[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 188 (Friday, October 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54379-54381]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21048]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0461; FRL-8976-02-R4]

Air Plan Approval and Operating Permit Program; KY; Public,
Affected State, and EPA Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving changes
to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Kentucky Title
V Operating Permit Program (Title V) submitted by the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, through the Energy and Environment Cabinet (Cabinet) on
August 12, 2020, and March 29, 2021. These revisions address the public
notice rule provisions for the New Source Review (NSR), Federally
Enforceable State Operating Permits (FESOP), and Title V programs of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) by providing for electronic notice (``e-
notice'') and removing the mandatory requirement to provide public
notice of a draft air permit in a newspaper. EPA is approving these
changes as they are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and
implementing Federal regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective November 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0461. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah LaRocca, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-8994. Ms. LaRocca can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA is approving changes to 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulation
(KAR) 52:100, Public, affected state, and U.S. EPA review, of the
Kentucky SIP and Title V program, submitted by the Commonwealth on
August 12, 2020, and March 29, 2021. The August 12, 2020, and March 29,
2021, SIP and Title V program revisions seek to establish a revised
method of publication of public notices for public hearings and public
comment periods, establish a revised method of notification of the
opportunity to be placed on a mailing list of permit actions, change
how documents related to permit proceedings will be available for
public inspection, and make minor changes to 401 KAR 52:100 that do not
alter the meaning of the regulation. The SIP revisions, which address
public notice rule provisions for the NSR and FESOP programs, updates
the current SIP-approved version of 401 KAR 52:100 (Version 1) to
Version 2. The Title V revision updates the approved version of 401 KAR
52:100 originally approved in the Kentucky Title V program to Version 2
as well.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA fully approved Kentucky's Title V permitting program in
2001. See 66 FR 54955 (October 31, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of Kentucky's Submission

    On October 5, 2016, EPA finalized revised public notice provisions
for the NSR, Title V, and Outer Continental Shelf permitting programs
of the CAA. See 81 FR 71613 (October 18, 2016). These rule revisions
removed the mandatory requirement to provide public notice of
permitting actions through publication in a newspaper and allow for
internet e-notice as an option for permitting authorities implementing
their own EPA-approved SIP rules and Title V rules, such as Kentucky's
EPA-approved permitting programs. Permitting authorities are not
required to adopt e-notice. Nothing in the revised

rules prevents a permitting authority with an EPA-approved permitting
program from continuing to use newspaper notification and/or from
supplementing e-notice with newspaper notification and/or additional
means of notification. For the noticing of draft permits issued by
permitting authorities with EPA-approved programs, the rule requires
the permitting authority to use ``a consistent noticing method'' for
all permit notices under the specific permitting program. When e-notice
is provided, EPA's rule requires electronic access (e-access) to the
draft permit for the duration of the public comment period.
    A full description of the e-notice and e-access provisions are
contained in EPA's October 18, 2016 rulemaking document. See 81 FR
71613.
    The SIP and Title V permit programs are revised through changes to
401 KAR 52:100, Public, affected state, and U.S. EPA review, which
establishes the procedures used by the Cabinet to provide for the
review of federally-enforceable permits by the public, affected states,
and EPA. Specifically, 401 KAR 52:100 applies to permit actions
established in 401 KAR 52.020, Title V Permits and 401 KAR 52.030,
Federally-enforceable permits for non-major sources. In addition, the
public participation provisions of Kentucky's major source NSR
permitting programs at 401 KAR 51:017, Prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality (PSD), and 401 KAR 51:052, Review of new
sources in or impacting upon nonattainment areas (addressing
nonattainment new source review (NNSR)) cross reference the public
notice procedures of 401 KAR 52:100.
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 28, 2021
(86 FR 28740), EPA proposed to approve Kentucky's SIP and Title V
program revisions provided on August 12, 2020, and March 29, 2021. The
NPRM provides additional detail regarding the background and rationale
for EPA's action. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before June 28,
2021. EPA did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of 401 KAR
52:100, Public, affected state, and U.S. EPA review, Version 2, State
effective June 2, 2020, into the Kentucky SIP. The incorporation
includes minor textual changes and establishes a revised means of
publication for public notices for public hearing, public comment
periods, and the opportunity to join mailing lists, and a revised means
to inspect documents related to permit proceedings. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated
by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the changes to the 401 KAR 52:100 Public, affected
state, and U.S. EPA review, of the Kentucky SIP and Title V program, as
submitted on August 12, 2020, and March 29, 2021, as these changes are
consistent with the CAA and implementing Federal regulations.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve SIP and
Title V submissions that comply with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k) and 7661a(d); 40
CFR 52.02(a) and 70.4(e). Thus, in reviewing SIP and Title V
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they
meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The Kentucky SIP and Title V program are not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rules do not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 30, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 22, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts
52 and 70 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. In Sec.  52.920(c), Table 1 is amended under ``Chapter 52 Permits,
Registrations, and Prohibitory Rules'' by revising the entry for ``401
KAR 52:100'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   Table 1--EPA-Approved Kentucky Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
        State citation             Title/subject        effective     EPA approval date         Explanation
                                                          date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Chapter 52 Permits, Registrations, and Prohibitory Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
401 KAR 52:100...............  Public, affected          6/2/2020   10/1/2021, [Insert
                                state, and U.S. EPA                  citation of
                                review.                              publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS

0
3. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

0
4. Amend appendix A to part 70 by adding paragraph (c) under the
heading ``Kentucky'' to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Kentucky

* * * * *
    (c) Revisions to 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulation 52:100,
submitted on March 29, 2021, with a State effective date of June 2,
2020, to allow for electronic noticing of operating permits, are
approved on October 1, 2021.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-21048 Filed 9-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2178-2179]
[DOCID:fr14ja10-113]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61313; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-116]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 2.3

January 7, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on December 22, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. NYSE Arca filed the proposed rule change as a ``non-
controversial'' proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.3
governing ETP Application Procedures. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com,
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. A copy of this filing is
available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the
Exchange's principal office and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.3 to
permit the Exchange to offer an expedited application process for
Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'') \6\ applicants that are current NYSE
Arca Options Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(m) (definition of ETP); see
also NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(n) (definition of ETP Holder).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the NYSE Arca ETP application process does not take into
consideration an applicant's OTP status. This creates a duplicative
application review because the requirements to become a NYSE Arca OTP
Holder are substantially similar to the NYSE Arca ETP requirements and
satisfy the criteria reviewed in the NYSE Arca ETP application process.
Additionally, the rules related to registration are substantially
similar for both ETP and OTP applicants. This proposed rule would
eliminate inefficiencies and unnecessary burdens by creating an
expedited application process for applicants who are NYSE Arca OTP
Holders.
    This proposal is substantially similar to previously approved
Nasdaq Rule 1013(a)(5)(C) and Nasdaq OMX BX Rule 1013(a)(5)(C).
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to revise NYSE Arca Equities Rule
2.3 by adding the following as new subsection (b):

    An applicant that is an approved NYSE Arca OTP Holder may apply
to become an ETP Holder through an expedited process, by submitting
a Short Form ETP Holder Application and an NYSE Arca Equities User
Agreement. The Short Form ETP Holder Application shall contain
information sufficient to establish the identity of the applicant as
an approved NYSE Arca OTP Holder, its proposed activity on the
Exchange, and certain contact personnel, in addition to any other
information that may be required by the Exchange.

    In doing so, the Exchange will offer NYSE Arca OTP Holders an
expedited and efficient ETP application process consistent with
procedures established on other exchanges.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \7\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act''), in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \8\ in particular in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The exchange seeks to revise its membership rules so that ETP
applicants are not unnecessarily burdened by duplicative review
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the
Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the

Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-116 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-116. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-116 and should
be submitted on or before February 4, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-545 Filed 1-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34740-34745]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15701]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0069]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
Model Year 2022-2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

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

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement;
request for scoping comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), NHTSA intends to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of new Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model year (MY) 2022-2025
passenger automobiles (referred to herein as ``passenger cars'') and
non-passenger automobiles (referred to herein as ``light trucks'') that
NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 (EISA). This notice initiates the process for determining
the scope of considerations to be addressed in the EIS and for
identifying any significant environmental matters related to the
proposed action. NHTSA invites public comments from Federal, State, and
local agencies, Indian tribes, stakeholders, and the public in this
scoping process to help identify and focus any matters of environmental
significance and reasonable alternatives to be examined in the EIS.

DATES: The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and
issuance of a Draft EIS, which will be made available for public
comment concurrently with the issuance of a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to fully
consider scoping comments, scoping comments should be received on or
before August 25, 2017. NHTSA will 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you must include the
docket number identified in the heading of this notice. 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.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. We will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. 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.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Ken
Katz, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel
Economy, and Consumer Programs, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for legal issues, contact Russell Krupen, Legislation
& General Law Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone: 202-
366-1834, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a forthcoming NPRM, NHTSA intends to
propose CAFE standards for MY 2022-2025 passenger cars and light trucks
pursuant to EPCA (Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975)), as
amended by EISA (Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007)).\1\
In connection with this action, NHTSA will prepare an EIS to analyze
the potential environmental impacts of the proposed CAFE standards and
reasonable alternative standards pursuant to NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347)
and implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) issued by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), DOT Order No. 5610.1C
(Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (1979) (revised
1985), available at https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/procedures-considering-environmental-impacts-dot-order-56101c), and NHTSA regulations (49 CFR part 520). NEPA instructs
Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of
their proposed actions and those of possible alternative actions. 42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). To inform decisionmakers and the public, the EIS
will analyze the potential environmental impacts of NHTSA's preferred
alternative, which will correspond to the proposed rule, and a spectrum
of reasonable alternatives, including a ``no action'' alternative. 40
CFR 1502.1, 1502.14. The EIS will consider direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts of the proposed action and alternatives and will
discuss impacts in proportion to their significance. Id. Sec. Sec.
1502.2(b), 1508.25(b)-(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA's fuel economy authorities are codified at 49 U.S.C.
32901 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Background. EPCA requires that the Secretary of Transportation \2\
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 specific requirements concerning the
establishment of CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Secretary has delegated responsibility for implementing
fuel economy requirements under EPCA and EISA to NHTSA. 49 CFR
1.95(a) and (j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Secretary must prescribe average fuel economy standards by
regulation 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 manufacturers can achieve in that model year.'' 49
U.S.C. 32902(a). The standards apply to each manufacturer's fleet
average, not to the manufacturer's individual vehicles. The Secretary,
after consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), must establish average
fuel economy standards separately for passenger cars and for light
trucks manufactured in each model year. Id. Sec.  32902(b)(1)-(2). In
doing so, for the model years to be addressed in the NPRM, the
Secretary of Transportation must set each passenger car and light truck
standard at the ``maximum feasible'' average fuel economy standard for
each model year. Id. Sec.  32902(b)(2)(B), (f). When setting ``maximum
feasible'' average fuel economy standards, the Secretary must
``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.'' Id.
Sec.  32902(f). NHTSA construes the aforementioned statutory factors as
including environmental and safety considerations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For environmental considerations, see Center for Auto Safety
v. NHTSA, 793 F.2d 1322, 1325 n. 12 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Public Citizen
v. NHTSA, 848 F.2d 256, 262-3 n. 27 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting that
``NHTSA itself has interpreted the factors it must consider in
setting CAFE standards as including environmental effects''); Center
for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1196 (9th Cir.
2008); 40 CFR 1500.6. For safety considerations, 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standards for passenger cars and light trucks must be ``based
on 1 or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy'' and expressed
``in the form of a mathematical function,'' and they may be established
for not more than five model years at a time. 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A)-
(B). In addition, each manufacturer must meet the minimum standard for
domestically manufactured passenger cars, which is 92 percent of the
projected average fuel economy for the combined domestic and non-
domestic passenger car fleet for each model year, calculated at the
time the final rule establishing the passenger car standards for those
model years is promulgated. Id. Sec.  32902(b)(4).
    Regulatory History. NHTSA set the first fuel economy standards in
1977, applying to passenger cars beginning in MY 1978 and light trucks
beginning in MY 1979. The stringency of the standards increased through
MY 1985, and then changed little until MY 2005 for light trucks, when
NHTSA reformed the light truck fuel economy program by introducing
attribute-based standards, and MY 2011 for passenger cars, when NHTSA
introduced attribute-based standards for passenger cars using new
authority provided by EISA. CAFE standards have increased progressively
for light trucks since MY 2005 and for passenger cars since MY 2011.
    More recently, NHTSA has conducted its fuel economy rulemaking
jointly with EPA's rulemaking to establish greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission standards. In April 2010, NHTSA and EPA issued a joint final
rule establishing fuel economy standards and GHG emissions standards
\4\ for MY 2012-2016 passenger cars and light trucks. Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards; Final Rule, 75 FR 25323 (May 7, 2010). The CAFE
standards were estimated to require a combined average fleet-wide fuel
economy of 34.1 miles per gallon (mpg) by MY 2016.\5\ Subsequently, on
August 28, 2012, NHTSA and EPA issued a final rule setting CAFE and GHG
emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years
2017 and beyond. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
77 FR 62623 (Oct. 15, 2012). Consistent with its statutory authority,
NHTSA developed two phases of passenger car and light truck standards.
The first phase, covering MYs 2017-2021, included final standards that
were projected to require, on an average industry fleet wide basis, a
range from 40.3-41.0 mpg in MY 2021. The second phase of the CAFE
program, covering MYs 2022-2025, included standards that were not
final, due to the statutory requirement that NHTSA set average fuel
economy standards not more than five model years at a time. Rather,
NHTSA wrote that those standards were ``augural,'' meaning that they
represented its best estimate, based on the information available at
that time, of what levels of stringency might be maximum feasible in
those model years. NHTSA projected that those standards could require,
on an average industry fleet wide basis, a range from 48.7-49.7 mpg in
model year 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA issued GHG emissions standards pursuant to the Clean Air
Act. See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a).
    \5\ The EPA GHG standards were estimated to require a combined
average fleet-wide level of 250 grams/mile CO2-equivalent
for MY 2016, which is equivalent to 35.5 mpg if all of the
technologies used to reduce GHG emissions were tailpipe
CO2 reducing technologies. The 250 g/mi CO2
equivalent level assumed the use of credits for air conditioning
improvements worth 15 g/mi in MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the final rulemaking, EPA committed to conducting a Mid-
Term Evaluation of its GHG standards established for MYs 2022-2025. As
NHTSA did not issue final CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025 in its 2012
final rule, it does not have any standards for those MYs to be
evaluated. Instead, NHTSA is obligated to conduct a de novo rulemaking,
with fresh inputs and a fresh consideration and balancing of all
relevant factors, to establish final CAFE standards for those MYs.
Meanwhile, EPA's regulations require it to determine whether the GHG
standards for MYs 2022-2025 are appropriate under section 202(a) of the
Clean Air Act, in light of the record then before the Administrator. 40
CFR 86.1818-12(h).
    In July 2016, NHTSA, EPA, and the California Air Resources Board
released for public comment a jointly prepared Draft Technical
Assessment Report (TAR), which examined a range of matters relevant to
CAFE and GHG emissions standards for MYs 2022-2025. Notice of
Availability of Midterm Evaluation Draft Technical Assessment Report
for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE
Standards, 81 FR 49217 (July 27, 2016). In November 2016, EPA issued a
proposed determination for the Mid-Term Evaluation. Proposed
Determination on the Appropriateness of the Model Year 2022-2025 Light-
Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Under the Midterm
Evaluation, 81 FR 87927 (Dec. 6, 2016). On January 12, 2017, the EPA
Administrator signed the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation
of light-duty GHG emissions standards for MYs 2022-2025. Subsequently,
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Transportation Secretary Elaine L.
Chao issued a joint notice announcing EPA's conclusion that it would
reconsider its Final Determination in order to allow additional
consultation and coordination with NHTSA in support of a national
harmonized program. Notice of Intention to Reconsider the Final
Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles, 82 FR 14671
(Mar. 22, 2017). As a result, EPA

intends to make a new Final Determination regarding the appropriateness
of the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards no later than April 1, 2018. NHTSA is
statutorily required to issue a final rule for MY 2022 CAFE standards
no later than April 1, 2020. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(a).
    Analysis of Alternatives. Pursuant to NEPA, NHTSA will prepare an
EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of its proposed
action. Although NHTSA evaluated the impacts of the augural standards
in its EIS accompanying the MY 2017-2025 rulemaking (NHTSA, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2017-2025,
Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056 (July 2012)), NHTSA will prepare a new Draft
EIS and Final EIS as part of this de novo rulemaking in order to
provide for fresh consideration of all available information.
    In an upcoming NPRM, NHTSA intends to propose separate attribute-
based standards for passenger cars and light trucks for each of MYs
2022-2025. As in the previous CAFE rulemaking, NHTSA plans to propose
vehicle footprint \6\ as the attribute. The standards are expected to
be defined as footprint ``curves'' for passenger cars and light trucks
in each model year, where vehicles of different footprints have
specific fuel economy ``targets,'' with larger vehicles (and light
trucks) generally having lower fuel economy targets than smaller
vehicles (and passenger cars), reflecting their fuel economy
capabilities.\7\ The shape and stringency of the curves would reflect,
in part, NHTSA's analysis of the technological and economic
capabilities of the industry within the rulemaking timeframe. A
manufacturer's individual CAFE standards for cars and trucks, in turn,
would be based on the target levels set for the footprints of its
particular mix of cars and trucks manufactured in that model year. A
manufacturer with a relatively high percentage of smaller vehicles
would have a higher standard than a manufacturer with a relatively low
percentage of smaller vehicles. Compliance would be determined by
comparing a manufacturer's harmonically averaged fleet fuel economy
level in a model year with a required fuel economy level calculated
using the manufacturer's actual production levels and the targets for
each vehicle it produces.\8\ As part of this rulemaking, NHTSA may
evaluate the MY 2021 standards it finalized in 2012 to ensure they
remain ``maximum feasible.'' As with any CAFE rulemaking, NHTSA will
also consider other programmatic aspects other than stringency (e.g.,
flexibilities and vehicle classification) that may affect model years
prior to and including those for which NHTSA would set fuel economy
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Footprint, which is a measure of vehicle size, is calculated
by multiplying a vehicle's wheelbase by its track width.
    \7\ Vehicle models of the same fleet but made by different
manufacturers would have the same fuel economy target if they had
the same vehicle footprint (i.e., the quantity of the attribute upon
which the standards would be based).
    \8\ While manufacturers may use a variety of flexibility
mechanisms to comply with CAFE, including credits earned for over-
compliance, NHTSA is statutorily prohibited from considering
manufacturers' ability to use statutorily-provided flexibility
mechanisms in determining what level of CAFE standards would be
maximum feasible. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of and need for an agency's action inform the
reasonable range of alternatives to be considered in its NEPA analysis.
40 CFR 1502.13. NHTSA sets CAFE standards as part of a comprehensive
energy policy established by EPCA (and amended by EISA) with the
purposes of conserving petroleum and of addressing energy independence
and security by reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
    In developing alternatives for analysis in the EIS, NHTSA must
consider EPCA's requirements for setting CAFE standards. As discussed
above, EPCA requires NHTSA to determine what level of CAFE stringency
would be the ``maximum feasible'' for each model year, a determination
made based on the consideration of four statutory factors:
Technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other
standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United
States to conserve energy. 49 U.S.C. 32902(f). In addition, EISA
required fuel economy standards for MY 2011-2020 passenger cars and
light trucks 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.'' Id. Sec.  32902(b)(2)(A). NHTSA
was required to ``prescribe annual fuel economy standard increases that
increase the applicable average fuel economy standard ratably beginning
with model year 2011 and ending with model year 2020.'' Id. Sec.
32902(b)(2)(C). For MY 2021-2030 passenger cars and light trucks, EISA
does not set a target fuel economy or require that standards ``increase
. . . ratably'' over the ten-year period. See id. Sec.  32902(b)(2)(B).
    NHTSA is considering the following alternatives for analysis in the
Draft EIS:
     A ``no action'' alternative (also referred to as the
``baseline''), which assumes, for purposes of NEPA analysis, that NHTSA
would issue a rule that would continue the current CAFE standards for
MY 2021 indefinitely. 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 reasonable action alternatives
in order to demonstrate the different environmental effects of the
action alternatives. See 40 CFR 1502.14(d). Given that NHTSA must set
new CAFE standards and may not strictly take no action on fuel
economy,\9\ the agency has determined that, for this rulemaking, the
closest analogue to a true ``no action'' alternative would be to
continue the already existing and enforceable standards indefinitely
without further change.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(a). 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 decisionmakers to
compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action
alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is
necessary to inform the 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).
    \10\ Although NHTSA included ``augural'' standards for MYs 2022-
2025 in its previous CAFE rulemaking, those standards are not final.
In the absence of additional rulemaking activity, those standards
would not be enforceable. However, assuming that no standard would
exist after MY 2021 for purposes of the ``no action'' alternative
would not be a reasonable assumption (in light of NHTSA's statutory
responsibility to promulgate standards and the continuous forty-year
history of the program), nor would it provide meaningful information
to the decisionmaker for purposes of evaluating the impacts of the
action alternatives. At this time, NHTSA believes that the
continuation of the status quo ante, particularly that the final MY
2021 standards would continue indefinitely, is the most appropriate
baseline against which to compare the proposed regulatory
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Action'' alternatives represented by calculating a lower
bound and upper bound of a range of reasonable annual fuel economy
standards, from MY 2022 forward.\11\ The calculations and the related
evaluation of impacts would be performed separately for passenger cars
and light trucks at each of these points so as to demonstrate their
effects independently, since car and truck standards could change at
different rates

from one another and at different rates in different years. These
alternatives would bracket the range of actions NHTSA may select. In
sum, in its final rule, NHTSA would be able to select an action
alternative from any stringency level within that range. NHTSA seeks
public comments on the stringency levels at which to define the lower
and upper bounds of this range of reasonable alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CEQ guidance provides that agencies may use representative
examples covering the ``full spectrum'' of reasonable alternatives
for purposes of presenting the ``range of alternatives'' in an EIS.
Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental
Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (Mar. 23, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The preferred alternative, reflecting annual fuel economy
standards for both passenger cars and light trucks that fall at or
between the upper and lower bounds identified above. NHTSA has not yet
identified its preferred alternative. NHTSA seeks comments on how it
should define and balance the statutory criteria to choose the
preferred alternative, given the statutory requirement of setting
``maximum feasible'' fuel economy standards. 49 U.S.C. 32902(f). When
suggesting an approach, please explain the recommended way to balance
EPCA's factors (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).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Note that NHTSA is statutorily prohibited from considering
statutorily-provided flexibility mechanisms in determining what
standards would be maximum feasible. 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, NHTSA plans to analyze the impacts of eight different
standards in the Draft EIS: Two points bracketing the possible action
alternatives for passenger cars, two points bracketing the possible
alternatives for light trucks, a No Action Alternative and a preferred
alternative for passenger cars, and a No Action Alternative and a
preferred alternative for light trucks. We note that the NPRM and
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) may analyze additional alternatives
within the brackets described in the Draft EIS in order to explore
different approaches to balancing the statutory factors.
    NHTSA will analyze the lower bound and upper bound of a range of
average annual fuel economy standards that would satisfy EPCA's
requirement that the standards be ``maximum feasible'' for each model
year, based on the different ways NHTSA could weigh EPCA's four
statutory factors. Generally speaking, more stringent average annual
fuel economy standards might weigh energy conservation and
environmental considerations more heavily and technological feasibility
and economic practicability concerns less heavily. In contrast, less
stringent average annual fuel economy standards might weigh
technological feasibility and economic practicability concerns more
heavily and energy conservation and environmental considerations less
heavily.
    The range of alternatives will reflect differences in the degree of
technology adoption across the fleet, in costs to manufacturers and
consumers, and in conservation of oil and related impacts to the
environment. For example, the most stringent average annual fuel
economy standard NHTSA will evaluate would require greater adoption of
fuel-saving technology across the fleet, including more advanced
technology, than the least stringent average annual fuel economy
standard NHTSA will evaluate. As a result, the most stringent
alternative would impose greater costs and achieve greater energy
conservation.
    The changes in stringency considered in the lower and upper bounds
may be defined as ``average'' changes in stringency; the preferred
alternative and actual standards may either be constant throughout the
period or may vary from year to year. However, analysis of the average
yearly change over that period would provide sufficient environmental
analysis to bracket the range of environmental impacts of reasonable
alternatives and allow for a reasoned choice among the alternatives
presented.
    NHTSA may select the lower or upper bound levels of stringency for
passenger cars and for light trucks as its preferred alternative, or it
may select levels of stringency that fall between those bounds. Within
the range identified above, NHTSA may consider setting more stringent
standards for the earlier years of the rule than for the later years,
or, alternatively, setting less stringent standards for the earlier
years of the rule than for the later years, depending on our assessment
of what would be ``maximum feasible'' for those time periods for each
fleet. In addition, NHTSA may consider setting standards for passenger
cars and light trucks that change at different rates between the low
and high levels it is considering, depending on a determination of the
maximum feasible level for each fleet over time. NHTSA also may select
``maximum feasible'' fuel economy standards for some or all model years
that decrease or remain the same as compared to the immediately prior
model year(s).
    In selecting a preferred alternative, NHTSA is also mindful of its
responsibility under Executive Order 13783, signed by President Donald
J. Trump on March 28, 2017, to ensure that ``necessary and appropriate
environmental regulations comply with the law, are of greater benefit
than cost, when permissible, achieve environmental improvements for the
American people, and are developed through transparent processes that
employ the best available peer-reviewed science and economics.'' \13\
E.O. 13783, Promoting Energy independence and Economic Growth (Mar. 28,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The CAFE program is not strictly an environmental one, as
it was created under EPCA as part of a national energy policy to
reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. However, fuel economy standards
do have environmental impacts, and as noted above, NHTSA construes
the statutory factors in EPCA as including environmental
considerations. The environmental impacts will be analyzed in the
EIS, and NHTSA is mindful of its obligations under E.O. 13783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Planned Analysis. While the main focus of NHTSA's prior CAFE EISs
for light duty vehicles (i.e., the EIS for MYs 2012-2016 and MYs 2017-
2025) was the quantification of impacts to energy, air quality, and
climate, and qualitative analysis of life-cycle impacts and cumulative
impacts, it also addressed other potentially affected resources. NHTSA
conducted a qualitative review of impacts on resources such as water
resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety,
noise, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice.
    Similar to past EIS practice, NHTSA plans to analyze environmental
impacts related to fuel and energy use, emissions and their effects on
climate change and the environment,\14\ air quality,\15\ natural
resources, and the human environment. NHTSA will address life-cycle
impacts consistent with its past EISs, by focusing on reviewing and
summarizing findings from existing, credible scientific information
evaluating the most significant environmental impacts from some of the
fuels, materials, and technologies that may be used to comply with the
Proposed Action and alternatives. NHTSA also will consider the
cumulative impacts of the proposed standards for MY 2022-2025 passenger
cars and light trucks together with any past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NHTSA is planning to include in this EIS a quantitative
analysis to estimate the impact of the alternatives on ocean
acidification based on changes in atmospheric CO2
concentrations.
    \15\ Consistent with past practice, in addition to the air
quality analysis presented in the Draft and Final EIS, NHTSA will
conduct a national-scale photochemical air quality modeling and
health risks assessment that will be included in the Final EIS, but
not the Draft EIS, due to the substantial time required to complete
the analysis. In addition, because of the lead time required for
this analysis, it will be based on the alternatives presented in the
Draft EIS, but not the alternatives as they may be revised for the
Final EIS. Still, NHTSA believes the analysis will provide
meaningful information for the decisionmaker and the public.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA anticipates uncertainty in estimating the potential
environmental impacts related to climate change. To account for this
uncertainty, NHTSA plans to evaluate a range of potential global
temperature changes that may result from changes in fuel and energy
consumption and GHG emissions attributable to new CAFE standards. It is
difficult to quantify how the specific impacts due to the potential
temperature changes attributable to new CAFE standards may affect many
aspects of the environment. NHTSA will endeavor to gather the key
relevant and credible information using a transparent process that
employs the best available peer-reviewed science and economics. NHTSA
invites public comments on the scope of its analysis on climate change
impacts, including citations to peer-reviewed scientific articles to
frame and analyze the relevant issues.
    In order to streamline its documentation and eliminate redundancy,
NHTSA plans not to include analyses of either monetized health benefits
in its air quality analysis or monetized climate change benefits in its
climate change analysis in the EIS, as both of those analyses will be
included in its RIA (consistent with past practice), which is subject
to public notice and comment concurrently with the EIS. NHTSA will
incorporate the analyses in the RIA by reference in the EIS consistent
with the requirements of the CEQ implementing regulations. 40 CFR
1502.21. The EIS will continue to present analyses on air quality
emissions (including non-monetized health impacts), GHG emissions, and
climate change impacts (including impacts on CO2
concentrations, temperature, sea-level rise, and precipitation).
    NHTSA expects to rely on 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.'' Id.
Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA analysis and documentation will incorporate
by reference relevant materials, including portions of the agency's
prior NEPA documents, where appropriate.
    Scoping and Public Participation. NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the MY
2022-2025 CAFE 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,
on the impacts to be considered, and on the most important matters for
in-depth analysis in the EIS. See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
All comments relevant to the scoping process are welcome.
    NHTSA invites the public to participate in the scoping process \16\
by submitting written comments concerning the appropriate scope of the
NEPA analysis for the proposed CAFE 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, based on prior experience,
written comments will be effective in identifying and narrowing the
considerations for analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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 2022-2025
CAFE standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR
1501.7, 1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is interested in comments on its bracketing approach to
presenting a reasonable range of alternatives. Subject to the statutory
requirements of EPCA/EISA, a variety of potential alternatives could be
considered that meet the purpose and need for the agency's action, each
falling along a theoretically infinite continuum of potential
standards. As described above, NHTSA plans to address this by
identifying alternatives at the upper and lower bounds of a range
within which we believe the statutory requirement for ``maximum
feasible'' 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Should NHTSA ultimately choose to set standards at levels
other than the preferred alternative identified in the NPRM and
Draft EIS, we believe that this bracketing will properly inform the
decisionmaker, so long as the standards are set within its
parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant
considerations that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying
and eliminating from detailed analysis the matters that are not
significant and therefore require only a brief discussion in the EIS.
40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a). In light of these purposes, written
comments should include an internet citation (with a date last visited)
to each study or report cited in the comments, if one is available. If
a document cited is not available to the public online, the commenter
should either provide sufficient bibliographical information to allow
NHTSA to locate and obtain a copy of the study or attach a copy to the
comments.\18\ Commenters should indicate how each document cited or
attached to their comments is relevant to the NEPA analysis and
indicate the specific pages and passages in the attachment that are
most informative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Please be mindful of copyright restrictions when attaching
documents to any comments, as they will be made publicly available
in the agency's docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The more specific the comments are, and the more support they
provide in identifying peer-reviewed scientific studies and reports,
the more useful the comments will be to the NEPA process. For example,
if a comment identifies an additional area of impact or environmental
concern that NHTSA should analyze, or an analytical tool or model that
NHTSA should use to evaluate these environmental impacts, the comment
should clearly describe it and provide a reference to a specific peer-
reviewed scientific study, report, tool, or model, if possible.
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 decisionmakers and the
public by ``concentrat[ing] on the issues that are truly significant to
the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.'' 40 CFR
1500.1(b). By contrast, mere assertions that the agency should evaluate
broad lists or categories of concerns, without support, will not assist
the scoping process for the proposed standards.
    Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the
heading of this notice in any submitted comments. 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.
    Separate Federal Register notices published by EPA will announce
the availability of the Draft EIS, which will be available for public
comment, and the Final EIS. NHTSA will issue the Draft EIS concurrently
with its NPRM. In addition, NHTSA will simultaneously issue a Final EIS
and Record of Decision (Final Rule), pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 304a, unless
it is determined that statutory criteria or practicability
considerations preclude concurrent issuance. NHTSA also plans to
continue to post information about

the NEPA process and this CAFE rulemaking on its Web site (http://www.nhtsa.gov).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2017 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR parts 1.81 and 1.95.
James Tamm,
Chief, Fuel Economy Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-15701 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46063-46066]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15177]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0025; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00804-T;
Amendment 39-22479; AD 2023-12-20]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes.
This AD was prompted by reports of oxygen leaks caused by cracked,
brittle, or broken oxygen hoses that were found during scheduled
maintenance tests of the airplane oxygen system. This AD requires
replacing oxygen system hoses having any part number in the O2C20T1 and
O2C20T14 series. This AD also prohibits installation of affected oxygen
hoses. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 23, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 23,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0025; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email bombardier.com">[email protected]bombardier.com; website
bombardier.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Dowling, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier,
Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on January 30, 2023 (88 FR 5819). The NPRM was
prompted by AD CF-2022-34, dated June 20, 2022, issued by Transport
Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after
this as the MCAI). The MCAI states oxygen leaks were caused by cracked,
brittle, or broken oxygen hoses that were found during scheduled
maintenance tests of the airplane oxygen system. A leak in the oxygen
system may result in failure to provide oxygen to passengers and crew
and result in an oxygen-enriched atmosphere creating a fire risk on the
airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing oxygen system
hoses having any part number in the O2C20T1 and O2C20T14 series and to
prohibit installation of affected oxygen hoses. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0025.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from one commenter, NetJets. The
following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.

Request to Correct Reference To Test

    The commenter noted that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD
referenced a test specified in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD, but
the test was specified in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD. The
commenter suggested the FAA revise paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD
to read, ``If, during a test specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
. . .''

    The FAA agrees and has revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

Request To Revise Compliance Time

    The commenter stated that the compliance time specified in
paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD, which reads, ``For airplanes
having, as of the effective date of this AD, more than 6 years from the
completion of the interior modification specified in STC T02355NY:
Within 7 months after the effective date of this AD,'' does not
consider the current supply chain issues and may cause undue hardship
for owners/operators with multiple aircraft in its fleet. The commenter
suggested that if parts are not available at the replacement time
specified, there should be an alternative method to extend the
replacement time for those aircraft.
    The FAA disagrees. The FAA determined that the compliance time in
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD allows ample time to obtain replacement
parts. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting
this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial
changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted
as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic
burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-006, Revision
01, dated January 28, 2022. This service information specifies
procedures for replacing oxygen system hoses having any part number in
the O2C20T1 and O2C20T14 series.
    The FAA also reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-35-002,
Revision 01, dated January 28, 2022. This service information specifies
procedures for replacing oxygen system hoses having any part number in
the O2C20T1 series. This service information also specifies optional
mitigating actions for certain airplanes (repetitive testing until
affected parts are replaced).
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 42 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................            $100             $355          $14,910
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Estimated Costs for Optional Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85......              $0              $85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
optional mitigating actions. The FAA has no way of determining the
number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255....            $100             $355
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2023-12-20 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-22479; Docket No. FAA-
2023-0025; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00804-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 23, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604
Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers
5701 through 5990 inclusive, and 6050 through 6162 inclusive, with
an interior modified in accordance with Supplemental Type
Certificate (STC) ST02355NY.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of oxygen leaks caused by
cracked, brittle, or broken oxygen hoses that were found during
scheduled maintenance tests of the airplane oxygen system. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address a leak in the oxygen system. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure to
provide oxygen to passengers and crew and result in an oxygen-
enriched atmosphere creating a fire risk on the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Replacement

    At the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of this AD: Replace oxygen system hoses having any
part number in the O2C20T1 series, and, as applicable, the O2C20T14
series, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information specified in figure 1 to paragraph
(g) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes having, as of the effective date of this AD, 6
years or less from the completion of the interior modification
specified in STC ST02355NY: Within 31 months after the effective
date of this AD, or no later than 12 months after the completion of
the interior modification specified in STC ST02355NY, whichever
occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes having, as of the effective date of this AD,
more than 6 years from the completion of the interior modification
specified in STC T02355NY: Within 7 months after the effective date
of this AD.

Figure 1 to Paragraph (g)--Service Information
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JY23.195

(h) Optional Mitigation for Certain Airplanes

    For airplanes identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-35-
002, Revision 01, dated January 28, 2022, having, as of the
effective date of this AD, less than 6 years from the completion of
the interior modification specified in STC ST02355NY: In lieu of
accomplishing the oxygen system hose replacement required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, comply with all conditions specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) The passenger oxygen system is tested within 6 months after
the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 36 months, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-35-002, Revision 01, dated
January 28, 2022.
    (2) If, during a test specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD,
any leak is found on any hose, all oxygen system hoses having a part
number in the O2C20T1 series must be replaced before further flight
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 650-35-002, Revision 01, dated January 28, 2022.
Doing this replacement terminates the tests specified in paragraph
(h)(1) of this AD.
    (3) Except as specified by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, all
oxygen system hoses having a part number in the O2C20T1 series must
be replaced within 6 years from the completion of the interior
modification specified in STC ST02355NY. Doing this replacement
terminates the tests specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
oxygen system hose having a part number in the O2C20T1 and O2C20T14
series on any airplane.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-
006, dated August 23, 2021; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-35-
002, dated August 23, 2021; as applicable.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Bombardier

Service Bulletin 650-35-002, dated August 23, 2021.

(k) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
International Validation Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, at the address identified in
paragraph (l)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. If
mailing information, also submit information by email. Before using
any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight
Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Bombardier, Inc.'s
Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(l) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2022-34, dated June 20,
2022, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0025.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Elizabeth
Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(4) and (5) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-006, Revision 01, dated
January 28, 2022.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-35-002, Revision 01, dated
January 28, 2022.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email bombardier.com">[email protected]bombardier.com; website
bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 28, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-15177 Filed 7-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45127-45128]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18364]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                *Elevation in
                                                                                feet  (NGVD)
                                                                                +Elevation in
                                                                                feet  (NAVD)
              State                 City/town/county   Source of flooding       Location       Depth in
                                                                                feet above ground
                                                                                [caret]Elevation
                                                                                in  meters (MSL)
                                                                                Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         City of Newport News, Virginia
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1158
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia........................  City of Newport      Newmarket Creek...  Approximately 0.45                +18
                                   News.                                    mile downstream
                                                                            of Hampton Roads
                                                                            Center Parkway.
                                                                           Approximately 0.94                +21
                                                                            mile upstream of
                                                                            Hampton Roads
                                                                            Center Parkway.
                                  City of Newport      Newmarket Creek...  Approximately                     +24
                                   News.                                    1,287 feet
                                                                            downstream of
                                                                            Harpersville Road.
                                                                           Approximately 0.56                +26
                                                                            mile upstream of
                                                                            Harpersville Road.
                                  City of Newport      Newmarket Creek     Approximately 765                 +22
                                   News.                Tributary.          feet downstream
                                                                            of Agusta Drive.
                                                                           Approximately 167                 +22
                                                                            feet upstream of
                                                                            Agusta Drive.
                                  City of Newport      Stoney Run........  Approximately 0.8                  +8
                                   News.                                    mile downstream
                                                                            of Old Courthouse
                                                                            Way.
                                                                           Approximately 0.56                +47
                                                                            mile upstream of
                                                                            Woodside Lane.

                                  City of Newport      Stoney Run-Colony   Approximately 776                 +27
                                   News.                Pines Branch.       feet downstream
                                                                            of Richneck Road.
                                                                           Approximately                     +40
                                                                            1,450 feet
                                                                            upstream of
                                                                            Windsor Castle
                                                                            Drive.
                                  City of Newport      Stoney Run-Denbigh  Just downstream of                +27
                                   News.                Branch.             Richneck Road.
                                                                           Just downstream of                +33
                                                                            McManus Boulevard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Newport News

Maps are available for inspection at the Department of Engineering, 2400 Washington Avenue, Newport News, VA
 23607.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: July 11, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-18364 Filed 8-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 61774]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25058]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4079-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

New Mexico; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-4079-DR), dated August 24, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 3, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Mexico is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 24, 2012.

    Los Alamos County and the Mescalero Apache Tribe for Public
Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-25058 Filed 10-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P