        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 534, 536 and 537
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060]
        Supplemental Notice of Public Scoping for an Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

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

          ACTION:
          Supplemental notice of public scoping; further request for scoping comments.

          SUMMARY:
          On March 28, 2008, NHTSA announced plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address the potential environmental impacts of the agency's Corporate Average Fuel Economy program for passenger automobiles (referred to herein as “passenger cars”) and non-passenger automobiles (referred to herein as “light trucks”). Specifically, NHTSA announced its intent to prepare an EIS to consider the potential environmental impacts of new fuel economy standards for model year 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks that NHTSA is proposing pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. At the same time, NHTSA initiated the NEPA scoping process by inviting Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public to help identify the environmental issues and reasonable alternatives to be examined in the EIS by providing public comments related to the scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis. This supplemental notice provides additional guidance for participating in the scoping process and additional information about the proposed standards and the alternatives NHTSA expects to consider in its NEPA analysis.

          DATES:

          The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and issuance of a Draft EIS, which will be made available for public comment. Interested persons are requested to submit their scoping comments as soon as possible. To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to consider scoping comments and to facilitate NHTSA's prompt preparation of the Draft EIS, scoping comments should be received on or before May 28, 2008, although NHTSA will try to consider comments received after this date to the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules allow.

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

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For technical issues, contact Carol Hammel-Smith, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-5206. For legal issues, contact Kerry E. Rodgers, Vehicle Safety Standards & Harmonization Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-9511.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In a companion notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA is proposing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model year (MY) 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks pursuant to the amendments made by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).1
           In connection with this action, NHTSA has begun preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed standards and reasonable alternative standards in the context of NHTSA's CAFE program pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and NHTSA.2
           NEPA instructs Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions and possible alternatives in their decisionmaking. To inform decisionmakers and the public, the EIS will compare the environmental impacts of the agency's proposal and reasonable alternatives, including a “no action” alternative. The EIS will consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and should discuss impacts “in proportion to their significance.”

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

            2 NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and NHTSA's NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 49 CFR Part 520.

        In March 2008, NHTSA issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards and opened the NEPA “scoping” process. In that notice, NHTSA described the statutory requirements for the proposed standards, provided initial information about the NEPA process, and initiated scoping by requesting public input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the proposed standards.3
           NHTSA also stated that it would describe the proposed standards and the possible alternatives NHTSA expects to consider for purposes of its NEPA analysis in its NPRM and in a separate scoping notice that would provide further guidance about the scoping process. This document constitutes that supplemental scoping notice.

            3 See Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR 16615, March 28, 2008, available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/ (last visited March 26, 2008).

          Background. EPCA sets forth extensive requirements concerning the rulemaking to establish MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards. It requires the Secretary of Transportation4
           to establish average fuel economy standards at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year and to set them at “the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model year.” When setting “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards, the Secretary is required to “consider technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.”5
           NHTSA construes the statutory factors as including environmental and safety considerations.6
           NHTSA also will consider environmental impacts under NEPA when setting CAFE standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Earlier this year, NHTSA initiated the EIS process for MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards, which include light truck standards for one model year previously covered by the 2006 Rule (MY 2011).11

           We did so because a standard for MY 2011 must be issued by the end of March 2009 and achieving an industry-wide combined fleet average of at least 35 miles per gallon for MY 2020 depends, in substantial part, upon setting standards well in advance so as to provide the automobile manufacturers with as much lead time as possible to make the extensive necessary changes to their automobiles.

            11 In preparing an EIS for the MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards, NHTSA intends to consider issues raised in litigation concerning a 2006 final rule, “Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks, Model Years 2008-2011,” 71 FR 17,566, April 6, 2006 (2006 Rule). See Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 508 F.3d 508, 514, 545-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding, among other things, that NHTSA did not prepare an adequate environmental assessment under NEPA and ordering the agency to prepare an EIS). The Government is presently seeking rehearing in the Ninth Circuit on the appropriateness of the Court's remedy.

          The Proposed Action and Possible Alternatives: NHTSA's companion NPRM proposes attribute-based (vehicle size) fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks consistent with the “Reformed CAFE” approach NHTSA used to establish standards for MY 2008-2011 light trucks.12
           The NPRM proposes separate standards for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and separate standards for MY 2011-2015 light trucks. This notice briefly describes the proposed standards and the possible alternatives discussed in the NPRM. For more detailed discussion of those alternatives, please see the NPRM.

            12 See 71 FR 17,566, 17,587-17,625, April 6, 2006 (describing that approach).

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

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

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

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

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

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

        In addition to the proposed standards, NHTSA has considered several regulatory alternatives for purposes of Executive Order 12,866.16
           NHTSA anticipates that those alternatives, plus a “no action” alternative as required by NEPA, will form the framework of the agency's alternatives analysis under NEPA. The alternatives, in order of increasing stringency, are:

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

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

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

        (2) An alternative reflecting standards that fall below the optimized scenario by the same absolute amount by which the “25 percent above optimized alternative” (described below) exceeds the optimized scenario. NHTSA refers to this as the “25 percent below optimized alternative”.
        (3) An alternative reflecting the “optimized scenario,” the proposed standards based on applying technologies until net benefits are maximized.
        (4) An alternative reflecting standards that exceed the optimized scenario by 25 percent of the interval between the optimized scenario and an alternative (described below) based on applying technologies until total costs equal total benefits. NHTSA refers to this alternative as the “25 percent above optimized alternative.”

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

           However, as discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA's provisional analysis of these alternatives suggests that some of them may not satisfy the four EPCA factors that NHTSA must apply in setting “maximum feasible” CAFE standards (i.e., technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the nation to conserve energy). Please see the companion NPRM for further discussion of these alternatives and for background on why NHTSA has identified these alternatives. As indicated below, NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency's NEPA analysis for the proposed standards addresses a full range of reasonable alternatives and identifies all potentially significant impacts related to each. Comments may go beyond the approaches and information that NHTSA used in developing the proposed standards and the above alternatives.

            18 40 CFR 1502.13.

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

          Scoping and Public Participation: As NHTSA indicated in its notice of intent and request for scoping comments, NHTSA plans to use the scoping process to determine “the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered” in the EIS and to identify the most important issues for analysis.20
           NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards will consider the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed standards and those of reasonable alternatives. Among other potential impacts, NHTSA will consider direct and indirect impacts related to fuel and energy use, emissions including CO2 and their effects on temperature and climate change, air quality, natural resources, and the human environment. NHTSA also will consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed standards for MY 2011-2015 automobiles together with estimated impacts of NHTSA's implementation of the CAFE program through MY 2010 and NHTSA's future CAFE rulemaking for MY 2016-2020, as prescribed by EPCA, as amended by EISA. To this end, NHTSA will project the future effects of the fuel use and emissions of the vehicle fleets analyzed over their lifetimes.

            20 See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.

        NHTSA anticipates considerable uncertainty in estimating and comparing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed standards and the alternatives relating to climate change in particular. For instance, it may be difficult to predict with a reasonable degree of certainty or accuracy the range of potential global temperature changes that may result from changes in fuel and energy consumption and CO2 emissions due to new CAFE standards. In turn, for example, it may be difficult to predict and compare the ways in which potential temperature changes attributable to new CAFE standards may impact many aspects of the environment. Accordingly, NHTSA expects to apply the provisions in the CEQ regulations addressing “[i]ncomplete or unavailable information,” where NHTSA would acknowledge these and other uncertainties in its NEPA analysis for the proposed standards.21
           NHTSA will rely on the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a recent “summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment.” 22
           The NHTSA NEPA analysis and documentation will incorporate material by reference “when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action.” 23

            21 See 40 CFR 1502.22.

            22 40 CFR 1502.22(b)(3); see 40 CFR 1502.21. The report and the IPCC's earlier reports are available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ (last visited March 11, 2008).

            23 40 CFR 1502.21.

        In preparing this supplemental notice of public scoping, NHTSA has consulted with CEQ, EPA, and the Office of Management and Budget. Through this notice, NHTSA again invites other Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to potential environmental impacts of the proposed CAFE standards and the public to participate in the scoping process.24

            24 Consistent with NEPA and implementing regulations, NHTSA is sending this notice directly to: (1) Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the environmental impacts involved or authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards; (2) the Governors of every State, to share with the appropriate agencies and offices within their administrations and with the local jurisdictions within their States; (3) organizations representing state and local governments and Indian tribes; and (4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for the MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards. NHTSA also mailed the notice of intent to these stakeholders on April 10 and 11, 2008. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6.

        Specifically, NHTSA invites all stakeholders to submit written comments concerning the appropriate scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the proposed CAFE standards for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks to the docket number identified in the heading of this notice using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. NHTSA does not plan to hold a public scoping meeting, because written comments will be effective in identifying and narrowing the issues for analysis and because the rulemaking schedule necessary to meet the new statutory requirements is tight. However, NHTSA is especially interested in comments that address the potential impacts of NHTSA's proposed CAFE standards and reasonable alternatives relating to climate change. Specifically, NHTSA requests:

        • Peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been issued since the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (and are not reflected in the IPCC's work through November 17, 2007) and that address: (a) The impacts of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions on temperature, and specifically, the temperature changes likely to result from the proposed standards or the alternatives; (b) the impacts of changes in temperature on the environment, including water resources and biological resources, and human health and welfare; or (c) the time periods over which such impacts may occur.
        • Comments on how NHTSA should estimate the potential changes in temperature that may result from the changes in CO2 emissions projected from the proposed standards and reasonable alternatives, and comments on how NHTSA should estimate the potential impacts of temperature changes on the environment.
        • Reports prepared by or on behalf of States, local governments, Indian tribes, regional organizations, or academic researchers analyzing the potential impacts of climate change in particular geographic areas of the United States.
        • Comments on other reasonable alternatives that NHTSA might consider in its NEPA analysis that fit within the purpose and need for the proposed rulemaking, as set forth in EPCA, as amended by EISA. When suggesting a possible alternative, please explain how it would satisfy each of the EPCA factors (namely, technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the nation to conserve energy) and requirements (such as achieving a combined fleet average fuel economy of at least 35 miles per gallon for MY 2020) and give effect to NEPA's policies.
        In addition, NHTSA requests comments on how the agency should assess cumulative impacts, including those from various emissions source categories and from a range of geographic locations.
        Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant issues that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying and eliminating from detailed analysis the issues that are not significant and therefore require only a brief discussion in the EIS.25
           In light of these purposes, written comments should include an Internet citation (with a date last visited) to each study or report you cite in your comments if one is available. If a document you cite is not available to the public on-line, you should attach a copy to your comments. Your comments should indicate how each document you cite in or attach to your comments is relevant to NHTSA's NEPA analysis and indicate the specific pages and passages in the attachment that are most informative.

            25 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a).

        The more specific your comments are, and the more support you can provide by directing the agency to peer-reviewed scientific studies and reports as requested above, the more useful your comments will be to the agency. For example, if you identify an additional area of impact or environmental concern you believe NHTSA should analyze, you should clearly describe it and support your comments with a reference to a specific peer-reviewed scientific study or report. Specific, well-supported comments will facilitate the purposes of scoping identified above and will serve NEPA's overarching aims of making high quality information available to decisionmakers and the public and generating NEPA documents that “concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.” 26
           By contrast, mere assertions that the agency should evaluate broad lists or categories of concerns, without support, will not help NHTSA focus its NEPA analysis for the proposed standards through scoping.

            26 40 CFR 1500.1(b).

        Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the heading of this notice in your comments. In addition, please provide a mailing address and indicate whether you want to receive notice of the publication of the NEPA documents with a copy of the executive summary and one of the following: (a) A url to access the document on the Internet; (b) a CD readable on a personal computer; or (c) a printed copy of the entire document. These steps will help NHTSA to manage a large volume of material during the NEPA process. All comments and materials received, including the names and addresses of the commenters who submit them, will become part of the administrative record and will be posted on the Web at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.

        Based on comments received during scoping, NHTSA expects to prepare a draft EIS for public comment later this spring and a final EIS to support a final rule later this year. Separate Federal Register notices will announce the availability of the draft EIS, which will be available for public comment, and the final EIS, which will be available for public inspection. NHTSA also plans to continue to post information about the NEPA process and this CAFE rulemaking on its Web site (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov).

          Issued: April 23, 2008.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 08-1191 Filed 4-23-08; 1:55 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 226
        RIN 0648-AV35
        Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects a map in the regulatory language of a proposed rule published in the Federal Register of February 6, 2008.  This correction makes the map of the Florida area of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals consistent with the textual description.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jennifer Moore or Sarah Heberling at 727-824-5312; or Marta Nammack at 301-713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Correction
        In proposed rule FR Doc. 08 497, beginning on page 6895 in the issue of February 6, 2008, make the following correction, in the Regulatory Language section.  On page 6912, replace the map labeled “Critical Habitat for Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals, Area 1: Florida” with the following map:

          EP06mr08.003

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

          Dated: February 29, 2008.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 08-973 Filed 3-5-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-C


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 130726661-4419-01]
        RIN 0648-BD56
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish; Framework Adjustment 8

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to approve and implement regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 8 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan. The New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils developed Framework Adjustment 8 to revise existing monkfish day-at-sea allocations and landing limits to better achieve optimum yield in each fishery management area. Framework Adjustment 8 would also revise biological reference points for the monkfish stocks in the Northern and Southern Fishery Management Areas based on an updated stock assessment, allow vessels issued a limited access monkfish Category H permit to fish throughout the Southern Fishery Management Area, and enable vessels to use an allocated monkfish-only day-at-sea at any time throughout the fishing year.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received by June 11, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0173, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0173, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Monkfish Framework 8.”

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          New England Fishery Management Council staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Monkfish Framework Adjustment 8 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives. The EA provides a thorough analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the proposed measures and other considered alternatives. Staff from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this action. The IRFA is contained in the EA prepared for this action, but also summarized in the Classification section of this proposed rule. Copies of the Framework 8 EA are available on request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following internet addresses: http://www.nero.noaa.gov or http://www.nefmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9141, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The monkfish fishery is jointly managed under the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) by the New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The fishery extends from Maine to North Carolina from the coast out to the continental margin. The Councils manage the fishery as two management units, with the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) covering the Gulf of Maine and northern part of Georges Bank, and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA) extending from the southern flank of Georges Bank through the Mid-Atlantic Bight to North Carolina. The monkfish fishery is primarily managed by landing limits and a yearly allocation of monkfish days-at-sea (DAS) calculated to enable vessels participating in the fishery to catch, but not exceed, the annual catch limit (ACL) in each management area. Catch levels are typically set every 3 years, but can be continued or revised at any time based upon updated stock assessments or other relevant information, as appropriate, through the framework adjustment process. Further, based on a yearly evaluation of the monkfish fishery, the Councils may revise existing management measures, including DAS allocations and landing limits, to better achieve the goals and objectives of the FMP and achieve optimum yield (OY), as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

        The Councils developed Framework 8 to incorporate the results of the latest monkfish stock assessment, and to revise measures to better achieve OY and enhance the operational efficiency of existing management measures. In recent years, the monkfish fishery has failed to fully harvest the annual catch target (ACT) specified for each year, particularly in the NFMA. Since Amendment 5 (76 FR 30265; May 25, 2011) defined OY as fully harvesting the ACT, the monkfish fishery has not been achieving OY in either area in recent years. Further, during the development of Framework 8, members of the monkfish fishing industry indicated that existing regulations reduce their ability to maximize available monkfish fishing opportunities and land more monkfish, particularly restrictions on when monkfish-only DAS may be used and where vessels issued a limited access monkfish Category H permit may fish.
        Current catch limits and associated management measures for the monkfish fishery were implemented under Amendment 5 for the SFMA and under Framework 7 for the NFMA (76 FR 66192; October 26, 2011) based on the results of the 50th Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 50) in 2010. Since then, an operational assessment was conducted in April 2013 to update the status of monkfish stocks, and provide projections to assist with setting future catch levels based on additional survey and catch data available since SAW 50. The 2013 assessment update revised existing biological reference points (see Table 3 below), and concluded that the two stocks of monkfish are neither overfished nor subject to overfishing based on these revised reference points. However, the assessment panel report noted that retrospective patterns persisted for both stocks, with the assessment continuing to consistently underestimate the fishing mortality rate (F) and overestimate biomass.

        The New England Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) met on May 16, 2013, and again on August 20, 2013, to discuss the 2013 monkfish stock assessment update, and develop recommendations for acceptable biological catch (ABC) in each management area beginning in fishing year (FY) 2014. Due to uncertainty in the assessment results noted by the assessment panel, the SSC considered analysis by the Monkfish Plan Development Team (PDT) that corrected for retrospective bias noted in the 2013 assessment update and explored the use of alternative approaches to calculating the fishing mortality rate (F) that were independent from the assessment model. However, the PDT indicated that there were analytical difficulties calculating retrospectively adjusted F, and the SSC concluded that alternative estimates of F were too reliant on highly uncertain life history parameters. After extensive discussion, the SSC observed that the updated assessment provides both positive and negative indications of stock status. Data suggest that both stocks are above biomass targets, F is below FMAX (the level of fishing mortality that produces the greatest yield from the fishery), and survey trends are stable or increasing. However, the assessment also states that retrospective patterns continue, recent recruitment has been below average, and that uncertainties persist with age estimates. The SSC concluded that these “conflicting considerations” suggest that neither drastic increases nor decreases to existing catch levels are warranted at this time. Therefore, in conjunction with the analytical difficulties of incorporating retrospective adjustments and alternative estimates of F, the SSC ultimately recommended maintaining existing ABCs in each area (7,592 mt for the NFMA and 12,316 mt for the SFMA).
        The Councils considered the results of the 2013 assessment update, the PDT analysis, and the advice of the SSC when developing measures in Framework 8. Although the Councils considered alternative estimates of management uncertainty (a reduction in catch levels based on a consideration of the effectiveness of management measures at achieving desired catch levels), the Councils did not elect to change existing monkfish ABCs, ACLs, ACTs, or total allowable landing (TAL) amounts for either monkfish stock under this action. The Councils concluded that existing management uncertainty buffers were sufficient at ensuring that ACLs are not exceeded, and that overfishing does not occur. As a result, existing catch levels are not revised by this action, and would remain in place until changed by a future management action (see Table 1).

          Table 1—Monkfish Catch Levels Continued Under Framework Adjustment 8

            Catch limit
            Monkfish management area
            NFMA
            SFMA(mt)

            ABC
            7,592
            12,316

            ACL

            ACT
            6,567
            11,513

            TAL
            5,854
            8,925

        Because Framework 8 was not adopted by both Councils until late February, it was not possible to approve and implement any of the proposed management measures included in Framework 8 and summarized below until after the start of FY 2014 on May 1, 2014. The measures effective during FY 2013 were implemented under an emergency action published on April 30, 2013 (78 FR 25214), and revised on October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63892), but expire on April 30, 2014. Therefore, the measures in effect at the start of FY 2014 reflect those implemented under Amendment 5 for the SFMA and under Framework 7 for the NFMA and last effective during FY 2012 (see Table 2 for a summary of the measures). Consistent with the regulations at 50 CFR 648.96(a)(3)(iv), any monkfish DAS used by a vessel on or after the start of FY 2014 will be counted against any monkfish DAS allocation the vessel ultimately receives during FY 2014 upon the implementation of measures approved under Framework 8.

          Table 2—Main Monkfish Management Measures In Effect on May 1, 2014 *

            Management measure
            NFMA
            SFMA

            Monkfish DAS Allocation
            40 (only 28 DAS can be used in the SFMA)

            Landing Limits while on a Monkfish DAS (tail weight/DAS)
            1,250 lb (567 kg) for Category A/C permits; 600 lb (272 kg) for Category B/D permits
            550 lb (249 kg) for Category A/C permits; 450 lb (204 kg) for Category B/D permit.

            1,600 lb (726 kg) for Category F permits

            Incidental Landing Limits while on a Northeast Multispecies (groundfish) DAS (tail weight/DAS)
            Up to 25% of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 300 lb (136 kg) for Category C, D, E, or F permits
            50 lb (23 kg) for Category C, D, or F permits fishing with non-trawl gear.300 lb (136 kg) for Category C, D, or F permits fishing with trawl gear.

            DAS Use Requirement
            Vessels must use a monkfish DAS in conjunction with available groundfish DAS. Once available groundfish DAS are used, remaining monkfish DAS may be used as monkfish-only DAS, provided the vessel fishes under the regulations applicable to a Category B permit and does not retain regulated groundfish.

            Category H Boundary
            Vessels issued a Category H permit may not fish north of 38°40′ N. latitude.

          * These measures are effective May 1, 2014, and may be revised after the start of FY 2014, as proposed under Framework 8.

        Proposed Measures
        1. Revised Biological and Management Reference Points

        This action proposes to maintain the methods used to calculate these biological and management reference points originally adopted under Amendment 5 in 2011, but update the resultant values to be consistent with those recommended by the SSC and the best available scientific information from the 2013 monkfish assessment update (see Table 3). The reference points currently established in the Monkfish FMP are used to determine if overfishing is occurring on either stock (FThreshold), if either stock is overfished (BThreshold), or if either stock is rebuilt (BTarget).

        Under the methods adopted in Amendment 5, OFL is calculated as the product of FThreshold and current exploitable biomass. The values for FThreshold in each area were updated as part of the 2013 monkfish operational assessment. However, during its review of the 2013 operational assessment update, the SSC expressed concern with calculating OFL using the current estimate of biomass. Because complete data for FY 2012 were not available, the terminal year of data used in the 2013 operational assessment was from FY 2011. This would mean that estimates of current biomass used in calculating OFL would be 3 years old before they would be implemented in 2014 under this proposed action. Therefore, the SSC recommended using the 2014 exploitable biomass projected from the terminal year of the assessment rather than the biomass as of 2011as the “current exploitable biomass” used in the calculation of OFL. This would give a more recent estimate of exploitable biomass in the calculation of OFL compared to biomass as of 2011 from the 2013 operational assessment.

          Table 3—Comparison of Monkfish Biological Reference Points Between SAW 50 (2010) and the 2013 Monkfish Assessment Update

            Monkfish management area
            Biological reference point
            SAW 50 and 2010 SSC review
            2013 Assessment update and SSC review

            NFMA
            FMAX (threshold)

            0.43
            0.44

            BTarget

            52,930 mt
            46,074 mt

            BThreshold

            26,465 mt
            23,037 mt

            OFL
            19,557 mt
            17,805 mt

            Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)
            10,745 mt
            9,383 mt

            SFMA
            FMAX (threshold)

            0.46
            0.37

            BTarget

            74,490 mt
            71,667 mt

            BThreshold

            37,245 mt
            35,834 mt

            OFL
            36,245 mt
            23,204 mt

            MSY
            15,279 mt
            14,328 mt

        2. Changes to Monkfish DAS Allocations and Landing Limits
        This action would revise existing monkfish DAS allocations and landing limits to help increase monkfish landings and the proportion of the TAL and ACT caught in each area. The Councils sought to achieve a balance among competing factors by increasing monkfish fishing opportunities and associated landings and fishing revenue, without excessively increasing catch and F to such a degree that may unintentionally adversely impact monkfish stocks or reduce market price due to a greater influx of monkfish landings throughout the FY. Under this action, all limited access monkfish permits would be allocated a total of 46 monkfish DAS, of which up to 32 may be used in the SFMA. This represents a 6-DAS increase in a permit's total monkfish DAS allocation, and a 4-DAS increase in the number of monkfish DAS that may be used in the SFMA. Each permit's monkfish DAS allocation would then be reduced by a small amount to set aside 500 monkfish DAS under the Monkfish Research Set Aside (RSA) program, as required by the existing regulations at § 648.92(b)(1)(v). Each vessel's contribution to RSA DAS is calculated by dividing 500 RSA DAS by the total number of limited access monkfish permits issued in the previous FY. In 2013, 627 limited access monkfish permits were issued. Therefore, each permit's monkfish RSA contribution would be reduced by 0.8 DAS (500 RSA DAS ÷ 627 permits). Deducting these RSA set aside DAS from each vessel's monkfish DAS allocation would leave 45.2 monkfish DAS (46 DAS-0.8 DAS) allocated to each limited access monkfish permit starting in FY 2014.

        The proposed changes to monkfish landing limits in each area reflect the predominant source of monkfish landings in each area. In the NFMA, a majority of monkfish landings occur as incidental landings while vessels are fishing for groundfish under a groundfish DAS. In the SFMA, however, the majority of monkfish landings occur when vessels are targeting monkfish under a monkfish DAS. As a result, monkfish incidental limits would be increased for limited access monkfish Category C and D vessels fishing under a groundfish DAS in the NFMA, while monkfish limits when under a monkfish DAS would be increased in the SFMA, as summarized in Table 4 below. With the exception of incidental landing limits for monkfish Category C and D vessels fishing under a groundfish DAS in the NFMA, all incidental landing limits would remain the same as those implemented by previous management actions.

          Table 4—Proposed Changes to Monkfish DAS Allocations and Landing Limits for Limited Access Monkfish Category A, B, C, and D Permits
          [In tail weight/DAS]

            Management area
            Incidental landing limit
            Monkfish permitcategory
              A/C landing limit

            Monkfish permitcategory B/D
              landing limit

            Monkfish DAS allocation*

            NFMA
            600 lb (272 kg) for Category C Permits and 500 lb (227 kg) for Category D permits when fishing under a groundfish DAS and Status Quo for other situations
            1,250 lb (567 kg)
            600 lb (272 kg)
            45.2

            SFMA
            Status Quo
            610 lb (277 kg)
            500 lb (227 kg)
            32

          * The SFMA monkfish DAS allocation represents the maximum number of monkfish DAS that could be used in the SFMA.

        Monkfish DAS allocations and landing limits for vessels electing to participate in the Offshore Fishery Program in the SFMA and issued a limited access Category F permit are calculated separately. As outlined in § 648.95(g)(2), the monkfish DAS allocation for each Category F permit is calculated by dividing the daily landing limit when fishing under the Offshore Fishery Program (1,600 lb (726 kg) tail weight) by the SFMA monkfish landing limit applicable to the vessel's monkfish limited access permit category, and then multiplying that number by the vessel's monkfish DAS allocation. For example, under the proposed monkfish DAS allocations and SFMA landing limits, a limited access Category C permit would be allocated 17.5 monkfish DAS under the Offshore Fishery Program [(610 lb (277 kg) Category C SFMA landing limit ÷ 1,600 lb (726 kg) Offshore Fishery Program landing limit) × 46 allocated monkfish DAS]. Similarly, a limited access Category D permit participating in the Offshore Fishery Program would be allocated 14.4 monkfish DAS to participate in this program [(500 lb (277 kg) Category D SFMA landing limit ÷ 1,600 lb (726 kg) Offshore Fishery Program landing limit) × 46 allocated monkfish DAS]. Any carryover monkfish DAS will be included in the calculation of monkfish DAS for Category F vessels.
        3. Modified Monkfish DAS Usage Requirements
        This action would revise the regulations at § 648.92(b)(2) to allow Category C and D vessels to use monkfish-only DAS at any time throughout the FY. Existing regulations require that a vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C or D permit use available groundfish DAS when fishing under a monkfish DAS. Such a vessel could only use available monkfish-only DAS (the difference between a vessel's allocation of monkfish and groundfish Category A DAS) after all groundfish DAS had already been used. The proposed changes would help vessels maximize the economic value of monkfish fishing opportunities by enabling vessels to use monkfish-only DAS to selectively target monkfish earlier in the FY with minimal by-catch of groundfish, and later use both monkfish and groundfish DAS to fish for monkfish when groundfish are more abundant and could be landed in greater amounts.
        4. Expanded Boundary Line for Monkfish Limited Access Permit Category H Vessels
        This action proposes to modify the northern boundary line applicable to monkfish limited access Category H vessels to be consistent with the northern boundary of the SFMA. Category H vessels were originally allowed to fish for monkfish south of 38°20′ N lat. under Amendment 2 (April 28, 2005; 70 FR 21927). This boundary line was moved northward by 20 miles (32.2 km) under Framework 4 (September 21, 2007; 72 FR 53942) to 38° 40′ N lat. to increase opportunities to fish following the implementation of sea turtle closure areas. To provide even greater operational flexibility to vessel operators and enable them to maximize opportunities to fish for monkfish, this action would enable Category H vessels to fish throughout the SFMA.
        5. Corrections and Clarifications to Existing Regulations
        This proposed rule would correct a number of inadvertent errors, omissions, and ambiguities in existing regulations in order to ensure consistency with, and accurately reflect the intent of, previous actions under the FMP, or to more effectively administer and enforce existing and proposed provisions pursuant to the authority provided to the Secretary of Commerce in section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The following proposed measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the regulations.
        In § 648.2, a definition of “monkfish-only DAS” would be inserted to clarify the use of that term in the monkfish effort-control program provisions specified at § 648.92. The proposed definition is based upon existing language in § 648.92(b)(2) that was originally implemented under Amendment 13 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies FMP (April 27, 2004; 69 FR 22906). However, that text did not specify when monkfish-only DAS would be calculated or how such DAS balances would be maintained throughout the FY. The revised text would specify that a permit's initial allocation of monkfish-only DAS would be based upon the difference between a permit's monkfish and NE multispecies Category A DAS allocation at the beginning of the FY, but may vary throughout the fishing year based upon the acquisition or relinquishment of groundfish DAS under the NE Multispecies DAS Leasing Program.

        In § 638.92, paragraph (b)(3) would be revised to state that, with the exception of monkfish DAS charged when fishing with gillnet gear pursuant to § 648.92(b)(8)(v), all monkfish DAS fished shall be charged to the nearest minute. The existing regulations at § 638.92(b)(3) reference the Atlantic sea scallop DAS accrual regulations at § 648.53(f) to describe the accrual of monkfish DAS. However, that cross reference is no longer valid or appropriate. The Atlantic sea scallop DAS accrual provisions originally specified at § 648.53(f) were moved to § 648.53(e) as part of Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP (73 FR 20090; April 14, 2008), and now include include a reduced DAS charge in scallop open areas to help defray the cost of observer coverage. Therefore, the proposed revisions would ensure that the monkfish DAS accrual provisions are implemented consistent with the original intent of the FMP.
        In § 648.93, paragraph (b) would be deleted. This paragraph is redundant with paragraph (a), as both paragraphs list the minimum size of monkfish. In addition, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) would be designated as paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively, to clarify the organization of the remaining provisions.
        In § 648.94, paragraph (f) would be revised to clarify that a vessel operator may declare his/her intent to fish in the NFMA via the vessel monitoring system (VMS) or the interactive voice response (IVR) call-in system. The current regulations require a vessel operator to declare his/her intent to fish in the NFMA via VMS. However, since the use of VMS in the monkfish fishery is voluntary, this action would clarify that either VMS or IVR could be used.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the Monkfish FMP, Framework 8, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. NMFS, in making a final determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
        This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or takings implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.

        The New England Council prepared an EA for Framework 8 to the Monkfish FMP that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this action. A copy of the EA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

        An IRFA has been prepared for this rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities, and consists of the draft IRFA in Framework 8, this preamble, and the following summary. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and in the background, purpose, and need discussion (Section 2.0) of the EA prepared for this action. A copy of this analysis is available from the New England Council (see ADDRESSES).

        The Councils fully analyzed and considered three principal alternatives for changes to monkfish DAS and landing limits in the NFMA, and four alternatives for similar measures in the SFMA (see Table 5). Two alternatives (No Action and the proposed alternative described above) were each considered for modifying monkfish DAS usage provisions and the Category H border. The proposed action would eliminate the existing prohibition on using monkfish-only DAS until all groundfish DAS have been used, while the No Action Alternative would retain this prohibition. The proposed action would also revise the current northern border for Category H vessels to reflect the SFMA boundary, while the No Action Alternative would retain the northern border at 38°40′ N. lat. For a more complete description of the alternatives considered in this action, refer to the EA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).

          Table 5—Monkfish DAS and Landing Limit Alternatives Considered in Framework 8

            Management area
            Alternative
            Incidental landing limit * (tail weight/DAS)

            A,C daily landing limit (tail weight/DAS)

            B,D daily landing limit (tail weight/DAS)

            DAS

            NFMA
            1—No Action
            Status quo
            1,250 lb (567 kg)
            600 lb (272 kg)
            40

            2
            Status quo
            1,250 lb (567 kg)
            600 lb (272 kg)
            64

            3 (Proposed)
            600 lb (272 kg) for C permit and 500 lb (227 kg) for D permit when fishing under a groundfish DAS (elimination of 25% landings threshold), status quo all others
            1,250 lb (567 kg)
            600 lb (272 kg)
            46

            SFMA
            1—No Action
            Status quo
            550 lb (249 kg)
            450 lb (204 kg)
            28

            2 (Proposed)
            Status quo
            610 lb (277 kg)
            500 lb (227 kg)
            32

            3
            Status quo
            550 lb (249 kg)
            450 lb (204 kg)
            51

            4
            Status quo
            610 lb (277 kg)
            500 lb (227 kg)
            28

          * Existing monkfish incidental landing limits are summarized at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/monkfish/.

        This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
        This proposed action does not contain any new recordkeeping or reporting requirements, and does not impose any additional costs to affected vessels.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply

        The proposed action would affect any vessel issued a valid Federal limited access monkfish permit. As of April 1, 2014, 625 limited access monkfish permits were issued during FY 2013, including 20 Category A permits, 41 Category B permits, 279 Category C permits, 264 Category D permits, 14 Category F permits, and 7 Category H permits. Also, there were 1,594 open access Category E monkfish permits. In recent years, the number of active permits (i.e., those actually landing monkfish during the FY) has been lower than the number issued permits. Therefore, it is likely that a subset of these entities will be affected by this action. A more complete description of the monkfish fishery is found in Section 4.0 of the EA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).

        The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in the finfish fishing sector (NAICS code 114111) as a firm or affiliate group with gross revenue less than $19.0 million; and the shellfish fishing sector (NAICS code 114112) as a firm or affiliate group with gross revenue less than $5.0 million. NMFS guidelines identify the affiliate group (or “entity”) rather than permit as the appropriate level of analysis for regulatory actions. Affiliate groups were identified using permit ownership data recently added to the NMFS permit database, with designations of large and small entities based on each entity's 3-year average ex-vessel revenue. Data from FY 2012 are the most complete data available with which to make a determination regarding the size of entities affected by the proposed action. During FY 2012, 651 entities landed at least one pound of monkfish. Of these, 534 entities were composed of a single vessel permit, 110 were composed of 2 to 5 permits, and 7 were composed of 6 or more permits. Further, 401 entities were plurality-finfish, while 250 are plurality-shellfish. Using the above criteria, of the 651 entities that landed monkfish during FY 2012, 629 entities were classified as “small,” while the remaining 22 were classified as “large.”
        Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-Selected Alternatives
        The economic value of monkfish landings depends upon several factors, including the area fished (NFMA vs. SFMA); whether the vessel is directly targeting monkfish (i.e., fishing under a monkfish DAS), or landing monkfish incidentally when targeting another species; volumes landed; and market category landed. Together, these factors may affect realized economic impacts that may differ from those analyzed in support of this action and described below.

        Estimates of the economic impacts from adjustments to monkfish DAS allocation/usage limit and landing limits were derived using a model that incorporated proportional increases in monkfish landings based on the fishing patterns observed during FY 2012. Resultant projected landings for each alternative were then multiplied by the expected market price after incorporating a flexibility assumption of −0.41 percent assumed to apply throughout the fishery. This means that for every 1-percent increase in monkfish landings, it is expected that price would decrease by 0.41 percent. Under these assumptions, even if the proposed measures would not change landings for a vessel compared to FY 2012, ex-vessel revenues could decrease due to increased monkfish landings in another area by other vessels. It should be noted that this price flexibility assumption was based on a very small sample set. Further, monkfish revenue recorded during periods in which similar amounts of monkfish expected under this action were landed suggests that the price flexibility assumption may actually underestimate benefits associated with proposed measures (i.e., market price may not fall as much as expected despite increased monkfish landings). Therefore, the revenue streams listed below may provide a lower bound for potential economic benefits resulting from this action. A detailed description of the methods used to estimate economic impacts of the proposed action is provided in the Framework 8 EA (see ADDRESSES).
        Under the combination of proposed measures described above, Framework 8 analysis estimated overall monkfish revenues would be approximately $21.7 million during FY 2014. The proposed measures would result in approximately an 11.3-percent increase in revenue across all ports, with minor to significant positive economic impacts across all individual ports and increased revenues for all vessel size classes ranging from 15 to 18.5 percent. However, it is expected that ex-vessel price would decrease by approximately 7.8 percent overall due to the price flexibility associated with increased monkfish landings throughout the fishery. Of the 629 small entities that would be directly affected under the proposed action, 309 would likely have a net decline in revenues, while 319 would likely have an increase in net revenues under the proposed action. The mean change would be +0.7 percent, suggesting that mean effect of this action would be positive in terms of vessel revenues. Only one entity would have a decrease in expected revenues greater than 5 percent, and a total of 11 entities would have a decrease in expected revenues greater than 1 percent. The potential economic impacts may change, however, if the price flexibility assumption proves incorrect, or if vessel operators can alter fishing behavior in a manner that would offset any potential losses.
        Considered separately, the proposed measures for the NFMA would likely result in about $10.7 million in vessel revenue from monkfish alone, while proposed measures for the SFMA would likely result in about $11.9 million in vessel revenue from monkfish. When compared to other alternatives considered, the proposed NFMA measures would result in approximately $0.6 million more in revenue than existing measures (No Action Alternative), but about $650,000 less revenue than Alternative 2 measures (increasing monkfish DAS allocations to 64 DAS while maintaining existing monkfish landing limits). The proposed SFMA measures would result in about $0.7 million more monkfish revenue than expected under existing measures (No Action Alternative), $3.2 million less monkfish revenue than under Alternative 3 (increasing monkfish DAS allocations to 51 DAS while maintaining existing monkfish landing limits) and $1.5 million more in monkfish revenue than under Alternative 4 (existing monkfish DAS usage limit, but higher directed landing limits).
        The other two measures proposed under Framework 8 (allowing monkfish DAS to be used throughout the year and Category H permits to fish throughout the SFMA) are expected to generally increase monkfish fishing opportunities and increase the operational efficiency of affected entities. By allowing monkfish-only DAS to be used at any time throughout the FY, vessels can more effectively target monkfish earlier in the FY when monkfish are more prevalent, and preserve monkfish-groundfish combination DAS until groundfish are more readily available later in the FY, particularly in the SFMA. This could increase vessel returns for monkfish Category C and D vessels by allowing vessels to land more groundfish later in the FY under both a monkfish and groundfish DAS. Similarly, Category H vessels would have additional flexibility to fish for monkfish throughout the SFMA rather than being confined to fishing below 38°40′ N. lat. and during times when turtle and harbor porpoise measures allow. Under both proposed measures, it is likely that affected entities will benefit from such changes, although precise economic benefits would depend upon the composition and volume of catch associated with any additional monkfish effort realized from such gains in efficiency and operational flexibility.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: May 20, 2014.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 648.2, add a definition for “Monkfish-only DAS” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

          § 648.2
          Definitions.

            Monkfish-only DAS means monkfish DAS allocated to a limited access monkfish Category C, D, F, G, or H permit that are in excess of that permit's initial allocation of Northeast multispecies Category A DAS at the beginning of a fishing year.

        3. In § 648.92, revise paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(9)(i) to read as follows:

          § 648.92
          Effort-control program for monkfish limited access vessels.

          (b) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (i) General provision. Each vessel issued a limited access monkfish permit shall be allocated 46 monkfish DAS each fishing year which must be used in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b), unless otherwise specified by paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section or modified by § 648.96(b)(3), or unless the permit is enrolled in the Offshore Fishery Program in the SFMA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section. The annual allocation of monkfish DAS to each limited access monkfish permit shall be reduced by the amount calculated in paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section for the research DAS set-aside. Unless otherwise specified under this subpart F, a vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies or limited access sea scallop permit that is also issued a limited access monkfish permit must use a NE multispecies or sea scallop DAS concurrently with each monkfish DAS utilized, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
          (ii) DAS restrictions for vessels fishing in the SFMA. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish permit may not use more than 32 of its 46 monkfish DAS allocation in the SFMA during each fishing year. Each vessel issued a limited access monkfish permit fishing in the SFMA must declare that it is fishing in this area through the vessel call-in system or VMS prior to the start of every trip. In addition, if a vessel does not possess a valid letter of authorization from the Regional Administrator to fish in the NFMA as described in § 648.94(f), NMFS shall presume that any monkfish DAS used were fished in the SFMA.

          (2) Category C, D, F, G, or H limited access monkfish permit holders. (i) General provision. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, each monkfish DAS used by a vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C, D, F, G, or H permit and a limited access NE multispecies or scallop DAS permit shall also be counted as a NE multispecies or scallop DAS, as applicable. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C, D, F, or H permit may not use a NE multispecies Category B Regular DAS under the NE Multispecies Regular B DAS Program, as specified under § 648.85(b)(6), in order to satisfy the requirement of this paragraph (b)(2)(i) to use a NE multispecies DAS concurrently with a monkfish DAS.
          (ii) Monkfish-only DAS. When a vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C, D, F, G, or H permit and a limited access NE multispecies DAS permit has an allocation of NE multispecies Category A DAS, specified under § 648.82(d)(1), that is less than the number of monkfish DAS allocated for the fishing year May 1 through April 30, that vessel shall be allocated “monkfish-only” DAS equal to the difference between the number of its allocated monkfish DAS and the number of its allocated NE multispecies Category A DAS at the start of a fishing year. For example, if a vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category D permit is allocated 46 monkfish DAS and 26 NE multispecies Category A DAS, it would be allocated 20 monkfish-only DAS at the start of each fishing year. The available balance of monkfish-only DAS may vary throughout the fishing year based upon monkfish-only DAS usage and the acquisition or relinquishment of NE multispecies DAS under the NE Multispecies DAS Leasing Program, as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C, D, F, G, or H permit may use monkfish-only DAS without the concurrent use of a NE multispecies DAS at any time throughout the fishing year, regardless of the number of NE multispecies Category A DAS available. When fishing under a monkfish-only DAS, the vessel must fish under the regulations pertaining to a limited access monkfish Category A or B permit, as applicable, and may not retain any regulated NE multispecies. For example, a vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C permit must comply with the monkfish landing limits applicable to a Category A monkfish permit when fishing under a monkfish-only DAS.
          (iii) Category C, D, F, G, or H vessels that lease NE multispecies DAS. (A) A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C, D, F, G, or H permit that has monkfish-only DAS, as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, and that leases NE multispecies DAS from another vessel pursuant to § 648.82(k), must fish its available monkfish-only DAS in conjunction with its leased NE multispecies DAS, to the extent that the vessel has NE multispecies DAS available.
          (B) A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C, D, F, G, or H permit that leases NE multispecies DAS to another vessel(s), pursuant to § 648.82(k), must forfeit a monkfish DAS for each NE multispecies DAS that the vessel leases, equal in number to the difference between the number of remaining NE multispecies DAS and the number of unused monkfish DAS at the time of the lease. For example, if a lessor vessel that had 31 unused monkfish DAS and 35 allocated NE multispecies DAS leased 10 of its NE multispecies DAS to another vessel, the lessor would forfeit 6 of its monkfish DAS (10-(35 NE multispecies DAS-31 monkfish DAS) = 6).
          (3) Accrual of DAS. Unless otherwise provided in § 648.92(b)(8)(v), all monkfish DAS fished shall be charged to the nearest minute.

          (9) * * *
          (i) A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category G or H permit may fish under a monkfish DAS only in the SFMA, as defined at § 648.91(b).

          § 648.93
          [Amended]

        4. In § 648.93, remove paragraph (b), and redesignate paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) as paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively.
        5. In § 648.94, revise paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(3)(i), (c)(1)(i), and (f) to read as follows:

          § 648.94
          Monkfish possession and landing restrictions.

          (b) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (ii) Category B and D vessels. Limited access monkfish Category B and D vessels that fish under a monkfish DAS exclusively in the NFMA may land up to 600 lb (272 kg) tail weight or 1,746 lb (792 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail-only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

          (2) * * *

          (i) Category A, C, and G vessels. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category A, C, or G permit that fishes under a monkfish DAS in the SFMA may land up to 610 lb (277 kg) tail weight or 1,775 lb (805 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail-only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
          (ii) Category B, D, and H vessels. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category B, D, or H permit that fishes under a monkfish DAS in the SFMA may land up to 500 lb (227 kg) tail weight or 1,455 lb (660 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). For every 1 lb (0.45 kg)) of tail-only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

          (3) * * *
          (i) NFMA. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C or F permit that fishes under a NE multispecies DAS, and not a monkfish DAS, exclusively in the NFMA may land up to 600 lb (272 kg) tail weight or 1,746 lb (792 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category D or F permit that fishes under a NE multispecies DAS, and not a monkfish DAS, exclusively in the NFMA may land up to 500 lb (227 kg) tail weight or 1,455 lb (660 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C, D, or F permit participating in the NE Multispecies Regular B DAS program, as specified under § 648.85(b)(6), is also subject to the incidental landing limit specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section on such trips.

          (c) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (i) NFMA. A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch (Category E) permit fishing under a NE multispecies DAS exclusively in the NFMA may land up to 300 lb (136 kg) tail weight or 873 lb (396 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS, or 25 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, whichever is less. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 2.91. For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail-only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

          (f) Area declaration requirement for a vessel fishing exclusively in the NFMA. A vessel intending to fish for, or fishing for, possessing or landing monkfish under a multispecies, scallop, or monkfish DAS under the less restrictive management measures of the NFMA, must fish exclusively in the NFMA for the entire trip. In addition, a vessel fishing under a monkfish DAS must declare its intent to fish in the NFMA through the vessel's VMS unit or through the vessel call-in system, as applicable. A vessel that is not required to and does not possess a VMS unit must also declare its intent to fish in the NFMA by obtaining a letter of authorization from the Regional Administrator, for a period of not less than 7 days. A vessel that has not declared into the NFMA under this paragraph (f) shall be presumed to have fished in the SFMA, and shall be subject to the more restrictive requirements of that area. A vessel that has declared into the NFMA may transit the SFMA, providing that it complies with the transiting and gear storage provision described in paragraph (e) of this section, and provided that it does not fish for or catch monkfish, or any other fish, in the SFMA.

        6. In § 648.95, revise paragraphs (a)(2), (c), (e)(3), (f), (g) introductory heading, (g)(1), and (g)(3); and add paragraph (g)(4) to read as follows:

          § 648.95
          Offshore Fishery Program in the SFMA.
          (a) * * *
          (2) A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C or D permit that applies for and is issued a Category F permit remains subject to the provisions specific to Category C and D vessels, unless otherwise specified under this subpart F.

          (c) Offshore Fishery Program Area. The Offshore Fishery Program Area is bounded on the south by 38°00′ N. lat. and on the north, west, and east by the following coordinates, connected in the order listed by rhumb lines.

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              41°18.6′
              66°24.8′

              2
              40°55.5′
              66°38.0′

              3
              40°45.5′
              68°00.0′

              4
              40°37.0′
              68°00.0′

              5
              40°30.0′
              69°00.0′

              6
              40°22.7′
              69°00.0′

              7
              40°18.7′
              69°40.0′

              8
              40°21.0′
              71°03.0′

              9
              39°41.0′
              72°32.0′

              10
              38°47.0′
              73°11.0′

              11
              38°04.0′
              74°06.0′

          (e) * * *
          (3) A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category F permit fishing on a monkfish DAS is subject to the minimum mesh size requirements specified in § 648.91(c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(iii), as well as the other gear requirements specified in § 648.91(c)(2) and (c)(3).

          (f) Transiting. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category F permit fishing under a monkfish DAS that is transiting to or from the Offshore Fishery Program Area, described in paragraph (c) of this section, shall have all gear stowed and not available for immediate use in accordance with the gear stowage provisions specified in § 648.23(b).

          (g) Monkfish landing limits and DAS allocations. (1) A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category F permit may land up to 1,600 lb (726 kg) tail weight or 4,656 lb (2,112 kg) whole weight of monkfish per monkfish DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91).

          (3) A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category F permit that is fishing under a NE multispecies DAS in the NFMA is subject to the incidental landing limit specified at § 648.94(b)(3).
          (4) When not fishing on a monkfish DAS, a vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category F permit may fish under the regulations applicable to the monkfish incidental catch (Category E) permit, specified at § 648.94(c).

      [FR Doc. 2014-12059 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P