[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38842-38849]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16005]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 535

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0074]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program
Standards

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

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for scoping comments.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the
docket number identified in the heading of this notice. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received, including any personal
information provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this notice. Please note that even after the comment closing
date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it
becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for
new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact James

MacIsaac, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel
Economy and Consumer Standards, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; for legal
issues, contact Russell Krupen, Legislation & General Law Division,
Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

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

    \1\ Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007) (codified
at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.).
    \2\ NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. CEQ's NEPA
implementing regulations are codified at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and
NHTSA's NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 49 CFR part
520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \3\ Public Law 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975).
    \4\ See Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Final Rule, 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010); 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, 77 FR 62624 (October 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \5\ The Secretary has delegated responsibility for implementing
fuel economy and fuel efficiency requirements under EPCA and EISA to
NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 322(b); 49 CFR 1.95, 501.2.
    \6\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the United States Code: `` `commercial medium-
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle' means an on-highway vehicle with
a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more.'' 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(7).
    \7\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the United States Code: `` `work truck' means a
vehicle that-- (A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight; and (B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle (as
defined in section 86.1803-01 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, as in effect on the date of the enactment of [EISA]).''
49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(19).
    \8\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id. For background on the HD vehicle segment, issues
related to regulating this segment, and fuel efficiency improvement
technologies available for these vehicles, see the reports recently
issued by the National Academy of Sciences. National Research
Council, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel
Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Washington, DC (The
National Academies Press, 2010), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed April 25, 2014);
National Research Council, Reducing the Fuel Consumption and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase
Two: First Report, Washington, DC (The National Academies Press,
2014), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18736
(last accessed April 25, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3).
    \12\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). As discussed later in this document,
both agencies have been invited to serve as cooperating agencies on
this EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \13\ See The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21,
2010), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards (last
accessed April 25, 2014); see also The White House, Office of the
Press Secretary, President Obama Directs Administration to Create
First-Ever National Efficiency and Emissions Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Trucks (May 21, 2010), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-directs-administration-create-first-ever-national-efficiency-and-em (last
accessed April 25, 2014).
    \14\ See Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 76 FR
57106 (September 15, 2011).
    \15\ See White House Announces First Ever Oil Savings Standards
for Heavy Duty Trucks, Buses (August 9, 2011), available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2011/White+House+Announces+First+Ever+Oil+Savings+Standards+for+Heavy+Duty+Trucks,+Buses (last accessed April 28, 2014). For more information
on the rulemaking, see also EPA Regulatory Announcement, EPA and
NHTSA Adopt First-Ever Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
(August 2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).

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

    Continued improvement in the efficiency of HD vehicles is a key
component of the President's 2013 Climate Action Plan to reduce carbon
emissions.\16\ Building on the success of Phase 1 of the program, in a
February 18, 2014 Presidential Announcement, the President directed
NHTSA and EPA to finalize the next phase of HD vehicle fuel efficiency
and greenhouse gas standards by March 31, 2016.\17\ Under this
timeline, the agencies expect to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
by March 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Executive Office of the President, The President's Climate
Action Plan (June 2013), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf (last
accessed April 28, 2014).
    \17\ See FACT SHEET--Opportunity For All: Improving the Fuel
Efficiency of American Trucks--Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting
Carbon Pollution, Saving Money and Supporting Manufacturing
Innovation (February 18, 2014), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/18/fact-sheet-opportunity-all-improving-fuel-efficiency-american-trucks-bol (last
accessed April 28, 2014); Improving the Fuel Efficiency of American
Trucks--Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting Carbon Pollution, Saving
Money and Supporting Manufacturing Innovation (February 2014),
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/finaltrucksreport.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ For NHTSA, see http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy (last
accessed April 28, 2014); for EPA, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-heavy-duty.htm (last accessed April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA will prepare an EIS to analyze the potential environmental
impacts of its proposed HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards and
reasonable alternative standards. This Notice of Intent initiates the
scoping process for the EIS under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and
implementing regulations issued by CEQ, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and
NHTSA, 49 CFR part 520.\21\ Specifically, this Notice of Intent
requests public input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis and the
significant environmental issues relating to more stringent fuel
efficiency standards for HD vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \22\ 40 CFR 1502.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the diversity of the HD industry, the Phase 1 rule divided
HD vehicles into three regulatory categories: Heavy-duty pick-up trucks
and vans (Class 2b and Class 3), vocational vehicle chassis (Class 2b-
Class 8), and combination tractors (Class 7 and 8). Phase 1 established
separate standards for each of these categories, as well as standards
for the engines powering vocational vehicles and combination tractors.
Phase 2 may include post-MY 2018 engine and vehicle fuel efficiency
standards that are more stringent than those for MYs 2016-2018, as well
as regulatory standards and certification requirements for previously
unregulated new trailers pulled by semi-tractors. The following
discusses each of these regulatory categories in turn.
     Class 2b and 3 Heavy-Duty Pick-Up Trucks and Vans: Heavy-
duty pickup trucks and vans are used chiefly as work trucks and vans,
as shuttle vans, and for personal transportation, with an average
annual mileage in the range of 13,000-14,000 miles. Class 2b and 3
pick-up trucks and vans have up to 14,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight
rating, with about 90 percent of them being \3/4\-ton and 1-ton pickup
trucks, 12- and 15-passenger vans, and large work vans that are sold by
vehicle manufacturers as complete vehicles, with no secondary
manufacturer making substantial modifications prior to registration and
use. These vehicle manufacturers are companies with major light-duty
markets in the United States. Furthermore, the technologies available
to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions from this segment are
similar to the technologies used on light-duty pickup trucks, including
both engine efficiency improvements (for gasoline and diesel engines)
and vehicle efficiency improvements.
     Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicle Chassis: Vocational
vehicles, which may span Classes 2b through 8, vary widely in size and
use, including smaller and larger van trucks; delivery, utility, tank,
flat-bed, and refuse trucks; transit, shuttle, and school buses; fire
trucks and other emergency vehicles; motor homes; and tow trucks, among
others. The annual mileage of these trucks is as varied as their uses,
but for the most part tends to fall in between heavy-duty pickups/vans
and the large

combination tractors, although some travel more and some less.
Vocational vehicles frequently begin as incomplete chassis that can be
used for a number of vocational applications. The chassis manufacturers
install engines and transmissions from other manufacturers and then
sell the chassis to body manufacturers who add appropriate features for
the vehicles' final end-use (e.g., dump bed, delivery box, or utility
bucket). Phase 1 created a new vehicle certification and compliance
program for vocational chassis manufacturers, which relies on a
computer simulation of vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption rather than on emissions testing. Vocational body
manufacturers were not regulated in Phase 1.
     Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors: Class 7 and 8
combination tractor-trailers \23\--some equipped with sleeper cabs and
some not--are used for freight transportation. Tractors sometimes run
without a trailer in between loads, but most of the time they run with
one or more trailers that can carry up to 50,000 pounds or more of
payload, consuming significant quantities of fuel and producing
significant amounts of GHG emissions. Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors and their engines contribute approximately 65 percent of the
total GHG emissions and fuel consumption of the heavy-duty sector due
to their large payloads, their high annual miles traveled (sometimes
more than 150,000 miles per year), and their major role in national
freight transport. In general, reducing GHG emissions and fuel
consumption from these vehicles may involve improvements in
aerodynamics, tires, and engine-based efficiency, reduction in idle
operation, and improvements in or installation of other technologies.
Fleet owners and truck owner/operators were not regulated in Phase 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    \25\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d). CEQ has explained that
``[T]he regulations require the analysis of the no action
alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative
command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling
decision makers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of
the action alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in the
EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the President
as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 1500.1(a).]'' Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis added).
    \26\ The ``no action'' alternative will also assume that EPA
would not issue a rule regarding HD GHG emissions standards. The
existing GHG standards established for the end of Phase 1 would also
persist indefinitely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

reflect different ways NHTSA could weigh the considerations before the
agency in the rulemaking. The lower bound, representing the least
stringent fuel efficiency improvement, would reflect more pessimistic
assumptions of the appropriateness, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness
of various technologies designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement in fuel efficiency. This alternative might assume, for
example, that fuel efficiency improvement technologies are at the upper
end of their ranges of potential cost, that technologies are not
effectively deployable until later in time, that the benefits are at
the lower end of their potential range, or that heavy-duty vehicle
owners and operators demand more immediate benefits. On the other hand,
the upper bound, representing the most stringent fuel efficiency
improvement, would reflect more optimistic assumptions of the
appropriateness, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of those
technologies. This alternative might assume, for example, that fuel
efficiency improvement technologies are at the lower end of their
ranges of potential cost, that technologies will be deployed earlier in
time, that the benefits are at the higher end of their potential range,
or that heavy-duty vehicle owners and operators will accept benefits
over the long-term despite higher initial costs.
    The range covered will reflect differences in the degree of
technology adoption across the fleet, in costs to manufacturers and
heavy-duty vehicle owners and operators, and in conservation of fuel
and related reductions in GHGs. For example, the most stringent
alternative NHTSA will evaluate would likely require, on balance,
greater adoption of technology across the fleet than the least
stringent alternative NHTSA will evaluate. As a result, the most
stringent alternative would impose greater costs and achieve greater
energy conservation and related reductions in GHGs.
    This range of stringencies, along with the analysis for the
Preferred Alternative, would provide a broad range of information for
NHTSA to use in evaluating and weighing the statutory factors in EISA.
It would also assist the decision-maker in considering the differences
and uncertainties in the way in which key economic inputs (e.g., the
price of fuel and the social cost of carbon) and technological inputs
are estimated or valued.
    NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency considers a full
range of reasonable alternatives in setting new HD vehicle fuel
efficiency improvement standards and that the agency identifies the
environmental impacts and focuses its analyses on all the potentially
significant impacts related to each alternative. Comments may go beyond
the approaches and information that NHTSA described above for
developing the alternatives and in identifying the potentially
significant environmental effects. The agency may modify the proposed
alternatives and environmental effects that will be analyzed in depth
based upon the comments received during the scoping process and upon
further agency analysis.
    Planned Analysis: The scoping process initiated by this notice
seeks to determine ``the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to
be considered'' in the EIS and to identify the most important issues
for analysis involving the potential environmental impacts of NHTSA's
HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program.\27\ NHTSA's NEPA
analysis will consider the direct, indirect and cumulative
environmental impacts of the proposed post-2018 standards and those of
reasonable alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \28\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2017-2025, Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056-2089 (July 2012).
    \29\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2012-2016, Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059-0140 (February 2010).
    \30\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2011-2015, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060-0605 (October 2008).
    \31\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, Model Years 2014-2018,
Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079-0151 (June 2011).
    \32\ See Chapter 6 of the CAFE MY 2017-2025 Final EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

impacts of its action from the cumulative impacts of its action?
Finally, should the cumulative impacts analysis consider emissions and
impacts related to only HD vehicles, all on-road motor vehicles, the
entirety of the transportation sector, or all sources of such
emissions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \35\ See 40 CFR 1502.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    \37\ 40 CFR 1502.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    \39\ 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    NHTSA invites all Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, State and local
agencies, stakeholders, and the public to participate in the scoping
process.\42\ Please submit written comments concerning the appropriate
scope of the NEPA analysis for proposed HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards to the docket number identified in the heading of this
notice, using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of
this notice. NHTSA does not plan to hold a public scoping meeting,
because past experience indicates that written comments will be
effective in identifying and narrowing the issues for analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    All comments relevant to the scoping process are welcome.
Specifically, NHTSA requests:
     Peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been issued
since the EPA Endangerment Finding and that address or may inform: (a)
The impacts on CO2 and other GHG emissions that may be
associated with any of the alternatives under consideration; (b) the
impacts from climate change that may be associated with these emission
changes; or (c) the time periods over which such

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

    \43\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
    \44\ Should NHTSA ultimately choose to set standards at levels
other than the Preferred Alternative, we believe that this
bracketing will properly inform the decision-maker, so long as the
standards are set within its bounds. This methodology permits the
analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives the agency may pick,
while providing the agency flexibility to select the alternative
based on the most up-to-date information and analyses available at
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \45\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
    \46\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2); 40 CFR 1502.14, Alternatives
Including the Proposed Action (explaining what agencies should
include in the alternatives section of an EIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as noted above, NHTSA requests comments on how the
agency should assess cumulative impacts, including those from various
emissions source categories and from a range of geographic locations.
Also in regard to cumulative impacts, the agency requests comments on
how to consider the incremental impacts from foreseeable future actions
of other agencies or persons, and how they might interact with the HD
vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program's incremental impacts.
    Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant
issues that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying and
eliminating from detailed analysis the issues that are not significant
and therefore require only a brief discussion in the EIS.\47\ The more
specific your comments are, and the more support you can provide by
directing the agency to peer-reviewed scientific studies and reports as
requested above, the more useful your comments will be to the agency.
For example, if you identify an additional area of impact or
environmental concern you believe NHTSA should analyze, or an
analytical tool or model that you believe NHTSA should use to evaluate
these environmental impacts, you should clearly describe it and support
your comments with a reference to a specific peer-reviewed scientific
study, report, tool or model. Specific, well-supported comments will
help the agency prepare an EIS that is focused and relevant, and will
serve NEPA's overarching aims of making high quality information
available to decision-makers and the public by ``concentrat[ing] on the
issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather
than amassing needless detail.'' \48\ By contrast, mere assertions that
the agency should evaluate broad lists or categories of concerns,
without support, will likely not assist the scoping process for the
proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a).
    \48\ 40 CFR 1500.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

become part of the administrative record and will be posted on the web
at http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NHTSA expects to prepare an NPRM and DEIS for public comment by
March 2015, and an FEIS and final rule by March 2016. NHTSA will make
its DEIS and FEIS available on the agency's Web site (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/fuel-economy) \51\ and in the docket identified at
the beginning of the notice. NHTSA will mail notices of the
availability of environmental documents to Federal agencies with
jurisdiction by law or special expertise (including cooperating
agencies), States, Indian tribes, commenters, stakeholders (e.g.,
vehicle, trailer, or engine manufacturers, trade organizations, and
environmental organizations the agency has identified), and national
organizations that have requested that notice regularly be
provided.\52\ EPA will then announce the availability of NHTSA's DEIS
and FEIS in Federal Register notices. To reduce its impact on the
environment, NHTSA's default method of distribution will be through the
Internet by the agency's Web site and online docket (http://www.regulations.gov). However, NHTSA will create limited quantities of
the EIS on CD-ROMs and in hard-copy printed books for those who require
and specifically request to receive it in those formats.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ NHTSA will also post information about the NEPA process and
the HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program rulemaking on
this Web site.
    \52\ Members of the public, including national organizations,
may request that notice of the availability of environmental
documents be provided directly to them. To be included on this
transmittal list, please provide your email address or mailing
address to NHTSA by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or regular
mail (James MacIsaac, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W43-444, Washington,
DC 20590).
    \53\ Such requests may be made by email or regular mail at the
addresses indicated in the previous footnote. Please be advised that
requests received after January 1, 2015 may result in delayed
receipt of a CD-ROM or hard copy.

David M. Hines,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2014-16005 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: May 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 29563-29564]
[DOCID:fr29my07-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55786; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-15]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
CBOE's Membership Application Procedures

May 18, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On February 14, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend membership application
procedures. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 10, 2007.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55570 (April 2,
2007), 72 FR 17961 (April 10, 2007) (the ``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 3.9, entitled ``Application
Procedures and Approval or Disapproval,'' which requires any person
applying to the Exchange to (i) have completed the Exchange's Member
Orientation Program (``Orientation Program'') and (ii) passed an
Exchange Trading Member Qualification Exam (``Qualification Exam''). A
person who fulfills these requirements but does not possess an
authorized trading function for more than one year must complete the
Orientation Program and pass the Qualification Exam again before
becoming a member.\4\ If that person is not a member of the exchange
for up to one year, he can submit an application to become a member
again without having to complete the orientation program and the exam
again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An individual ``possesses an authorized trading function''
if he is approved to act as a market maker, floor broker, remote
market maker (``RMM'') or nominee or person registered for an RMM or
e-DPM organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE proposed that PAR Officials and Order Book Officials
(``OBOs''), as well as others acting in a similar capacity (i.e., an
exchange trading floor capacity), be included in the rule, because the
functions they perform as exchange employees are similar to the
functions performed by members who are deemed to possess an authorized
trading function.
    In 2005, CBOE amended its rules to remove a Designated Primary
Market-Maker's (``DPM's'') obligation to act as an agent or Floor
Broker in its allocated securities on the Exchange.\5\ At the same
time, the Exchange designated a PAR Official to be responsible for
handling certain orders in the same manner as they were formerly
handled by the DPM.\6\ Specifically, the PAR Official is an Exchange
employee or independent contractor designated by the Exchange to be
responsible for (i) operating the PAR workstation; (ii) when
applicable, maintaining the customer limit order book for the assigned
option classes;\7\ and (iii) effecting proper executions of orders
placed with him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52798 (November 18,
2005), 70 FR 71344 (November 28, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-46).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ This provision will not apply to option classes that are on
the CBOE's Hybrid System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to PAR Officials, the Exchange also employs OBOs whose
responsibilities include, among other things, (i) maintaining the book
with respect to the classes of options assigned to them, (ii) effecting
proper executions of orders placed with them, (iii) displaying bids and
offers, and (iv) monitoring the market for the classes of options
assigned to them.
    The Exchange may employ a former member, who acted in the capacity
of a DPM before CBOE established the PAR Official position, to act on
behalf of the Exchange in a trading floor capacity. If these PAR
Officials and OBOs become members of the Exchange after working for the
Exchange in a trading floor capacity for longer than one year, these
individuals would have to complete the Orientation Program and pass the
Qualification Exam again under current Rule 3.9, since it would have
been longer than one year since they had been acting in a capacity that
has an authorized trading function.
    These PAR Officials and OBOs, while acting in an Exchange trading
floor capacity, are ultimately acting in the same capacity as when they
were operating in a DPM capacity before the CBOE established the PAR
Official trading floor capacity. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to amend its procedures to allow for the one-year period
under CBOE Rule 3.9(g) to be applied to an individual who has acted in
an Exchange trading floor capacity.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\8\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which, among
other things, requires that the rules of a national securities exchange
be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the amendment to CBOE's rules to
permit persons who had been acting in an exchange trading floor
capacity within the last year to become members without completing the
Orientation Program and passing the Qualification Examination again is
a reasonable expansion of the exception to the rule. The functions
performed by such persons are similar to those performed by members
possessing an authorized trading function.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-15), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-10205 Filed 5-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 44085]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: FAA Safety
Briefing Readership Survey

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on May 12, 2014, vol. 79, no. 91, page 27030-27031. The
survey will help the editors learn more about the target audience and
how they elect to improve their safety skills/practices, and what they
need to know to improve their safety skills/practices. With this
information, the editors can craft FAA Safety Briefing content targeted
to its audience to help accomplish the FAA and Department of
Transportation's mission of improving safety.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 28, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number: 2120-0747.
    Title: FAA Safety Briefing Readership Survey.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The bimonthly print and online publication FAA Safety
Briefing is designed to improve general aviation safety by: (a) Making
the community aware of FAA resources, (b) helping readers understand
safety and regulatory issues, and (c) encouraging continued training.
It is targeted to members of the non-commercial general aviation
community, primarily pilots and mechanics. This survey is intended to
help the editors of FAA Safety Briefing better understand the target
audience.
    Respondents: Approximately 7,000 pilots, flight instructors,
mechanics, and repairmen.
    Frequency: One time per respondent.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 10 minutes per
survey.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: An estimated 1,167 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 23, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-17827 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 Original Message From: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10: 58 AM To: eschaeffer@ environmentalintegrity. org Cc: kphanks@ rti. org Subject: RE: Answers to your questions Eric,

In the early stages of the PCWP project, we found that the TRI data were not useful for our purposes due to inconsistencies in the reported information. We prepared our own estimates of baseline emissions instead of relying on TRI data. We sent out an information collection request ( ICR) to PCWP facilities in 1998 to obtain information on process units, production rates, control systems, and HAP emission test data. More than 90 percent of the ICRs were returned, QA'd, and entered into data bases. Through this survey process, we collected nearly 100 HAP emission test reports. We used these emission test reports, speciated HAP data collected by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement ( NCASI) in a 29 mill sampling program, and data from AP 42 to develop the most comprehensive compilation of emission factors available for the PCWP industry ( which were later used to update AP 42). For the PCWP project, we estimated baseline emissions using the process/ throughput data ( from the ICR) and the emission factors we developed.

The TRI estimates are developed by facilities. The methodologies and data soruces used to generate our estimates and the TRI estimates differ. It is also likely that the methods used by different facilities to estimate emissions differ widely. Without looking closely at the TRI data and the basis for the TRI estimates for individual facilities, there is no way to know why our and the TRI estimates are very different. Katie says she suspects that the diffference in our estimates and TRI estimates varies greatly from facility to facility, depending on what each facility reported ( and how they arrived at what they reported).

 Original Message From: Eric Schaeffer [ mailto: eschaeffer@ environmentalintegrity. org] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 7: 07 PM To: Hanks, Katie P. Subject: RE: Answers to your questions Katie, I'm looking at baseline formaldehyde emissions data for affected softwood plants that was used to calculate cancer and noncancer risk, and comparing to TRI formaldehyde emissions. The TRI data looks much higher. What am I missing?

Regards,

Eric Schaeffer ( 202) 296 8800 ( main number) ( 202) 263 4440 ( direct) ( 202) 296 8822 ( Fax)

 Original Message From: Hanks, Katie P. [ mailto: kphanks@ rti. org] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 11: 11 AM To: Eric Schaeffer Subject: RE: Answers to your questions I thought I attached that one ( Appendix C). Here it is.

 Original Message From: Eric Schaeffer [ mailto: eschaeffer@ environmentalintegrity. org] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 11: 00 AM To: Hanks, Katie P. Subject: RE: Answers to your questions Thanks, Katie, this is very helpful. I'm trying to get a copy of one of these appendices, which lists plants according to HEM cancer output, and HEM noncancer output. It's definitely one of the items below, but the edocket is just not working. Is there any way you can email that pdf file to me?

Regards,

Eric Schaeffer ( 202) 296 8800 ( main number) ( 202) 263 4440 ( direct) ( 202) 296 8822 ( Fax)

 Original Message From: Hanks, Katie P. [ mailto: kphanks@ rti. org] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9: 55 AM To: Eric Schaeffer Cc: Mary Kissell ( E mail) Subject: Answers to your questions You asked what the units were on the " concentration" column in Attachment 1 to the February 25, 2004 memo documenting impacts associated with facilities potentially eligible for the delisted low risk subcategory of PCWP facilities. The units are micrograms per cubic meter and the column represents the maximum offsight concentration where people live.

You had also asked Mary Tom about the bottom line cancer/ noncancer risks for each plant. These estimates are attached in Appendix C to the risk assessment memo. You can obtain the full risk assessment memo from the e docket OAR 2003 0048. You already have Appendices B and C. The other items are OAR 2003 0048 0116 ( memo text),  0017 ( App A),  0120 ( App D), and  0121 ( App E). The link to the e docket is: http:// cascade. epa. gov/ RightSite/ dk_ public_ home. htm Katie Hanks RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709