fws.gov/Issues/InvasiveSpecies.cfm. Comments may be hand-delivered, mailed, or sent by fax to the address listed above. Alternatively, you may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: BlackCarp@fws.gov. See the Public Comments Solicited section below for file format and other information about electronic filing.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Erin Williams, Division of Environmental Quality, Branch of Invasive Species, at (703) 358-2034 or erin_williams@fws.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        In February 2000, we were petitioned to list black carp as an injurious species of wildlife under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). We published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to add all forms (diploid and triploid) of live black carp to the list of injurious fish, mollusks, and crustaceans under the Lacey Act on July 30, 2002 (67 FR 49280); the comment period on the proposed rule closed on September 30, 2002. On June 4, 2003 (68 FR 33431), we reopened the comment period until August 4, 2003. We evaluated 103 comments received during the two comment periods on the proposed rule. We have also recently received new information relevant to the proposed listing from the aquaculture industry that we intend to consider during the development of the final rulemaking documents. This information can be accessed for public review using the contact information provided in the ADDRESSES section above. This notice announces the availability of a draft environmental assessment and draft economic analysis for the proposed rule. We are soliciting public comments on these documents as well as all other aspects of the July 30, 2002, proposed rule. We are particularly interested in comments on alternatively listing the diploid (fertile) form only, including gametes and viable eggs. A listing of the diploid (fertile) form would have the effect of prohibiting the importation of live diploid black carp, gametes, or viable eggs into the United States and prohibiting the movement of live diploid black carp, gametes, or viable eggs between States without a permit issued by the Director of the Service. A listing of all forms (diploid and triploid) would have the effect of prohibiting the importation of all live black carp, gametes, or viable eggs into the United States and prohibiting the movement of all live black carp, gametes, or viable eggs between States without a permit issued by the Director of the Service. The purpose of the draft environmental assessment is to evaluate three alternatives associated with the proposed rule to list black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) as an injurious species under the Lacey Act. The purpose of the draft economic analysis is to analyze the potential economic impact if the proposed rule were adopted as published.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We are soliciting substantive public comments and supporting data on the draft environmental assessment, the draft economic analysis, and the proposal to add all forms (diploid and triploid) of live black carp to the list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act. Additionally, we are seeking comments and supporting data on the consideration of adding only live diploid (fertile) forms of black carp to the list of injurious wildlife. Listing the diploid form only would prohibit the importation and interstate movement of diploid live black carp, and would not prohibit the importation and interstate movement of live triploid (sterile) black carp. Comments already submitted on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in our decisionmaking.
        The Service solicits substantive public comment on the following issues:
        1. How many black carp (diploid, triploid, or both) are currently in use in how many States? If a permit is required, please provide the number of black carp permitted for the past 15 years.
        2. Are data available regarding the number of channel catfish, baitfish, or hybrid striped bass farms that use diploid, triploid, or both diploid and triploid black carp? What is the total acreage of black carp (diploid, triploid, or both) used?

        3. Are data available to model the degree to which black carp are an effective biological control for snails and trematode outbreaks (i.e., mortality rates, growth rates, and disease susceptibility)?
        4. Are data available to estimate the cost of alternative biological and chemical methods to control snails and trematode outbreaks if diploid and triploid black carp are listed under the Lacey Act? Are data available to estimate the cost of alternative biological and chemical methods to control snails and trematode outbreaks if only diploid black carp are listed under the Lacey Act? Please provide data regarding the alternative methodologies and effectiveness and associated costs and benefits of the alternative(s) (chemical, biological, water level manipulation, or any combination of the three).
        5. Are data available to estimate the costs associated with ponds that suffer light (loss of 200 pounds), moderate (loss between 200-2,000 pounds) or severe (loss over 2,000 pounds) outbreaks?
        6. Are estimates available for the cost to remediate a pond that suffers light (loss of 200 pounds), moderate (loss between 200-2,000 pounds), and severe (loss over 2,000 pounds) outbreaks?
        7. Are data available to estimate the rate at which trematode outbreaks occurred between the 1970s and 2005?
        8. Are data available to estimate the rate at which trematode outbreaks are expected to change over the next 10 years, both with and without the use of black carp?
        9. Have studies been conducted to evaluate other biological and/or chemical methods to disrupt the life cycle of parasites currently controlled using black carp?

        10. Are data available to estimate the impact to catfish, baitfish, and hybrid striped bass industries if diploid and triploid black carp are listed under the Lacey Act?
        11. Are data available to estimate the impact to catfish, baitfish, and hybrid striped bass industries if only diploid black carp are listed under the Lacey Act?
        12. Are data available for the retail cost of triploid animals? Are data available for the retail cost of diploid animals?
        13. Are data available for the cost of restocking based on the ease of capture when ponds are seined and fish discarded as offal at catfish processing plants? What is the cost of restocking, and how does either alternative affect restocking?
        14. Are data available for the costs for implementing 100% certified triploid black carp using the Coulter Counter® method? What are the protocols for sampling triploid black carp using this method? Are data available showing the effectiveness in identifying triploid black carp using the Coulter Counter® method?
        15. Are data available for the costs for implementing 100% certified triploid black carp using the flow cytometry method? What are the protocols for sampling triploid black carp using this method? Are data available showing the effectiveness in identifying triploid black carp using the flow cytometry method?
        16. Are there other scientifically proven methods to ensure 100% certification of triploid black carp?
        17. Is information/data available on the costs of providing escape-proof containment of both triploid and diploid black carp? Movement may include transportation, wildlife, floods or other natural events.
        18. Are data available on the costs to eradicate black carp individuals and/or populations or similar nonnative populations, if found?
        19. Are data available on the costs of implementing native mollusk propagation, recovery, and restoration programs? Are data available on the State-listed species that would be impacted by the introduction of diploid or triploid black carp?
        20. Are data available on the costs to re-establish mussel and snail populations that may have been impacted by spills (or other events) or may be impacted by black carp?
        21. Are data available on the economic value of mussel shells used in the cultured pearl and jewelry industries?
        Submit comments and data as identified in ADDRESSES. If you submit documentation by e-mail, please submit it as an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please include “Attn: [RIN 1018-AG70]” in your e-mail subject line and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our office at telephone number 703-358-2148 during normal business hours. Please note that this e-mail address will be closed at the termination of the public comment period.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

          Authority:
          18 U.S.C. 42.

          Dated: August 24, 2005.
          Paul Hoffman,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 05-17173 Filed 8-29-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-U


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 391
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2005-23151]
        RIN 2126-AA95
        Qualifications of Drivers; Diabetes Standard

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          FMCSA announces that it is considering whether to amend its medical qualifications standards to allow the operation of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce by drivers with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) whose physical conditions are adequate to allow them to operate safely and without deleterious effects on their health. At present, drivers with ITDM are required to obtain exemptions before operating CMVs. Upon completion of this rulemaking, drivers with ITDM might not be required to apply for exemptions from the current rule prohibiting such drivers from operating in interstate commerce. However, unless and until the agency changes the current standard in this rulemaking, drivers with ITDM are prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce, unless such individuals have exemptions from FMCSA. Any action to revise the current standard would be made in conformity with the changes in FMCSA's existing authority to establish, review and revise physical and medical qualification standards for drivers made by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which added, among other changes, a requirement that the standards be developed with the assistance of expert medical advice.

          DATES:
          You must submit comments concerning this ANPRM on or before June 15, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to the DOT Docket Management System Number in the heading of this document by any of the following methods. Do not submit the same comments by more than one method. However, in order to allow effective public participation in this rulemaking before the comment period deadline, the Agency encourages use of the Web site that is listed first. It will provide the most efficient and timely method of receiving and processing your comments.
          • The Web site:
             http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the organization name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number for this regulatory action. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. Refer to the Privacy Act heading for further information. If addressing a specific request for comments in this ANPRM, please clearly identify the related section heading or question number for each topic addressed in your comments.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL- 401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

          Comments received after the comment closing date will be included in the docket and the agency will consider late comments to the extent practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue a notice of proposed rulemaking at any time after the close of the comment period.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical Qualifications Division, FMCSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8301, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4001.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Copies or abstracts of all documents referenced in this notice are in the docket for this rulemaking: FMCSA-2005-23151.
        Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
        FMCSA has authority (delegated from the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) by 49 CFR 1.73) to establish the minimum qualifications, including medical and physical qualifications, for drivers of CMVs operated in interstate commerce. 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3) and 31502(b). As amended by section 4116(b) of SAFETEA-LU, (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1728, Aug. 10, 2005), section 31136(a)(3) requires that, at a minimum, safety regulations shall ensure that the physical conditions of operators of CMVs adequately enable them to operate the vehicles safely and that the periodic physical examinations required of such operators are performed by medical examiners who have received training in physical and medical examination standards.
        These new provisions added by SAFETEA-LU are clearly intended to ensure that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSRs”) contain physical qualification standards that reflect the advice of the agency's newly authorized Medical Review Board and Chief Medical Examiner. 49 U.S.C. 31149(a) and (b).1
           Under new section 31149(c), the Agency, with the advice of the board and the chief medical examiner, is directed to “establish, review and revise * * * medical standards for operators of commercial motor vehicles that will ensure that the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely.” The purpose of these provisions in section 31149 is to ensure that the physical and medical qualifications standards for CMV drivers reflect up-to date, expert medical advice drawn from “expertise in a variety of medical specialties relevant to the driver fitness requirements.” 49 U.S.C. 31149(a)(2) and House Conf. Report No. 109-203 (July 28, 2005) at 990.

            1 New section 31149, added by section 4116(a) of SAFETEA-LU, becomes effective on August 10, 2006, in accordance with section 4116(f), 119 Stat. 1728, (Aug. 10, 2005) (set out as a note to 49 U.S.C. 31149). However, FMCSA has already announced the establishment of the Medical Review Board under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 70 FR 57642 (Oct. 3, 2005).

        In addition to the statutory factors that are specific to the physical qualifications of CMV drivers, FMCSA must also consider another factor. Any physical and medical qualifications it establishes or revises must ensure, at a minimum, that “the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of operators” as required by 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(4) and Public Citizen et al. v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 374 F.3d 1209, 1216 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The D.C. Circuit noted, in that case however, that it was not “suggest[ing] that the statute requires the agency to protect driver health to the exclusion of those other factors [i.e., the costs and benefits of the rule], only that the agency must consider it.” Id. at 1217 (emphasis in original). In order to properly consider this factor in developing physical qualifications standards the agency must consider both (1) the effect of driver health on the safety of commercial motor vehicle operations; and (2) the effect of such operations on driver health.
        Finally, before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must also consider their “costs and benefits” 49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d). Those factors are also discussed in the Rulemaking Analysis section.
        History of Federal Regulation of Drivers With Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus
        Beginning in 1940, under the Interstate Commerce Commission's Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (4 FR 2294, June 7, 1939, effective date January 1, 1940), CMV drivers have been subject to urine glucose tests as part of medical examinations for determining whether a person is physically qualified to drive in interstate or foreign commerce. Starting in 1971 (35 FR 6458, April 22, 1970, effective date January 1, 1971), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (the predecessor to FMCSA) established the current standard for drivers with ITDM. This standard states that a “person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.” 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). FHWA established the standard, in consultation with medical advisers, mainly because several crash studies indicated that drivers with ITDM had higher rates of crashes compared to the general driving population.
        FHWA then became engaged in several activities to address the issue of drivers with ITDM and CMV operation. On March 28, 1977, FHWA published an ANPRM to solicit comments on the standard for drivers with ITDM (42 FR 16452). It terminated the rulemaking in November 1977 without amending the standard, after determining that the more substantive comments and the literature cited in the ANPRM supported the prohibition against the operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM because of highway safety concerns (42 FR 57488). On November 25, 1987, the agency published a new ANPRM (52 FR 45204) requesting comments on petitions from two individuals and the American Diabetes Association to eliminate the blanket prohibition against drivers with ITDM and to grant waivers on a case-by-case basis.

        In September 1987, the Conference on Diabetic Disorders and Commercial Drivers was held to review the drivers with ITDM standard in light of advances in the care of individuals with ITDM. Conference participants (physicians, scientists, Federal officials and representatives from the motor carrier industry) recommended that some drivers with ITDM could be qualified to drive depending upon insulin use and under certain conditions (e.g., absence of recurrent hypoglycemia, safe driving record) (FHWA, Conference on Diabetic Disorders and Commercial Drivers; Final Report, 1988). Following the conference, FHWA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (55 FR 41028, Oct. 5, 1990) requesting comments on a proposal to revise the drivers with ITDM standard to allow individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs and sponsored a 1990 risk assessment that estimated various levels of crashes among drivers with ITDM depending upon the severity of hypoglycemia (Federal Highway Administration, Insulin-using Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers, 1992). The level of crashes of drivers with ITDM was similar to that of drivers without diabetes mellitus. FHWA published a Notice of Intent to Issue Waivers on October 21, 1992 (57 FR 48011). This led to the July 29, 1993 waiver program (58 FR 40690), including the waiver requirements that a driver with ITDM have a three-year safe driving record while using insulin and regular medical examinations by a board-certified or board-eligible endocrinologist.

        The diabetes waiver program was terminated in 1996 in response to a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety v. FHWA, 28 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the court held that the vision waiver program was not consistent with the statutory standard that required that a waiver be “consistent with the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles.” 28 F.3d at 1293 (quoting former 49 U.S.C. App. 2505(f)). Although the decision initially affected only the vision waiver program, it had an impact on the diabetes program because of the similar approach used to determine driver eligibility. Those drivers holding waivers at the program's termination were allowed to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce under the grandfather provisions of 49 CFR 391.64.

        In 1998, section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 413-4 (TEA-21) (set out as a note to 49 U.S.C. 31305) directed the Secretary to determine the feasibility to develop “a practicable and cost-effective screening, operating and monitoring protocol” for allowing drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce “that would ensure a level of safety equal to or greater than that achieved with the current prohibition on individuals with insulin treated diabetes mellitus driving such vehicles.” As directed by section 4018, FHWA compiled and evaluated the available research and information. It assembled a panel of medical experts in the treatment of diabetes to investigate and report on the issues concerned with the treatment, medical screening and monitoring of ITDM individuals in the context of operating CMVs. FMCSA then submitted to Congress in July 2000 a report entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate Commercial Motor Vehicles in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,” (TEA-21 Report to Congress). The motor carrier regulatory functions of the FHWA were transferred to the FMCSA in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, Dec. 9, 1999. The Report to Congress concluded that it is feasible to establish a safe and practicable protocol with three components that would allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs. The three components included screening of qualified drivers, establishing operational requirements ensuring proper disease management by such drivers, and monitoring of safe driving behavior and proper disease management. For a detailed discussion of the report's findings and conclusions, refer to the notice published at 66 FR 39548 (July 31, 2001). The TEA-21 Report to Congress can be accessed in the docket in the heading of this notice FMCSA-2005-23151, item 1, in the DOT Docket Management System at: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p64/139973.tif; or http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf71/139973_web.pdf; or on FMCSA's Web site at: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/publications/medreports.htm.
        As a result of the conclusions found in the TEA-21 Report to Congress, the July 31, 2001 notice proposed to implement those conclusions and recommendations by issuing exemptions from the FMCSRs to allow operations of CMVs by drivers with ITDM. After receiving and considering comments on the proposed use of exemptions to implement the TEA-21 Report to Congress, FMCSA issued a Notice of Final Disposition establishing the procedures and protocols for implementing the exemptions for drivers with ITDM. 68 FR 52441 (September 3, 2003) (“2003 Notice”). In order to obtain an exemption, a CMV driver with ITDM must follow the basic requirements for obtaining an exemption set out in 49 CFR part 381, subpart C. FMCSA may not grant an exemption unless it would maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption. 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 49 CFR 381.305(a).
        In conformity with the conclusions of the TEA-21 Report to Congress, the 2003 Notice implemented, with a few modifications, the three components of the protocol recommended in the report, to allow drivers with ITDM to be qualified with an exemption from the FMCSRs to operate CMVs. FMCSA published the first notice granting exemptions to four drivers with ITDM on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52465), after notice and opportunity for public comment on May 5, 2005 (70 FR 23904).
        Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
        Section 4129 of SAFETEA-LU required FMCSA to begin, within 90 days of enactment, to revise the 2003 Notice to allow drivers who use insulin to treat diabetes to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with ITDM, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of TEA-21. Section 4129 required two substantive changes to be made in the exemption process set out in the 2003 Notice.2

            2 Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 Notice as a “final rule.” However, as indicated above, the 2003 Notice did not issue a “final rule” but did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions for drivers with ITDM.

        In order to accomplish these changes within the 90-day time frame established by section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the 2003 Notice. These revisions by FMCSA were necessary to respond to the specific changes mandated by section 4129(b) and (c). The changes are: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.

        Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that CMV drivers with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the 2003 Notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). All of the requirements set out in the 2003 Notice, other than those modified in the Notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), remain in effect.
        The changes to the exemption program (i.e., elimination of the requirement for three years of experience and establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use) became effective upon publication of the November 8, 2005 Notice. As this ANPRM indicates, FMCSA is considering whether to revise the FMCSRs to allow certain drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. Unless and until the agency issues a final rule, however, drivers with ITDM must continue to hold exemptions from the application of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate in interstate commerce.
        Requests for Information and Comments
        FMCSA requests responses to the following questions, as well as comments and data on other issues related to CMV drivers with ITDM who operate in interstate commerce:
        (1) Currently, CMV drivers with ITDM must hold an exemption from the ITDM prohibition to operate in interstate commerce. What modifications to the ITDM prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41 should FMCSA consider to enable such drivers to operate safely in interstate commerce without an exemption?

        (2) How should FMCSA ensure that health care professionals who might be applying any revised standards do so in a consistent and appropriate manner which ensures both that the physical conditions of such drivers are adequate to enable them to operate safely and that the operation of CMVs is not deleterious to their health?
        (3) FMCSA also requests public comments on the changes made in the current exemption program for CMV drivers with ITDM that were made by the November 8, 2005 Notice.
        (4) Should FMCSA allow medical examiners to assume responsibility for making an individual determination of the ITDM driver's ability to manage this health condition, or should the agency require the physician responsible for treating the driver's ITDM to certify the driver meets the revised diabetes standard?
        (5) Should the agency revise the medical certificate to be issued by the medical examiner to a driver with ITDM to include certification from the “treating physician” in addition to the medical examiner?

        (6) Each medical examiner has discretion to set the expiration date on a driver's medical certificate so that it is valid for any period up to 24 months, based on the examiner's determination of how often a driver needs to be re-examined, such as for a specific health condition (e.g., hypertension). What should the Federal standard maximum period of medical certification be for drivers with ITDM?
        (7) What changes in health condition of drivers with ITDM (e.g., hypoglycemia-induced incidents) should be reported? What changes in crash/incident data (e.g., each crash) should be reported? Who should be responsible for such reports? To whom should these reports be submitted?
        (8) A number of States offer exemption, waiver, or grandfather programs for drivers with ITDM. Other States do not allow drivers with ITDM to operate without an exception/exemption. Would States that prohibit drivers with ITDM from operating CMVs continue to do so or would States adopt rules comparable with the new Federal standard? How many drivers with ITDM are currently operating commercially in these States? If these States have any evidence as to whether ITDM drivers operating CMVs are as safe, safer, or less safe than non-insulin-treated diabetic drivers or non-diabetic drivers, FMCSA would like these States to provide such evidence or identify any sources where FMCSA may obtain such evidence. Also please describe any analysis that has been done on these ITDM drivers, and any special oversight that States conduct.

        (9) Should new and emerging therapies for treatment of diabetes mellitus be considered in reviewing and revising the current standard? If so, how? If a revised FMCSA standard for drivers with ITDM is established, how would new and emerging therapies, particularly injectable medications (e.g., incretin mimetics) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy, affect the implementation of a new standard?
        (10) What quantitative data are there on safety performance of drivers with ITDM? Do these studies link efficacy of medication and therapy with risk and incidence of crashes in commercial and non-commercial motor vehicles? If so, how?
        (11) How many individuals with ITDM are likely to enter the motor carrier occupation if the current medical standards are changed to allow them to drive in interstate commerce?

        (12) The TEA-21 Report to Congress discusses occupational and health risks and challenges for individuals with ITDM who operate CMVs. Are there additional occupational and health risks and challenges the TEA-21 Report to Congress did not discuss? Are there additional attributes of this occupation, which may make it particularly difficult for such drivers to manage their condition? Are these attributes characteristic of certain segments of the industry? Should individuals with ITDM be restricted to operating in only certain segments of the industry (e.g., driving locally or short-haul, but not long-haul)?
        (13) What are the potential operational stressors and physical impacts associated with CMV driving that may adversely impact a CMV operator with ITDM? Please provide references or available peer-reviewed research data.
        Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        FMCSA has determined this ANPRM is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this ANPRM as required by Executive Order 12866.
        The Agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions it may initiate in response to this ANPRM. FMCSA seeks comments on the following issues to guide our analysis for a potential notice of proposed rulemaking:
        (1) The costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the current regulations, including improving the current regulation and reasonably viable non-regulatory actions; and
        (2) Any preliminary impact assessments of these regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives on the health of CMV drivers with ITDM.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), (RFA) requires Federal agencies to analyze the impact of regulatory alternatives on small entities, unless FMCSA certifies that a regulatory alternative will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and to consider non-regulatory alternatives that could achieve our goal while minimizing the burden on small entities.
        The Agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions it may initiate in response to this ANPRM.
        FMCSA requests comments and data from the public on how potential alternatives may impact small motor carriers, including owner-operators, who may employ or use a driver with ITDM. This information would represent a major input to estimating the costs of any potential alternatives on small entities. The agency also specifically requests comments on the benefits of potential alternatives. In addition, FMCSA asks entities and associations of small entities to identify their gross revenues.
        Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        Although the agency believes there are no Federalism issues, the agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). As stated earlier in this ANPRM, FMCSA and its predecessors have regulated the physical condition of drivers with ITDM since 1971. The agency believes regulating drivers with ITDM in interstate commerce is an issue that is national in scope. The agency specifically requests comment from State and local officials on any Federalism issues.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4; 2 U.S.C. 1532) requires each agency to assess the effects of its regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Any agency promulgating a final rule likely to result in a Federal mandate requiring expenditures by a State, local, or tribal government, or by the private sector of $120.7 million or more in 2003 dollars in any one year, must prepare a written statement incorporating various assessments, estimates, and descriptions that are delineated in the Act. Although FMCSA believes there would be no unfunded mandates arising from any change in the current standard, the Agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions it may initiate and that may meet the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. FMCSA seeks specific comments whether such impacts are likely for any regulatory or non-regulatory alternative for agency consideration.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), a Federal agency must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations.
        Current exemption program applicants provide personal, employee health and driving information during the application process. There may be additional health information required as a result of this rulemaking action. The agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential action the agency may initiate that may fall within the scope of the Paperwork Reduction Act. If FMCSA initiates a potential regulatory alternative in the future, incorporating these or other relevant provisions, the Agency would seek approval of any collection of information requirements to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, and provide information to, or for, the agency under 49 CFR part 391.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        It is not expected that this rulemaking will have environmental impacts, although the agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and our environmental procedures Order 5610.1 (issued on March 1, 2004, 69 FR 9680). The agency believes potential actions the agency may initiate in response to this ANPRM may be categorically excluded (CE) from further environmental documentation under Appendix 2.6.d. and 2.6.z. of Order 5610.1, which contain categorical exclusions for regulations concerning the training, qualifying, licensing, certifying, and managing of personnel and regulations establishing minimum qualifications for persons who drive CMVs as, for, or on behalf of motor carriers. In addition, FMCSA believes potential actions the agency may initiate would not involve extraordinary circumstances that would affect the quality of the environment.

        FMCSA is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions under the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA) section 176(c), (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671) and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. FMCSA believes potential actions the agency may initiate would be exempt from the CAA's General conformity requirement since they would involve policy development and civil enforcement activities, such as investigations, inspections, examinations, and the training of law enforcement personnel. See 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2). The agency anticipates potential actions the agency may initiate in response to this ANPRM would not result in any emissions increase or result in emissions that are above the general conformity rule's de minimis emission threshold levels because potential actions would merely establish standards for drivers to control their diabetes mellitus.
        The agency seeks comment on the effect on the environment of any potential action alternatives.
        Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
        The Agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions that may constitute a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. FMCSA seeks comment on whether potential actions it may initiate in response to this ANPRM would constitute a taking of private property or otherwise have implications under Executive Order 12630.
        Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
        The agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions that may require intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities under Executive Order 12372, as amended. FMCSA seeks comment on whether potential actions the agency may initiate in response to this ANPRM would require any intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities under Executive Order 12372, as amended.
        Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
        FMCSA is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions that may affect energy supply, distribution, or use under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The agency seeks comment on whether potential actions the agency may initiate in response to this ANPRM would affect any regulatory or non-regulatory alternatives that may significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use.
        Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
        The agency is not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions that may meet applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The agency seeks comment on whether potential actions FMCSA may initiate in response to this ANPRM would meet the standards in Executive Order 12988.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 391
          Alcohol abuse, Diabetes, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Highway safety, Medical, Motor carriers, Physical qualifications, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

          Issued on: March 6, 2006.
          Annette M. Sandberg,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 06-2417 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P