        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0025; FRL-9964-23-Region 1]
        Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Reasonably Available Control Technology for US Watercraft, LLC

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. The revision consists of a reasonably available control technology approval for a volatile organic compound emission source in Rhode Island, specifically, US Watercraft, LLC. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0025 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Mackintosh.David@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100 (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. 617-918-1584, email Mackintosh.David@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

        For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: June 7, 2017.
          Deborah A. Szaro,
          Acting Regional Administrator,EPA New England.

      [FR Doc. 2017-13906 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015; 4500030113]
        RIN 1018-BA85
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and the Guyandotte River Crayfish

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our April 7, 2015, proposed rule to list the Big Sandy crayfish (Cambarus callainus) and the Guyandotte River crayfish (C. veteranus) as endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We are taking this action to make the results of the 2015 summer surveys available for public review and comment. The surveys provide updated information on the two species' distribution and abundance. Comments previously submitted on the April 7, 2015, proposed rule need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final listing determination.

          DATES:

          We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before January 14, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:

            Document availability: You may obtain copies of the April 7, 2015, proposed rule and supporting material on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015. Documents may also be obtained by mail from the Northeast Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate the document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section, below, for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Martin Miller, Chief, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; telephone 413-253-8615; or facsimile 413-253-8482. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        In our April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710), we proposed to list the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish as endangered species primarily due to the threats of land-disturbing activities that increase erosion and sedimentation, which degrade the stream habitat required by both species, and the effects of small population size. During the 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule, we received requests to extend the comment period beyond the June 8, 2015, closing date. For rulemaking and financial efficiency, we declined to extend the comment period at that time because we were already planning to reopen the comment period in the fall of 2015 to make available the results of rangewide surveys that would be conducted for each species in the summer of 2015. The final reports for the 2015 summer surveys are now available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015 and at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/crayfish/. These survey results and any substantive public comments about the survey results will inform our final listing decision, which we anticipate publishing on or before April 7, 2016.

        For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish, or information regarding the species' biology, status, distribution, and habitat, refer to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18710), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015 or by mail from the Northeast Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Public Comments

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposal to list the Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish that published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18710). We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal be as accurate as possible and based on the best available scientific and commercial data.
        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (80 FR 18710) during the initial comment period from April 7, 2015, to June 8, 2015, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record as part of the previous comment period, and we will consider them in the preparation of our final determination.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed listing, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0015, or by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are staff members in the Endangered Species Program, Northeast Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Dated: November 30, 2015.
          Stephen Guertin,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-31369 Filed 12-14-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 535
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0074]
        Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Standards

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent; request for scoping comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NHTSA plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of new fuel efficiency standards for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks (potentially covering engines, chassis, vehicles, and/or trailers manufactured after model year 2018) that will be proposed by the agency pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This document initiates the scoping process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS and for identifying the significant environmental issues related to the proposed action. Further, it discusses cooperating agencies, the environmental review process, and the agency's tentative planning and decision-making schedule. NHTSA invites the participation of Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, stakeholders, and the public in this process to help identify the significant issues and reasonable alternatives to be examined in the EIS, and to eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant.

          DATES:
          The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and issuance of a Draft EIS (DEIS), which will be made available for public comment. To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to fully consider scoping comments and to facilitate NHTSA's prompt preparation of the DEIS, scoping comments should be received on or before August 8, 2014. NHTSA will try to consider comments received after that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.

          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, please mention the docket number identified in the heading of this notice. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

            How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the heading of this notice. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For technical issues, contact James MacIsaac, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, telephone: 202-366-9108; for legal issues, contact Russell Krupen, Legislation & General Law Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone: 202-366-1834, at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In a forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA intends to propose fuel efficiency standards for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks (collectively, “HD vehicles” or “heavy-duty vehicles”) manufactured after model year (MY) 2018 pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).1
           In particular, NHTSA will propose Phase 2 of the Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program (potentially covering engines, chassis, vehicles, and/or trailers manufactured after MY 2018) as part of a joint rulemaking with the Environmental Protection Agency (which will propose new greenhouse gas [GHG] regulations for heavy-duty vehicles). In connection with this action, NHTSA will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards and reasonable alternative standards 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. To inform decision-makers and the public, the EIS will compare the potential environmental impacts of the agency's Preferred Alternative and a spectrum of reasonable alternatives, including a “no action” alternative. As required by NEPA, the EIS will consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and alternatives and will discuss impacts in proportion to their significance.

            1 Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007) (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 parts 1500-1508, and NHTSA's NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 49 CFR part 520.

          Background: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) 3
           mandated that NHTSA establish and implement a regulatory program for motor vehicle fuel economy as part of a comprehensive approach to federal energy policy. As codified in Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, and as amended by EISA, EPCA set forth extensive requirements concerning the establishment of fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks. Pursuant to this statutory authority, NHTSA sets Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for those vehicles.4

            3 Public Law 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975).

            4 See Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Final Rule, 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010); 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 77 FR 62624 (October 15, 2012).

        In December 2007, EISA provided DOT (and by delegation, NHTSA 5
          ) new authority to implement, through rulemaking and regulations, “a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle 6
           and work truck 7
           fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement[.]” 8
           This provision also directs NHTSA to “adopt and implement appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks.” 9
           NHTSA may set “separate standards for different classes of vehicles.” 10

            5 The Secretary has delegated responsibility for implementing fuel economy and fuel efficiency requirements under EPCA and EISA to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 322(b); 49 CFR 1.95, 501.2.

            6 EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel economy chapter of the United States Code: “ `commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle' means an on-highway vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more.” 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7).

            7 EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel economy chapter of the United States Code: “ `work truck' means a vehicle that— (A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and (B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle (as defined in section 86.1803-01 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of the enactment of [EISA]).” 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(19).

            8 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).

            9 Id.

            10 Id. For background on the HD vehicle segment, issues related to regulating this segment, and fuel efficiency improvement technologies available for these vehicles, see the reports recently issued by the National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Washington, DC (The National Academies Press, 2010), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed April 25, 2014); National Research Council, Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two: First Report, Washington, DC (The National Academies Press, 2014), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18736 (last accessed April 25, 2015).

        EISA also provides requirements for lead time and regulatory stability. New fuel efficiency improvement program standards that NHTSA adopts pursuant to EISA must provide not less than 4 full model years of regulatory lead-time and 3 full model years of regulatory stability.11
           Finally, EISA directs that NHTSA's HD rulemaking must be conducted in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy.12

            11 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3).

            12 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). As discussed later in this document, both agencies have been invited to serve as cooperating agencies on this EIS.

        On May 21, 2010, the President issued a memorandum to the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of EPA, and the Administrator of NHTSA that called for coordinated regulation of the heavy-duty vehicle market segment under EISA and under the Clean Air Act.13
           NHTSA and EPA met that directive in August 2011 by finalizing first-of-a-kind standards for new HD engines and vehicles in MYs 2014 through 2018 (“Phase 1”).14
           The performance-based standards created a national program requiring manufacturers to meet targets for fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. The Phase 1 standards are expected to save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of those vehicles while also reducing oil consumption by a projected 530 billion barrels and greenhouse gas pollution by approximately 270 million metric tons.15

            13 See The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Presidential Memorandum Regarding Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21, 2010), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards (last accessed April 25, 2014); see also The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, President Obama Directs Administration to Create First-Ever National Efficiency and Emissions Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks (May 21, 2010), available at  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-directs-administration-create-first-ever-national-efficiency-and-em (last accessed April 25, 2014).

            14 See Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).

            15 See White House Announces First Ever Oil Savings Standards for Heavy Duty Trucks, Buses (August 9, 2011), available at  http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2011/White+House+Announces+First+Ever+Oil+Savings+Standards+for+Heavy+Duty+Trucks,+Buses (last accessed April 28, 2014). For more information on the rulemaking, see also EPA Regulatory Announcement, EPA and NHTSA Adopt First-Ever Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (August 2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).

        Continued improvement in the efficiency of HD vehicles is a key component of the President's 2013 Climate Action Plan to reduce carbon emissions.16
           Building on the success of Phase 1 of the program, in a February 18, 2014 Presidential Announcement, the President directed NHTSA and EPA to finalize the next phase of HD vehicle fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards by March 31, 2016.17
           Under this timeline, the agencies expect to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by March 2015.

            16 Executive Office of the President, The President's Climate Action Plan (June 2013), available at  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).

            17 See FACT SHEET—Opportunity For All: Improving the Fuel Efficiency of American Trucks—Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting Carbon Pollution, Saving Money and Supporting Manufacturing Innovation (February 18, 2014), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/18/fact-sheet-opportunity-all-improving-fuel-efficiency-american-trucks-bol (last accessed April 28, 2014); Improving the Fuel Efficiency of American Trucks—Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting Carbon Pollution, Saving Money and Supporting Manufacturing Innovation (February 2014), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/finaltrucksreport.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).

        In developing Phase 2 standards, the agencies are instructed to partner with industry leaders and other key stakeholders, including manufacturers, labor, States, and non-governmental organizations. To this end, EPA and NHTSA will consult with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) with the goal of ensuring that the next phase of standards allows manufacturers to continue to build a single national fleet.18
           The Phase 2 standards are expected to spur manufacturing innovation and lead to the adoption of new fuel-efficient technologies on trucks and semi-trailers. EPA and NHTSA will assess advanced technologies that may not currently be in production, and will consider, for example: Engine and powertrain efficiency improvements, aerodynamics, weight reduction, improved tire rolling resistance, hybridization, natural gas engines and converters, automatic engine shutdown, and/or accessory improvements (e.g., water pumps, fans, auxiliary power units, and air conditioning).19
           For more information and further updates on the program, please see the agencies' Web sites.20

            18 Id.

            19 Id.

            20 For NHTSA, see  http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy (last accessed April 28, 2014); for EPA, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-heavy-duty.htm (last accessed April 28, 2014).

        NHTSA will prepare an EIS to analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards and reasonable alternative standards. This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process for the EIS under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and implementing regulations issued by CEQ, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and NHTSA, 49 CFR part 520.21
           Specifically, this Notice of Intent requests public input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis and the significant environmental issues relating to more stringent fuel efficiency standards for HD vehicles.

            21 See 40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g).

          The Alternatives: NHTSA's upcoming NPRM will propose standards for HD vehicles manufactured after MY 2018. The HD sector is extremely diverse in several respects, including types of manufacturing companies involved, the range of sizes of trucks and engines they produce, the types of work the trucks are designed to perform, and the regulatory history of different subcategories of vehicles and engines. The current HD fleet encompasses vehicles from the “18-wheeler” combination tractors one sees on the highway to school and transit buses, to vocational vehicles such as utility service trucks, as well as the largest pickup trucks and vans. Compared to the light-duty sector, there is a much larger number of heavy-duty truck manufacturers, which vary in size and level of build process integration. For example, some trucks are assembled by a body builder using components from an engine manufacturer, a powertrain manufacturer, component suppliers, and a chassis builder. Each of these separate stakeholders has an impact on the fuel efficiency of the truck. NHTSA is therefore developing Phase 2 in recognition of the complex industry structure and providing for increasing coverage of the opportunities for fuel efficiency improvement.
        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.22
           In developing alternatives for analysis in the EIS, NHTSA must consider EISA's requirements for the HD fuel efficiency program noted above. 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and (3) contain the following three requirements specific to the HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program: (1) The program must be “designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement”; (2) the various required aspects of the program must be appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for HD vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted under the program must provide not less than four model years of lead time and three model years of regulatory stability. In considering these various requirements, NHTSA will also account for relevant environmental and safety considerations.

            22 40 CFR 1502.13.

        Due to the diversity of the HD industry, the Phase 1 rule divided HD vehicles into three regulatory categories: Heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans (Class 2b and Class 3), vocational vehicle chassis (Class 2b-Class 8), and combination tractors (Class 7 and 8). Phase 1 established separate standards for each of these categories, as well as standards for the engines powering vocational vehicles and combination tractors. Phase 2 may include post-MY 2018 engine and vehicle fuel efficiency standards that are more stringent than those for MYs 2016-2018, as well as regulatory standards and certification requirements for previously unregulated new trailers pulled by semi-tractors. The following discusses each of these regulatory categories in turn.
        • Class 2b and 3 Heavy-Duty Pick-Up Trucks and Vans: Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are used chiefly as work trucks and vans, as shuttle vans, and for personal transportation, with an average annual mileage in the range of 13,000-14,000 miles. Class 2b and 3 pick-up trucks and vans have up to 14,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating, with about 90 percent of them being 3/4-ton and 1-ton pickup trucks, 12- and 15-passenger vans, and large work vans that are sold by vehicle manufacturers as complete vehicles, with no secondary manufacturer making substantial modifications prior to registration and use. These vehicle manufacturers are companies with major light-duty markets in the United States. Furthermore, the technologies available to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions from this segment are similar to the technologies used on light-duty pickup trucks, including both engine efficiency improvements (for gasoline and diesel engines) and vehicle efficiency improvements.
        • Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicle Chassis: Vocational vehicles, which may span Classes 2b through 8, vary widely in size and use, including smaller and larger van trucks; delivery, utility, tank, flat-bed, and refuse trucks; transit, shuttle, and school buses; fire trucks and other emergency vehicles; motor homes; and tow trucks, among others. The annual mileage of these trucks is as varied as their uses, but for the most part tends to fall in between heavy-duty pickups/vans and the large combination tractors, although some travel more and some less. Vocational vehicles frequently begin as incomplete chassis that can be used for a number of vocational applications. The chassis manufacturers install engines and transmissions from other manufacturers and then sell the chassis to body manufacturers who add appropriate features for the vehicles' final end-use (e.g., dump bed, delivery box, or utility bucket). Phase 1 created a new vehicle certification and compliance program for vocational chassis manufacturers, which relies on a computer simulation of vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel consumption rather than on emissions testing. Vocational body manufacturers were not regulated in Phase 1.
        • Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors: Class 7 and 8 combination tractor-trailers 23
          —some equipped with sleeper cabs and some not—are used for freight transportation. Tractors sometimes run without a trailer in between loads, but most of the time they run with one or more trailers that can carry up to 50,000 pounds or more of payload, consuming significant quantities of fuel and producing significant amounts of GHG emissions. Class 7 and 8 combination tractors and their engines contribute approximately 65 percent of the total GHG emissions and fuel consumption of the heavy-duty sector due to their large payloads, their high annual miles traveled (sometimes more than 150,000 miles per year), and their major role in national freight transport. In general, reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption from these vehicles may involve improvements in aerodynamics, tires, and engine-based efficiency, reduction in idle operation, and improvements in or installation of other technologies. Fleet owners and truck owner/operators were not regulated in Phase 1.

            23 These vehicles consist of a cab and engine (tractor or combination tractor) and a detachable trailer. In general, the heavy-duty combination tractor industry consists of tractor manufacturers (which manufacture the tractor chassis and bodies and either install their own engines or purchase and install engines from separate engine manufacturers) and trailer manufacturers. These manufacturers are not the same entity. For this and other reasons, Phase 1 treated these as separate regulatory categories.

        • Engines: Phase 1 required that engines used in heavy-duty vehicles be separately certified by their manufacturer to meet GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards using the same test procedures used to certify engines for criteria pollutants, unless the vehicle is allowed to be chassis-certified (typically, Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans) whereby the separate engine certification is not required. Phase 1 engine standards vary depending on engine size linked to intended vehicle service class and use. In particular, the agencies created separate standards for spark-ignition (traditionally gasoline-fueled) and compression-ignition (traditionally diesel-fueled) engines. In addition, in Phase 1, standards for natural gas engines were identical to those for either the diesel- or gasoline-fueled engines, depending on the natural gas engine architecture.
        • Semi-trailers: Semi-trailers pulled by Class 7 and 8 tractors were considered but ultimately excluded from the Phase 1 final regulations. Since 2011, EPA and NHTSA have initiated several test programs to evaluate fuel efficient and GHG-reducing trailer technologies such as low-rolling resistance tires, aerodynamic technologies, and weight reduction. Phase 2 is expected to consider again the regulation of trailers, such as dry van trailers, refrigerated (reefer) trailers, container chassis, and other trailer types.
        NHTSA (in consultation with EPA) is still evaluating the costs and effectiveness of the various technologies available, the potential structure of the program, the stringencies of potential alternatives covering each regulatory category of the HD sector (Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans, Class 2b through 8 vocational vehicles, Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, trailers, and/or engines), and the range of reasonable alternatives for consideration in this rulemaking and EIS.24
           NHTSA will evaluate several factors in developing alternatives for consideration and analysis, including costs for technology development and manufacture, costs that will be paid by heavy-duty vehicle owners and operators, fuel efficiency (and corresponding GHG reduction) benefits, industry structure, and more.

            24 Amongst other research and reports, NHTSA will consider the findings contained in the recent National Academies report regarding Phase 2 regulations. See National Research Council. Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014.

        NEPA requires agencies to consider a “no action” alternative in their NEPA analyses and to compare the effects of not taking action with the effects of the reasonable action alternatives in order to demonstrate the different environmental effects of the action alternatives.25
           In its EIS, NHTSA will consider a “no action” alternative, which assumes, for purposes of NEPA analysis, that NHTSA would not issue a rule regarding HD fuel efficiency standards. Under these circumstances, the existing fuel efficiency standards established for the end of Phase 1 would persist until NHTSA takes additional action.26
           NHTSA will refer to this as the “No Action Alternative” or as the “baseline.”

            25 See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d). CEQ has explained that “[T]he regulations require the analysis of the no action alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the President as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 1500.1(a).]” Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis added).

            26 The “no action” alternative will also assume that EPA would not issue a rule regarding HD GHG emissions standards. The existing GHG standards established for the end of Phase 1 would also persist indefinitely.

        Similar to the approach NHTSA used in its EIS for the MY 2017-2025 light-duty CAFE standards, the EIS will also analyze action alternatives calculated at the lower point and at the upper point of the range the agency believes encompasses reasonable alternatives meeting the purpose and need of the proposed action (i.e., increasing fuel efficiency of HD vehicles in conformity with the requirements of EISA). These lower and upper “bounds” or “brackets” will account for various potential structures for the Phase 2 fuel efficiency improvement program and various levels of stringency for the regulatory categories identified above. These alternatives would bracket the range of actions the agency may select. If additional granularity is necessary, the agency may analyze additional action alternatives within the range.
        In the draft EIS (DEIS), NHTSA intends to identify a Preferred Alternative, which may be one of the above-identified alternatives or a level of stringency that falls between those extremes. The Preferred Alternative would reflect what the agency believes is the “maximum feasible improvement” required under EISA, and may require fuel efficiency improvement that is constant throughout the regulatory period or varies from year to year (and from segment to segment) in accordance with predetermined stringency increases that would be established by this rule. However, the overall stringency and impacts will fall at or between the lower and upper brackets discussed above. NHTSA has not yet identified its Preferred Alternative.

        The lower and upper bounds of the range of reasonable alternatives would reflect different ways NHTSA could weigh the considerations before the agency in the rulemaking. The lower bound, representing the least stringent fuel efficiency improvement, would reflect more pessimistic assumptions of the appropriateness, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of various technologies designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement in fuel efficiency. This alternative might assume, for example, that fuel efficiency improvement technologies are at the upper end of their ranges of potential cost, that technologies are not effectively deployable until later in time, that the benefits are at the lower end of their potential range, or that heavy-duty vehicle owners and operators demand more immediate benefits. On the other hand, the upper bound, representing the most stringent fuel efficiency improvement, would reflect more optimistic assumptions of the appropriateness, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of those technologies. This alternative might assume, for example, that fuel efficiency improvement technologies are at the lower end of their ranges of potential cost, that technologies will be deployed earlier in time, that the benefits are at the higher end of their potential range, or that heavy-duty vehicle owners and operators will accept benefits over the long-term despite higher initial costs.
        The range covered will reflect differences in the degree of technology adoption across the fleet, in costs to manufacturers and heavy-duty vehicle owners and operators, and in conservation of fuel and related reductions in GHGs. For example, the most stringent alternative NHTSA will evaluate would likely require, on balance, greater adoption of technology across the fleet than the least stringent alternative NHTSA will evaluate. As a result, the most stringent alternative would impose greater costs and achieve greater energy conservation and related reductions in GHGs.
        This range of stringencies, along with the analysis for the Preferred Alternative, would provide a broad range of information for NHTSA to use in evaluating and weighing the statutory factors in EISA. It would also assist the decision-maker in considering the differences and uncertainties in the way in which key economic inputs (e.g., the price of fuel and the social cost of carbon) and technological inputs are estimated or valued.
        NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency considers a full range of reasonable alternatives in setting new HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement standards and that the agency identifies the environmental impacts and focuses its analyses on all the potentially significant impacts related to each alternative. Comments may go beyond the approaches and information that NHTSA described above for developing the alternatives and in identifying the potentially significant environmental effects. The agency may modify the proposed alternatives and environmental effects that will be analyzed in depth based upon the comments received during the scoping process and upon further agency analysis.

          Planned Analysis: The scoping process initiated by this notice seeks to determine “the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered” in the EIS and to identify the most important issues for analysis involving the potential environmental impacts of NHTSA's HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program.27
           NHTSA's NEPA analysis will consider the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed post-2018 standards and those of reasonable alternatives.

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

        While the main focus of NHTSA's prior EISs (i.e., the CAFE EISs for MYs 2017-2025,28
           2012-2016,29
           and 2011-2015,30
           and the HD Phase 1 EIS 31
          ) was the quantitative analysis of impacts to energy, air quality, and climate, as well as qualitative analysis of cumulative impacts resulting from climate change, those prior EISs also addressed other potentially affected resources. For example, NHTSA conducted a qualitative review of impacts of the alternatives on water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice. In the last CAFE EIS, NHTSA also presented a literature synthesis of life-cycle environmental impacts of certain vehicle materials and technologies.32

            28 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2017-2025, Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056-2089 (July 2012).

            29 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2012-2016, Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059-0140 (February 2010).

            30 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060-0605 (October 2008).

            31 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, Model Years 2014-2018, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079-0151 (June 2011).

            32 See Chapter 6 of the CAFE MY 2017-2025 Final EIS.

        Similar to past EIS practice, NHTSA plans to analyze environmental impacts related to fuel and energy use, air pollutant emissions including GHGs and their effects on temperature and climate change, air quality, natural resources, and the human environment. NHTSA will consider the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed HD standards, as well as the cumulative impacts 33
           of the proposed standards together with any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. NHTSA also intends to present a literature synthesis of life-cycle and upstream environmental impacts of vehicle materials and technologies relevant to the improvement of fuel efficiency in HD vehicles. Overall, NHTSA plans to analyze impacts in much the same manner as it did in its prior EISs, particularly the CAFE MY 2017-2025 Final EIS (FEIS), while incorporating by reference any of the relevant discussions from those documents.

            33 In accordance with CEQ regulations, cumulative impacts are “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such action.” 40 CFR 1508.7.

        Because of the models NHTSA will use for this rulemaking and EIS, the agency anticipates analyzing impacts on fuel/energy use and pollutant emissions through 2050 and impacts on GHG emissions, global temperature, and climate change through 2100. In the CAFE MY 2017-2025 FEIS, NHTSA analyzed impacts on fuel/energy use and pollutant emissions through 2060. However, because HD vehicles generally accumulate the vast majority of their VMT in early years, and because more distant projections contain far more uncertainty, NHTSA believes the analysis year of 2050 for fuel/energy use and air quality will provide sufficient information for the decision-maker to assess the totality of the impacts related to the regulated vehicles. Because climate impacts are more long-term, NHTSA anticipates that the EIS will assess these impacts to 2100.
        NHTSA specifically requests comment on its proposed analysis as laid out in the previous paragraphs. For example, do the resources and impacts described represent the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS? 34

           How should the agency assess cumulative impacts, including those from various emissions source categories and across a range of geographic locations? How should the agency distinguish the direct/indirect impacts of its action from the cumulative impacts of its action? Finally, should the cumulative impacts analysis consider emissions and impacts related to only HD vehicles, all on-road motor vehicles, the entirety of the transportation sector, or all sources of such emissions?

            34 See 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(2).

        The agency anticipates uncertainty in estimating the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives it proposes, particularly with regard to climate change. For instance, NHTSA expects that there will be uncertainty associated with its estimates of the range of potential global mean temperature changes that may result from changes in fuel and energy consumption and GHG emissions due to a range of new HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards. Further, it is difficult to predict and compare the ways in which potential temperature changes attributable to new HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards may, in turn, affect many aspects of the environment. NHTSA will endeavor to gather the key relevant and credible information. Where information is incomplete or unavailable, the agency will acknowledge the uncertainties in its NEPA analysis, and will apply the provisions in the CEQ regulations addressing “[i]ncomplete or unavailable information.” 35

            35 See 40 CFR 1502.22.

        NHTSA intends to rely primarily upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports and reports of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), including the USGCRP Third National Climate Assessment (NCA) Report, as sources for recent “summar[ies] of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment.” 36
           NHTSA will also rely on National Academies and National Research Council assessments of climate impacts and the EPA Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act and the accompanying Technical Support Document (referred to collectively hereinafter as the EPA Endangerment Finding). NHTSA believes that the IPCC Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports, the USGCRP NCA, National Academies and National Research Council assessments, and the EPA Endangerment Finding are the most recent, most comprehensive summaries available, but recognizes that subsequent peer-reviewed research and other federal agency reports may provide additional relevant and credible evidence not accounted for in these Reports. NHTSA expects to consider such subsequent information as well, to the extent that it provides relevant and credible evidence.

            36 40 CFR 1502.22(b)(3); see 40 CFR 1502.21. The IPCC reports are available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ (last visited April 29, 2014). Information on CCSP and USGCRP can be found at http://www.globalchange.gov/ (last visited May 19, 2014). Information on EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings is available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/ (last visited April 29, 2014).

        NHTSA expects to rely on its previously published EISs, incorporating material by reference “when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action.” 37
           Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA analysis and documentation will incorporate by reference relevant materials, including portions of the agency's prior NEPA documents, where appropriate.

            37 40 CFR 1502.21.

        NHTSA has invited EPA, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) to serve as cooperating agencies on this EIS.38
           If they accept, these agencies' role in the development of the EIS could include the following as they relate to their area of expertise:

            38 Under the CEQ implementing regulations, a cooperating agency is “any Federal agency[, State or local agency, or Indian tribe] other than a lead agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal (or a reasonable alternative) for . . . [a] major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 40 CFR 1508.5. See also 40 CFR 1501.6.

        • Identifying the significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS from a fuel use, climate change, and air quality perspective for heavy-duty vehicles;
        • Participating in the scoping process as appropriate and, in particular, assisting NHTSA to “identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (§ 1506.3), narrowing the discussion of these issues in the statement to a brief presentation of why they will not have a significant effect on the human environment or providing a reference to their coverage elsewhere;” 39

            39 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3).

        • Providing information and expertise on manufacture, sale, operation, and maintenance, of heavy-duty vehicles;
        • Providing information and expertise related to technologies for improving the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty vehicles;
        • Providing technical assistance, information, and expertise for modeling environmental impacts related to manufacture and use of heavy-duty vehicles;
        • Participating in coordination meetings, as appropriate; and
        • Reviewing and commenting on the DEIS and FEIS prior to publication.
        As part of the scoping process, NHTSA will work with cooperating agencies to refine their role, though NHTSA will retain responsibility for the EIS.40

            40 See 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(4).

          Scoping and Public Participation: NHTSA's NEPA analysis for new HD fuel efficiency improvement program standards will consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of proposed standards and those of reasonable alternatives. The scoping process initiated by this notice seeks public comment on the range of alternatives under consideration, and on the most important issues for in-depth analysis in the EIS.41

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

        NHTSA invites all Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, State and local agencies, stakeholders, and the public to participate in the scoping process.42

           Please submit written comments concerning the appropriate scope of the NEPA analysis for proposed HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards 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 past experience indicates that written comments will be effective in identifying and narrowing the issues for analysis.

            42 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 HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6.

        All comments relevant to the scoping process are welcome. Specifically, NHTSA requests:

        • Peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been issued since the EPA Endangerment Finding and that address or may inform: (a) The impacts on CO2 and other GHG emissions that may be associated with any of the alternatives under consideration; (b) the impacts from climate change that may be associated with these emission changes; or (c) the time periods over which such impacts may occur. NHTSA is particularly interested in peer-reviewed studies analyzing the potential impacts of climate change within the United States or in particular geographic areas of the United States.

        • Comments on how NHTSA should estimate the potential changes in temperature that may result from the changes in CO2 emissions projected from setting new HD fuel efficiency standards, and comments on how NHTSA should estimate the potential impacts of temperature changes on the environment.
        • Comments on how NHTSA should discuss or estimate any localized or regional impacts of decreased fuel use, including potential upstream impacts (e.g., changes in fuel use and emissions levels resulting from the extraction, production, storage, and distribution of fuel; changes in materials or other technologies), and comments on how NHTSA should estimate the potential impacts of these localized or regional changes on the environment.
        • Comments on what time frame NHTSA should use to evaluate the environmental impacts that may result from setting HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
        • Comments on emerging environmental issues that should be considered when setting standards.
        NHTSA understands that there are a variety of potential alternatives that could be considered that fit within the purpose and need for the proposed rulemaking, as set forth in EISA. NHTSA is therefore interested in comments on how best to structure or describe proposed alternatives for purposes of evaluation under NEPA. Subject to the statutory restraints under EISA, a variety of potential alternatives could be considered within the purpose and need for the proposed rulemaking, each falling along a theoretically infinite continuum of potential standards. As described above, NHTSA plans to address this issue by identifying alternatives at the upper and lower bounds of a range within which we believe the statutory requirement for “maximum feasible improvement” 43
           would be satisfied, as well as identifying and analyzing the impacts of a preferred alternative. In this way, NHTSA expects to bracket the potential environmental impacts of the standards it may select.44

            43 See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).

            44 Should NHTSA ultimately choose to set standards at levels other than the Preferred Alternative, we believe that this bracketing will properly inform the decision-maker, so long as the standards are set within its bounds. This methodology permits the analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives the agency may pick, while providing the agency flexibility to select the alternative based on the most up-to-date information and analyses available at that time.

        NHTSA seeks comments on what criteria should be used to choose the Preferred Alternative, given the agency's statutory requirement of developing a “program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement.” 45
           When suggesting an approach, please explain how it would satisfy the EISA requirements (in particular, how and why it would be “appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible”) and give effect to NEPA's policies.46

            45 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).

            46 See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2); 40 CFR 1502.14, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action (explaining what agencies should include in the alternatives section of an EIS).

        In addition, as noted above, 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. Also in regard to cumulative impacts, the agency requests comments on how to consider the incremental impacts from foreseeable future actions of other agencies or persons, and how they might interact with the HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program's incremental impacts.
        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.47
           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, or an analytical tool or model that you believe NHTSA should use to evaluate these environmental impacts, you should clearly describe it and support your comments with a reference to a specific peer-reviewed scientific study, report, tool or model. Specific, well-supported comments will help the agency prepare an EIS that is focused and relevant, and will serve NEPA's overarching aims of making high quality information available to decision-makers and the public by “concentrat[ing] on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.” 48
           By contrast, mere assertions that the agency should evaluate broad lists or categories of concerns, without support, will likely not assist the scoping process for the proposed standards.

            47 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a).

            48 40 CFR 1500.1(b).

        Written comments should include an Internet citation (with a date last visited) to each peer-reviewed study or report you cite in your comments if one is available. If a document you cite is not available to the public online, you should attach a copy to your comments 49
           or describe the study with sufficient detail to allow the agency to determine whether its contents warrant further analysis and potential inclusion in the EIS. Your comments should indicate how each document you cite, attach, or describe is relevant to the rulemaking or NEPA analysis, and indicate the specific pages and passages in the attachment that are most informative.

            49 Many studies or reports are subject to distribution limitations under U.S. copyright law. Please do not attach the document to your written comments if it would violate U.S. copyright law to make that document available to the public in the agency's docket.

        In the past, some commenters have incorporated by reference comments they or others have previously submitted with regard to other EISs prepared by NHTSA. To the degree those previously submitted comments do not relate to the current EIS, have already been responded to by the agency in a prior EIS, or have been addressed by changes in the prior or current EISs, NHTSA will not provide a direct response in the current DEIS or FEIS. If a commenter does not believe the issues raised in those previously submitted comments have been fully addressed by the agency, the commenter may choose to raise the issue again, but should provide sufficient explanation and supporting material in comments submitted to the agency with regard to the current EIS (including comments submitted during scoping).
        Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the heading of this document in your comments. NHTSA may communicate with interested parties by email. Thus, please also provide an email address (or a mailing address if you decline email communications).50

           These steps will help NHTSA 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.regulations.gov.

            50 If you prefer to receive NHTSA's NEPA correspondence by U.S. mail, NHTSA intends to provide its NEPA publications via a CD readable on a personal computer.

        NHTSA expects to prepare an NPRM and DEIS for public comment by March 2015, and an FEIS and final rule by March 2016. NHTSA will make its DEIS and FEIS available on the agency's Web site (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/fuel-economy) 51
           and in the docket identified at the beginning of the notice. NHTSA will mail notices of the availability of environmental documents to Federal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise (including cooperating agencies), States, Indian tribes, commenters, stakeholders (e.g., vehicle, trailer, or engine manufacturers, trade organizations, and environmental organizations the agency has identified), and national organizations that have requested that notice regularly be provided.52

           EPA will then announce the availability of NHTSA's DEIS and FEIS in Federal Register notices. To reduce its impact on the environment, NHTSA's default method of distribution will be through the Internet by the agency's Web site and online docket (http://www.regulations.gov). However, NHTSA will create limited quantities of the EIS on CD-ROMs and in hard-copy printed books for those who require and specifically request to receive it in those formats.53

            51 NHTSA will also post information about the NEPA process and the HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program rulemaking on this Web site.

            52 Members of the public, including national organizations, may request that notice of the availability of environmental documents be provided directly to them. To be included on this transmittal list, please provide your email address or mailing address to NHTSA by email (NHTSA.NEPA_Mailing@dot.gov) or regular mail (James MacIsaac, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W43-444, Washington, DC 20590).

            53 Such requests may be made by email or regular mail at the addresses indicated in the previous footnote. Please be advised that requests received after January 1, 2015 may result in delayed receipt of a CD-ROM or hard copy.

          David M. Hines,
          Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2014-16005 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 130326296-3552-01]
        RIN 0648-BD10
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Abbreviated Framework

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in an abbreviated framework to the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council), and Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resource prepared by the Gulf Council and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council). If implemented, this rule would eliminate the requirement to submit a current certificate of inspection (COI) provided by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) with the application to renew or transfer a Federal Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) coastal migratory pelagic (CMP) or reef fish charter vessel/headboat permit (hereafter referred to as a for-hire permit). The rule would eliminate the restriction on transferring for-hire permits to a vessel of greater authorized passenger capacity than specified on the permit. The rule would also prohibit the harvest or possession of CMP or reef fish species on a vessel with a Gulf for-hire permit that is carrying more passengers than is specified on the permit. The intended effect of this proposed rule is to simplify the passenger capacity requirements for transfers and renewals of Gulf CMP and reef fish for-hire permits to provide more flexibility in the use of these permitted vessels.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before July 8, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0065”, 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-2013-0065, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            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.

          Electronic copies of the abbreviated framework, which includes a regulatory impact review, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a social impact assessment, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.

          Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted in writing to Anik Clemens, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email at OIRA Submission@omb.eop.gov, or by fax to 202-395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, telephone 727-824-5305, email Peter.Hood@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Gulf reef fish and CMP fisheries are managed under their respective FMPs. The Gulf reef fish FMP was prepared by the Gulf Council and the CMP FMP was prepared by the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils and are implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, optimum yield (OY) from federally managed fish stocks. To reduce the risk of overfishing, permit moratoria were placed on Gulf CMP and reef fish for-hire permits to cap fishing effort. The purpose of this action is to simplify the passenger capacity requirements for transfers and renewals of Gulf CMP and reef fish for-hire permits to provide more flexibility in the use of these permitted vessels.
        In 2003, moratoria were established for for-hire permits for the Gulf CMP and reef fish fisheries through Amendments 14 and 20 to the respective FMPs (68 FR 26230, May 15, 2003). The intended effect of these moratoria was to cap the effort and passenger capacity of Gulf for-hire vessels operating in these fisheries at the level documented in March 2001, while the Council evaluated whether limited access programs were needed to permanently constrain effort. These moratoria were extended indefinitely in June 2006, through Amendments 17 and 25 to the respective FMPs (71 FR 28282, May 16, 2006) and created the current limited access system for this sector.
        Regulations implementing the moratoria on Gulf for-hire permits limit permit transfers and renewals to vessels that have the same passenger capacity or a lower passenger capacity to limit overall fishing effort. Because passenger capacity is currently based on the USCG COI, this limits the ability of the owner of a permitted vessel to transfer the Gulf for-hire permit to a vessel that has a higher passenger capacity listed on the COI or to renew the permit under the higher passenger capacity listed on the COI. Under such scenarios, the only way to renew or transfer a permit is to have the USCG adjust the COI so that it is less than or equal to the passenger capacity identified on the Gulf for-hire permit, which was based on the COI of the vessel when the moratorium Gulf for-hire permit was first issued, even though a vessel could safely carry more passengers, or subsequently has had the COI revised to carry more passengers.
        This proposed rule would eliminate the requirement to submit a current USCG COI with the application to renew or transfer a Gulf for-hire permit, eliminate the restriction on transfer, and implement a provision that would prohibit the harvest or possession of reef fish or CMP species on vessels with a Gulf for-hire permit that is carrying more passengers than is specified on the Gulf for-hire permit. Because the passenger capacity for the Gulf for-hire vessel when fishing would be based on the COI of the vessel when the moratorium Gulf for-hire permit was first issued, the cap on fishing effort, which was the original purpose of the moratorium permits, would be maintained. As a result of this action, the requirements to renew or transfer a for-hire permit would be simplified, for-hire effort control in the reef fish and CMP fisheries would be maintained, and vessel owners would be allowed to carry more passengers for non-fishing activities if their COI is greater than the passenger capacity on their fore-hire permit.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator, NMFS, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the abbreviated framework, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to eliminate the requirement to use the passenger capacity listed on the USCG COI in the renewal or transfer of Federal Gulf for-hire permits and instead, implement the requirement to use the passenger capacity listed on the Gulf for-hire permit. This would be expected to increase the profits of affected Gulf for-hire businesses while continuing to prevent overfishing and achieving the OY of the species harvested by these businesses. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed action. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This proposed rule would not introduce any changes to current reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements, except as discussed below with respect to passenger capacity fishing restrictions.
        This proposed rule would be expected to affect all for-hire vessels with a Gulf for-hire permit. A Gulf for-hire permit is required for for-hire vessels to harvest reef fish or CMP species in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ). On March 1, 2013, 1,348 vessels had a valid (non-expired) or renewable reef fish for-hire permit and 1,377 vessels had a valid or renewable CMP for-hire permit. An expired permit is renewable for one year after expiration. Many Gulf for-hire vessels have both the reef fish and CMP charter for-hire permits and 1,440 unique vessels had one (either a reef fish or CMP permit) or both for-hire permits. The Gulf for-hire fleet is comprised of charter vessels, which charge a fee on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual angler (head) basis. Among the 1,440 vessels with at least one Gulf for-hire permit, 80 are believed to primarily operate as headboats and 1,360 primarily operate as charter vessels.
        This proposed rule would also affect Gulf for-hire vessels that do not have a Gulf for-hire permit that attempt to purchase and receive through transfer a Gulf for-hire permit from a permitted vessel. The number of Gulf for-hire vessels that do not have a Gulf for-hire permit and may wish to acquire one through transfer is unknown.
        The average charter vessel is estimated to earn approximately $81,700 (2012 dollars) and the average headboat is estimated to earn approximately $247,000. These estimates apply to vessels with and without a Gulf for-hire permit.
        NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule.

        The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including fish harvesters. A business involved in the for-hire fishing industry is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All for-hire vessels expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are believed to be small business entities.
        The proposed elimination of the use of the passenger capacity specified on the USCG COI during the transfer or renewal process for Federal Gulf for-hire permits would be expected to allow Gulf for-hire permit transfers and renewals to occur in a timelier and more efficient manner, result in less disruption in vessel operation, and result in increased revenue to affected entities. Vessels with a higher passenger capacity on their COI than on their Gulf for-hire permit, in the case of permit renewals, or on the Gulf for-hire permit they are attempting to acquire through transfer, would not be required to obtain a new COI with an adjusted (lower) passenger capacity to match the passenger capacity listed on the Gulf for-hire permit. As a result, these vessels would not have to incur the costs associated with re-inspection or reduced revenue associated with operational delay re-inspection may precipitate. Vessels that provide non-fishing for-hire services could carry more passengers, subject to the passenger capacity specified by their COI, than when fishing and not be limited to the lower passenger capacity specified on their Gulf for-hire permit. As a result, revenue from these services (non-fishing for-hire) could be increased. Available data, however, are insufficient to quantify these potential increases.
        The proposed prohibition on the harvest or possession of reef fish and CMP species on vessels with a Gulf for-hire permit that is carrying more passengers than is specified on the Gulf for-hire permit would be expected to reduce revenue for vessels that may previously have carried more passengers than specified on their Gulf for-hire permit, though few vessels are expected to have engaged in this practice. Current regulation, although intended to limit effort per vessel to the number of passengers on the original moratorium permit, only places passenger restrictions on the renewal or transfer of for-hire permits; no passenger restrictions are placed on the vessel when engaged in fishing. In theory, the restrictions placed on permit renewal or transfer should have, were intended to, and likely did, result in vessels with consistent (equal) passenger limits specified on both the Gulf for-hire permit and the COI. In practice, however, it has been possible for the passenger limits on the two documents to be unequal and, as a result, allow a vessel to carry more passengers when fishing than the limit specified on the Gulf for-hire permit. This could occur if, for example, a vessel renewed the Gulf for-hire permit, or received one through transfer, was re-inspected by the USCG, and received a COI with a higher maximum passenger limit than specified on the Gulf for-hire permit. If inspected at sea, the vessel would not violate passenger restrictions as long as the number of passengers was less than or equal to the safe limit specified on the COI even if carrying more passengers than specified on the Gulf for-hire permit. As a result, the vessel could carry more passengers while fishing than specified on the Gulf for-hire permit and benefit, financially, from the higher passenger load. This would be a temporary advantage to the vessel, however, the permit could not be renewed (or transferred) with a COI with a higher passenger limit than specified on the Gulf for-hire permit. Thus, to continue to carry more passengers than specified on the Gulf for-hire permit when fishing, a new COI would have to be obtained specifying the lower limit prior to permit renewal and, upon renewal, re-inspection would need to occur to “recover” the higher limit. Such behavior would not be expected to be common or frequent. Although the fee for inspection may not be onerous, $300 for a vessel less than 65 ft (20 m) in length, relative to the potential increase in revenue associated with carrying more passengers, justifying to the USCG the need for doubling of the number of inspections as a strategic move may be difficult. Additionally, the ability to carry more passengers under a situation like this has likely been a regulatory loophole that few, if any, vessel owners are expected to have identified in the past, or would recognize in the future, and taken advantage of even temporarily. As a result, although the proposed prohibition would prevent behavior previously allowed, little to no change in economic benefits would be expected because the behavior that would be prohibited is not believed to have occurred in the past or be expected to occur in the future in the absence of this proposed prohibition.
        Few vessels have encountered a problem associated with Gulf for-hire permit renewal or transfer due to passenger capacity issues in recent years, with only an estimated seven denials (renewal or transfer) occurring from 2011 through the time of this analysis. Thus, only a small portion of the Gulf for-hire fleet has been directly affected by current regulations. However, with declining seasons for some key species, notably red snapper, the decline in the general national economy and slow pace of economic recovery, service diversification may become increasingly important to help Gulf for-hire businesses remain economically viable. Thus, for some individual small businesses, the economic effects of this proposed rule could be significant. However, overall, because few vessels have encountered a problem with conflicting passenger capacities on their Gulf for-hire permit and COI at either the permit renewal or transfer stage, only a small portion of the Gulf for-hire fleet would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed action.
        In summary, the proposed rule, if implemented, would not be expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and, as a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA. NMFS is revising the collection-of-information requirements under OMB control number 0648-0205. NMFS estimates eliminating the requirement for Gulf for-hire permit holders to submit a current COI to renew or transfer a Gulf reef fish or CMP for-hire permit would decrease the overall reporting burden under OMB control number 0648-0205. The requirement to submit a current COI would be removed from the instructions on the Federal Permit Application for Vessels Fishing in the EEZ and a COI would not need to be submitted with the application to renew or transfer a permit. NMFS estimates these requirements would decrease the reporting burden for Gulf for-hire permit holders who are renewing or transferring a Gulf for-hire permit on average by 1 minute per response. These estimates of the public reporting burden include the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information.

        These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval. NMFS seeks public comment regarding: Whether this proposed collection-of-information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection-of-information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection-of-information requirement, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Certificate of inspection, Fisheries, Fishing, For-Hire, Gulf, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: June 18, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.13, paragraph (g) is added to read as follows:

          § 622.13
          Prohibitions—general.

          (g) Fail to comply with the passenger capacity related requirements in §§ 622.20(b)(1) and 622.373(b)(1).

        3. In § 622.20, paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) are revised and paragraph (b)(1)(iv) is added to read as follows:

          § 622.20
          Permits and endorsements.

          (b) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (A) Permits without a historical captain endorsement. A charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish that does not have a historical captain endorsement is fully transferable, with or without sale of the permitted vessel.
          (B) Permits with a historical captain endorsement. A charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish that has a historical captain endorsement may only be transferred to a vessel operated by the historical captain and is not otherwise transferable.

          (iv) Passenger capacity compliance requirement. A vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat with a valid charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish, which is carrying more passengers on board the vessel than is specified on the permit, is prohibited from harvesting or possessing the species identified on the permit.

        4. In § 622.373, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) are revised and paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:

          § 622.373
          Limited access system for charter vessel/headboat permits for Gulf coastal migratory pelagic fish.

          (b) * * *
          (1) Permits without a historical captain endorsement. A charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf coastal migratory pelagic fish that does not have a historical captain endorsement is fully transferable, with or without sale of the permitted vessel.
          (2) Permits with a historical captain endorsement. A charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf coastal migratory pelagic fish that has a historical captain endorsement may only be transferred to a vessel operated by the historical captain and is not otherwise transferable.

          (e) Passenger capacity compliance requirement. A vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat with a valid charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf coastal migratory pelagic fish, which is carrying more passengers on board the vessel than is specified on the permit, is prohibited from harvesting or possessing the species identified on the permit.

      [FR Doc. 2013-14907 Filed 6-20-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P