Supplemental Notice of Public Scoping for an Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 22913-22917 [08-1191]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 82 / Monday, April 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
be used to determine opacity from all
affected facilities except those that do
not vent PM emissions through a stack.
(3) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of this
part, the procedures in § 60.11, and the
additional procedures in paragraphs
(b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section shall
be used to determine opacity from
affected facilities that do not vent PM
emissions through a stack.
(i) The minimum distance between
the observer and the emission source
shall be 5.0 meters (16 feet), and the sun
shall be oriented in the 140-degree
sector of the back.
(ii) The observer shall select a
position that minimizes interference
from other emission sources and make
observations such that the line of vision
is approximately perpendicular to the
plume and wind direction.
(iii) Make opacity observations at the
point of greatest opacity in that portion
of the plume where condensed water
vapor is not present. Water vapor is not
considered a visible emission.
(c) For each affected facility subject to
a particulate matter emission limit in
§ 60.252 that is constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after April
28, 2008 the owner or operator must
conduct each performance test
according to § 60.8 using the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Method 1 or 1A (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–1) to select sampling port
locations and the number of traverse
points in each stack or duct. Sampling
sites must be located at the outlet of the
control device (or at the outlet of the
emissions source if no control device is
present) prior to any releases to the
atmosphere.
(2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–1), or 2G (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–2) to determine the
volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B (40 CFR part
60, appendix A–2) to determine the dry
molecular weight of the stack gas. You
may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981,
‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses’’
(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14)
as an alternative to Method 3B (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–2).
(4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–3) to determine the
moisture content of the stack gas.
(5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–3) to determine the PM
concentration or Method 5D (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–3) for positive
pressure fabric filter. A minimum of
three valid test runs comprise a
particulate matter performance test.
(d) For each affected facility subject to
an opacity limit in § 60.252 that is
constructed, reconstructed, or modified
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 Apr 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
after April 28, 2008, the owner or
operator must conduct the performance
test as follows:
(1) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of this
part and the procedures in § 60.11 shall
be used to determine opacity from all
affected facilities except those that do
not vent PM emissions through a stack.
(2) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of this
part, the procedures in § 60.11, and the
additional procedures in paragraphs
(d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section shall
be used to determine opacity from
affected facilities that do not vent PM
emissions through a stack.
(i) The minimum distance between
the observer and the emission source
shall be 5.0 meters (16 feet), and the sun
shall be oriented in the 140-degree
sector of the back.
(ii) The observer shall select a
position that minimizes interference
from other emission sources and make
observations such that the line of vision
is approximately perpendicular to the
plume and wind direction.
(iii) Make opacity observations at the
point of greatest opacity in that portion
of the plume where condensed water
vapor is not present. Water vapor is not
considered a visible emission.
§ 60.255
Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a) An owner or operator of a coal
preparation plant that commenced
construction, reconstruction, or
modification after April 28, 2008 shall
maintain in a logbook (written or
electronic) on-site and made available
upon request. The logbook shall record
the following:
(1) The date and time of periodic coal
preparation plant facility opacity
observations noting those sources with
emissions above the action level along
with the results of the corresponding
opacity performance test.
(2) The amount and type of coal
processed each calendar month.
(3) The amount of chemical stabilizer
or water purchased for use in the coal
preparation plant.
(4) Monthly certification that the dust
suppressant systems were operational
when any coal was processed and that
manufacturer recommendations were
followed for all control systems.
(b) [RESERVED]
[FR Doc. E8–9104 Filed 4–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22913
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 534, 536
and 537
[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0060]
Supplemental Notice of Public Scoping
for an Environmental Impact Statement
for New Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of public
scoping; further request for scoping
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On March 28, 2008, NHTSA
announced plans to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) to address the
potential environmental impacts of the
agency’s Corporate Average Fuel
Economy program for passenger
automobiles (referred to herein as
‘‘passenger cars’’) and non-passenger
automobiles (referred to herein as ‘‘light
trucks’’). Specifically, NHTSA
announced its intent to prepare an EIS
to consider the potential environmental
impacts of new fuel economy standards
for model year 2011–2015 passenger
cars and light trucks that NHTSA is
proposing pursuant to the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
At the same time, NHTSA initiated the
NEPA scoping process by inviting
Federal, State, and local agencies,
Indian tribes, and the public to help
identify the environmental issues and
reasonable alternatives to be examined
in the EIS by providing public
comments related to the scope of
NHTSA’s NEPA analysis. This
supplemental notice provides additional
guidance for participating in the scoping
process and additional information
about the proposed standards and the
alternatives NHTSA expects to consider
in its NEPA analysis.
DATES: The scoping process will
culminate in the preparation and
issuance of a Draft EIS, which will be
made available for public comment.
Interested persons are requested to
submit their scoping comments as soon
as possible. To ensure that NHTSA has
an opportunity to consider scoping
comments and to facilitate NHTSA’s
prompt preparation of the Draft EIS,
scoping comments should be received
on or before May 28, 2008, although
NHTSA will try to consider comments
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
22914
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 82 / Monday, April 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
received after this date to the extent the
NEPA and rulemaking schedules allow.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
to the docket number identified in the
heading of this document by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S.
Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. Eastern time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
Regardless of how you submit your
comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket at 202–366–
9324.
Note that all comments received,
including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical issues, contact Carol HammelSmith, Fuel Economy Division, Office of
International Vehicle, Fuel Economy
and Consumer Standards, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
202–366–5206. For legal issues, contact
Kerry E. Rodgers, Vehicle Safety
Standards & Harmonization Division,
Office of the Chief Counsel, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
202–366–9511.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
companion notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA is
proposing Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards for model
year (MY) 2011–2015 passenger cars
and light trucks pursuant to the
amendments made by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA) to the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA).1 In
connection with this action, NHTSA has
begun preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) to address the
potential environmental impacts of the
proposed standards and reasonable
alternative standards in the context of
1 EISA is Public Law 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492
(December 19, 2007). EPCA is codified at 49 U.S.C.
32901 et seq.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 Apr 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
NHTSA’s CAFE program pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and implementing regulations
issued by the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) and NHTSA.2 NEPA
instructs Federal agencies to consider
the potential environmental impacts of
their proposed actions and possible
alternatives in their decisionmaking. To
inform decisionmakers and the public,
the EIS will compare the environmental
impacts of the agency’s proposal and
reasonable alternatives, including a ‘‘no
action’’ alternative. The EIS will
consider direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts and should discuss
impacts ‘‘in proportion to their
significance.’’
In March 2008, NHTSA issued a
notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the
MY 2011–2015 CAFE standards and
opened the NEPA ‘‘scoping’’ process. In
that notice, NHTSA described the
statutory requirements for the proposed
standards, provided initial information
about the NEPA process, and initiated
scoping by requesting public input on
the scope of NHTSA’s NEPA analysis
for the proposed standards.3 NHTSA
also stated that it would describe the
proposed standards and the possible
alternatives NHTSA expects to consider
for purposes of its NEPA analysis in its
NPRM and in a separate scoping notice
that would provide further guidance
about the scoping process. This
document constitutes that supplemental
scoping notice.
Background. EPCA sets forth
extensive requirements concerning the
rulemaking to establish MY 2011–2015
CAFE standards. It requires the
Secretary of Transportation4 to establish
average fuel economy standards at least
18 months before the beginning of each
model year and to set them at ‘‘the
maximum feasible average fuel economy
level that the Secretary decides the
manufacturers can achieve in that
model year.’’ When setting ‘‘maximum
feasible’’ fuel economy standards, the
Secretary is required to ‘‘consider
technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other motor
vehicle standards of the Government on
2 NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347. CEQ’s
NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 40
CFR 1500–1508, and NHTSA’s NEPA implementing
regulations are codified at 49 CFR Part 520.
3 See Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR 16615,
March 28, 2008, available at https://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/
menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/
(last visited March 26, 2008).
4 NHTSA is delegated responsibility for
implementing the EPCA fuel economy requirements
assigned to the Secretary of Transportation. 49 CFR
1.50, 501.2(a)(8).
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
fuel economy, and the need of the
United States to conserve energy.’’5
NHTSA construes the statutory factors
as including environmental and safety
considerations.6 NHTSA also will
consider environmental impacts under
NEPA when setting CAFE standards.
As recently amended, EPCA further
directs the Secretary, after consultation
with the Secretary of Energy (DOE) and
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), to establish
separate average fuel economy
standards for passenger cars and for
light trucks manufactured in each model
year beginning with model year 2011
‘‘to achieve a combined fuel economy
average for model year 2020 of at least
35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of
passenger and non-passenger
automobiles manufactured for sale in
the United States for that model year.’’7
In doing so, the Secretary of
Transportation is required to increase
average fuel economy standards for MY
2011–2020 vehicles through ‘‘annual
fuel economy standard increases.’’8 The
standards for passenger cars and light
trucks must be ‘‘based on 1 or more
vehicle attributes related to fuel
economy.’’ In any single rulemaking,
standards may be established for not
more than five model years.9 EPCA also
mandates a minimum standard for
domestically manufactured passenger
cars.10
Earlier this year, NHTSA initiated the
EIS process for MY 2011–2015 CAFE
standards, which include light truck
standards for one model year previously
covered by the 2006 Rule (MY 2011).11
We did so because a standard for MY
2011 must be issued by the end of
March 2009 and achieving an industrywide combined fleet average of at least
35 miles per gallon for MY 2020
depends, in substantial part, upon
setting standards well in advance so as
to provide the automobile
5 49
U.S.C. 32902(a), 32902(f).
e.g., Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA,
956 F.2d 321, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing
Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 901 F.2d
107, 120 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).
7 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(1), 32902(b)(2)(A).
8 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(2)(C).
9 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(3)(A), 32902(b)(3)(B).
10 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(4).
11 In preparing an EIS for the MY 2011–2015
CAFE standards, NHTSA intends to consider issues
raised in litigation concerning a 2006 final rule,
‘‘Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks,
Model Years 2008–2011,’’ 71 FR 17,566, April 6,
2006 (2006 Rule). See Center for Biological Diversity
v. NHTSA, 508 F.3d 508, 514, 545–58 (9th Cir.
2007) (holding, among other things, that NHTSA
did not prepare an adequate environmental
assessment under NEPA and ordering the agency to
prepare an EIS). The Government is presently
seeking rehearing in the Ninth Circuit on the
appropriateness of the Court’s remedy.
6 See,
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 82 / Monday, April 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
manufacturers with as much lead time
as possible to make the extensive
necessary changes to their automobiles.
The Proposed Action and Possible
Alternatives: NHTSA’s companion
NPRM proposes attribute-based (vehicle
size) fuel economy standards for
passenger cars and light trucks
consistent with the ‘‘Reformed CAFE’’
approach NHTSA used to establish
standards for MY 2008–2011 light
trucks.12 The NPRM proposes separate
standards for MY 2011–2015 passenger
cars and separate standards for MY
2011–2015 light trucks. This notice
briefly describes the proposed standards
and the possible alternatives discussed
in the NPRM. For more detailed
discussion of those alternatives, please
see the NPRM.
Under the proposed standards, each
vehicle manufacturer’s required level of
CAFE would be based on target levels of
average fuel economy set for vehicles of
different sizes and on the distribution of
that manufacturer’s vehicles among
those sizes. Size would be defined by
vehicle footprint.13 The level of the
performance target for each footprint
would reflect the technological and
economic capabilities of the industry.
The target for each footprint would be
the same for all manufacturers,
regardless of differences in their overall
fleet mix. Compliance would be
determined by comparing a
manufacturer’s harmonically averaged
fleet fuel economy levels in a model
year with a required fuel economy level
calculated using the manufacturer’s
actual production levels and the targets
for each footprint of the vehicles that it
produces.
In developing the proposed standards
and possible alternatives, NHTSA
considered the four EPCA factors
underlying maximum feasibility
(technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other
standards of the Government on fuel
economy, and the need of the nation to
conserve energy) as well as relevant
environmental and safety
considerations. NHTSA used a
computer model (known as the ‘‘Volpe
model’’) that, for any given model year,
applies technologies to a manufacturer’s
fleet until the manufacturer achieves
compliance with the standard under
consideration. In light of the EPCA
12 See 71 FR 17,566, 17,587–17,625, April 6, 2006
(describing that approach).
13 A vehicle’s ‘‘footprint’’ is generally defined as
‘‘the product of track width [the lateral distance
between the centerlines of the base tires at ground,
including the camber angle * * * times wheelbase
[the longitudinal distance between front and rear
wheel centerlines] * * * divided by 144. * * *’’ 49
CFR 523.2.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 Apr 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
factors, the agency placed monetary
values on relevant externalities (both
energy security and environmental
externalities, including the benefits of
reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions). As discussed in the NPRM,
NHTSA also consulted with EPA and
DOE regarding a wide variety of matters.
After assessing what fuel saving
technologies would be available, how
effective they are, and how quickly they
could be introduced, NHTSA balanced
the EPCA factors relevant to standardsetting. The agency used a marginal
benefit-cost analysis to set the proposed
standards at levels such that,
considering the seven largest
manufacturers, the cost of the last
technology application equaled the
benefits of the improvement in fuel
economy resulting from that
application. That is the level at which
net benefits are maximized.
Accordingly, NHTSA refers to the
proposed standards as ‘‘optimized’’
standards or the ‘‘optimized scenario’’.
In considering further action on the
proposed standards and reasonable
alternatives, NHTSA will consider the
NEPA analysis that results from the
scoping process described in this notice.
NHTSA projects what the industrywide average fuel economy level would
be for passenger cars and for light trucks
if each manufacturer produced its
expected mix of automobiles and
exactly met its obligations under the
proposed ‘‘optimized’’ standards for
each model year. For passenger cars, the
average fuel economy (in miles per
gallon, or mpg) would range from 31.2
mpg in MY 2011 to 35.7 mpg in MY
2015. For light trucks, the average fuel
economy would range from 25.0 mpg in
MY 2011 to 28.6 mpg in MY 2015. The
combined industry-wide average fuel
economy for all passenger cars and light
trucks would range from 27.8 mpg in
MY 2011 to 31.6 mpg in MY 2015, if
each manufacturer exactly met its
obligations under the standards
proposed in the NPRM.14
Under the proposed standards, the
annual average increase during the fiveyear period from MY 2011-MY 2015
would be approximately 4.5 percent.
The annual percentage increases would
be greater in the early years due to the
uneven distribution of new model
introductions during this period and to
the fact that significant technological
14 NHTSA notes that it cannot set out the precise
level of CAFE that each manufacturer would be
required to meet for each model year under the
proposed standards, because the level for each
manufacturer would depend on that manufacturer’s
final production figures and fleet mix for a
particular model year. That information will not be
available until the end of each model year.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22915
changes can be most readily made in
conjunction with those introductions.15
Pursuant to EISA’s mandate,
domestically manufactured passenger
car fleets also must meet an alternative
minimum standard for each model year.
The alternative minimum standard
would range from 28.7 mpg in MY 2011
to 32.9 mpg in MY 2015 under NHTSA’s
proposal.
In addition to the proposed standards,
NHTSA has considered several
regulatory alternatives for purposes of
Executive Order 12,866.16 NHTSA
anticipates that those alternatives, plus
a ‘‘no action’’ alternative as required by
NEPA, will form the framework of the
agency’s alternatives analysis under
NEPA. The alternatives, in order of
increasing stringency, are:
(1) A ‘‘no action’’ alternative of
maintaining CAFE standards at the MY
2010 levels of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg
for passenger cars and light trucks,
respectively.17 NEPA requires agencies
to consider a ‘‘no action’’ alternative in
their NEPA analyses, although the
recent amendments to EPCA direct
NHTSA to set new CAFE standards and
do not permit the agency to take no
action on fuel economy. (NHTSA also
refers to this ‘‘no action’’ alternative as
a ‘‘no increase’’ or ‘‘baseline’’
alternative.)
(2) An alternative reflecting standards
that fall below the optimized scenario
by the same absolute amount by which
the ‘‘25 percent above optimized
alternative’’ (described below) exceeds
the optimized scenario. NHTSA refers to
this as the ‘‘25 percent below optimized
alternative’’.
(3) An alternative reflecting the
‘‘optimized scenario,’’ the proposed
standards based on applying
technologies until net benefits are
maximized.
(4) An alternative reflecting standards
that exceed the optimized scenario by
25 percent of the interval between the
optimized scenario and an alternative
(described below) based on applying
technologies until total costs equal total
benefits. NHTSA refers to this
alternative as the ‘‘25 percent above
optimized alternative.’’
(5) An alternative reflecting standards
that exceed the optimized scenario by
50 percent of the interval between the
15 With the proposed standards, the combined
industry-wide average fuel economy would have to
increase by an average of 2.1 percent per year from
MY 2016 –MY 2020 in order to reach EISA’s goal
of at least 35 mpg by MY 2020. In addition, the
NPRM discusses flexibility mechanisms available to
manufacturers to meet their obligations.
16 Exec. Order 12,866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review,’’ 58 FR 51,735, October 4, 1993, as
amended.
17 See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
22916
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 82 / Monday, April 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
optimized scenario and the alternative
based on applying technologies until
total costs equal total benefits. This
alternative is known as the ‘‘50 percent
above optimized alternative’’.
(6) An alternative reflecting standards
based on applying technologies until
total costs equal total benefits (zero net
benefits). This is known as the ‘‘TC=TB
alternative’’.
(7) A ‘‘technology exhaustion
alternative’’ in which NHTSA applied
all feasible technologies without regard
to cost by determining the stringency at
which a reformed CAFE standard would
require every manufacturer to apply
every technology estimated to be
potentially available for its MY 2011–
2015 fleet. Accordingly, the penetration
rates for particular technologies would
vary on an individual manufacturer
basis. NHTSA has presented this
alternative in order to explore how the
stringency of standards would vary
based solely on the potential availability
of technologies at the individual
manufacturer level.
Under NEPA, the purpose of and need
for an agency’s action inform the range
of reasonable alternatives to be
considered in its NEPA analysis.18
NHTSA believes that these alternatives
represent a reasonable range of
stringencies to consider for purposes of
evaluating the potential environmental
impacts of proposed CAFE standards
under NEPA, because these alternatives
represent a wide spectrum of potential
impacts ranging from the current
standards to standards based on the
maximum technology expected to be
available over the period necessary to
meet the statutory goals of EPCA, as
amended by EISA.19 However, as
discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA’s
provisional analysis of these alternatives
suggests that some of them may not
satisfy the four EPCA factors that
NHTSA must apply in setting
‘‘maximum feasible’’ CAFE standards
(i.e., technological feasibility, economic
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18 40
CFR 1502.13.
19 Given EPCA’s mandate that NHTSA consider
specific factors in setting CAFE standards and
NEPA’s instruction that agencies give effect to
NEPA’s policies ‘‘to the fullest extent possible,’’
NHTSA recognizes that a very large number of
alternative CAFE levels are potentially conceivable
and that the alternatives described above essentially
represent several of many points on a continuum
of alternatives. Along the continuum, each
alternative represents a different way in which
NHTSA conceivably could assign weight to each of
the four EPCA factors and NEPA’s policies. CEQ
guidance instructs that ‘‘[w]hen there are
potentially a very large number of alternatives, only
a reasonable number of examples, covering the full
spectrum of alternatives, must be analyzed and
compared in the EIS.’’ CEQ, Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ’s National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026,
18027, March 23, 1981 (emphasis original).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 Apr 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
practicability, the effect of other motor
vehicle standards of the Government on
fuel economy, and the need of the
nation to conserve energy). Please see
the companion NPRM for further
discussion of these alternatives and for
background on why NHTSA has
identified these alternatives. As
indicated below, NHTSA invites
comments to ensure that the agency’s
NEPA analysis for the proposed
standards addresses a full range of
reasonable alternatives and identifies all
potentially significant impacts related to
each. Comments may go beyond the
approaches and information that
NHTSA used in developing the
proposed standards and the above
alternatives.
Scoping and Public Participation: As
NHTSA indicated in its notice of intent
and request for scoping comments,
NHTSA plans to use the scoping process
to determine ‘‘the range of actions,
alternatives, and impacts to be
considered’’ in the EIS and to identify
the most important issues for analysis.20
NHTSA’s NEPA analysis for the MY
2011–2015 CAFE standards will
consider the direct, indirect and
cumulative environmental impacts of
the proposed standards and those of
reasonable alternatives. Among other
potential impacts, NHTSA will consider
direct and indirect impacts related to
fuel and energy use, emissions
including CO2 and their effects on
temperature and climate change, air
quality, natural resources, and the
human environment. NHTSA also will
consider the cumulative impacts of the
proposed standards for MY 2011–2015
automobiles together with estimated
impacts of NHTSA’s implementation of
the CAFE program through MY 2010
and NHTSA’s future CAFE rulemaking
for MY 2016–2020, as prescribed by
EPCA, as amended by EISA. To this
end, NHTSA will project the future
effects of the fuel use and emissions of
the vehicle fleets analyzed over their
lifetimes.
NHTSA anticipates considerable
uncertainty in estimating and
comparing the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed standards and
the alternatives relating to climate
change in particular. For instance, it
may be difficult to predict with a
reasonable degree of certainty or
accuracy the range of potential global
temperature changes that may result
from changes in fuel and energy
consumption and CO2 emissions due to
new CAFE standards. In turn, for
example, it may be difficult to predict
and compare the ways in which
20 See
PO 00000
40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
Frm 00081
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
potential temperature changes
attributable to new CAFE standards may
impact many aspects of the
environment. Accordingly, NHTSA
expects to apply the provisions in the
CEQ regulations addressing
‘‘[i]ncomplete or unavailable
information,’’ where NHTSA would
acknowledge these and other
uncertainties in its NEPA analysis for
the proposed standards.21 NHTSA will
rely on the 2007 Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) as a recent
‘‘summary of existing credible scientific
evidence which is relevant to evaluating
the reasonably foreseeable significant
adverse impacts on the human
environment.’’ 22 The NHTSA NEPA
analysis and documentation will
incorporate material by reference ‘‘when
the effect will be to cut down on bulk
without impeding agency and public
review of the action.’’ 23
In preparing this supplemental notice
of public scoping, NHTSA has
consulted with CEQ, EPA, and the
Office of Management and Budget.
Through this notice, NHTSA again
invites other Federal agencies and State,
local, and tribal agencies with
jurisdiction by law or special expertise
with respect to potential environmental
impacts of the proposed CAFE
standards and the public to participate
in the scoping process.24
Specifically, NHTSA invites all
stakeholders to submit written
comments concerning the appropriate
scope of NHTSA’s NEPA analysis for
the proposed CAFE standards for MY
2011–2015 passenger cars and light
trucks to the docket number identified
in the heading of this notice using any
of the methods described in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
NHTSA does not plan to hold a public
scoping meeting, because written
comments will be effective in
identifying and narrowing the issues for
21 See
40 CFR 1502.22.
CFR 1502.22(b)(3); see 40 CFR 1502.21. The
report and the IPCC’s earlier reports are available
at https://www.ipcc.ch/ (last visited March 11, 2008).
23 40 CFR 1502.21.
24 Consistent with NEPA and implementing
regulations, NHTSA is sending this notice directly
to: (1) Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law
or special expertise with respect to the
environmental impacts involved or authorized to
develop and enforce environmental standards; (2)
the Governors of every State, to share with the
appropriate agencies and offices within their
administrations and with the local jurisdictions
within their States; (3) organizations representing
state and local governments and Indian tribes; and
(4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably
expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for
the MY 2011–2015 CAFE standards. NHTSA also
mailed the notice of intent to these stakeholders on
April 10 and 11, 2008. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49
CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6.
22 40
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 82 / Monday, April 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
analysis and because the rulemaking
schedule necessary to meet the new
statutory requirements is tight.
However, NHTSA is especially
interested in comments that address the
potential impacts of NHTSA’s proposed
CAFE standards and reasonable
alternatives relating to climate change.
Specifically, NHTSA requests:
• Peer-reviewed scientific studies that
have been issued since the IPCC’s
Fourth Assessment Report (and are not
reflected in the IPCC’s work through
November 17, 2007) and that address:
(a) The impacts of CO2 and other
greenhouse gas emissions on
temperature, and specifically, the
temperature changes likely to result
from the proposed standards or the
alternatives; (b) the impacts of changes
in temperature on the environment,
including water resources and biological
resources, and human health and
welfare; or (c) the time periods over
which such impacts may occur.
• Comments on how NHTSA should
estimate the potential changes in
temperature that may result from the
changes in CO2 emissions projected
from the proposed standards and
reasonable alternatives, and comments
on how NHTSA should estimate the
potential impacts of temperature
changes on the environment.
• Reports prepared by or on behalf of
States, local governments, Indian tribes,
regional organizations, or academic
researchers analyzing the potential
impacts of climate change in particular
geographic areas of the United States.
• Comments on other reasonable
alternatives that NHTSA might consider
in its NEPA analysis that fit within the
purpose and need for the proposed
rulemaking, as set forth in EPCA, as
amended by EISA. When suggesting a
possible alternative, please explain how
it would satisfy each of the EPCA factors
(namely, technological feasibility,
economic practicability, the effect of
other motor vehicle standards of the
Government on fuel economy, and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:08 Apr 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
need of the nation to conserve energy)
and requirements (such as achieving a
combined fleet average fuel economy of
at least 35 miles per gallon for MY 2020)
and give effect to NEPA’s policies.
In addition, NHTSA requests
comments on how the agency should
assess cumulative impacts, including
those from various emissions source
categories and from a range of
geographic locations.
Two important purposes of scoping
are identifying the significant issues that
merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and
identifying and eliminating from
detailed analysis the issues that are not
significant and therefore require only a
brief discussion in the EIS.25 In light of
these purposes, written comments
should include an Internet citation
(with a date last visited) to each study
or report you cite in your comments if
one is available. If a document you cite
is not available to the public on-line,
you should attach a copy to your
comments. Your comments should
indicate how each document you cite in
or attach to your comments is relevant
to NHTSA’s NEPA analysis and indicate
the specific pages and passages in the
attachment that are most informative.
The more specific your comments are,
and the more support you can provide
by directing the agency to peer-reviewed
scientific studies and reports as
requested above, the more useful your
comments will be to the agency. For
example, if you identify an additional
area of impact or environmental concern
you believe NHTSA should analyze, you
should clearly describe it and support
your comments with a reference to a
specific peer-reviewed scientific study
or report. Specific, well-supported
comments will facilitate the purposes of
scoping identified above and will serve
NEPA’s overarching aims of making
high quality information available to
decisionmakers and the public and
generating NEPA documents that
25 40
PO 00000
CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a).
Frm 00082
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22917
‘‘concentrate on the issues that are truly
significant to the action in question,
rather than amassing needless detail.’’ 26
By contrast, mere assertions that the
agency should evaluate broad lists or
categories of concerns, without support,
will not help NHTSA focus its NEPA
analysis for the proposed standards
through scoping.
Please be sure to reference the docket
number identified in the heading of this
notice in your comments. In addition,
please provide a mailing address and
indicate whether you want to receive
notice of the publication of the NEPA
documents with a copy of the executive
summary and one of the following: (a)
A url to access the document on the
Internet; (b) a CD readable on a personal
computer; or (c) a printed copy of the
entire document. These steps will help
NHTSA to manage a large volume of
material during the NEPA process. All
comments and materials received,
including the names and addresses of
the commenters who submit them, will
become part of the administrative record
and will be posted on the Web at https://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
Based on comments received during
scoping, NHTSA expects to prepare a
draft EIS for public comment later this
spring and a final EIS to support a final
rule later this year. Separate Federal
Register notices will announce the
availability of the draft EIS, which will
be available for public comment, and
the final EIS, which will be available for
public inspection. NHTSA also plans to
continue to post information about the
NEPA process and this CAFE
rulemaking on its Web site (https://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov).
Issued: April 23, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 08–1191 Filed 4–23–08; 1:55 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
26 40
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
CFR 1500.1(b).
28APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 82 (Monday, April 28, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22913-22917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-1191]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 534, 536 and 537
[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060]
Supplemental Notice of Public Scoping for an Environmental Impact
Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of public scoping; further request for
scoping comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 28, 2008, NHTSA announced plans to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address the potential environmental
impacts of the agency's Corporate Average Fuel Economy program for
passenger automobiles (referred to herein as ``passenger cars'') and
non-passenger automobiles (referred to herein as ``light trucks'').
Specifically, NHTSA announced its intent to prepare an EIS to consider
the potential environmental impacts of new fuel economy standards for
model year 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks that NHTSA is
proposing pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
At the same time, NHTSA initiated the NEPA scoping process by inviting
Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public to
help identify the environmental issues and reasonable alternatives to
be examined in the EIS by providing public comments related to the
scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis. This supplemental notice provides
additional guidance for participating in the scoping process and
additional information about the proposed standards and the
alternatives NHTSA expects to consider in its NEPA analysis.
DATES: The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and
issuance of a Draft EIS, which will be made available for public
comment. Interested persons are requested to submit their scoping
comments as soon as possible. To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity
to consider scoping comments and to facilitate NHTSA's prompt
preparation of the Draft EIS, scoping comments should be received on or
before May 28, 2008, although NHTSA will try to consider comments
[[Page 22914]]
received after this date to the extent the NEPA and rulemaking
schedules allow.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
Note that all comments received, including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Carol
Hammel-Smith, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Vehicle,
Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: 202-366-5206. For legal issues, contact Kerry E. Rodgers,
Vehicle Safety Standards & Harmonization Division, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-9511.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a companion notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM), NHTSA is proposing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards for model year (MY) 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks
pursuant to the amendments made by the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 (EISA) to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).\1\
In connection with this action, NHTSA has begun preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed standards and reasonable
alternative standards in the context of NHTSA's CAFE program pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing
regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
NHTSA.\2\ NEPA instructs Federal agencies to consider the potential
environmental impacts of their proposed actions and possible
alternatives in their decisionmaking. To inform decisionmakers and the
public, the EIS will compare the environmental impacts of the agency's
proposal and reasonable alternatives, including a ``no action''
alternative. The EIS will consider direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts and should discuss impacts ``in proportion to their
significance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EISA is Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (December 19,
2007). EPCA is codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.
\2\ NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. CEQ's NEPA
implementing regulations are codified at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and
NHTSA's NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 49 CFR Part
520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2008, NHTSA issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS
for the MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards and opened the NEPA ``scoping''
process. In that notice, NHTSA described the statutory requirements for
the proposed standards, provided initial information about the NEPA
process, and initiated scoping by requesting public input on the scope
of NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the proposed standards.\3\ NHTSA also
stated that it would describe the proposed standards and the possible
alternatives NHTSA expects to consider for purposes of its NEPA
analysis in its NPRM and in a separate scoping notice that would
provide further guidance about the scoping process. This document
constitutes that supplemental scoping notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR
16615, March 28, 2008, available at https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/
site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/ (last visited
March 26, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background. EPCA sets forth extensive requirements concerning the
rulemaking to establish MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards. It requires the
Secretary of Transportation\4\ to establish average fuel economy
standards at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year
and to set them at ``the maximum feasible average fuel economy level
that the Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model
year.'' When setting ``maximum feasible'' fuel economy standards, the
Secretary is required to ``consider technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the
Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to
conserve energy.''\5\ NHTSA construes the statutory factors as
including environmental and safety considerations.\6\ NHTSA also will
consider environmental impacts under NEPA when setting CAFE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NHTSA is delegated responsibility for implementing the EPCA
fuel economy requirements assigned to the Secretary of
Transportation. 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(a)(8).
\5\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(a), 32902(f).
\6\ See, e.g., Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 956 F.2d
321, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing Competitive Enterprise Inst. v.
NHTSA, 901 F.2d 107, 120 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As recently amended, EPCA further directs the Secretary, after
consultation with the Secretary of Energy (DOE) and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to establish separate
average fuel economy standards for passenger cars and for light trucks
manufactured in each model year beginning with model year 2011 ``to
achieve a combined fuel economy average for model year 2020 of at least
35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of passenger and non-passenger
automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States for that model
year.''\7\ In doing so, the Secretary of Transportation is required to
increase average fuel economy standards for MY 2011-2020 vehicles
through ``annual fuel economy standard increases.''\8\ The standards
for passenger cars and light trucks must be ``based on 1 or more
vehicle attributes related to fuel economy.'' In any single rulemaking,
standards may be established for not more than five model years.\9\
EPCA also mandates a minimum standard for domestically manufactured
passenger cars.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(1), 32902(b)(2)(A).
\8\ 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(2)(C).
\9\ 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(3)(A), 32902(b)(3)(B).
\10\ 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this year, NHTSA initiated the EIS process for MY 2011-2015
CAFE standards, which include light truck standards for one model year
previously covered by the 2006 Rule (MY 2011).\11\ We did so because a
standard for MY 2011 must be issued by the end of March 2009 and
achieving an industry-wide combined fleet average of at least 35 miles
per gallon for MY 2020 depends, in substantial part, upon setting
standards well in advance so as to provide the automobile
[[Page 22915]]
manufacturers with as much lead time as possible to make the extensive
necessary changes to their automobiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In preparing an EIS for the MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards,
NHTSA intends to consider issues raised in litigation concerning a
2006 final rule, ``Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks,
Model Years 2008-2011,'' 71 FR 17,566, April 6, 2006 (2006 Rule).
See Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 508 F.3d 508, 514,
545-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding, among other things, that NHTSA did
not prepare an adequate environmental assessment under NEPA and
ordering the agency to prepare an EIS). The Government is presently
seeking rehearing in the Ninth Circuit on the appropriateness of the
Court's remedy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposed Action and Possible Alternatives: NHTSA's companion
NPRM proposes attribute-based (vehicle size) fuel economy standards for
passenger cars and light trucks consistent with the ``Reformed CAFE''
approach NHTSA used to establish standards for MY 2008-2011 light
trucks.\12\ The NPRM proposes separate standards for MY 2011-2015
passenger cars and separate standards for MY 2011-2015 light trucks.
This notice briefly describes the proposed standards and the possible
alternatives discussed in the NPRM. For more detailed discussion of
those alternatives, please see the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 71 FR 17,566, 17,587-17,625, April 6, 2006 (describing
that approach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed standards, each vehicle manufacturer's required
level of CAFE would be based on target levels of average fuel economy
set for vehicles of different sizes and on the distribution of that
manufacturer's vehicles among those sizes. Size would be defined by
vehicle footprint.\13\ The level of the performance target for each
footprint would reflect the technological and economic capabilities of
the industry. The target for each footprint would be the same for all
manufacturers, regardless of differences in their overall fleet mix.
Compliance would be determined by comparing a manufacturer's
harmonically averaged fleet fuel economy levels in a model year with a
required fuel economy level calculated using the manufacturer's actual
production levels and the targets for each footprint of the vehicles
that it produces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A vehicle's ``footprint'' is generally defined as ``the
product of track width [the lateral distance between the centerlines
of the base tires at ground, including the camber angle * * * times
wheelbase [the longitudinal distance between front and rear wheel
centerlines] * * * divided by 144. * * *'' 49 CFR 523.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the proposed standards and possible alternatives,
NHTSA considered the four EPCA factors underlying maximum feasibility
(technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of
other standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the
nation to conserve energy) as well as relevant environmental and safety
considerations. NHTSA used a computer model (known as the ``Volpe
model'') that, for any given model year, applies technologies to a
manufacturer's fleet until the manufacturer achieves compliance with
the standard under consideration. In light of the EPCA factors, the
agency placed monetary values on relevant externalities (both energy
security and environmental externalities, including the benefits of
reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions). As discussed
in the NPRM, NHTSA also consulted with EPA and DOE regarding a wide
variety of matters.
After assessing what fuel saving technologies would be available,
how effective they are, and how quickly they could be introduced, NHTSA
balanced the EPCA factors relevant to standard-setting. The agency used
a marginal benefit-cost analysis to set the proposed standards at
levels such that, considering the seven largest manufacturers, the cost
of the last technology application equaled the benefits of the
improvement in fuel economy resulting from that application. That is
the level at which net benefits are maximized. Accordingly, NHTSA
refers to the proposed standards as ``optimized'' standards or the
``optimized scenario''. In considering further action on the proposed
standards and reasonable alternatives, NHTSA will consider the NEPA
analysis that results from the scoping process described in this
notice.
NHTSA projects what the industry-wide average fuel economy level
would be for passenger cars and for light trucks if each manufacturer
produced its expected mix of automobiles and exactly met its
obligations under the proposed ``optimized'' standards for each model
year. For passenger cars, the average fuel economy (in miles per
gallon, or mpg) would range from 31.2 mpg in MY 2011 to 35.7 mpg in MY
2015. For light trucks, the average fuel economy would range from 25.0
mpg in MY 2011 to 28.6 mpg in MY 2015. The combined industry-wide
average fuel economy for all passenger cars and light trucks would
range from 27.8 mpg in MY 2011 to 31.6 mpg in MY 2015, if each
manufacturer exactly met its obligations under the standards proposed
in the NPRM.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ NHTSA notes that it cannot set out the precise level of
CAFE that each manufacturer would be required to meet for each model
year under the proposed standards, because the level for each
manufacturer would depend on that manufacturer's final production
figures and fleet mix for a particular model year. That information
will not be available until the end of each model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed standards, the annual average increase during
the five-year period from MY 2011-MY 2015 would be approximately 4.5
percent. The annual percentage increases would be greater in the early
years due to the uneven distribution of new model introductions during
this period and to the fact that significant technological changes can
be most readily made in conjunction with those introductions.\15\
Pursuant to EISA's mandate, domestically manufactured passenger car
fleets also must meet an alternative minimum standard for each model
year. The alternative minimum standard would range from 28.7 mpg in MY
2011 to 32.9 mpg in MY 2015 under NHTSA's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ With the proposed standards, the combined industry-wide
average fuel economy would have to increase by an average of 2.1
percent per year from MY 2016 -MY 2020 in order to reach EISA's goal
of at least 35 mpg by MY 2020. In addition, the NPRM discusses
flexibility mechanisms available to manufacturers to meet their
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the proposed standards, NHTSA has considered several
regulatory alternatives for purposes of Executive Order 12,866.\16\
NHTSA anticipates that those alternatives, plus a ``no action''
alternative as required by NEPA, will form the framework of the
agency's alternatives analysis under NEPA. The alternatives, in order
of increasing stringency, are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Exec. Order 12,866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58
FR 51,735, October 4, 1993, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A ``no action'' alternative of maintaining CAFE standards at
the MY 2010 levels of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg for passenger cars and
light trucks, respectively.\17\ NEPA requires agencies to consider a
``no action'' alternative in their NEPA analyses, although the recent
amendments to EPCA direct NHTSA to set new CAFE standards and do not
permit the agency to take no action on fuel economy. (NHTSA also refers
to this ``no action'' alternative as a ``no increase'' or ``baseline''
alternative.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) An alternative reflecting standards that fall below the
optimized scenario by the same absolute amount by which the ``25
percent above optimized alternative'' (described below) exceeds the
optimized scenario. NHTSA refers to this as the ``25 percent below
optimized alternative''.
(3) An alternative reflecting the ``optimized scenario,'' the
proposed standards based on applying technologies until net benefits
are maximized.
(4) An alternative reflecting standards that exceed the optimized
scenario by 25 percent of the interval between the optimized scenario
and an alternative (described below) based on applying technologies
until total costs equal total benefits. NHTSA refers to this
alternative as the ``25 percent above optimized alternative.''
(5) An alternative reflecting standards that exceed the optimized
scenario by 50 percent of the interval between the
[[Page 22916]]
optimized scenario and the alternative based on applying technologies
until total costs equal total benefits. This alternative is known as
the ``50 percent above optimized alternative''.
(6) An alternative reflecting standards based on applying
technologies until total costs equal total benefits (zero net
benefits). This is known as the ``TC=TB alternative''.
(7) A ``technology exhaustion alternative'' in which NHTSA applied
all feasible technologies without regard to cost by determining the
stringency at which a reformed CAFE standard would require every
manufacturer to apply every technology estimated to be potentially
available for its MY 2011-2015 fleet. Accordingly, the penetration
rates for particular technologies would vary on an individual
manufacturer basis. NHTSA has presented this alternative in order to
explore how the stringency of standards would vary based solely on the
potential availability of technologies at the individual manufacturer
level.
Under NEPA, the purpose of and need for an agency's action inform
the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered in its NEPA
analysis.\18\ NHTSA believes that these alternatives represent a
reasonable range of stringencies to consider for purposes of evaluating
the potential environmental impacts of proposed CAFE standards under
NEPA, because these alternatives represent a wide spectrum of potential
impacts ranging from the current standards to standards based on the
maximum technology expected to be available over the period necessary
to meet the statutory goals of EPCA, as amended by EISA.\19\ However,
as discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA's provisional analysis of these
alternatives suggests that some of them may not satisfy the four EPCA
factors that NHTSA must apply in setting ``maximum feasible'' CAFE
standards (i.e., technological feasibility, economic practicability,
the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel
economy, and the need of the nation to conserve energy). Please see the
companion NPRM for further discussion of these alternatives and for
background on why NHTSA has identified these alternatives. As indicated
below, NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency's NEPA analysis
for the proposed standards addresses a full range of reasonable
alternatives and identifies all potentially significant impacts related
to each. Comments may go beyond the approaches and information that
NHTSA used in developing the proposed standards and the above
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 40 CFR 1502.13.
\19\ Given EPCA's mandate that NHTSA consider specific factors
in setting CAFE standards and NEPA's instruction that agencies give
effect to NEPA's policies ``to the fullest extent possible,'' NHTSA
recognizes that a very large number of alternative CAFE levels are
potentially conceivable and that the alternatives described above
essentially represent several of many points on a continuum of
alternatives. Along the continuum, each alternative represents a
different way in which NHTSA conceivably could assign weight to each
of the four EPCA factors and NEPA's policies. CEQ guidance instructs
that ``[w]hen there are potentially a very large number of
alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the
full spectrum of alternatives, must be analyzed and compared in the
EIS.'' CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026, 18027, March 23,
1981 (emphasis original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scoping and Public Participation: As NHTSA indicated in its notice
of intent and request for scoping comments, NHTSA plans to use the
scoping process to determine ``the range of actions, alternatives, and
impacts to be considered'' in the EIS and to identify the most
important issues for analysis.\20\ NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the MY
2011-2015 CAFE standards will consider the direct, indirect and
cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed standards and those of
reasonable alternatives. Among other potential impacts, NHTSA will
consider direct and indirect impacts related to fuel and energy use,
emissions including CO2 and their effects on temperature and climate
change, air quality, natural resources, and the human environment.
NHTSA also will consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed
standards for MY 2011-2015 automobiles together with estimated impacts
of NHTSA's implementation of the CAFE program through MY 2010 and
NHTSA's future CAFE rulemaking for MY 2016-2020, as prescribed by EPCA,
as amended by EISA. To this end, NHTSA will project the future effects
of the fuel use and emissions of the vehicle fleets analyzed over their
lifetimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA anticipates considerable uncertainty in estimating and
comparing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed standards
and the alternatives relating to climate change in particular. For
instance, it may be difficult to predict with a reasonable degree of
certainty or accuracy the range of potential global temperature changes
that may result from changes in fuel and energy consumption and CO2
emissions due to new CAFE standards. In turn, for example, it may be
difficult to predict and compare the ways in which potential
temperature changes attributable to new CAFE standards may impact many
aspects of the environment. Accordingly, NHTSA expects to apply the
provisions in the CEQ regulations addressing ``[i]ncomplete or
unavailable information,'' where NHTSA would acknowledge these and
other uncertainties in its NEPA analysis for the proposed
standards.\21\ NHTSA will rely on the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a recent
``summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to
evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on
the human environment.'' \22\ The NHTSA NEPA analysis and documentation
will incorporate material by reference ``when the effect will be to cut
down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action.''
\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 40 CFR 1502.22.
\22\ 40 CFR 1502.22(b)(3); see 40 CFR 1502.21. The report and
the IPCC's earlier reports are available at https://www.ipcc.ch/
(last visited March 11, 2008).
\23\ 40 CFR 1502.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In preparing this supplemental notice of public scoping, NHTSA has
consulted with CEQ, EPA, and the Office of Management and Budget.
Through this notice, NHTSA again invites other Federal agencies and
State, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to potential environmental impacts of the
proposed CAFE standards and the public to participate in the scoping
process.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Consistent with NEPA and implementing regulations, NHTSA is
sending this notice directly to: (1) Federal agencies having
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the
environmental impacts involved or authorized to develop and enforce
environmental standards; (2) the Governors of every State, to share
with the appropriate agencies and offices within their
administrations and with the local jurisdictions within their
States; (3) organizations representing state and local governments
and Indian tribes; and (4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably
expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for the MY 2011-2015
CAFE standards. NHTSA also mailed the notice of intent to these
stakeholders on April 10 and 11, 2008. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49
CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, NHTSA invites all stakeholders to submit written
comments concerning the appropriate scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis for
the proposed CAFE standards for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and light
trucks to the docket number identified in the heading of this notice
using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this
notice. NHTSA does not plan to hold a public scoping meeting, because
written comments will be effective in identifying and narrowing the
issues for
[[Page 22917]]
analysis and because the rulemaking schedule necessary to meet the new
statutory requirements is tight. However, NHTSA is especially
interested in comments that address the potential impacts of NHTSA's
proposed CAFE standards and reasonable alternatives relating to climate
change. Specifically, NHTSA requests:
Peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been issued
since the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (and are not reflected in the
IPCC's work through November 17, 2007) and that address: (a) The
impacts of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions on
temperature, and specifically, the temperature changes likely to result
from the proposed standards or the alternatives; (b) the impacts of
changes in temperature on the environment, including water resources
and biological resources, and human health and welfare; or (c) the time
periods over which such impacts may occur.
Comments on how NHTSA should estimate the potential
changes in temperature that may result from the changes in CO\2\
emissions projected from the proposed standards and reasonable
alternatives, and comments on how NHTSA should estimate the potential
impacts of temperature changes on the environment.
Reports prepared by or on behalf of States, local
governments, Indian tribes, regional organizations, or academic
researchers analyzing the potential impacts of climate change in
particular geographic areas of the United States.
Comments on other reasonable alternatives that NHTSA might
consider in its NEPA analysis that fit within the purpose and need for
the proposed rulemaking, as set forth in EPCA, as amended by EISA. When
suggesting a possible alternative, please explain how it would satisfy
each of the EPCA factors (namely, technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the
Government on fuel economy, and the need of the nation to conserve
energy) and requirements (such as achieving a combined fleet average
fuel economy of at least 35 miles per gallon for MY 2020) and give
effect to NEPA's policies.
In addition, NHTSA requests comments on how the agency should
assess cumulative impacts, including those from various emissions
source categories and from a range of geographic locations.
Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant
issues that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying and
eliminating from detailed analysis the issues that are not significant
and therefore require only a brief discussion in the EIS.\25\ In light
of these purposes, written comments should include an Internet citation
(with a date last visited) to each study or report you cite in your
comments if one is available. If a document you cite is not available
to the public on-line, you should attach a copy to your comments. Your
comments should indicate how each document you cite in or attach to
your comments is relevant to NHTSA's NEPA analysis and indicate the
specific pages and passages in the attachment that are most
informative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more specific your comments are, and the more support you can
provide by directing the agency to peer-reviewed scientific studies and
reports as requested above, the more useful your comments will be to
the agency. For example, if you identify an additional area of impact
or environmental concern you believe NHTSA should analyze, you should
clearly describe it and support your comments with a reference to a
specific peer-reviewed scientific study or report. Specific, well-
supported comments will facilitate the purposes of scoping identified
above and will serve NEPA's overarching aims of making high quality
information available to decisionmakers and the public and generating
NEPA documents that ``concentrate on the issues that are truly
significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless
detail.'' \26\ By contrast, mere assertions that the agency should
evaluate broad lists or categories of concerns, without support, will
not help NHTSA focus its NEPA analysis for the proposed standards
through scoping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 40 CFR 1500.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the
heading of this notice in your comments. In addition, please provide a
mailing address and indicate whether you want to receive notice of the
publication of the NEPA documents with a copy of the executive summary
and one of the following: (a) A url to access the document on the
Internet; (b) a CD readable on a personal computer; or (c) a printed
copy of the entire document. These steps will help NHTSA to manage a
large volume of material during the NEPA process. All comments and
materials received, including the names and addresses of the commenters
who submit them, will become part of the administrative record and will
be posted on the Web at https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
Based on comments received during scoping, NHTSA expects to prepare
a draft EIS for public comment later this spring and a final EIS to
support a final rule later this year. Separate Federal Register notices
will announce the availability of the draft EIS, which will be
available for public comment, and the final EIS, which will be
available for public inspection. NHTSA also plans to continue to post
information about the NEPA process and this CAFE rulemaking on its Web
site (https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov).
Issued: April 23, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 08-1191 Filed 4-23-08; 1:55 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
