Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Notice of Public Hearing, 37922-37927 [08-1406]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37922
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
category; that size standard is 500 or
fewer employees. According to Census
Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,362
firms in this category that operated for
the entire year. Of these, 1,351 had
employment of 499 or fewer employees,
and six firms had employment of
between 500 and 999. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of these firms small entities that may be
affected by its action.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
72. In the Further Notice, the
Commission proposes four additional or
modified information collections that
would impose further reporting and
recordkeeping requirements on current
Form 477 filers, including small
entities. Specifically, the Further Notice
invites comment on whether and how
Form 477 filers should (1) report the
number of voice telephone service
connections, and the percentage of these
that are residential, at the 5-digit ZIP
Code or Census Tract, (2) report
information to build a map of
broadband service availability, (3) report
information on broadband service
pricing, and (4) report information on
actual, delivered speeds of broadband
services. The Commission invites
comments on the merits and
methodologies of such information
collections to include suggestions and
discussions of other alternatives not
specifically discussed in the Further
Notice that would meet the objectives of
the Further Notice but would impose
lesser burdens on smaller entities.
73. Based on these questions, the
Commission anticipates that a record
will be developed concerning actual
burden and alternative ways in which
the Commission could lessen the
burden on small entities of obtaining
improved data about broadband
deployment and availability throughout
the nation.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
74. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
(among others) the following four
alternatives: (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jul 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
75. As noted above, the Further
Notice invites comment on whether and
how current Form 477 filers should (1)
report subscriber counts for voice-grade
lines and channels at the 5–Digit Zip
Code or Census Tract level, (2) report
information to build a map of
broadband service availability, (3) report
information on broadband service
pricing, and (4) report information on
actual, delivered speeds of broadband
services. The Further Notice seeks
comment on possible methods for
reporting the proposed information
collections, as well as suggestions of
methods to maintain and report the
information that achieve the purposes of
the Further Notice while minimizing the
burden on reporting entities, including
small entities. This information will
assist the Commission in determining
whether these various proposed
information collections would impose a
significant economic impact on small
entities.
76. Based on these questions, and the
alternatives discussed, the Commission
anticipates that the record will be
developed concerning alternative ways
in which it could lessen the burden on
small entities of obtaining improved
data about broadband availability
throughout the nation.
1.419, interested parties may file
comments on the Broadband
Availability Mapping portion of this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on or before July 17, 2008, and reply
comments on or before August 1, 2008,
and interested parties may file
comments on the other portions of this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on or before August 1, 2008, and reply
comments on or before September 2,
2008.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–14875 Filed 7–1–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 534, 536
and 537
[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0060]
Notice of Availability of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for New Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards; Notice of Public
Hearing
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
77. None.
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of availability of a draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS);
notice of public hearing.
Ordering Clauses
78. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to sections 1 through 5, 11,
201 through 205, 211, 215, 218 through
220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403,
502, and 503 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151
through 155, 161, 201 through 205, 211,
215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271,
303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503, and
Section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, this
Further Notice, with all attachments, is
adopted.
79. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
80. It is further ordered that pursuant
to applicable procedures set forth in
sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
SUMMARY: NHTSA has prepared a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
to disclose and analyze the potential
environmental impacts of proposed
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards for model year (MY)
2011–2015 passenger cars and light
trucks, which NHTSA recently
proposed pursuant to the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007,
and a reasonable range of alternative
standards. To inform decisionmakers
and the public, the DEIS compares the
potential environmental impacts of the
proposed standards and alternative
standards reflecting a full range of
stringencies, and it analyzes direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts in
proportion to their significance. The
DEIS provides a detailed analysis of
potential impacts on energy resources,
air quality, and climate. The DEIS uses
climate modeling and NHTSA’s own
computer model to provide quantitative
estimates of potential impacts on air
quality, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
global mean surface temperature,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rainfall, and sea level rise. The DEIS
provides a qualitative analysis of
resources that may be impacted by
changes in climate, such as freshwater
resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal
ecosystems, land use, human health,
and environmental justice. It examines
these impacts on the U.S. and on a
global scale. In addition, the DEIS
analyzes potential environmental
impacts unrelated to climate change.
NHTSA invites Federal, State, and
local agencies, Indian tribes, and the
public to submit written comments and
participate in a public hearing on the
DEIS using the instructions set forth in
this notice. As described in the
PROCEDURAL MATTERS section of
this notice, each speaker should
anticipate speaking for approximately
ten minutes, although we may need to
adjust the time for each speaker if there
is a large turnout. To facilitate review of
the DEIS, NHTSA has posted the DEIS
on its Web site, and it will be available
in the Docket identified by the docket
number at the beginning of this notice.1
Copies in hard copy or electronic (CD–
ROM) form have been mailed to all
stakeholders on NHTSA’s National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
mailing list for the proposed CAFE
standards, and NHTSA will mail a copy
of the DEIS or a CD–ROM containing the
Appendices to any other interested
party who requests one. NHTSA will
consider the public comments received
on the DEIS in preparing final NEPA
documents to support final CAFE
standards for MY 2011–2015 passenger
cars and light trucks, which NHTSA
plans to issue later this year. The
agency’s NEPA analysis is informing
NHTSA’s development of those
standards.
Public Hearing: The public
hearing will be held on Monday, August
4, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the
National Transportation Safety Board
Conference Center, 429 L’Enfant Plaza,
SW., Washington, DC 20594. NHTSA
recommends that all persons attending
the hearing arrive at least 45 minutes
early in order to facilitate entry into the
Conference Center. If you wish to attend
or speak at the hearing, you must
register in advance no later than Friday,
July 25, 2008, by following the
instructions in the PROCEDURAL
MATTERS section of this notice.
NHTSA will consider late registrants to
the extent time and space allow, but
NHTSA cannot ensure that late
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
DATES:
1 The
DEIS is available at: https://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/
menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/
(last visited June 26, 2008).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jul 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
registrants will be able to attend or
speak at the hearing.
Comments: NHTSA must receive
written comments on the DEIS by
Monday, August 18, 2008. NHTSA will
try to consider comments received after
that date to the extent the NEPA and
rulemaking schedules allow, but
NHTSA cannot ensure that it will be
able to do so.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Carol Hammel-Smith, Telephone: 202–
366–5206, or Mr. Michael Johnsen,
Telephone: 202–366–0258, 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. E-mail:
nhtsa.nepa@dot.gov. Information about
the CAFE rulemaking and the NEPA
process is also available at https://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
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,
will be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA
has prepared a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) to disclose and
analyze the potential environmental
impacts of proposed Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for
model year (MY) 2011–2015 passenger
cars and light trucks and a reasonable
range of alternative standards.2 NHTSA
2 See National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
42 U.S.C. 4321–4347, and implementing regulations
issued by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), 40 CFR Pts. 1500–1508, and NHTSA, 49 CFR
Pt. 520.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37923
recently proposed the standards
pursuant to amendments made by the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (EISA) to the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA).3 To inform
decisionmakers and the public, the DEIS
analyzes the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed standards and
alternative standards reflecting a range
of stringencies, and it analyzes direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts in
proportion to their significance. The
DEIS provides a detailed analysis of
potential impacts on energy resources,
air quality, and climate. The DEIS uses
climate modeling and NHTSA’s own
computer model to provide quantitative
estimates of potential impacts on air
quality, CO2 emissions, global mean
surface temperature, rainfall, and sea
level rise. The DEIS provides a
qualitative analysis of resources that
may be impacted by changes in climate,
such as freshwater resources, terrestrial
ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land
use, human health, and environmental
justice. It examines impacts on the U.S.
and on a global scale. In addition, the
DEIS analyzes potential environmental
impacts unrelated to climate change.
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 considers
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 EPA Administrator, to establish
3 EISA is Public Law 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492
(December 19, 2007). EPCA is codified at 49 U.S.C.
32901 et seq.
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)).
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
37924
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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 a 2006 final rule establishing
CAFE standards for MY 2008–2011 light
trucks (namely, 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 manufacturers with as much
lead time as possible to make the
extensive necessary changes to their
automobiles.
The Proposed Action and Possible
Alternatives: In its recent Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA
proposed 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 alternatives,
which the NPRM and the DEIS discuss
in more detail.
7 49
U.S.C.A. §§ 32902(b)(1), 32902(b)(2)(A).
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 See Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light
Trucks Model Years 2008–2011; Final Rule, April
6, 2006.
12 Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks; Model Years 2011–2015;
Proposed Rule, 73 FR 24352, May 2, 2008.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
8 49
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jul 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 the 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 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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 also will consider
its NEPA analysis.
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
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
both Executive Order 12,866 16 and its
NEPA analysis, which includes a ‘‘no
action’’ alternative as required by NEPA.
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.
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 and the DEIS discuss 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.
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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
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
17 See
40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jul 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
manufacturer level without regard to the
costs to society.
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 and in the DEIS,
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).
The NEPA Process and the DEIS. 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.20 In April
2008, NHTSA published a supplemental
scoping notice providing additional
guidance for participating in the scoping
process and additional information
about the proposed standards and the
CFR 1502.13.
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).
20 See Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR 16615,
March 28, 2008.
PO 00000
18 40
19 Given
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37925
alternatives NHTSA expected to
consider in its NEPA analysis.21 NHTSA
also outlined its plans for its NEPA
analysis.22 NHTSA mailed both Federal
Register notices to hundreds of
stakeholders and developed a mailing
list of interested parties, including
Federal agencies with environmental
expertise, the Governors of every State
and U.S. territory or State NEPA
contacts they identified, Indian tribes,
organizations representing state and
local governments and tribes, the
automobile industry, environmental
organizations, and other stakeholders
interested in the CAFE program.
NHTSA received 1,748 comment letters
in response to its scoping notices.
NHTSA received 11 individual letters
commenting on the scope of its NEPA
analysis from federal and state agencies,
automobile trade associations,
environmental organizations, and
individuals. The remaining comment
letters are form letters from individuals.
In developing the DEIS, NHTSA also
consulted with Federal agencies
including: CEQ; EPA and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of
the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, both of which
submitted scoping comments to
NHTSA; the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
within the U.S. Department of
Commerce; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Park Service
within the U.S. Department of the
Interior; and the U.S. Forest Service
within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
NHTSA used the scoping process to
help determine ‘‘the range of actions,
alternatives, and impacts to be
considered’’ in the DEIS and to identify
the most important issues for analysis.23
The DEIS consists of a Summary and ten
chapters: (1) Purpose and Need for the
Proposed Action; (2) The Proposed
Action and Alternatives; (3) Affected
Environment and Consequences; (4)
Cumulative Impacts; (5) Mitigation; (6)
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts; ShortTerm Uses and Long-term Productivity;
Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitment of Resources; (7)
Preparers; (8) References; (9)
Distribution List; and (10) Index. Three
appendices include sources identified
in scoping comments (Appendix A),
modeling data for air emissions and
climate modeling (Appendix B); and a
cost-benefit analysis excerpt from
21 Supplemental Notice of Public Scoping for an
Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR 22913,
April 28, 2008.
22 Id. at 22916.
23 See 40 CFR §§ 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
37926
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
NHTSA’s Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis (Appendix C).
The DEIS devotes the most detailed
analysis to direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts of the proposed
standards and the alternatives on
energy, air quality, and climate. Key
findings concerning estimated potential
impacts on CO2 emissions, global mean
surface temperature, rainfall, and sea
level rise include the following:
• Global CO2 Emissions Reductions.
Over the 2010 to 2100 timeframe, the
range of alternatives NHTSA analyzed
would reduce global CO2 emissions
(from all sources) by about 18 to 35
billion metric tons of CO2 (based on
global emissions of 4.85 trillion metric
tons of CO2). The alternatives would
slow the expected increase in
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
the transportation sector over this
period.
• CO2 Concentration and Global
Mean Surface Temperature: Estimates
for CO2 atmospheric concentrations and
global mean surface temperature vary
considerably, depending on which
global emissions scenario is used as a
reference case. Temperature increases
are sensitive to climate sensitivity. Yet,
projected differences among the CAFE
alternatives are small—i.e., CO2
concentrations as of 2100 are within 1.7
to 3.2 parts per million across
alternatives, and temperatures are
within 0.0006 to 0.012 °C across
alternatives—regardless of reference
scenario and climate sensitivity.
• Rainfall: The CAFE alternatives
reduce temperature increases slightly
and thus reduce increases in
precipitation slightly, compared to the
‘‘No Action’’ alternative.
• Impact on Sea Level Rise: The
impact on sea level rise from the
alternatives is at the threshold of the
climate model’s reporting: The
alternatives reduce sea level rise by 0.1
cm. Although the model does not report
enough significant figures to distinguish
between the effects of the alternatives, it
is clear that the more stringent the
alternative (i.e., the lower the
emissions), the lower the temperature
(as shown above), and the lower the sea
level.
The DEIS provides a qualitative
analysis of resources that may be
impacted by changes in climate, such as
freshwater resources, terrestrial
ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land
use, human health, and environmental
justice. It examines impacts on the U.S.
and a global scale. In addition, the DEIS
qualitatively examines the alternatives’
non-climate change related direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts on
potentially affected resources. Such
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jul 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
resources include: Water resources,
biological resources, land use,
hazardous materials, safety, noise,
historic and cultural resources, and
environmental justice.
Throughout the DEIS, NHTSA’s
analysis relies extensively on findings of
the United National Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(USCCSP), including those presented in
the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report:
Climate Change 2007 and the USCCSP’s
Scientific Assessments of the Effects of
Global Change on the United States and
Synthesis and Assessment Products.24
The DEIS also uses applicable CEQ
regulations to acknowledge uncertainty
and incomplete or unavailable
information relevant to NHTSA’s NEPA
analysis.25
Procedural Matters: The public
hearing will be open to the public with
advanced registration for seating on a
space-available basis. Individuals
wishing to register to assure a seat in the
public seating area should provide their
name, affiliation, phone number, and
e-mail address to Ms. Carol HammelSmith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the
contact information in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section at the
beginning of this notice no later than
Friday, July 25, 2008. Should it be
necessary to cancel the hearing due to
an emergency or some other reason,
NHTSA will take all available means to
notify registered participants by e-mail
or telephone.
The hearing will be held at a site
accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Individuals who require
accommodations such as sign language
interpreters should contact Ms. Carol
Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen
using the contact information in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above no later than Friday, July 25,
2008. Any written materials NHTSA
presents at the hearing will be available
electronically on the day of the hearing
to accommodate the needs of the
visually impaired. A transcript of the
hearing and information received by
NHTSA at the hearing will be placed in
the docket for this notice at a later date.
How long will I have to speak at the
public hearing?
Once NHTSA learns how many
people have registered to speak at the
public hearing, NHTSA will allocate an
appropriate amount of time to each
participant, allowing time for lunch and
24 See generally https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/
assessments-reports.htm (last visited June 25, 2008)
and https://www.climatescience.gov (last visited
June 25, 2008).
25 40 CFR 1502.22; see 40 CFR 1502.21.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
necessary breaks throughout the day.
For planning purposes, each speaker
should anticipate speaking for
approximately ten minutes, although we
may need to adjust the time for each
speaker if there is a large turnout. To
accommodate as many speakers as
possible, NHTSA prefers that speakers
not use technological aids (e.g., audiovisuals, computer slideshows).
However, if you plan to do so, you must
let Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr.
Michael Johnsen know by Friday, July
25, 2008, using the contact information
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above. You also must
make arrangements to provide your
presentation or any other aids to
NHTSA in advance of the hearing in
order to facilitate set-up. During the
week of July 28, NHTSA will post
information on its Web site (https://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov) indicating the
amount of time allocated for each
speaker and each speaker’s approximate
order on the agenda for the hearing.
How can I get a copy of the DEIS?
The DEIS is available on NHTSA’s
Web site at https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa
80569eea57529cdba046a0/ (last visited
June 26, 2008), and it will be available
in the Docket identified by the docket
number at the beginning of this notice.
To request a hard copy or a CD–ROM of
the DEIS, or to request a CD–ROM
containing the Appendices, please
contact Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr.
Michael Johnsen using the contact
information in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
How do I prepare and submit written
comments?
It is not necessary to attend or to
speak at the public hearing to be able to
comment on the issues. NHTSA invites
the submission of written comments on
the DEIS which the agency will consider
in preparing the final NEPA documents
to support the new CAFE standards for
MY 2011–2015 passenger cars and light
trucks. Your comments must be written
and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the docket
number at the beginning of this notice
in your comments.
Your primary comments cannot
exceed 15 pages.26 However, you may
attach additional documents to your
primary comments. There is no limit to
the length of the attachments.
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
26 49
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
CFR 553.21.
02JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register at 65
FR 19477, April 11, 2000, or you may
visit https://www.regulations.gov.
If you wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your
comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by
mail.
How do I submit confidential business
information?
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, send
three copies of your complete
submission, including the information
you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Include a cover letter supplying the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jul 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
information specified in our
confidential business information
regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
In addition, send two copies from
which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information to
Docket Management, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building, Room
W12–140, Washington, DC 20590, or
submit them electronically, in the
manner described at the beginning of
this notice.
Will the agency consider late
comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments
that Docket Management receives before
the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent the NEPA and
rulemaking schedules allow, NHTSA
will try to consider comments that
Docket Management receives after that
date, but we cannot ensure that we will
be able to do so.27
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue
to file relevant information in the docket
PO 00000
27 See
49 CFR 553.23.
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37927
as it becomes available. Further, some
commenters may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you
periodically check the docket for new
material. In addition, you may wish to
check two separate dockets relating to
the proposed CAFE standards: (1)
Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0089, which
accompanies NHTSA’s NPRM; and (2)
Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0069, which
accompanies NHTSA’s request for
manufacturers’ product plan
information.28
Comments and information submitted
to these dockets may be relevant to
NHTSA’s NEPA analysis for the
proposed CAFE standards.
Issued: June 27, 2008.
Ronald Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety.
[FR Doc. 08–1406 Filed 6–30–08; 11:21 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
28 Passenger Car Average Fuel Economy
Standards—Model Years 2008—2020 and Light
Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards—Model
Years 2008–2020; Request for Product Plan
Information, 73 FR 24190, May 2, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 2, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37922-37927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-1406]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 534, 536 and 537
[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060]
Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Notice of
Public Hearing
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of availability of a draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS); notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) to disclose and analyze the potential environmental impacts of
proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model year
(MY) 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks, which NHTSA recently
proposed pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
and a reasonable range of alternative standards. To inform
decisionmakers and the public, the DEIS compares the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed standards and alternative
standards reflecting a full range of stringencies, and it analyzes
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in proportion to their
significance. The DEIS provides a detailed analysis of potential
impacts on energy resources, air quality, and climate. The DEIS uses
climate modeling and NHTSA's own computer model to provide quantitative
estimates of potential impacts on air quality, carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions, global mean surface temperature,
[[Page 37923]]
rainfall, and sea level rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis
of resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such as
freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land
use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines these impacts
on the U.S. and on a global scale. In addition, the DEIS analyzes
potential environmental impacts unrelated to climate change.
NHTSA invites Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes,
and the public to submit written comments and participate in a public
hearing on the DEIS using the instructions set forth in this notice. As
described in the PROCEDURAL MATTERS section of this notice, each
speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes,
although we may need to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a
large turnout. To facilitate review of the DEIS, NHTSA has posted the
DEIS on its Web site, and it will be available in the Docket identified
by the docket number at the beginning of this notice.\1\ Copies in hard
copy or electronic (CD-ROM) form have been mailed to all stakeholders
on NHTSA's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mailing list for
the proposed CAFE standards, and NHTSA will mail a copy of the DEIS or
a CD-ROM containing the Appendices to any other interested party who
requests one. NHTSA will consider the public comments received on the
DEIS in preparing final NEPA documents to support final CAFE standards
for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks, which NHTSA plans to
issue later this year. The agency's NEPA analysis is informing NHTSA's
development of those standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The DEIS is available at: https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/
site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/ (last visited
June 26, 2008).
DATES: Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held on Monday,
August 4, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the National Transportation
Safety Board Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
20594. NHTSA recommends that all persons attending the hearing arrive
at least 45 minutes early in order to facilitate entry into the
Conference Center. If you wish to attend or speak at the hearing, you
must register in advance no later than Friday, July 25, 2008, by
following the instructions in the PROCEDURAL MATTERS section of this
notice. NHTSA will consider late registrants to the extent time and
space allow, but NHTSA cannot ensure that late registrants will be able
to attend or speak at the hearing.
Comments: NHTSA must receive written comments on the DEIS by
Monday, August 18, 2008. NHTSA will try to consider comments received
after that date to the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules allow,
but NHTSA cannot ensure that it will be able to do so.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith, Telephone:
202-366-5206, or Mr. Michael Johnsen, Telephone: 202-366-0258, 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. E-mail:
nhtsa.nepa@dot.gov. Information about the CAFE rulemaking and the NEPA
process is also available at https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
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, will be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) to disclose and analyze the potential
environmental impacts of proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards for model year (MY) 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks
and a reasonable range of alternative standards.\2\ NHTSA recently
proposed the standards pursuant to amendments made by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) to the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA).\3\ To inform decisionmakers and the public,
the DEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
standards and alternative standards reflecting a range of stringencies,
and it analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in proportion
to their significance. The DEIS provides a detailed analysis of
potential impacts on energy resources, air quality, and climate. The
DEIS uses climate modeling and NHTSA's own computer model to provide
quantitative estimates of potential impacts on air quality,
CO2 emissions, global mean surface temperature, rainfall,
and sea level rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of
resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such as
freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land
use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines impacts on
the U.S. and on a global scale. In addition, the DEIS analyzes
potential environmental impacts unrelated to climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
4321-4347, and implementing regulations issued by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR Pts. 1500-1508, and NHTSA, 49
CFR Pt. 520.
\3\ EISA is Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (December 19,
2007). EPCA is codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
considers 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 EPA
Administrator, to establish
[[Page 37924]]
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. Sec. Sec. 32902(b)(1), 32902(b)(2)(A).
\8\ 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 32902(b)(2)(C).
\9\ 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. Sec. 32902(b)(3)(A), 32902(b)(3)(B).
\10\ 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 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 a 2006 final rule establishing CAFE standards for
MY 2008-2011 light trucks (namely, 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 manufacturers
with as much lead time as possible to make the extensive necessary
changes to their automobiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks Model
Years 2008-2011; Final Rule, April 6, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposed Action and Possible Alternatives: In its recent Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA proposed 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 alternatives, which the NPRM and the DEIS discuss in
more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks; Model Years 2011-2015; Proposed Rule, 73 FR 24352, May 2,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the 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 also will consider its
NEPA analysis.
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 and the DEIS
discuss flexibility mechanisms available to manufacturers to meet
their obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the proposed standards, NHTSA has considered several
regulatory alternatives for purposes of both Executive Order 12,866
\16\ and its NEPA analysis, which includes a ``no action'' alternative
as required by NEPA.
[[Page 37925]]
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 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 without regard to the costs to society.
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 and in the DEIS, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEPA Process and the DEIS. 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.\20\ In April 2008, NHTSA published a supplemental scoping
notice providing additional guidance for participating in the scoping
process and additional information about the proposed standards and the
alternatives NHTSA expected to consider in its NEPA analysis.\21\ NHTSA
also outlined its plans for its NEPA analysis.\22\ NHTSA mailed both
Federal Register notices to hundreds of stakeholders and developed a
mailing list of interested parties, including Federal agencies with
environmental expertise, the Governors of every State and U.S.
territory or State NEPA contacts they identified, Indian tribes,
organizations representing state and local governments and tribes, the
automobile industry, environmental organizations, and other
stakeholders interested in the CAFE program. NHTSA received 1,748
comment letters in response to its scoping notices. NHTSA received 11
individual letters commenting on the scope of its NEPA analysis from
federal and state agencies, automobile trade associations,
environmental organizations, and individuals. The remaining comment
letters are form letters from individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR
16615, March 28, 2008.
\21\ Supplemental Notice of Public Scoping for an Environmental
Impact Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
73 FR 22913, April 28, 2008.
\22\ Id. at 22916.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the DEIS, NHTSA also consulted with Federal agencies
including: CEQ; EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, both of
which submitted scoping comments to NHTSA; the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the U.S. Department of
Commerce; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park
Service within the U.S. Department of the Interior; and the U.S. Forest
Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
NHTSA used the scoping process to help determine ``the range of
actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered'' in the DEIS and
to identify the most important issues for analysis.\23\ The DEIS
consists of a Summary and ten chapters: (1) Purpose and Need for the
Proposed Action; (2) The Proposed Action and Alternatives; (3) Affected
Environment and Consequences; (4) Cumulative Impacts; (5) Mitigation;
(6) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts; Short-Term Uses and Long-term
Productivity; Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources;
(7) Preparers; (8) References; (9) Distribution List; and (10) Index.
Three appendices include sources identified in scoping comments
(Appendix A), modeling data for air emissions and climate modeling
(Appendix B); and a cost-benefit analysis excerpt from
[[Page 37926]]
NHTSA's Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (Appendix C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 40 CFR Sec. Sec. 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DEIS devotes the most detailed analysis to direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts of the proposed standards and the alternatives on
energy, air quality, and climate. Key findings concerning estimated
potential impacts on CO2 emissions, global mean surface temperature,
rainfall, and sea level rise include the following:
Global CO2 Emissions Reductions. Over the 2010 to 2100
timeframe, the range of alternatives NHTSA analyzed would reduce global
CO2 emissions (from all sources) by about 18 to 35 billion metric tons
of CO2 (based on global emissions of 4.85 trillion metric tons of CO2).
The alternatives would slow the expected increase in greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from the transportation sector over this period.
CO2 Concentration and Global Mean Surface
Temperature: Estimates for CO2 atmospheric concentrations
and global mean surface temperature vary considerably, depending on
which global emissions scenario is used as a reference case.
Temperature increases are sensitive to climate sensitivity. Yet,
projected differences among the CAFE alternatives are small--i.e.,
CO2 concentrations as of 2100 are within 1.7 to 3.2 parts
per million across alternatives, and temperatures are within 0.0006 to
0.012 [deg]C across alternatives--regardless of reference scenario and
climate sensitivity.
Rainfall: The CAFE alternatives reduce temperature
increases slightly and thus reduce increases in precipitation slightly,
compared to the ``No Action'' alternative.
Impact on Sea Level Rise: The impact on sea level rise
from the alternatives is at the threshold of the climate model's
reporting: The alternatives reduce sea level rise by 0.1 cm. Although
the model does not report enough significant figures to distinguish
between the effects of the alternatives, it is clear that the more
stringent the alternative (i.e., the lower the emissions), the lower
the temperature (as shown above), and the lower the sea level.
The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of resources that may be
impacted by changes in climate, such as freshwater resources,
terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land use, human health, and
environmental justice. It examines impacts on the U.S. and a global
scale. In addition, the DEIS qualitatively examines the alternatives'
non-climate change related direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on
potentially affected resources. Such resources include: Water
resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety,
noise, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice.
Throughout the DEIS, NHTSA's analysis relies extensively on
findings of the United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP),
including those presented in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report:
Climate Change 2007 and the USCCSP's Scientific Assessments of the
Effects of Global Change on the United States and Synthesis and
Assessment Products.\24\ The DEIS also uses applicable CEQ regulations
to acknowledge uncertainty and incomplete or unavailable information
relevant to NHTSA's NEPA analysis.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See generally https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-
reports.htm (last visited June 25, 2008) and https://
www.climatescience.gov (last visited June 25, 2008).
\25\ 40 CFR 1502.22; see 40 CFR 1502.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedural Matters: The public hearing will be open to the public
with advanced registration for seating on a space-available basis.
Individuals wishing to register to assure a seat in the public seating
area should provide their name, affiliation, phone number, and e-mail
address to Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the
contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at
the beginning of this notice no later than Friday, July 25, 2008.
Should it be necessary to cancel the hearing due to an emergency or
some other reason, NHTSA will take all available means to notify
registered participants by e-mail or telephone.
The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign
language interpreters should contact Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr.
Michael Johnsen using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above no later than Friday, July 25, 2008.
Any written materials NHTSA presents at the hearing will be available
electronically on the day of the hearing to accommodate the needs of
the visually impaired. A transcript of the hearing and information
received by NHTSA at the hearing will be placed in the docket for this
notice at a later date.
How long will I have to speak at the public hearing?
Once NHTSA learns how many people have registered to speak at the
public hearing, NHTSA will allocate an appropriate amount of time to
each participant, allowing time for lunch and necessary breaks
throughout the day. For planning purposes, each speaker should
anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need
to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. To
accommodate as many speakers as possible, NHTSA prefers that speakers
not use technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows).
However, if you plan to do so, you must let Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or
Mr. Michael Johnsen know by Friday, July 25, 2008, using the contact
information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. You
also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other
aids to NHTSA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up.
During the week of July 28, NHTSA will post information on its Web site
(https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov) indicating the amount of time allocated for
each speaker and each speaker's approximate order on the agenda for the
hearing.
How can I get a copy of the DEIS?
The DEIS is available on NHTSA's Web site at https://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/
menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/ (last visited June 26,
2008), and it will be available in the Docket identified by the docket
number at the beginning of this notice. To request a hard copy or a CD-
ROM of the DEIS, or to request a CD-ROM containing the Appendices,
please contact Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the
contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above.
How do I prepare and submit written comments?
It is not necessary to attend or to speak at the public hearing to
be able to comment on the issues. NHTSA invites the submission of
written comments on the DEIS which the agency will consider in
preparing the final NEPA documents to support the new CAFE standards
for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks. Your comments must be
written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly
filed in the Docket, please include the docket number at the beginning
of this notice in your comments.
Your primary comments cannot exceed 15 pages.\26\ However, you may
attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit
to the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
[[Page 37927]]
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register at 65 FR 19477, April 11, 2000, or you may visit https://
www.regulations.gov.
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590, or submit them electronically, in the manner described at the
beginning of this notice.
Will the agency consider late comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules
allow, NHTSA will try to consider comments that Docket Management
receives after that date, but we cannot ensure that we will be able to
do so.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 49 CFR 553.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some commenters may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for
new material. In addition, you may wish to check two separate dockets
relating to the proposed CAFE standards: (1) Docket No. NHTSA-2008-
0089, which accompanies NHTSA's NPRM; and (2) Docket No. NHTSA-2008-
0069, which accompanies NHTSA's request for manufacturers' product plan
information.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Passenger Car Average Fuel Economy Standards--Model Years
2008--2020 and Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards--Model
Years 2008-2020; Request for Product Plan Information, 73 FR 24190,
May 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments and information submitted to these dockets may be relevant
to NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the proposed CAFE standards.
Issued: June 27, 2008.
Ronald Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 08-1406 Filed 6-30-08; 11:21 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
