[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38727-38729]
[FR Doc No: C1-2015-10535]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1508]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

Correction

    In notice document 2015-10535 beginning on page 26074 in the issue
of Wednesday, May 6, 2015, make the following correction:
    The table appearing on pages 26075-26078 should read as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Chief executive                       Online location
        State and county          Location and case      officer of        Community map     of letter of map        Effective date of        Community
                                         No.              community          repository          revision              modification              No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama:
    Madison....................  City of Huntsville  The Honorable       Engineering        http://            Jul. 6, 2015................       010153
                                  (15-04-0198P).      Tommy Battle,       Department, 308    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Fountain Circle,   lomc.
                                                      Huntsville, 308     Huntsville, AL
                                                      Fountain Circle,    35801.
                                                      Huntsville, AL
                                                      35801.
    Madison....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Dale  Madison County     http://            Jul. 6, 2015................       010151
                                  areas of Madison    W. Strong,          Engineering        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (15-04-      Chairman, Madison   Building, 266-C    lomc.
                                  0198P).             County              Shields Road,
                                                      Commission, 100     Huntsville, AL
                                                      Northside Square,   35811.
                                                      Huntsville, AL
                                                      35801.
California:
    Colusa.....................  City of Williams    The Honorable John  City Hall, 810 E   http://            Jul. 2, 2015................       060024
                                  (14-09-4496P).      J. Troughton,       Street,            www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Jr., Mayor, City    Williams, CA       lomc.
                                                      of Williams, P.O.   95987.
                                                      Box 310,
                                                      Williams, CA
                                                      95987.
    Colusa.....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Mark  Colusa County      http://            Jul. 2, 2015................       060022
                                  areas of Colusa     D. Marshall,        Department of      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-09-      Chairman, Colusa    Public Works,      lomc.
                                  4438P).             County Board of     1215 Market
                                                      Supervisors, 547    Street, Colusa,
                                                      Market Street,      CA 95932.
                                                      Suite 102,
                                                      Colusa, CA 95932.
    Colusa.....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Mark  Colusa County      http://            Jul. 2, 2015................       060022
                                  areas of Colusa     D. Marshall,        Department of      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-09-      Chairman, Colusa    Public Works,      lomc.
                                  4496P).             County Board of     1215 Market
                                                      Supervisors, 547    Street, Colusa,
                                                      Market Street,      CA 95932.
                                                      Suite 102,
                                                      Colusa, CA 95932.
    Riverside..................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Riverside County   http://            Jun. 8, 2015................       060245
                                  areas of            Marion Ashley,      Flood Control      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  Riverside County    Chairman,           and Water          lomc.
                                  (15-09-0813P).      Riverside County    Conservation
                                                      Board of            District, 1995
                                                      Supervisors, 4080   Market Street,
                                                      Lemon Street, 5th   Riverside, CA
                                                      Floor, Riverside,   92501.
                                                      CA 92501.
    San Diego..................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       San Diego County   http://            Jun. 19, 2015...............       060284
                                  areas of San        Dianne Jacob,       Department of      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  Diego County (14-   Chair, San Diego    Public Works,      lomc.
                                  09-4435P).          County Board of     Flood Control
                                                      Supervisors, 1600   District, 5510
                                                      Pacific Highway,    Overland Avenue,
                                                      Room 335, San       Suite 401, San
                                                      Diego, CA 92101.    Diego, CA 92123.
Colorado:
    Denver.....................  City and County of  The Honorable       Department of      http://            Jun. 19, 2015...............       080046
                                  Denver (15-08-      Michael B.          Public Works,      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  0320P).             Hancock, Mayor,     201 West Colfax    lomc.
                                                      City and County     Avenue, Denver,
                                                      of Denver, 1437     CO 80202.
                                                      Bannock Street,
                                                      Suite 350,
                                                      Denver, CO 80202.
    Denver.....................  City and County of  The Honorable       Department of      http://            Jun. 19, 2015...............       080046
                                  Denver (15-08-      Michael B.          Public Works,      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  0321P).             Hancock, Mayor,     201 West Colfax    lomc.
                                                      City and County     Avenue, Denver,
                                                      of Denver, 1437     CO 80202.
                                                      Bannock Street,
                                                      Suite 350,
                                                      Denver, CO 80202.
    Douglas....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Jill  Douglas County     http://            Jun. 12, 2015...............       080049
                                  areas of Douglas    Repella, Chair,     Public, Works      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-08-      Douglas County      Department,        lomc.
                                  0892P).             Board of            Engineering
                                                      Commissioners,      Division, 100
                                                      100 3rd Street,     3rd Street,
                                                      Castle Rock, CO     Castle Rock, CO
                                                      80104.              80104.
Florida:
     Alachua...................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Lee   Alachua County     http://            Jul. 3, 2015................       120001
                                  areas of Alachua    Pinkoson,           Public Works       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (15-04-      Chairman, Alachua   Department, 5620   lomc.
                                  0356P).             County Board of     Northwest 120th
                                                      Commissioners,      Lane,
                                                      P.O. Box 5547,      Gainesville, FL
                                                      Gainesville, FL     32653.
                                                      32627.

    Charlotte..................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Bill  Charlotte County   http://            Jun. 19, 2015...............       120061
                                  areas of            Truex, Chairman,    Community          www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  Charlotte County    Charlotte County    Development        lomc.
                                  (15-04-1137P).      Board of            Department,
                                                      Commissioners,      18500 Murdock
                                                      18500 Murdock       Circle, Port
                                                      Circle, Port        Charlotte, FL
                                                      Charlotte, FL       33948.
                                                      33948.
    Collier....................  City of Marco       The Honorable       City Hall, 50      http://            Jun. 19, 2015...............       120426
                                  Island (15-04-      Larry Sacher,       Bald Eagle         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  1069P).             Chairman, City of   Drive, Marco       lomc.
                                                      Marco Island        Island, FL 34145.
                                                      Council, 50 Bald
                                                      Eagle Drive,
                                                      Marco Island, FL
                                                      34145.
    Collier....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Tom   Collier County     http://            May 12, 2015................       120067
                                  areas of Collier    Henning,            Administrative     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Chairman, Collier   Building, 3301     lomc.
                                  A504P).             County Board of     East Tamiami
                                                      Commissioners,      Trail, Building
                                                      3299 Tamiami        F, 1st Floor,
                                                      Trail East, Suite   Naples, FL 34112.
                                                      303, Naples, FL
                                                      34112.
    Marion.....................  City of Ocala (14-  The Honorable Kent  Engineering        http://            Jun. 25, 2015...............       120330
                                  04-6358P).          Guinn, Mayor,       Department, 405    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      City of Ocala,      Southeast          lomc.
                                                      110 Southeast       Osceola Avenue,
                                                      Watula Avenue,      Ocala, FL 34478.
                                                      Ocala, FL 34471.
    Monroe.....................  City of Key West    The Honorable       Planning           http://            Jun. 5, 2015................       120168
                                  (14-04-A505P).      Craig Cates,        Department, 605A   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Simonton Street,   lomc.
                                                      Key West, 3126      Key West, FL
                                                      Flagler Avenue,     33040.
                                                      Key West, FL
                                                      33040.
    Pinellas...................  City of Clearwater  The Honorable       Public Works       http://            Jun. 25, 2015...............       125096
                                  (14-04-A506P).      George N.           Department, 100    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Cretekos, Mayor,    South Myrtle       lomc.
                                                      City of             Avenue, Suite
                                                      Clearwater, P.O.    220, Clearwater,
                                                      Box 4748,           FL 33758.
                                                      Clearwater, FL
                                                      33758.
    Seminole...................  City of Longwood    The Honorable John  City Hall, 175     http://            Jun. 19, 2015...............       120292
                                  (15-04-0949P).      Maingot, Mayor,     West Warren        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      City of Longwood,   Avenue,            lomc.
                                                      175 West Warren     Longwood, FL
                                                      Avenue, Longwood,   32750.
                                                      FL 32750.
Georgia: Columbia..............  Unincorporated      The Honorable Ron   Columbia County    http://            Jun. 19, 2015...............       130059
                                  areas of Columbia   Cross, Chairman,    Planning           www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (15-04-      Columbia County     Services           lomc.
                                  0305P).             Board of            Division, 603
                                                      Commissioners,      Ronald Reagan
                                                      P.O. Box 498,       Drive, Building
                                                      Evans, GA 30809.    B, Evans, GA
                                                                          30809.
Kentucky:
    Kenton.....................  City of Covington   The Honorable       City Hall, 20      http://            Jun. 19, 2015...............       210129
                                  (15-04-2329P).      Sherry Carran,      West Pike          www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Street,            lomc.
                                                      Covington, 20       Covington, KY
                                                      West Pike Street,   41011.
                                                      Covington, KY
                                                      41011.
    Kenton.....................  City of Fort        The Honorable       City Hall, 409     http://            Jun. 19, 2015...............       210249
                                  Wright (15-04-      Joseph Nienaber,    Kyles Lane, Fort   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  2329P).             Jr., Mayor, City    Wright, KY 41011.  lomc.
                                                      of Fort Wright,
                                                      409 Kyles Lane,
                                                      Fort Wright, KY
                                                      41011.
New York: Suffolk..............  Town of Brookhaven  The Honorable       Town Hall, 1       http://            Jul. 16, 2015...............       365334
                                  (15-02-0307P).      Edward P.           Independence       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Romaine, Town of    Hill,              lomc.
                                                      Brookhaven          Farmingville, NY
                                                      Supervisor, 1       11738.
                                                      Independence
                                                      Hill,
                                                      Farmingville, NY
                                                      11738.
North Carolina:
    Columbus...................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Columbus County    http://            May 5, 2015.................       370305
                                  areas of Columbus   Trent Burroughs,    Planning           www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Chairman,           Department, 111    lomc.
                                  6649P).             Columbus County     Washington
                                                      Board of            Street,
                                                      Commissioners,      Whiteville, NC
                                                      111 Washington      28472.
                                                      Street,
                                                      Whiteville, NC
                                                      28472.
    Guilford...................  City of Greensboro  The Honorable       Central Library,   http://            Jun. 26, 2015...............       375351
                                  (14-04-9100P).      Nancy Vaughan,      219 North Church   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Street,            lomc.
                                                      Greensboro, P.O.    Greensboro, NC
                                                      Box 3136,           27401.
                                                      Greensboro, NC
                                                      27402.
    Union......................  Town of Weddington  The Honorable Bill  Planning           http://            Jun. 22, 2015...............       370518
                                  (14-04-7777P).      Deter, Mayor,       Department, 1924   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Town of             Weddington Road,   lomc.
                                                      Weddington, 1924    Weddington, NC
                                                      Weddington Road,    28104.
                                                      Weddington, NC
                                                      28104.
    Union......................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Union County       http://            Jun. 22, 2015...............       370234
                                  areas of Union      Richard Helms,      Planning           www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Chairman, Union     Department, 500    lomc.
                                  7777P).             County Board of     North Main
                                                      Commissioners,      Street, Monroe,
                                                      500 North Main      NC 28112.
                                                      Street, Room 921,
                                                      Monroe, NC 28112.

    Wake.......................  City of Raleigh     The Honorable       Public Works       http://            Jun. 26, 2015...............       370243
                                  (14-04-8341P).      Nancy McFarlane,    Department, 222    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      West Hargett       lomc.
                                                      Raleigh, P.O. Box   Street, Raleigh,
                                                      590, Raleigh, NC    NC 27601.
                                                      27602.
    Wake.......................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Wake County        http://            Jun. 26, 2015...............       370368
                                  areas of Wake       James West,         Environmental      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Chairman, Wake      Services           lomc.
                                  8341P).             County Board of     Department, 336
                                                      Commissioners,      Fayetteville
                                                      P.O. Box 550,       Street, Raleigh,
                                                      Raleigh, NC 27602.  NC 27602.
South Carolina: Charleston.....  City of Charleston  The Honorable       Engineering        http://            Jun. 19, 2015...............       455412
                                  (15-04-0605P).      Joseph P. Riley,    Department, 75     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Jr., Mayor, City    Calhoun Street     lomc.
                                                      of Charleston,      Division 301,
                                                      P.O. Box 652,       Charleston, SC
                                                      Charleston, SC      29402.
                                                      29402.
Utah:
    Davis......................  City of Farmington  The Honorable Jim   GIS Department,    http://            Jun. 26, 2015...............       490044
                                  (15-08-0034P).      Talbot, Mayor,      1600 South Main,   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      City of             Farmington, UT     lomc.
                                                      Farmington, 160     84025.
                                                      South Main,
                                                      Farmington, UT
                                                      84025.
    Davis......................  City of Fruit       The Honorable Don   City Hall, 910     http://            Jun. 5, 2015................       490045
                                  Heights (14-08-     Carroll, Mayor,     South Mountain     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  1211P).             City of Fruit       Road, Fruit        lomc.
                                                      Heights, 910        Heights, UT
                                                      South Mountain      84307.
                                                      Road, Fruit
                                                      Heights, UT 84037.
    Davis......................  City of Kaysville   The Honorable       City Hall, 23      http://            Jun. 5, 2015................       490046
                                  (14-08-1178P).      Steve A. Hiatt,     East Center        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Street,            lomc.
                                                      Kaysville, 23       Kaysville, UT
                                                      East Center         84037.
                                                      Street,
                                                      Kaysville, UT
                                                      84037.
    Davis......................  City of Kaysville   The Honorable       City Hall, 23      http://            Jun. 5, 2015................       490046
                                  (14-08-1211P).      Steve A. Hiatt,     East Center        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Street,            lomc.
                                                      Kaysville, 23       Kaysville, UT
                                                      East Center         84037.
                                                      Street,
                                                      Kaysville, UT
                                                      84037.
    Washington.................  Town of Springdale  The Honorable Stan  Planning and       http://            May 22, 2015................       490179
                                  (14-08-1247P).      Smith, Mayor,       Zoning             www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Town of             Department, 118    lomc.
                                                      Springdale, 118     Lion Boulevard,
                                                      Lion Boulevard,     Springdale, UT
                                                      Springdale, UT      84767.
                                                      84767.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. C1-2015-10535 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01D


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57248-57254]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0076]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
Model Years 2030 and Beyond New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program 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 fuel
efficiency (FE) standards for model years (MYs) 2030 and beyond medium-
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and some work trucks (``HD
vehicles'' that NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to 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 issues
related to the proposed action. NHTSA invites 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 (DEIS), 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 October 19, 2022. NHTSA will consider comments received after
that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket
identified in the heading of this document by visiting the following
website:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods:
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before coming.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number identified in the heading of this document.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Supplementary
Information section of this document. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    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, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment
tracking and response, we encourage commenters to

provide their name, or the name of their organization; however,
submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters
identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered. If
you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or confidential
information, please contact the agency for alternate submission
instructions.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vinay Nagabhushana, Fuel Economy
Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected];
or Hannah Fish, Vehicle Safety Standards & Harmonization, Office of the
Chief Counsel, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected];
or Stephanie Walters, Legislation & General Law Division, Office of the
Chief Counsel, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected], 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), the United States Department of Transportation
(DOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends
to propose FE standards for MYs 2030 and beyond for medium- and heavy-
duty on-highway vehicles and some work trucks (referred to herein as
``HD vehicles'') vehicles pursuant to the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA).\1\ In particular, NHTSA will propose the
next phase (``Phase 3'') of the Medium and Heavy Vehicle Fuel
Efficiency Standards program. In the Phase 2 rulemaking, NHTSA tailored
the standards to the following regulatory categories of HD vehicles:
vocational vehicles, combination tractors, gasoline and diesel HD
vehicle engines, and heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.2 3
NHTSA set separate categories of standards based on fuel type, duty
cycle, vehicle application, and tractor cab type. As discussed further
below, NHTSA is seeking comment on how to tailor Phase 3 standards to
these regulatory categories of HD vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007) (codified
at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.).
    \2\ In accordance with the notice 87 FR 50386, NHTSA is seeking
comment on including heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans standards in
a separate action.
    \3\ Pursuant to Truck Trailer Manufacturers Ass'n, Inc v. Env't
Prot. Agency, 17 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2021), NHTSA is not proposing
trailer standards in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) instructs Federal
agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of their
proposed actions and possible alternatives. In connection with the
action described above, NHTSA will prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed reasonable alternatives for HD vehicle FE standards pursuant
to NEPA and implementing regulations issued by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ),\4\ DOT Order No. 5610.1C,\5\ and NHTSA
regulations.\6\ To inform decision makers and the public, the EIS will
analyze the potential environmental impacts of the agency's Preferred
Alternative and a spectrum of reasonable alternatives, including a ``no
action'' alternative.\7\ As required by NEPA, the EIS will consider
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and
alternatives.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
    \5\ 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.
    \6\ 49 CFR part 520.
    \7\ 40 CFR 1502.14.
    \8\ Id. 1508.1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Purpose and Need

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) \9\ 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Public Law 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975).
    \10\ 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, Congress enacted the EISA, which significantly
amended EPCA's program requirements, granting the DOT, and NHTSA by
delegation,\11\ additional rulemaking authority and requirements. EISA
provided NHTSA authority to implement, through rulemaking and
regulations, ``a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle
\12\ and work truck \13\ fuel efficiency improvement program designed
to achieve the maximum feasible improvement[.]'' \14\ 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.'' \15\ This authority permits NHTSA
to set ``separate standards for different classes of vehicles.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Secretary has delegated responsibility for implementing
fuel economy and fuel efficiency requirements under EPCA and EISA to
NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95(a) and (j).
    \12\ 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).
    \13\ 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).
    \14\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ 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 establishes requirements for lead time and regulatory
stability for these vehicle types. New fuel efficiency improvement
program standards that NHTSA adopts pursuant to EISA for these vehicle
types must provide not less than 4 full model years of regulatory lead-
time and 3 full model years of regulatory stability.\17\ Finally, EISA
directs that NHTSA's HD rulemaking must be conducted in consultation
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of
Energy.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3).
    \18\ 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.\19\ 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'').\20\ The performance-based standards created
a national program requiring manufacturers to meet targets for FE and
GHG emissions. The agencies estimated that the Phase 1 standards would
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 GHG pollution by
approximately 270 million metric tons.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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).
    \20\ See Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 76 FR
57106 (September 15, 2011).
    \21\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Building on the success of Phase 1 of the program, in a February
18, 2014, Presidential Announcement, President Obama directed NHTSA and
EPA to finalize the next phase of HD vehicle FE and GHG standards by
March 31, 2016.\22\ NHTSA and EPA met that directive in October 2016 by
finalizing standards for new HD engines and vehicles in MYs 2018 and
beyond (``Phase 2''). NHTSA conducted the Phase 2 rulemaking in
consultation with EPA and DOE. The Phase 2 standards were expected to
further reduce GHG emissions (GHG) and increase FE for on-road heavy-
duty vehicles. NHTSA's fuel consumption standards and EPA's carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions standards were tailored to three
regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles: (1) combination tractors;
\23\ (2) heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans; \24\ and (3) vocational
vehicles,\25\ as well as gasoline and diesel heavy-duty engines.\26\ In
addition, the agencies added new standards for combination trailers.
EPA's hydrofluorocarbon emissions standards that currently apply to air
conditioning systems in tractors, pickup trucks, and vans, were also
applied to vocational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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).
    \23\ Combination tractors, which may be equipped with sleeper
cabs, including Class 7 and 8 truck tractors, 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. Pursuant to the
decision in Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, Inc. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 16-1430 (D.C. Cir. 2021), NHTSA
is not considering trailer standards in this action.
    \24\ Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are defined in 49 CFR
523.7.
    \25\ Vocational vehicles, which may span Classes 2b through 8,
include 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.
    \26\ 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 and compression-ignition engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Action

    On August 5, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.)
14037, Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks,
which directed NHTSA and EPA to, as appropriate and consistent with
applicable law, take actions under EPCA/EISA and the Clean Air Act to
set standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles.\27\
Specifically, the E.O. directed NHTSA to consider beginning work on
rulemakings to ``establish new fuel efficiency standards for medium-
and heavy-duty engines and vehicles to begin as soon as model year
2030.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 86 FR 43583 (August 10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with E.O. 14037, but pursuant to the agency's own
exercise of authority consistent with EPCA/EISA, NHTSA intends to
propose fuel efficiency standards for MYs 2030 and Beyond HD vehicles
in an upcoming NPRM by July 2024. However, in accordance with EISA's
lead time requirements, NHTSA is statutorily required to issue a final
rule for MY 2030 the Phase 3 standards no later than January 2025.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3)(A) requires the commercial medium-
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel economy
standard to provide not less than 4 full model years of regulatory
lead-time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like past FE rules described above, NHTSA will use full vehicle
computer models for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Compliance and other
analysis tools to determine the impacts of different levels of HD
vehicles FE stringency. Pursuant to NEPA, NHTSA will prepare an EIS to
analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed action.
This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process for the EIS under
NEPA and its implementing regulations,\29\ and under NHTSA's NEPA
regulations.\30\ Specifically, this Notice of Intent requests public
input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis including the alternatives
considered and the significant environmental issues relating to more
stringent FE standards for HD vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
    \30\ See 40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Considerations for the Range of Alternatives

    In an upcoming NPRM, NHTSA intends to propose new FE standards, as
described above. This notice briefly describes a variety of possible
alternatives that are currently under consideration by the agency and
seeks input from the public about those alternatives and about whether
other alternatives should be considered as NHTSA proceeds with the
rulemaking and the EIS.

a. Framing the Range of Alternatives

    The purpose of and need for an agency's action inform the range of
reasonable alternatives to be considered in its NEPA analysis.\31\ In
developing alternatives for analysis in the EIS, NHTSA must consider
EISA's requirements for setting FE standards under the MD/HD fuel
efficiency improvement program noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 40 CFR 1502.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regards to the FE standards, EISA requires that: (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 MD/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.\32\ In considering these various requirements, NHTSA will
also account for relevant environmental and safety considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For setting FE standards, NHTSA will analyze action alternatives
calculated at the lower point and at the upper point of a range of FE
standards that would satisfy EISA's requirements of increasing the FE
of HD vehicles. The lower bound would reflect the least stringent of
the range of alternatives to achieve the maximum feasible improvement
in fuel efficiency. On the other hand, the upper bound, represents the
most stringent fuel efficiency improvement.
    Similarly, 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 energy and related
impacts to the environment. For example, the most stringent FE standard
NHTSA will evaluate would require greater adoption of fuel-saving
technology across the fleet, including more advanced technology, than
the least stringent standard NHTSA will evaluate. As a result, the most
stringent alternative for the FE standard would impose greater costs
and achieve greater energy conservation.
    The range of alternatives would provide a broad range of
information for NHTSA to use in evaluating and weighing the statutory
factors in the 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
greenhouse gas emissions) and technological inputs are estimated or
valued.

b. Considerations on Levels of Standards for Regulatory Classes

    Within the range of alternatives, 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. 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, consistent with EISA's
regulatory stability requirements. 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 also may select ``maximum feasible'' fuel efficiency
standards for some or all model years that decrease or remain the same
as compared to prior model year(s), consistent with EISA's regulatory
stability requirements.
    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 regulatory categories of the HD sector), and the range of
reasonable alternatives for consideration in this rulemaking and EIS.
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, FE (and corresponding GHG reduction) benefits, industry
structure, and more.
    For different regulatory vehicle classes within HD vehicles, NHTSA
may consider setting standards at different rates, or that change over
different rates during the timeframe of the rule. NHTSA may also
consider setting different levels of standards for vehicles that are
powered by different fuels (e.g., in past MD/HD FE rules, NHTSA set
separate standards for gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles).

c. Considerations on Industry Lead Time

    As noted above, there is no limitation on the number of model years
of standards that NHTSA can set for HD vehicles.

d. Considerations on Standard Attributes and Form

    In the previous MD/HD rulemaking, NHTSA used different metrics for
setting HD vehicle standards. For HD pickups trucks and vans, work
factor \33\ was the metric for setting vehicle standards. NHTSA set
standards separately for vocational and truck tractors to account for
differences in vehicle applications and fuel type. As discussed further
below, NHTSA seeks comment on the attribute used to set FE standards,
possible other attributes that could be used to set FE standards, the
shape of the standards curves, and other programmatic aspects that
could help fulfill the goals outlined herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Work factor is an attribute that combines a vehicle's
payload, towing capabilities, and the presence of 4-wheel drive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Other Programmatic Considerations

    As with any FE rulemaking, NHTSA will also consider programmatic
aspects other than stringency (e.g., flexibilities) that may affect
model years including those for which NHTSA would set FE standards.

III. Range of Alternatives

    NHTSA is considering the following alternatives for analysis in the
Draft EIS:

a. No Action Alternative

    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.\34\ In this EIS, NHTSA will consider a ``no action''
alternative, which assumes, for purposes of NEPA analysis, that NHTSA
would not issue a new rule regarding HD FE standards. Under these
circumstances, the existing FE standards established for the end of
Phase 2 would persist until NHTSA takes additional action.\35\ The no-
action alternative would also take into account CARB's Advanced Clean
Trucks (ACT) program, set to begin in model year 2024. The ACT program
stipulates that manufacturers must electrify specified percentages of
their heavy-duty fleets (including Class 2b and Class 3 heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans) in order to continue selling heavy-duty
vehicles in California and other states that have formally adopted the
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14. 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).
    \35\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA will refer to this alternative that includes the conditions
described

for FE standards as the ``No Action Alternative'' or as the
``baseline.''

b. Action Alternatives

    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. These lower and upper ``bounds'' or ``brackets'' will
account for various potential structures for the FE standards for the
HD vehicles and various levels of stringency for the regulatory
categories. These alternatives would bracket the range of actions the
agency may select. In sum, in its final rule, NHTSA would be able to
select 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.

c. Preferred Alternative

    In the EIS, NHTSA intends to identify a Preferred Alternative,
which may be within the level of stringency that falls within the range
being considered or may be the lower or upper bound levels of
stringency. The Preferred Alternative would reflect what the agency
believes is the ``maximum feasible improvement'' required under EISA.
The Preferred Alternative may include improvements that are constant
throughout the regulatory period or that vary in accordance with EISA's
regulatory stability requirements, 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.

IV. Consideration of Expected Impacts

    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 FE
standards.\36\ NHTSA's NEPA analysis will consider direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects of the proposed action and those of reasonable
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 40 CFR 1500.5(f), 1501.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the main focus of NHTSA's prior CAFE and FE EISs (i.e., the
HD Phase 1 \37\ and Phase 2 \38\ EISs) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, Model Years 2014-2018,
Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079-0151 (June 2011).
    \38\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, Model Years 2018-2027,
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0074 (August 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\39\ air quality,\40\ natural
resources, and the human environment. NHTSA is considering examining
life-cycle impacts consistent with its past EISs and looking at tools
that may be available for quantitative analysis. NHTSA will consider
the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed FE standards, as well
as the cumulative effects \41\ of the proposed FE standards together
with any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Overall, NHTSA plans to analyze impacts in much the same manner as it
did in its prior EISs, while incorporating by reference any of the
relevant discussions from those documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 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.
    \40\ 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.
    \41\ In accordance with CEQ regulations, cumulative impacts are
``the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental
impacts of the action when added to the impacts of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of
time.'' 40 CFR 1508.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of fuel used as a result of different levels of standards
are used as inputs for the EIS's climate modeling. As with any model,
uncertainties exist in modeling potential future climate change
scenarios. Because all analysis of possible future outcomes necessarily
involves uncertainty, including what NHTSA will consider for this
rulemaking and EIS, NHTSA anticipates uncertainty in its estimates of
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 FE
standards. It is difficult to quantify how the specific impacts due to
the potential temperature changes attributable to new FE 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. 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.
    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. 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.
    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.\42\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 40 CFR 1501.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' \43\
Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA analysis and documentation will incorporate
by reference relevant materials, including portions of the agency's
prior NEPA documents, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. The Scoping Process

    NHTSA's NEPA analysis will consider the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental effects 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. All comments relevant to the scoping
process are welcome.
    NHTSA invites the public to participate in the scoping process \44\
by submitting written comments concerning the appropriate scope of the
NEPA analysis for the proposed FE 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 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 2028-2032
CAFE standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR
1501.8, 1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Comments on the Range of Alternatives

    NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency considers a full
range of reasonable alternatives in setting new HD vehicle FE
improvement standards. Comments may go beyond the approaches and
information that NHTSA described above for developing the alternatives.
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'' \45\ 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.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
    \46\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency may modify the proposed alternatives that will be
analyzed in depth based upon the comments received during the scoping
process and upon further agency analysis. When suggesting an approach
to developing alternatives that the agency should analyze, please
explain the recommended way to balance EISA's factors ((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 MD/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).

b. Comments on Environmental Effects

    NHTSA invites comments to ensure 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
identifying the potentially significant environmental effects. The
agency may modify the environmental effects that will be analyzed in
depth based upon the comments received during the scoping process and
upon further agency analysis. When suggesting additional resource areas
to analyze, please explain how the recommendation will add value to the
public and decisionmaker in looking at the environmental impacts of the
range of identified alternatives.
    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.\47\ 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.\48\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1502.2(b).
    \48\ 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 ``avoid[ing] useless bulk in statements and . . .
concentrate[ing] effort and attention on important issues.'' \49\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 40 CFR 1502.15.

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

    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.

c. Schedule for Decision-Making

    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 website (http://www.nhtsa.gov).

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
parts 1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2022-20211 Filed 9-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57282-57284]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0192]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Establishing and
Maintaining Lists of United States Manufacturers/Processors With
Interest in Exporting Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition-
Regulated Products to China

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
3, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0839.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Establishing and Maintaining Lists of U.S. Manufacturers/Processors
With Interest in Exporting CFSAN-Regulated Products to China--21 U.S.C.
371 OMB Control Number 0910-0839--Extension

    The United States exports a large volume and variety of foods in
international trade. For certain food products, foreign governments may
require assurances from the responsible authority of the country of
origin of an imported food product that the manufacturer/processor of
the food product is in compliance with applicable country of origin
regulatory requirements. Some foreign governments establish additional
requirements with which exporters are required to comply.
    In August 2011, China's State General Administration of the
People's Republic of China for Quality Supervision and Inspection and
Quarantine (AQSIQ) published the Administrative Measures for
Registration of Overseas Manufacturers, known as AQSIQ Decree 145
(https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Registration%20of%20Overseas%20Food%20Manufacturing%20Facilities%20_Beijing_China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%20of_6-27-2012.pdf), which became
effective May 1, 2012. AQSIQ Decree 145, among other requirements,
mandates that foreign competent authorities provide the Certification
and Accreditation Administration of China (CNCA) with a ``name list of
overseas manufacturers of imported food applying for registration''
with CNCA for each commodity that CNCA has deemed to require
registration. As of June 2017, milk and milk products, seafood, infant
formula, and formula for young children are among the commodities for
which CNCA requires registration of overseas manufacturers under AQSIQ
Decree 145. CNCA has recognized FDA/CFSAN (Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition) as the competent food safety authority in the United
States to establish and maintain lists of U.S. establishments that
intend to export U.S. milk and milk products, seafood, infant formula,
and/or formula for young children to China, including the corresponding
products manufactured by each establishment and intended for export to
China. To implement AQSIQ Decree 145, FDA and CNCA entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (China MOU) on June 15, 2017, which sets
out the two Agencies' intent to facilitate the conditions under which
U.S. manufacturers/processors can export to China milk and milk
products, seafood, infant formula, and/or formula for young children.
    Under the China MOU, FDA intends to establish and maintain lists
that identify U.S. manufacturers/processors that have expressed
interest to FDA in exporting milk and milk products, seafood, infant
formula, and/or formula for young children to China; are subject to our
jurisdiction; and have been found by FDA to be in good regulatory
standing with FDA, including a finding by FDA that, during the most
recent facility inspection, the manufacturers/processors have been
found to be in substantial compliance with all applicable FDA
regulations, including, but not limited to, current good manufacturing
practice requirements for the identified products for export to China.
Further, the China MOU provides for FDA to receive evidence that the
manufacturer/processor has been certified by a third-party
certification body--as acknowledged by CNCA--to meet the relevant
standards, laws, and regulations of China for the identified food
products for export to China. On June 28, 2017, FDA issued a guidance
document entitled ``Establishing and Maintaining a List of U.S. Milk
and Milk Product, Seafood, Infant Formula, and Formula for Young
Children Manufacturers/Processors with Interest in Exporting to China''
which can be found at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/default.htm. The guidance informs industry of information that FDA and
CNCA will collect to manage the listing of these manufacturers/
processors and foods for export to China pursuant to AQSIQ Decree 145
and the China MOU.
    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.13, FDA requested emergency review
and approval of the collections of information found in the guidance
document. The routine course of approval would have delayed our ability
to collect the information from firms and, thus, would have been
disruptive in our efforts to facilitate exports of food in compliance
with requirements established by China in AQSIQ Decree 145. OMB granted
the approval under emergency clearance procedures on June 27, 2017.
    FDA uses the information submitted by manufacturers/processors to
consider them for inclusion on FDA's lists of eligible manufacturers/
processors who may ship food products to China, which we maintain.
Updates to the FDA lists are sent to CNCA, which publishes its version
of the information in the FDA lists on China's Web site (http://english.cnca.gov.cn/) on a quarterly basis. The purpose of the lists is
to assist China in its determination of which U.S. milk and milk
product, seafood, infant formula, or formula for young children
manufacturers/processors are eligible to import these products into
China under applicable Chinese law. Currently FDA maintains lists for
milk and milk product, seafood, infant formula, and formula for young
children but FDA wants to be prepared if CNCA requires listing of
manufacturers/processors of other CFSAN-regulated products in the
future. As such, the information collection request is not limited to
milk and milk product, seafood, infant formula, and formula for young
children but also may include other CFSAN-regulated products.
    In the Federal Register of September 19, 2017 (82 FR 43761), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
extension of this collection of information. One comment was received
but was not responsive to the four information collection topics
solicited in the notice and therefore is not addressed.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
    Guidance recommendations         Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New written requests to be                   370               1             370               1             370
 placed on the lists............
Third-party certification.......             370               1             370              21           7,770
Biennial update.................             555               1             555               1             555
Third-party certification                    555               1             555              21          11,655
 biennial update................
Occasional updates..............             100               1             100             0.5              50
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          20,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    This is a newly established information collection. Based on our
experience maintaining other export lists, we estimate that, annually,
an average of 370 new manufacturers/processors will submit written
requests to be placed on the China lists. The estimate of the number of
hours that it will take a manufacturer/processor to gather the
information needed to be placed on a list or update its information is
based on FDA's experience with manufacturers/processors submitting
similar requests. FDA believes that the information to be submitted
will be readily available to manufacturers/processors. We estimate that
a firm will require 1 hour to read the guidance, to gather the
information needed, and to prepare a communication to FDA that contains
the information needed to request that the manufacturer/processor be
placed on a list.
    To be placed on a list, manufacturers/processors should provide FDA
with evidence that they have obtained third-party certification from a
CNCA-acknowledged certifier that the manufacturer/processor complies
with the standards, laws and regulations of China according to relevant
requirements specified in AQSIQ Decree 145. Based on our experience
with other certification programs, FDA estimates that it will take each
new manufacturer/processor about 21 hours to complete the third-party
certification process for a total of 7,770 burden hours (370
manufacturers/processors x 21 hours).
    Under the guidance, every 2 years each manufacturer/processor on
the lists must provide updated information to remain on the lists. FDA
estimates that each year approximately half of the manufacturers/
processors on the lists, or 555 manufacturers/processors (1110
manufacturers/processors x 0.5 = 555), will resubmit the information to
remain on the lists. We estimate that a manufacturer/processor already
on the lists will require 1 hour to biennially update and resubmit the
information to FDA, including time reviewing the information and
corresponding with FDA, for a total of 555 hours.
    During the biennial update, manufacturers/processors also need to
be recertified by a third-party certifier to remain on the lists. FDA
estimates that each year approximately half of the manufacturers/
processors on the lists, 555 manufacturers/processors (1110
manufacturers/processors x 0.5 = 555), will get recertified. We
estimate that it will take each manufacturer/processor about 21 hours
to complete the certification process for a total of 11,655 burden
hours (555 manufacturers/processors x 21 hours).
    FDA expects that, each year, approximately 100 manufacturers/
processors will need to submit an occasional update and each
manufacturer/processor will require 0.5 hours to prepare a
communication to FDA reporting the change, for a total of 50 hours.

    Dated: November 29, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-26042 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P