Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, 33565-33570 [2010-14167]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 2, 2010.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2010–14215 Filed 6–11–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 535
[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0079]
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for
New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel
Efficiency Improvement Program
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of intent; request for
scoping comments.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
NHTSA plans to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
to analyze the potential environmental
impacts of the agency’s new fuel
efficiency improvement program for
commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks
(referred to hereinafter as MD/HD
vehicles). The EIS will consider the
potential environmental impacts of new
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 Jun 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
standards starting with model year (MY)
2016 MD/HD vehicles, and voluntary
compliance standards for MY 2014–
2015 MD/HD vehicles, that NHTSA will
be proposing pursuant to the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
This notice initiates the NEPA
scoping process by inviting comments
from 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. This notice also provides
guidance for participating in the scoping
process and additional information
about 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. To
ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity
to fully consider scoping comments and
to facilitate NHTSA’s prompt
preparation of the Draft EIS, scoping
comments should be received on or
before July 14, 2010. NHTSA will try to
consider comments received after that
date to the extent the rulemaking
schedule allows.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
to the docket number identified in the
heading of this document by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments by clicking on ‘‘Help’’ or
‘‘FAQs.’’
• 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–
9826.
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 Angel Jackson,
Fuel Economy Division, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and
Consumer Standards, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33565
20590. Telephone: 202–366–5206. For
legal issues, contact Carrie Gage,
Legislation & General Law Division,
Office of the Chief Counsel, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
202–366–1834.
In a
forthcoming notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA intends to
propose fuel efficiency standards
starting with model year (MY) 2016
commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks
(hereinafter referred to collectively as
MD/HD vehicles), and voluntary
compliance standards for MYs 2014–
2015 MD/HD vehicles, pursuant to the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (EISA).1 In connection with this
action, NHTSA intends to prepare an
EIS to analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed
MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards and reasonable alternative
standards pursuant to the 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 potential
environmental impacts of the agency’s
preferred alternative and reasonable
alternatives, including a ‘‘no action’’
alternative. As required by NEPA, the
EIS will consider direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts and discuss impacts
in proportion to their significance.
Background. The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA)
mandated that NHTSA establish and
implement a regulatory program for
motor vehicle fuel economy to meet the
various facets of the need to conserve
energy. As codified in Chapter 329 of
Title 49 of the U.S. Code, and as
amended by EISA, EPCA sets forth
extensive requirements concerning the
establishment of fuel economy
standards for passenger automobiles
(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘passenger
cars’’) and non-passenger automobiles
(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘light trucks’’).
Pursuant to this statutory authority,
NHTSA sets Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards for
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 Public Law No. 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec.
19, 2007) (codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.).
2 NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347. CEQ’s
NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 40
CFR 1500–1508, and NHTSA’s NEPA implementing
regulations are codified at 49 CFR part 520.
E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM
14JNP1
33566
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
passenger cars and light trucks.3
NHTSA considers the environmental
NEPA analysis when setting CAFE
standards.
In December 2007, EISA provided
DOT (and by delegation, NHTSA)4 new
authority to implement, via rulemaking
and regulations, ‘‘a commercial mediumand heavy-duty on-highway vehicle 5
and work truck 6 fuel efficiency
improvement program.’’ 7 This provision
also directs NHTSA to ‘‘adopt and
implement appropriate test methods,
measurement metrics, fuel economy
standards, and compliance and
enforcement protocols that are
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicles and work trucks.’’ 8 This new
authority permits NHTSA to set
‘‘separate standards for different classes
of vehicles.’’ 9
EISA also provides for lead time and
regulatory stability. The new MD/HD
vehicle fuel efficiency improvement
program NHTSA adopts pursuant to
EISA must provide not less than 4 full
years of regulatory lead-time and 3 full
model years of regulatory stability.10
Consistent with these requirements, we
tentatively plan to propose mandatory
standards to begin no sooner than MY
2016, and to remain stable for 3 years.
Although EISA prevents NHTSA from
enacting mandatory standards before
3 See Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards, Final Rule, 75 FR 25324 (May
7, 2010).
4 The Secretary delegated responsibility for
implementing EPCA fuel economy requirements to
NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(a)(8).
5 EISA added the following definition to the
automobile fuel economy chapter of the United
States Code: ‘‘commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicle’’ means an on-highway vehicle
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds
or more. 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7).
6 EISA added the following definition to the
automobile fuel economy chapter of the United
States Code: ‘‘work truck’’ means a vehicle that—(A)
is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight; and (B) is not a medium-duty
passenger vehicle (as defined in section 86.1803–01
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect
on the date of the enactment of [EISA]). 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(19).
7 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
8 Id.
9 Id. For background on the MD/HD vehicle
segment, and fuel efficiency improvement
technologies available for these vehicles, see the
report recently issued by the National Academy of
Sciences. Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Committee to Assess Fuel
Economy Technologies for Medium- and HeavyDuty Vehicles, Technologies and Approaches to
Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Vehicles (March 2010), pre-publication
copy available at https://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed May
19, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘MD/HD NAS Report’’).
10 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 Jun 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
MY 2016, NHTSA intends to propose an
optional voluntary compliance standard
for MYs 2014–2015 prior to mandatory
regulation in MY 2016.
EISA further directs that NHTSA’s
MD/HD rulemaking must be conducted
in consultation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of Energy.11
On May 21, 2010, the President issued
a memorandum to the Secretary of
Transportation, the Administrator of
NHTSA, the Administrator of the EPA,
and the Secretary of Energy, that calls
for coordinated regulation of the
medium- and heavy-duty vehicle market
segment under EISA and under the
Clean Air Act.12 NHTSA’s forthcoming
proposal and EIS will be consistent with
this directive.13
This Notice of Intent initiates the
scoping process for the EIS under
NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4347, and
implementing regulations issued by
CEQ, 40 CFR Pt. 1500–1508, and
NHTSA, 49 CFR Pt. 520. See 40 CFR
1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g).
Specifically, this Notice of Intent
requests public input on the scope of
NHTSA’s NEPA analysis and the
significant issues relating to the fuel
efficiency standards for MD/HD vehicles
beginning in MY 2016, and the optional
voluntary compliance standards for
MYs 2014–2015. As part of the NEPA
scoping process, this notice briefly
describes the alternatives NHTSA is
currently considering for the MD/HD
vehicle fuel efficiency improvement
program.
The Alternatives: NHTSA’s upcoming
NPRM will propose standards for MD/
HD vehicles beginning in MY 2016, and
voluntary compliance standards for
MYs 2014–2015 MD/HD vehicles. This
notice briefly describes a variety of
possible alternatives that are currently
under consideration by the agency, and
seeks input from the public about these
alternatives and about whether other
alternatives should be considered as we
11 49
U.S.C. § 32902(k)(2).
The White House, Office of the Press
Secretary, Presidential Memorandum Regarding
Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21, 2010), available
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuelefficiency-standards (last accessed May 24, 2010);
see also The White House, Office of the Press
Secretary, President Obama Directs Administration
to Create First-Ever National Efficiency and
Emissions Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Trucks (May 21, 2010), available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidentobama-directs-administration-create-first-evernational-efficiency-and-em (last accessed May 24,
2010).
13 See https://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy (last
accessed June 4, 2010); see also https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/
420f10038.htm (last accessed June 4, 2010).
12 See
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proceed with the rulemaking and the
EIS.
The medium- and heavy-duty truck
segment is very complex. The sector
consists of many stakeholders,
including engine manufacturers, truck
manufacturers, trailer manufacturers,
and truck fleet owners. Unlike the lightduty sector, there is a very large number
of heavy-duty truck manufacturers
which vary in size and level of build
process integration. Some trucks are
assembled by a body builder using
components from an engine
manufacturer, powertrain manufacturer,
component suppliers, and chassis
builder. Each of these stakeholders has
an impact on the fuel efficiency of the
truck. NHTSA is therefore developing
alternatives which recognize the
complex industry structure and provide
increasing coverage of the opportunities
for fuel consumption reduction.
In developing alternatives, NHTSA
must consider EISA’s requirement for
the MD/HD fuel efficiency program
noted above. 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and
(3) contain the following three
requirements specific to the MD/HD
vehicle fuel efficiency improvement
program: (1) The program must be
‘‘designed to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement’’; (2) the various
required aspects of the program must be
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for MD/HD
vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted
under the program must provide not
less than four model years of lead time
and three model years of regulatory
stability. In considering these various
requirements, NHTSA will also account
for relevant environmental and safety
considerations.
The alternatives that NHTSA
currently has under consideration, in
order of increasing fuel efficiency
improvement, or fuel use reductions,
are:
(1) Alternative 1: No Action. A ‘‘no
action’’ alternative assumes that NHTSA
would not issue a rule regarding a MD/
HD fuel efficiency improvement
program, and is considered to comply
with NEPA and to provide an analytical
baseline against which to compare
environmental impacts of the other
regulatory alternatives.14 NEPA requires
agencies to consider a ‘‘no action’’
alternative in their NEPA analyses and
to compare the effects of not taking
action with the effects of the reasonable
action alternatives to demonstrate the
different environmental effects of the
action alternatives.15 NHTSA refers to
14 See
40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).
has explained that ‘‘[T]he regulations
require the analysis of the no action alternative even
15 CEQ
E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM
14JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
this as the ‘‘No Action Alternative’’ or as
a ‘‘no increase’’ or ‘‘baseline’’ alternative.
NHTSA is also proposing to consider
four action alternatives, each of which
would regulate the MD/HD vehicle fleet
in a different way. These action
alternatives would each cause the
average fuel efficiency for the industrywide MD/HD vehicle fleet to increase,
on average, during the rulemaking
period. The alternatives below represent
the different regulatory approaches the
agency is considering, in order of
increasing fuel savings:
(2) Alternative 2: Engine Only. The
EPA currently regulates heavy-duty
engines, i.e., engine manufacturers,
rather than the vehicle as a whole, in
order to control criteria emissions.16
Under Alternative 2, NHTSA would
similarly set engine performance
standards for each vehicle class, Class
2b through Class 8, and would specify
an engine cell test procedure, as EPA
currently does for criteria pollutants.
MD/HD vehicle engine manufacturers
would be responsible for ensuring that
each engine could meet the applicable
vehicle class engine performance
standard when tested in accordance
with the specified engine cell test
procedure. Engine manufacturers could
improve MD/HD vehicle engines by
applying the combinations of fuel
efficiency improvement technologies to
the engine that they deem best achieve
that result.
(3) Alternative 3: Class 8 Combination
Tractors. Combination tractors 17
consume the largest fraction of fuel
within the medium- and heavy-duty
truck segment.18 Tractors also offer
significant potential for fuel savings due
to the high annual mileage and high
vehicle speed of typical trucks within
this segment, as compared to annual
if the agency is under a court order or legislative
command to act. This analysis provides a
benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare
the magnitude of environmental effects of the action
alternatives. It is also an example of a reasonable
alternative outside the jurisdiction of the agency
which must be analyzed. [See 40 CFR 1502.14(c).]
* * * Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is
necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the
President as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR
1500.1(a).]’’ Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning
CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis added).
16 There are several reasons for this approach. In
many cases the engine and chassis are produced by
different manufacturers and it is more efficient to
hold a single entity responsible. Also, testing an
engine cell is more accurate and repeatable than
testing a whole vehicle.
17 Class 8 combination trucks have a tractor and
one or more trailers and a gross combined weight,
i.e., a maximum weight rating, of up to 80,000
pounds, with higher weights allowed in specific
circumstances. MD/HD NAS Report, supra note 9,
at 1–7.
18 Id. at 8–2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 Jun 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
mileage and average speeds/duty cycles
of other vehicle classes. This alternative
would set performance standards for
both the engine of Class 8 vehicles and
the overall vehicle efficiency
performance for the Class 8 combination
tractor segment. Under Alternative 3,
NHTSA would set an engine
performance standard, as discussed
under Alternative 2, for Class 8 vehicles.
In addition, Class 8 combination tractor
manufacturers would be required to
meet an overall vehicle performance
standard by making various non-engine
fuel saving technology improvements.
These non-engine fuel efficiency
improvements could be accomplished,
for example, by a combination of
improvements to aerodynamics,
lowering tire rolling resistance,
decreasing vehicle mass (weight),
reducing fuel use at idle, or by adding
intelligent vehicle technologies.19
Compliance with the overall vehicle
standard could be determined using a
computer model that would simulate
overall vehicle fuel efficiency given a
set of vehicle component inputs. Using
this compliance approach, the Class 8
vehicle manufacturer would supply
certain vehicle characteristics (relating
to the categories of technologies noted
immediately above) that would serve as
model inputs. The agency would supply
a standard Class 8 vehicle engine’s
contribution to overall vehicle
efficiency, making the engine
component a constant for purposes of
compliance with the overall vehicle
performance standard, such that
compliance with the overall vehicle
standard could only be achieved via
efficiency improvements to non-engine
vehicle components. Thus, vehicle
manufacturers could make any
combination of improvements of the
non-engine technologies that they
believe would best achieve the Class 8
overall vehicle performance standard.
(4) Alternative 4: Engines, Tractors,
and Class 2b through 8 Trucks. This
alternative would set engine fuel
efficiency performance standards and
overall vehicle fuel efficiency
performance standards for Class 2b and
3 work trucks and Class 3 through Class
8 vocational trucks. This alternative
essentially sets fuel efficiency
performance standards for both the
engines and the overall vehicles in the
entire medium- and heavy-duty truck
sector. Compliance with each vehicle
class’s engine performance standard
19 See the MD/HD NAS Report for discussions of
the potential fuel efficiency improvement
technologies that can be applied to each of these
vehicle components. MD/HD NAS Report, supra
note 9, Chapter 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33567
would be determined as discussed in
the description of Alternative 2.
Compliance with the tractor and
vocational truck classes’ overall vehicle
performance standard (Class 3 through 8
trucks) would be determined as
discussed in the description of
Alternative 3. Compliance for the Class
2b and 3 work trucks would be
determined through a fleet averaging
process similar to determining
passenger car and light truck
compliance with CAFE standards.
(5) Alternative 5: Engines, Tractors,
Trucks, and Trailers. This alternative
adds a performance standard for fuel
efficiency of commercial trailers to the
fuel efficiency performance standards
for Class 2b and 3 work truck and Class
3 through Class 8 vocational truck
engines and the performance standard
for the overall fuel efficiency of those
vehicles, as described above.
Each of the alternatives proposed by
NHTSA represents, in part, a different
way NHTSA could establish a MD/HD
vehicle fuel efficiency improvement
program pursuant to EISA, considering
each of the requirements above and
NEPA’s policies. The agency may select
one of the above-identified alternatives
as its Preferred Alternative or it may
structure a MD/HD vehicle fuel
efficiency improvement program in
such a way that average fuel efficiency,
or fuel savings, falls between the levels
reflected in the alternatives proposed in
this Scoping Notice. For example, as
noted above, EISA requires that NHTSA
provide a four-year regulatory lead-time
to manufacturers. For each of the action
alternatives, NHTSA will consider a
voluntary early compliance program,
which would provide for an early start
date with a two year lead-time. This
version of each alternative would allow
the program to achieve greater and
earlier reductions in fuel consumption
than a rule with a four year lead-time.
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.20 The
above alternatives represent a broad
range of approaches under
consideration for setting proposed MD/
HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards and
whose environmental impacts we
propose to evaluate under NEPA.
As detailed below, NHTSA invites
comments to ensure that the agency
considers a full range of reasonable
alternatives in establishing a MD/HD
vehicle fuel efficiency improvement
program and that the agency identifies
the environmental impacts and focuses
its analyses on all the potentially
20 40
E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM
CFR 1502.13.
14JNP1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
33568
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
significant impacts related to each
alternative. Comments may go beyond
the approaches and information that
NHTSA used in developing the above
alternatives and in identifying the
potentially significant environmental
effects. The agency may modify the
proposed alternatives and
environmental effects that will be
analyzed in depth based upon the
comments received during the scoping
process and upon further agency
analysis.
Scoping and Public Participation: The
scoping process initiated by this notice
seeks to determine ‘‘the range of actions,
alternatives, and impacts to be
considered’’ in the EIS and to identify
the most important issues for analysis
involving the potential environmental
impacts of NHTSA’s MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency improvement program.21
NHTSA’s NEPA analysis for the MD/HD
vehicle fuel efficiency standards
beginning in MY 2016, and the
voluntary MYs 2014–2015 standards,
will consider the direct, indirect and
cumulative environmental impacts of
the proposed standards and those of
reasonable alternatives.
While the main focus of NHTSA’s
prior CAFE EISs (i.e., the EIS for Model
Years 2012–2016 Passenger Car and
Light Truck CAFE Standards 22 and the
EIS for Model Years 2011–2015
Passenger Car and Light Truck CAFE
Standards 23) was the quantitative and
qualitative analysis of impacts to
energy, air quality, and climate, it also
addressed other potentially affected
resources. NHTSA discussed the related
direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts, positive or negative, of the
alternatives on other potentially affected
resources (water resources, biological
resources, land use, hazardous
materials, safety, noise, historic and
cultural resources, and environmental
justice).
For the current EIS, NHTSA intends
to focus on the impacts in much the
same manner as it did in the prior EIS,
and will incorporate by reference any of
the discussions from the February 2010
Final EIS that are relevant. NHTSA is
currently considering analyzing
environmental impacts related to fuel
and energy use, emissions including
GHGs and their effects on temperature
21 See
40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2012–2016, Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0059–0140
(February 2010).
23 See Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2011–2015, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0060–0605
(October 2008).
22 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 Jun 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
and climate change, air quality, natural
resources, and the human environment.
NHTSA also will factor into its impact
analysis the cumulative impacts of the
proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards starting in MY 2016, and the
voluntary MYs 2014–2015 standards. In
accordance with CEQ regulations,
cumulative effects are ‘‘the impact on
the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when
added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (Federal or
non-federal) or person undertakes such
action.’’ 24 NHTSA specifically requests
comment on how the agency should
assess cumulative impacts, including
those from various emissions source
categories and across a range of
geographic locations. For example,
should we consider the incremental
impact of MD/HD efficiency standards
when considered with the impacts of
other reasonably foreseeable actions that
affect emissions in any portion of the
motor vehicle sector? Or should NHTSA
expand the incremental impact
examination to all transportation sector
emissions? Or should the agency limit
the incremental impact analysis to
environmental effects caused by
emissions only from the MD/HD vehicle
segment?
NHTSA anticipates considerable
uncertainty in estimating and
comparing the potential environmental
impacts among alternatives related to
climate change in particular. For
instance, NHTSA expects that there will
be considerable uncertainty associated
with its estimates of the range of
potential global mean temperature
changes that may result from changes in
fuel and energy consumption and GHG
emissions due to a range of new MD/HD
vehicle fuel efficiency standards. It also
may be difficult to predict and compare
the ways in which potential temperature
changes attributable to new MD/HD
vehicle fuel efficiency standards may, in
turn, affect many aspects of the
environment. NHTSA will work
expeditiously to gather all relevant and
credible information. Where
information is incomplete or
unavailable, the agency will
acknowledge the uncertainties in its
NEPA analysis, and will apply the
provisions in the CEQ regulations
addressing ‘‘[i]ncomplete or unavailable
information.’’ 25
Currently, NHTSA intends to rely
primarily upon the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Fourth Assessment Report, and
24 40
CFR 1508.7.
40 CFR 1502.22.
25 See
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
subsequent updates, reports of the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)
and the current U.S. Global Change
Research Program (U.S. GCRP), and the
EPA Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse
Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean
Air Act and the accompanying
Technical Support Document (referred
to collectively hereinafter as the EPA
Endangerment Finding), as sources for
recent ‘‘summar[ies] of existing credible
scientific evidence which is relevant to
evaluating the reasonably foreseeable
significant adverse impacts on the
human environment.’’ 26 NHTSA
believes that the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report, the CCSP and U.S.
GCRP Reports, and the EPA
Endangerment Finding are the most
recent, most comprehensive summaries
available, but recognizes that
subsequent peer-reviewed research may
provide additional relevant and credible
evidence not accounted for in these
Reports. NHTSA expects to consider
such subsequent information as well, to
the extent that it provides relevant and
credible evidence. NHTSA also expects
to rely on the Final EIS it published in
February 2010,27 incorporating material
by reference ‘‘when the effect will be to
cut down on bulk without impeding
agency and public review of the
action.’’ 28
In preparing this notice of public
scoping to identify the range of actions,
alternatives, and impacts to be analyzed
in depth in the EIS, NHTSA has
consulted with CEQ and EPA. Through
this notice, NHTSA invites all Federal
agencies, Indian Tribes, State and local
agencies with jurisdiction by law or
special expertise with respect to
potential environmental impacts of
proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards, and the public to participate
in the scoping process.29
26 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).
27 See Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2012–2016, Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0059–0140
(February 2010).
28 40 CFR 1502.21.
29 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 MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards. See 42
E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM
14JNP1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Specifically, NHTSA invites all
stakeholders to participate in the
scoping process by submitting written
comments concerning the appropriate
scope of NHTSA’s NEPA analysis and
the significant issues for the proposed
MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards to the docket number
identified in the heading of this notice,
using any of the methods described in
the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
NHTSA does not plan to hold a public
scoping meeting, because written
comments will be effective in
identifying and narrowing the issues for
analysis.
NHTSA is especially interested in
comments concerning the evaluation of
climate change impacts, and the relative
impact of an increased share of any
emissions reduction resulting from the
proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards coming from diesel fuel
savings, as opposed to emissions
reductions resulting from conventional
gasoline savings analyzed in prior CAFE
NEPA analyses. Specifically, NHTSA
requests:
• Peer-reviewed scientific studies that
have been issued since the EPA
Endangerment Finding and that address
or may inform: (a) The impacts on CO2
and other greenhouse gas emissions that
may be associated with any of the
alternatives under consideration; (b) the
impacts on climate change that may be
associated with these emission changes;
or (c) the time periods over which such
impacts on climate may occur.
• Comments on how NHTSA should
discuss or estimate the potential
localized or regional impacts of
decreased diesel fuel use, including
potential upstream impacts (changes in
fuel use and emissions levels resulting
from the extraction, production, storage,
and distribution of fuel), and comments
on how NHTSA should estimate the
potential impacts of these localized or
regional changes on the environment.
• Comments on what time frame
NHTSA should use to evaluate the
environmental impacts that may result
from setting MD/HD vehicle fuel
efficiency standards, both indirect and
cumulative.
• Peer-reviewed reports analyzing the
potential impacts of climate change
within the United States or in particular
geographic areas of the United States.
Such reports could be prepared by or on
behalf of States, local governments,
Indian tribes, regional organizations,
academic researchers, or other
interested parties.
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7,
1506.6.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 Jun 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
• NHTSA understands that there are
a variety of potential alternatives that
could be considered that fit within the
purpose and need for the proposed
rulemaking, as set forth in EISA.
NHTSA, therefore, seeks comments on
how best to structure or describe a
reasonable alternative for purposes of
evaluating it under NEPA. Specifically,
NHTSA seeks comments on what
criteria should be used to structure such
alternative, given the requirements for
the new regulatory program under EISA,
while being consistent with the
statutory requirement of designing the
program ‘‘to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement.’’ See 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2). When suggesting a possible
alternative, please explain how it would
satisfy the EISA requirements (in
particular, how and why it would be
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible) and give effect
to NEPA’s policies.30
In addition, as noted above, NHTSA
requests comments on how the agency
should assess cumulative impacts,
including those from various emissions
source categories and from a range of
geographic locations. Also in regard to
cumulative impacts, the agency requests
comments on how to consider the
incremental impacts from foreseeable
future actions of other agencies or
persons, and how they might interact
with the MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
improvement program’s incremental
cumulative impacts.
Two important purposes of scoping
are identifying the significant issues that
merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and
identifying and eliminating from
detailed analysis the issues that are not
significant and therefore require only a
brief discussion in the EIS.31 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 online, you
should attach a copy to your comments.
Your comments should indicate how
each document you cite or attach to
your comments is relevant to the 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, or
an analytical tool or model that you
believe NHTSA should use to evaluate
these environmental impacts, you
should clearly describe it and support
your comments with a reference to a
specific peer-reviewed scientific study,
report, tool or model. Specific, wellsupported comments will help the
agency prepare an EIS that is focused
and relevant, and will serve NEPA’s
overarching aims of making high quality
information available to decisionmakers
and the public by ‘‘concentrat[ing] on
the issues that are truly significant to
the action in question, rather than
amassing needless detail.’’ 32 By
contrast, mere assertions that the agency
should evaluate broad lists or categories
of concerns, without support, will likely
not assist the scoping process for the
proposed standards.
Please be sure to reference the docket
number identified in the heading of this
notice in your comments. NHTSA
intends to correspond directly to
interested parties by e-mail. Thus,
please also provide an e-mail address
(or a mailing address if you decline email communications).33 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 site at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Based on comments received during
scoping, NHTSA expects to prepare a
draft EIS for public comment later this
year and a final EIS to support a final
rule in 2011.34 In regard to NHTSA’s
decisionmaking schedule, the agency
expects to issue a final rule in 2011 as
well.
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 MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
improvement program rulemaking on its
Web site (https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov).
32 40
CFR 1500.1(b).
you prefer to receive NHTSA’s NEPA
correspondence by U.S. mail, NHTSA intends to
provide its NEPA publications via a CD readable on
a personal computer.
34 40 CFR 1506.10.
33 If
30 See 40 CFR 1502.14, Alternatives Including the
Proposed Action (explaining what agencies should
include in the alternatives section of an EIS).
31 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33569
E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM
14JNP1
33570
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Issued: June 9, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010–14167 Filed 6–11–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 600
[Docket No. 100330171–0232–01]
RIN 0648–AY79
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fishing Capacity Reduction
Framework
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes amendments
to the framework regulations specifying
procedures for implementing fishing
capacity reduction programs (reduction
programs) in accordance with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management
(Magnuson-Stevens) Reauthorization
Act of 2007. A reduction program pays
harvesters in a fishery that has more
vessels than capacity either to surrender
their fishing permits including relevant
fishing histories for that fishery, or
surrender all their fishing permits and
cancelling their fishing vessels= fishing
endorsements by permanently
withdrawing the vessel from all
fisheries. The cost of the program can be
paid by post-reduction harvesters,
taxpayers, or others. The intent of a
program is to decrease the number of
harvesters in the fishery, increase the
economic efficiency of harvesting, and
facilitate the conservation and
management of fishery resources in each
fishery in which NMFS conducts a
reduction program.
DATES: Comments must be received by
July 29, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by 0648–AY79, by either of
the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov; or
Mail: Michael A. Sturtevant, Financial
Services Division, NMFS–MB5, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 Jun 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
Instructions: Comments will be
posted for public viewing after the
comment period has closed. All
comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be
posted to https://www.regulations.gov
without change. All Personal Identifying
Information (for example, name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit Confidential
Business Information or otherwise
sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter N/A in the required
fields, if you wish to remain
anonymous). You may submit
attachments to electronic comments in
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
Send comments regarding the burdenhour estimates or other aspects of the
collection-of-information requirements
contained in this proposed rule to
Michael A. Sturtevant at the address
specified above and also to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Washington, DC 20503
(Attention: NOAA Desk Officer) or email to DavidlRosker@ob.eop.gov, or
fax to (202) 395–7825. Copies of the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) and Regulatory Impact Review
prepared for this action may be obtained
from Michael A. Sturtevant at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael A. Sturtevant at 301–713–2390
or michael.a.sturtevant@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
This Federal Register document is
also accessible via the Internet at
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.
I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
Many U.S. fisheries have excess
fishing capacity. Excess fishing capacity
decreases earnings, complicates
management, and imperils conservation.
To provide for fishing capacity
reduction programs, in 1996 Congress
amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by adding
section 312(b)-(e) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b)(e)). The framework regulations to
conduct these reduction programs were
published as an interim final rule on
May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31430) and
codified as subpart L to 50 CFR part
600. To finance reduction costs,
Congress amended Title XI of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (Title XI),
by adding new sections 1111 and 1112.
The Title XI provisions involving
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
fishing capacity reduction loans have
been codified at 46 U.S.C. 53735.
This action proposes to amend
subpart L to 50 CFR part 600 to
implement the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109–
479) amendments for requesting and
conducting fishing capacity reduction
programs.
II. Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization
Act Changes
The Magnuson-Stevens
Reauthorization Act requires several
modifications to the framework
regulations.
First, the Magnuson-Stevens
Reauthorization Act contained a
provision that states that, in addition to
the appropriate fishery management
Council or Governor of a State, a
majority of permit holders in the fishery
may request a buyback program. Such a
program may be conducted if the
Secretary determines that the program is
necessary to prevent or end overfishing,
rebuild stocks of fish, or achieve
measurable and significant
improvements in the conservation and
management of the fishery. As a result
of this change, NMFS is amending the
definition of ‘‘Requester@ and the
regulations outlining the process for
submission requests to allow permit
holders, if they constitute a majority, to
request a buyback program.
Second, the Magnuson-Stevens
Reauthorization Act clarified that a
permit holder relinquishes any future
limited access system claims associated
with the permit or vessel participating
in a reduction program and that (if not
scrapped) the vessel will be effectively
prevented from fishing in Federal or
state waters, or fishing on the high seas
or in the waters of a foreign nation. The
Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act
revised section 312(b)(2)(A) to recognize
that the owner of a fishing vessel may
be different from the permit holder. As
a result of this change, NMFS is
amending the regulations to require
that, along with surrendering the permit
authorizing the participation of the
vessel in the fishery, for permanent
revocation, both the vessel owner and
the permit holder, if different from the
vessel owner, relinquish any claim
associated with the vessel or permit that
could qualify such owner or permit
holder for any present or future limited
access system permit in the fishery for
which the program is established or in
any other fishery.
Third, the Magnuson-Stevens
Reauthorization Act added Section
312(b)(5) regarding payment conditions
stating that if a vessel is not scrapped,
E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM
14JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 113 (Monday, June 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33565-33570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14167]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 535
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079]
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of intent; request for scoping comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
NHTSA plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
analyze the potential environmental impacts of the agency's new fuel
efficiency improvement program for commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks (referred to hereinafter as MD/HD
vehicles). The EIS will consider the potential environmental impacts of
new standards starting with model year (MY) 2016 MD/HD vehicles, and
voluntary compliance standards for MY 2014-2015 MD/HD vehicles, that
NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007.
This notice initiates the NEPA scoping process by inviting comments
from 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. This notice also provides guidance for
participating in the scoping process and additional information about
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. To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to fully consider
scoping comments and to facilitate NHTSA's prompt preparation of the
Draft EIS, scoping comments should be received on or before July 14,
2010. NHTSA will try to consider comments received after that date to
the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQs.''
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 202-366-9826.
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 Angel
Jackson, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Policy, 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 Carrie Gage,
Legislation & General Law Division, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-1834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a forthcoming notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA intends to propose fuel efficiency standards
starting with model year (MY) 2016 commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks (hereinafter referred to
collectively as MD/HD vehicles), and voluntary compliance standards for
MYs 2014-2015 MD/HD vehicles, pursuant to the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA).\1\ In connection with this action, NHTSA
intends to prepare an EIS to analyze the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards and
reasonable alternative standards pursuant to the 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 potential environmental impacts of the
agency's preferred alternative and reasonable alternatives, including a
``no action'' alternative. As required by NEPA, the EIS will consider
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and discuss impacts in
proportion to their significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007)
(codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.).
\2\ NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. CEQ's NEPA
implementing regulations are codified at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and
NHTSA's NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 49 CFR part
520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA)
mandated that NHTSA establish and implement a regulatory program for
motor vehicle fuel economy to meet the various facets of the need to
conserve energy. As codified in Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the U.S.
Code, and as amended by EISA, EPCA sets forth extensive requirements
concerning the establishment of fuel economy standards for passenger
automobiles (hereinafter referred to as ``passenger cars'') and non-
passenger automobiles (hereinafter referred to as ``light trucks'').
Pursuant to this statutory authority, NHTSA sets Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards for
[[Page 33566]]
passenger cars and light trucks.\3\ NHTSA considers the environmental
NEPA analysis when setting CAFE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Final Rule, 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2007, EISA provided DOT (and by delegation, NHTSA)\4\
new authority to implement, via rulemaking and regulations, ``a
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle \5\ and work truck
\6\ fuel efficiency improvement program.'' \7\ This provision also
directs NHTSA to ``adopt and implement appropriate test methods,
measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance and
enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-
highway vehicles and work trucks.'' \8\ This new authority permits
NHTSA to set ``separate standards for different classes of vehicles.''
\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Secretary delegated responsibility for implementing EPCA
fuel economy requirements to NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(a)(8).
\5\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the United States Code: ``commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicle'' means an on-highway vehicle with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(7).
\6\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the United States Code: ``work truck'' means a
vehicle that--(A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight; and (B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle (as
defined in section 86.1803-01 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, as in effect on the date of the enactment of [EISA]).
49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(19).
\7\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id. For background on the MD/HD vehicle segment, and fuel
efficiency improvement technologies available for these vehicles,
see the report recently issued by the National Academy of Sciences.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Committee
to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel
Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (March 2010), pre-
publication copy available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed May 19, 2010)
(hereinafter ``MD/HD NAS Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EISA also provides for lead time and regulatory stability. The new
MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program NHTSA adopts pursuant
to EISA must provide not less than 4 full years of regulatory lead-time
and 3 full model years of regulatory stability.\10\ Consistent with
these requirements, we tentatively plan to propose mandatory standards
to begin no sooner than MY 2016, and to remain stable for 3 years.
Although EISA prevents NHTSA from enacting mandatory standards before
MY 2016, NHTSA intends to propose an optional voluntary compliance
standard for MYs 2014-2015 prior to mandatory regulation in MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EISA further directs that NHTSA's MD/HD rulemaking must be
conducted in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Department of Energy.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 32902(k)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 21, 2010, the President issued a memorandum to the Secretary
of Transportation, the Administrator of NHTSA, the Administrator of the
EPA, and the Secretary of Energy, that calls for coordinated regulation
of the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle market segment under EISA and
under the Clean Air Act.\12\ NHTSA's forthcoming proposal and EIS will
be consistent with this directive.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21,
2010), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards (last
accessed May 24, 2010); see also The White House, Office of the
Press Secretary, President Obama Directs Administration to Create
First-Ever National Efficiency and Emissions Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Trucks (May 21, 2010), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-directs-administration-create-first-ever-national-efficiency-and-em (last
accessed May 24, 2010).
\13\ See https://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy (last accessed June
4, 2010); see also https://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f10038.htm (last accessed June 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process for the EIS
under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4321-4347, and implementing
regulations issued by CEQ, 40 CFR Pt. 1500-1508, and NHTSA, 49 CFR Pt.
520. See 40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g). Specifically, this
Notice of Intent requests public input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA
analysis and the significant issues relating to the fuel efficiency
standards for MD/HD vehicles beginning in MY 2016, and the optional
voluntary compliance standards for MYs 2014-2015. As part of the NEPA
scoping process, this notice briefly describes the alternatives NHTSA
is currently considering for the MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
improvement program.
The Alternatives: NHTSA's upcoming NPRM will propose standards for
MD/HD vehicles beginning in MY 2016, and voluntary compliance standards
for MYs 2014-2015 MD/HD vehicles. This notice briefly describes a
variety of possible alternatives that are currently under consideration
by the agency, and seeks input from the public about these alternatives
and about whether other alternatives should be considered as we proceed
with the rulemaking and the EIS.
The medium- and heavy-duty truck segment is very complex. The
sector consists of many stakeholders, including engine manufacturers,
truck manufacturers, trailer manufacturers, and truck fleet owners.
Unlike the light-duty sector, there is a very large number of heavy-
duty truck manufacturers which vary in size and level of build process
integration. Some trucks are assembled by a body builder using
components from an engine manufacturer, powertrain manufacturer,
component suppliers, and chassis builder. Each of these stakeholders
has an impact on the fuel efficiency of the truck. NHTSA is therefore
developing alternatives which recognize the complex industry structure
and provide increasing coverage of the opportunities for fuel
consumption reduction.
In developing alternatives, NHTSA must consider EISA's requirement
for the MD/HD fuel efficiency program noted above. 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2) and (3) contain the following three requirements specific
to the MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program: (1) The
program must be ``designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement''; (2) the various required aspects of the program must be
appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for MD/HD
vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted under the program must provide
not less than four model years of lead time and three model years of
regulatory stability. In considering these various requirements, NHTSA
will also account for relevant environmental and safety considerations.
The alternatives that NHTSA currently has under consideration, in
order of increasing fuel efficiency improvement, or fuel use
reductions, are:
(1) Alternative 1: No Action. A ``no action'' alternative assumes
that NHTSA would not issue a rule regarding a MD/HD fuel efficiency
improvement program, and is considered to comply with NEPA and to
provide an analytical baseline against which to compare environmental
impacts of the other regulatory alternatives.\14\ NEPA requires
agencies to consider a ``no action'' alternative in their NEPA analyses
and to compare the effects of not taking action with the effects of the
reasonable action alternatives to demonstrate the different
environmental effects of the action alternatives.\15\ NHTSA refers to
[[Page 33567]]
this as the ``No Action Alternative'' or as a ``no increase'' or
``baseline'' alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).
\15\ CEQ has explained that ``[T]he regulations require the
analysis of the no action alternative even if the agency is under a
court order or legislative command to act. This analysis provides a
benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of
environmental effects of the action alternatives. It is also an
example of a reasonable alternative outside the jurisdiction of the
agency which must be analyzed. [See 40 CFR 1502.14(c).] * * *
Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform
Congress, the public, and the President as intended by NEPA. [See 40
CFR 1500.1(a).]'' Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's
National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981)
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is also proposing to consider four action alternatives, each
of which would regulate the MD/HD vehicle fleet in a different way.
These action alternatives would each cause the average fuel efficiency
for the industry-wide MD/HD vehicle fleet to increase, on average,
during the rulemaking period. The alternatives below represent the
different regulatory approaches the agency is considering, in order of
increasing fuel savings:
(2) Alternative 2: Engine Only. The EPA currently regulates heavy-
duty engines, i.e., engine manufacturers, rather than the vehicle as a
whole, in order to control criteria emissions.\16\ Under Alternative 2,
NHTSA would similarly set engine performance standards for each vehicle
class, Class 2b through Class 8, and would specify an engine cell test
procedure, as EPA currently does for criteria pollutants. MD/HD vehicle
engine manufacturers would be responsible for ensuring that each engine
could meet the applicable vehicle class engine performance standard
when tested in accordance with the specified engine cell test
procedure. Engine manufacturers could improve MD/HD vehicle engines by
applying the combinations of fuel efficiency improvement technologies
to the engine that they deem best achieve that result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ There are several reasons for this approach. In many cases
the engine and chassis are produced by different manufacturers and
it is more efficient to hold a single entity responsible. Also,
testing an engine cell is more accurate and repeatable than testing
a whole vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Alternative 3: Class 8 Combination Tractors. Combination
tractors \17\ consume the largest fraction of fuel within the medium-
and heavy-duty truck segment.\18\ Tractors also offer significant
potential for fuel savings due to the high annual mileage and high
vehicle speed of typical trucks within this segment, as compared to
annual mileage and average speeds/duty cycles of other vehicle classes.
This alternative would set performance standards for both the engine of
Class 8 vehicles and the overall vehicle efficiency performance for the
Class 8 combination tractor segment. Under Alternative 3, NHTSA would
set an engine performance standard, as discussed under Alternative 2,
for Class 8 vehicles. In addition, Class 8 combination tractor
manufacturers would be required to meet an overall vehicle performance
standard by making various non-engine fuel saving technology
improvements. These non-engine fuel efficiency improvements could be
accomplished, for example, by a combination of improvements to
aerodynamics, lowering tire rolling resistance, decreasing vehicle mass
(weight), reducing fuel use at idle, or by adding intelligent vehicle
technologies.\19\ Compliance with the overall vehicle standard could be
determined using a computer model that would simulate overall vehicle
fuel efficiency given a set of vehicle component inputs. Using this
compliance approach, the Class 8 vehicle manufacturer would supply
certain vehicle characteristics (relating to the categories of
technologies noted immediately above) that would serve as model inputs.
The agency would supply a standard Class 8 vehicle engine's
contribution to overall vehicle efficiency, making the engine component
a constant for purposes of compliance with the overall vehicle
performance standard, such that compliance with the overall vehicle
standard could only be achieved via efficiency improvements to non-
engine vehicle components. Thus, vehicle manufacturers could make any
combination of improvements of the non-engine technologies that they
believe would best achieve the Class 8 overall vehicle performance
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Class 8 combination trucks have a tractor and one or more
trailers and a gross combined weight, i.e., a maximum weight rating,
of up to 80,000 pounds, with higher weights allowed in specific
circumstances. MD/HD NAS Report, supra note 9, at 1-7.
\18\ Id. at 8-2.
\19\ See the MD/HD NAS Report for discussions of the potential
fuel efficiency improvement technologies that can be applied to each
of these vehicle components. MD/HD NAS Report, supra note 9, Chapter
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Alternative 4: Engines, Tractors, and Class 2b through 8
Trucks. This alternative would set engine fuel efficiency performance
standards and overall vehicle fuel efficiency performance standards for
Class 2b and 3 work trucks and Class 3 through Class 8 vocational
trucks. This alternative essentially sets fuel efficiency performance
standards for both the engines and the overall vehicles in the entire
medium- and heavy-duty truck sector. Compliance with each vehicle
class's engine performance standard would be determined as discussed in
the description of Alternative 2. Compliance with the tractor and
vocational truck classes' overall vehicle performance standard (Class 3
through 8 trucks) would be determined as discussed in the description
of Alternative 3. Compliance for the Class 2b and 3 work trucks would
be determined through a fleet averaging process similar to determining
passenger car and light truck compliance with CAFE standards.
(5) Alternative 5: Engines, Tractors, Trucks, and Trailers. This
alternative adds a performance standard for fuel efficiency of
commercial trailers to the fuel efficiency performance standards for
Class 2b and 3 work truck and Class 3 through Class 8 vocational truck
engines and the performance standard for the overall fuel efficiency of
those vehicles, as described above.
Each of the alternatives proposed by NHTSA represents, in part, a
different way NHTSA could establish a MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
improvement program pursuant to EISA, considering each of the
requirements above and NEPA's policies. The agency may select one of
the above-identified alternatives as its Preferred Alternative or it
may structure a MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program in
such a way that average fuel efficiency, or fuel savings, falls between
the levels reflected in the alternatives proposed in this Scoping
Notice. For example, as noted above, EISA requires that NHTSA provide a
four-year regulatory lead-time to manufacturers. For each of the action
alternatives, NHTSA will consider a voluntary early compliance program,
which would provide for an early start date with a two year lead-time.
This version of each alternative would allow the program to achieve
greater and earlier reductions in fuel consumption than a rule with a
four year lead-time.
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.\20\ The above alternatives represent a broad range of
approaches under consideration for setting proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel
efficiency standards and whose environmental impacts we propose to
evaluate under NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 40 CFR 1502.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed below, NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency
considers a full range of reasonable alternatives in establishing a MD/
HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program and that the agency
identifies the environmental impacts and focuses its analyses on all
the potentially
[[Page 33568]]
significant impacts related to each alternative. Comments may go beyond
the approaches and information that NHTSA used in developing the above
alternatives and in identifying the potentially significant
environmental effects. The agency may modify the proposed alternatives
and environmental effects that will be analyzed in depth based upon the
comments received during the scoping process and upon further agency
analysis.
Scoping and Public Participation: The scoping process initiated by
this notice seeks to determine ``the range of actions, alternatives,
and impacts to be considered'' in the EIS and to identify the most
important issues for analysis involving the potential environmental
impacts of NHTSA's MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement
program.\21\ NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the MD/HD vehicle fuel
efficiency standards beginning in MY 2016, and the voluntary MYs 2014-
2015 standards, will consider the direct, indirect and cumulative
environmental impacts of the proposed standards and those of reasonable
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the main focus of NHTSA's prior CAFE EISs (i.e., the EIS for
Model Years 2012-2016 Passenger Car and Light Truck CAFE Standards \22\
and the EIS for Model Years 2011-2015 Passenger Car and Light Truck
CAFE Standards \23\) was the quantitative and qualitative analysis of
impacts to energy, air quality, and climate, it also addressed other
potentially affected resources. NHTSA discussed the related direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts, positive or negative, of the
alternatives on other potentially affected resources (water resources,
biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise,
historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2012-2016, Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059-0140 (February 2010).
\23\ See Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2011-2015, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060-0605 (October 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the current EIS, NHTSA intends to focus on the impacts in much
the same manner as it did in the prior EIS, and will incorporate by
reference any of the discussions from the February 2010 Final EIS that
are relevant. NHTSA is currently considering analyzing environmental
impacts related to fuel and energy use, emissions including GHGs and
their effects on temperature and climate change, air quality, natural
resources, and the human environment. NHTSA also will factor into its
impact analysis the cumulative impacts of the proposed MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards starting in MY 2016, and the voluntary MYs
2014-2015 standards. In accordance with CEQ regulations, cumulative
effects are ``the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such action.'' \24\ NHTSA
specifically requests comment on how the agency should assess
cumulative impacts, including those from various emissions source
categories and across a range of geographic locations. For example,
should we consider the incremental impact of MD/HD efficiency standards
when considered with the impacts of other reasonably foreseeable
actions that affect emissions in any portion of the motor vehicle
sector? Or should NHTSA expand the incremental impact examination to
all transportation sector emissions? Or should the agency limit the
incremental impact analysis to environmental effects caused by
emissions only from the MD/HD vehicle segment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 40 CFR 1508.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA anticipates considerable uncertainty in estimating and
comparing the potential environmental impacts among alternatives
related to climate change in particular. For instance, NHTSA expects
that there will be considerable uncertainty associated with its
estimates of the range of potential global mean temperature changes
that may result from changes in fuel and energy consumption and GHG
emissions due to a range of new MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards. It also may be difficult to predict and compare the ways in
which potential temperature changes attributable to new MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards may, in turn, affect many aspects of the
environment. NHTSA will work expeditiously to gather all relevant and
credible information. Where information is incomplete or unavailable,
the agency will acknowledge the uncertainties in its NEPA analysis, and
will apply the provisions in the CEQ regulations addressing
``[i]ncomplete or unavailable information.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 40 CFR 1502.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, NHTSA intends to rely primarily upon the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Fourth Assessment
Report, and subsequent updates, reports of the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) and the current U.S. Global Change Research
Program (U.S. GCRP), and the EPA Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
and the accompanying Technical Support Document (referred to
collectively hereinafter as the EPA Endangerment Finding), as sources
for recent ``summar[ies] of existing credible scientific evidence which
is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant
adverse impacts on the human environment.'' \26\ NHTSA believes that
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the CCSP and U.S. GCRP Reports, and
the EPA Endangerment Finding are the most recent, most comprehensive
summaries available, but recognizes that subsequent peer-reviewed
research may provide additional relevant and credible evidence not
accounted for in these Reports. NHTSA expects to consider such
subsequent information as well, to the extent that it provides relevant
and credible evidence. NHTSA also expects to rely on the Final EIS it
published in February 2010,\27\ incorporating material by reference
``when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency
and public review of the action.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 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).
\27\ See Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2012-2016, Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059-0140 (February 2010).
\28\ 40 CFR 1502.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In preparing this notice of public scoping to identify the range of
actions, alternatives, and impacts to be analyzed in depth in the EIS,
NHTSA has consulted with CEQ and EPA. Through this notice, NHTSA
invites all Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, State and local agencies
with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to potential
environmental impacts of proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards, and the public to participate in the scoping process.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 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 MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR
520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33569]]
Specifically, NHTSA invites all stakeholders to participate in the
scoping process by submitting written comments concerning the
appropriate scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis and the significant issues
for the proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards to the docket
number identified in the heading of this notice, using any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. NHTSA does
not plan to hold a public scoping meeting, because written comments
will be effective in identifying and narrowing the issues for analysis.
NHTSA is especially interested in comments concerning the
evaluation of climate change impacts, and the relative impact of an
increased share of any emissions reduction resulting from the proposed
MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards coming from diesel fuel
savings, as opposed to emissions reductions resulting from conventional
gasoline savings analyzed in prior CAFE NEPA analyses. Specifically,
NHTSA requests:
Peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been issued
since the EPA Endangerment Finding and that address or may inform: (a)
The impacts on CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions that
may be associated with any of the alternatives under consideration; (b)
the impacts on climate change that may be associated with these
emission changes; or (c) the time periods over which such impacts on
climate may occur.
Comments on how NHTSA should discuss or estimate the
potential localized or regional impacts of decreased diesel fuel use,
including potential upstream impacts (changes in fuel use and emissions
levels resulting from the extraction, production, storage, and
distribution of fuel), and comments on how NHTSA should estimate the
potential impacts of these localized or regional changes on the
environment.
Comments on what time frame NHTSA should use to evaluate
the environmental impacts that may result from setting MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards, both indirect and cumulative.
Peer-reviewed reports analyzing the potential impacts of
climate change within the United States or in particular geographic
areas of the United States. Such reports could be prepared by or on
behalf of States, local governments, Indian tribes, regional
organizations, academic researchers, or other interested parties.
NHTSA understands that there are a variety of potential
alternatives that could be considered that fit within the purpose and
need for the proposed rulemaking, as set forth in EISA. NHTSA,
therefore, seeks comments on how best to structure or describe a
reasonable alternative for purposes of evaluating it under NEPA.
Specifically, NHTSA seeks comments on what criteria should be used to
structure such alternative, given the requirements for the new
regulatory program under EISA, while being consistent with the
statutory requirement of designing the program ``to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement.'' See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). When suggesting a
possible alternative, please explain how it would satisfy the EISA
requirements (in particular, how and why it would be appropriate, cost-
effective, and technologically feasible) and give effect to NEPA's
policies.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 40 CFR 1502.14, Alternatives Including the Proposed
Action (explaining what agencies should include in the alternatives
section of an EIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as noted above, NHTSA requests comments on how the
agency should assess cumulative impacts, including those from various
emissions source categories and from a range of geographic locations.
Also in regard to cumulative impacts, the agency requests comments on
how to consider the incremental impacts from foreseeable future actions
of other agencies or persons, and how they might interact with the MD/
HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program's incremental cumulative
impacts.
Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant
issues that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying and
eliminating from detailed analysis the issues that are not significant
and therefore require only a brief discussion in the EIS.\31\ 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 online, you should attach a copy to your comments. Your
comments should indicate how each document you cite or attach to your
comments is relevant to the NEPA analysis and indicate the specific
pages and passages in the attachment that are most informative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 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, or an
analytical tool or model that you believe NHTSA should use to evaluate
these environmental impacts, you should clearly describe it and support
your comments with a reference to a specific peer-reviewed scientific
study, report, tool or model. Specific, well-supported comments will
help the agency prepare an EIS that is focused and relevant, and will
serve NEPA's overarching aims of making high quality information
available to decisionmakers and the public by ``concentrat[ing] on the
issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather
than amassing needless detail.'' \32\ By contrast, mere assertions that
the agency should evaluate broad lists or categories of concerns,
without support, will likely not assist the scoping process for the
proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 40 CFR 1500.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the
heading of this notice in your comments. NHTSA intends to correspond
directly to interested parties by e-mail. Thus, please also provide an
e-mail address (or a mailing address if you decline e-mail
communications).\33\ 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 site at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ If you prefer to receive NHTSA's NEPA correspondence by
U.S. mail, NHTSA intends to provide its NEPA publications via a CD
readable on a personal computer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on comments received during scoping, NHTSA expects to prepare
a draft EIS for public comment later this year and a final EIS to
support a final rule in 2011.\34\ In regard to NHTSA's decisionmaking
schedule, the agency expects to issue a final rule in 2011 as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 40 CFR 1506.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program rulemaking on its Web
site (https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov).
[[Page 33570]]
Issued: June 9, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-14167 Filed 6-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
