Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Model Years 2027 and Beyond Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and Model Years 2029 and Beyond Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Standards, 50386-50393 [2022-17558]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
50386
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2022 / Notices
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). For information on DOT’s
compliance with the Privacy Act, please
visit https://www.transportation.gov/
privacy.
(Authority: 49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103,
46 U.S.C. 12121)
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr.,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022–17609 Filed 8–15–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0075]
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for
Model Years 2027 and Beyond
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards and Model Years 2029 and
Beyond Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and
Vans Vehicle Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program Standards
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement;
request for scoping comments.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), NHTSA intends to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) to
analyze the potential environmental
impacts of new Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards for model
years (MYs) 2027 and beyond passenger
automobiles (referred to herein as
‘‘passenger cars’’) and non-passenger
automobiles (referred to herein as ‘‘light
trucks’’) and new fuel efficiency (FE)
standards for MYs 2029 and beyond
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans that
NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975 (EPCA), as amended by the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (EISA). This notice initiates the
process for determining the scope of
considerations to be addressed in the
EIS and for identifying any significant
environmental matters related to the
proposed action. NHTSA invites
comments from Federal, State, and local
agencies, Indian tribes, stakeholders,
and the public in this scoping process
to help identify and focus any matters
of environmental significance and
reasonable alternatives to be examined
in the EIS.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 15, 2022
Jkt 256001
The scoping process will
culminate in the preparation and
issuance of a Draft EIS (DEIS), which
will be made available for public
comment concurrently with the
issuance of a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). To ensure that
NHTSA has an opportunity to fully
consider scoping comments, scoping
comments should be received on or
before September 15, 2022. NHTSA will
consider comments received after that
date to the extent the rulemaking
schedule allows.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
electronically to the docket identified in
the heading of this document by visiting
the following website:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Alternatively, you can file comments
using the following methods:
• Mail: Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 366–9826 before
coming.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
Regardless of how you submit your
comments, you should mention the
docket number identified in the heading
of this document.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document. Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its
rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice, DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS, accessible through
www.transportation.gov/privacy. In
order to facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to
provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of
names is completely optional. Whether
or not commenters identify themselves,
all timely comments will be fully
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
considered. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact
the agency for alternate submission
instructions.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical issues, contact Vinay
Nagabhushana, Fuel Economy Division,
telephone: (202) 366–1452, email:
vinay.nagabhushana@dot.gov; for legal
issues, contact Hannah Fish, Vehicle
Safety Standards & Harmonization,
Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone:
(202) 366–1099, email: hannah.fish@
dot.gov or Stephanie Walters,
Legislation & General Law Division,
Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone:
(202) 819–3642, email:
stephanie.walters@dot.gov, at the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
forthcoming notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), the United States
Department of Transportation (DOT),
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) intends to
propose Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards for model
years (MYs) 2027 and beyond passenger
cars and light trucks (also referred to as
light-duty (LD) vehicles), and fuel
efficiency (FE) standards for MYs 2029
and beyond heavy-duty (HD) pickup
trucks and vans 1 pursuant to the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
(EPCA) 2 as amended by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA).3 4
The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) instructs Federal agencies to
consider the potential environmental
impacts of their proposed actions and
possible alternatives. In connection with
the action described above, NHTSA will
prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) to analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed
1 Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are defined
in 49 CFR 523.7. The category of vehicles that fall
into the compliance category under this EIS
includes pickup trucks and vans with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 8,501
pounds and 14,000 pounds (also known as Class 2b
through 3 vehicles) and anything that
manufacturers choose to certify under § 523.7(b).
Incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000
pounds GVWR may ultimately be considered as
part of the subsequent HD CAFE rulemaking.
2 Public Law 94–163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975).
3 Public Law 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19,
2007).
4 NHTSA’s fuel economy authorities are codified
at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2022 / Notices
reasonable alternatives for CAFE and FE
standards pursuant to NEPA and
implementing regulations issued by the
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ),5 DOT Order No. 5610.1C,6 and
NHTSA regulations.7 To inform
decisionmakers and the public, the EIS
will analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the agency’s
Preferred Alternative and a spectrum of
reasonable alternatives, including a ‘‘no
action’’ alternative.8 As required by
NEPA, the EIS will consider direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects of the
proposed action and alternatives.9
I. Purpose and Need
NHTSA has administered the CAFE
program since the mid-1970s when
Congress enacted EPCA. EPCA requires
that the Secretary of Transportation, and
NHTSA by delegation,10 establish and
implement a regulatory program for
motor vehicle fuel economy as part of a
comprehensive approach to Federal
energy policy. In December 2007,
Congress enacted the EISA, which
significantly amended EPCA’s program
requirements, granting the DOT, and
NHTSA by delegation, additional
rulemaking authority and requirements.
The following sections discuss EPCA
and EISA’s requirements for setting
CAFE standards for passenger cars and
light trucks, and FE standards for HD
pickup trucks and vans.
a. CAFE Standards for Passenger Cars
and Light Trucks
EPCA requires that the Secretary of
Transportation establish and implement
a regulatory program for motor vehicle
fuel economy as part of a
comprehensive approach to Federal
energy policy. As codified in Chapter
329 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, and as
amended by EISA, EPCA sets forth
specific requirements concerning the
establishment of CAFE standards for
passenger cars and light trucks. EPCA
requires the Secretary of Transportation
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
manufacturers can achieve in that
5 42
U.S.C. 4321–4347; 40 CFR parts 1500–1508.
for Considering Environmental
Impacts (1979) (revised 1985), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/office-policy/
transportation-policy/procedures-consideringenvironmental-impacts-dot-order-56101c.
7 49 CFR part 520.
8 40 CFR 1502.1, 1502.14.
9 Id. § 1508.1(g).
10 The Secretary has delegated responsibility for
implementing fuel economy and fuel efficiency
requirements under EPCA and EISA to NHTSA. 49
CFR 1.95(a) and (j).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
6 Procedures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 15, 2022
Jkt 256001
model year.’’ 11 The standards apply to
each manufacturer’s fleet average, not to
the manufacturer’s individual vehicles.
The Secretary, after consultation with
the Secretary of Energy and the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), must establish
average fuel economy standards
separately for passenger cars and for
light trucks manufactured in each model
year.12 In doing so, for the model years
to be addressed, the Secretary of
Transportation must set each passenger
car and light truck standard at the
‘‘maximum feasible’’ average fuel
economy standard for each model
year.13 When setting ‘‘maximum
feasible’’ average fuel economy
standards, the Secretary must ‘‘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.’’ 14
NHTSA construes the aforementioned
statutory factors as including
environmental and safety
considerations.15
The standards for passenger cars and
light trucks must be ‘‘based on 1 or more
vehicle attributes related to fuel
economy’’ and expressed ‘‘in the form of
a mathematical function,’’ and they may
be established for not more than five
model years at a time.16 In addition,
NHTSA must establish minimum
standards for domestically
manufactured passenger cars for each
model year, which is 92 percent of the
projected average fuel economy for the
combined domestic and non-domestic
passenger car fleet for each model year,
calculated at the time the final rule
establishing the passenger car standards
for those model years is promulgated.17
NHTSA set the first fuel economy
standards in 1977, applying to
passenger cars beginning in MY 1978
and light trucks beginning in MY 1979.
The stringency of the standards
increased through MY 1985, and then
changed little until MY 2005 for light
11 49
U.S.C. 32902(a).
32902(b)(1)–(2).
13 Id. 32902(b)(2)(B), (f).
14 Id. 32902(f).
15 For environmental considerations, see Center
for Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 793 F.2d 1322, 1325 n.
12 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Public Citizen v. NHTSA, 848
F.2d 256, 262–3 n. 27 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting that
‘‘NHTSA itself has interpreted the factors it must
consider in setting CAFE standards as including
environmental effects’’); Center for Biological
Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1196 (9th Cir.
2008); 40 CFR 1500.6. For safety considerations,
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)).
16 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A)–(B).
17 Id. 32902(b)(4).
50387
trucks, when NHTSA reformed the light
truck fuel economy program by
introducing attribute-based standards,
and MY 2011 for passenger cars, when
NHTSA introduced attribute-based
standards for passenger cars using new
authority provided by EISA. CAFE
standards have increased progressively
for light trucks since MY 2005 and for
passenger cars since MY 2011.
More recently, NHTSA has conducted
its fuel economy rulemaking in
coordination with EPA rulemakings that
establish greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission standards. In April 2010,
NHTSA and EPA issued a joint final
rule establishing fuel economy
standards and GHG emissions
standards 18 for MY 2012–2016
passenger cars and light trucks.19 The
CAFE standards were estimated to
require a combined average fleet-wide
fuel economy of 34.1 miles per gallon
(mpg) by MY 2016.20 Subsequently, on
August 28, 2012, NHTSA and EPA
issued a final rule setting CAFE and
GHG emissions standards for passenger
cars and light trucks for model years
2017 and beyond.21 Consistent with its
statutory authority, NHTSA developed
two phases of passenger car and light
truck standards. The first phase,
covering MYs 2017–2021, included final
standards that were projected to require,
on an average industry fleet wide basis,
a range from 40.3–41.0 mpg in MY 2021.
The second phase of the CAFE program,
covering MYs 2022–2025, included
standards that were not final, due to the
statutory requirement that NHTSA set
average fuel economy standards not
more than five model years at a time.
Rather, NHTSA wrote that those
standards were ‘‘augural,’’ meaning that
they represented its best estimate, based
on the information available at that
time, of what levels of stringency might
be maximum feasible in those model
years. NHTSA projected that those
standards could require, on an average
industry fleet wide basis, a range from
48.7–49.7 mpg in model year 2025. EPA
confirmed the appropriateness of its
final MY 2022–2025 standards in a Mid-
12 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18 EPA issued GHG emissions standards pursuant
to the Clean Air Act. See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a).
19 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards; Final Rule, 75 FR 25323 (May 7, 2010).
20 The EPA GHG standards were estimated to
require a combined average fleet-wide level of 250
grams/mile CO2-equivalent for MY 2016, which is
equivalent to 35.5 mpg if all of the technologies
used to reduce GHG emissions were tailpipe CO2
reducing technologies. The 250 g/mi CO2 equivalent
level assumed the use of credits for air conditioning
improvements worth 15 g/mi in MY 2016.
21 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, 77 FR 62623 (Oct. 15,
2012).
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
50388
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2022 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Term and Final Evaluation in 2016 and
2017.22
Subsequently in 2017, EPA
Administrator Scott Pruitt and
Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao
issued a joint notice announcing EPA’s
conclusion that it would reconsider its
Final Determination in order to allow
additional consultation and
coordination with NHTSA in support of
a national harmonized program.23 In
2018, NHTSA and EPA issued a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (also
referred to as the ‘‘SAFE Vehicles’’
NPRM) in which the agencies proposed
revising the MY 2021 light-duty fuel
economy and CO2 standards and issuing
new standards for MYs 2022–2026.24 In
the 2020 SAFE Vehicles Final Rule, the
agencies amended MY 2021 standards
and established standards for MYs
2022–2026 that would increase in
stringency at 1.5 percent per year from
2020 levels.
On January 20, 2021, President Biden
issued E.O. 13990, Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and
Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate
Crisis,25 which directed NHTSA and
EPA to consider publishing for notice
and comment a proposed rule
suspending, revising, or rescinding the
SAFE Vehicles Final Rule by July 2021.
Though E.O. 13990 prompted NHTSA’s
review, NHTSA exercised its own
authority, consistent with its statutory
factors, to amend the CAFE standards
for MY 2024–2026 passenger cars and
light trucks in a final rule. This action
reflects a conclusion significantly
different from the conclusion that
NHTSA reached in the 2020 SAFE
Vehicles Final Rule. NHTSA concluded
that significantly more stringent
standards were maximum feasible. The
amended CAFE standards increased in
stringency for both passenger cars and
light trucks, by 8 percent per year for
MYs 2024–2026. While E.O. 13990
directed the review of CAFE standards
22 Proposed Determination on the
Appropriateness of the Model Year 2022–2025
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards Under the Midterm Evaluation, 81 FR
87927 (Dec. 6, 2016); Final Determination on the
Appropriateness of the Model Year 2022–2025
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards Under the Midterm Evaluation, 81 FR
87927 (Jan. 12, 2017).
23 Notice of Intention to Reconsider the Final
Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model
Year 2022–2025 Light Duty Vehicles, 82 FR 14671
(Mar. 22, 2017).
24 The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE)
Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks; Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 83 FR 42986 (Aug. 24, 2018).
25 Executive Order 13990, Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science
To Tackle the Climate Crisis, 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25,
2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 15, 2022
Jkt 256001
for MYs 2021–2026, NHTSA retained
the existing CAFE standards for MYs
2021–2023 in light of EPCA’s
requirement that amendments that make
an average fuel economy standard more
stringent be prescribed at least 18
months before the beginning of the
model year to which the amendment
applies.26
b. FE Standards for HD Pickup Trucks
and Vans
EISA also provided the DOT and
NHTSA authority to implement, via
rulemaking and regulations, ‘‘a
commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicle 27 and work truck 28
fuel efficiency improvement program
designed to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement.’’ 29 This program
includes on-highway vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
10,000 pounds or more and work trucks
rated between 8,500 to 10,000 pounds
GVWR. 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.’’ 30 This
authority permits NHTSA to set
‘‘separate standards for different classes
of vehicles.’’ 31
On May 21, 2010, President Obama
issued a memorandum to the Secretary
of Transportation, the Secretary of
Energy, the Administrator of EPA, and
the Administrator of NHTSA that called
for coordinated regulation of the heavyduty vehicle market segment under
EISA and under the Clean Air Act.32
26 49
U.S.C. 32902(g)(2).
added the following definition to the
automobile fuel economy chapter of the U.S. 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).
28 EISA added the following definition to the
automobile fuel economy chapter of the U.S. 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).
29 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 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-fuelefficiency-standards (last accessed April 25, 2014);
see also The White House, Office of the Press
Secretary, President Obama Directs Administration
to Create First-Ever National Efficiency and
Emissions Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Trucks (May 21, 2010), available at https://
27 EISA
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NHTSA and EPA met that directive in
August 2011 by finalizing first-of-a-kind
standards for new HD engines and
vehicles, as part of a comprehensive HD
National Program to reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption for HD
vehicles, in MYs 2014 through 2018
(‘‘Phase 1’’).33 The performance-based
standards created a national program
requiring manufacturers to meet targets
for fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas
emissions. The agencies estimated that
the Phase 1 standards would save
vehicle owners and operators an
estimated $50 billion in fuel costs over
the lifetime of those vehicles while also
reducing oil consumption by a projected
530 billion barrels and greenhouse gas
pollution by approximately 270 million
metric tons.34
Building on the success of Phase 1 of
the program, in a February 18, 2014,
Presidential Announcement, President
Obama directed NHTSA and EPA to
finalize the next phase of HD vehicle
fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas
standards by March 31, 2016.35 NHTSA
and EPA met that directive in October
2016 by finalizing standards for new HD
engines and vehicles in MYs 2018 and
beyond (‘‘Phase 2’’). NHTSA conducted
the Phase 2 rulemaking in consultation
with EPA and DOE. The Phase 2
standards were expected to further
reduce GHG and increase fuel efficiency
for on-road heavy-duty vehicles.
NHTSA’s fuel consumption standards
and EPA’s carbon dioxide (CO2)
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidentobama-directs-administration-create-first-evernational-efficiency-and-em (last accessed April 25,
2014).
33 See Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and
Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and HeavyDuty Engines and Vehicles, 76 FR 57106
(September 15, 2011).
34 See White House Announces First Ever Oil
Savings Standards for Heavy Duty Trucks, Buses
(August 9, 2011), available at https://
www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/
2011/White+House+Announces+First+Ever+Oil+
Savings+Standards+for+Heavy+Duty+Trucks,+
Buses (last accessed April 28, 2014). For more
information on the rulemaking, see also EPA
Regulatory Announcement, EPA and NHTSA Adopt
First-Ever Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Mediumand Heavy-Duty Vehicles (August 2011), available
at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/
420f11031.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).
35 See FACT SHEET—Opportunity For All:
Improving the Fuel Efficiency of American Trucks—
Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting Carbon
Pollution, Saving Money and Supporting
Manufacturing Innovation (February 18, 2014),
available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2014/02/18/fact-sheet-opportunity-allimproving-fuel-efficiency-american-trucks-bol (last
accessed April 28, 2014); Improving the Fuel
Efficiency of American Trucks—Bolstering Energy
Security, Cutting Carbon Pollution, Saving Money
and Supporting Manufacturing Innovation
(February 2014), available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
finaltrucksreport.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2022 / Notices
emissions standards were tailored to
each of the three current regulatory
categories of heavy-duty vehicles: (1)
Combination Tractors; (2) Heavy-duty
Pickup Trucks and Vans; and (3)
Vocational Vehicles, as well as gasoline
and diesel heavy-duty engines. In
addition, the agencies added new
standards for combination trailers.
EPA’s hydrofluorocarbon emissions
standards that currently apply to air
conditioning systems in tractors, pickup
trucks, and vans, were also be applied
to vocational vehicles.
c. Current Action
On August 5, 2021, President Biden
issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14037,
Strengthening American Leadership in
Clean Cars and Trucks, which directed
NHTSA and EPA to, as appropriate and
consistent with applicable law, take
actions under EPCA/EISA and the Clean
Air Act (CAA) to set standards for
light-, medium-, and heavy-duty
vehicles.36 Specifically, the E.O.
directed NHTSA to consider beginning
work on rulemakings to ‘‘establish new
fuel economy standards for passenger
cars and light-duty trucks beginning
with model year 2027 and extending
through and including at least model
year 2030,’’; ‘‘establish new fuel
efficiency standards for heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans beginning with
model year 2028 and extending through
and including at least model year
2030,’’; and ‘‘establish new fuel
efficiency standards for medium- and
heavy-duty engines and vehicles to
begin as soon as model year 2030.’’
In accordance with E.O. 14037, but
pursuant to the agency’s own exercise of
authority consistent with EPCA/EISA,
NHTSA intends to propose CAFE
standards for MYs 2027 and beyond
passenger cars and light trucks, and FE
standards for MYs 2029 and beyond HD
pickup trucks and vans in an upcoming
NPRM. In accordance with EPCA/
EISA’s lead time requirements, NHTSA
is statutorily required to issue a final
rule for MY 2027 CAFE standards no
later than April, 2025,37 and a final rule
for MY 2029 FE standards no later than
July 2025.38
As with the past CAFE and FE rules
described above, NHTSA will use the
36 86
FR 43583 (August 10, 2021).
U.S.C. 32902(a) requires standards to be
prescribed at least 18 months before the beginning
of each model year; for CAFE purposes, NHTSA
and manufacturers have historically considered
April of the prior calendar year to mark 18 months
before the beginning of a model year.
38 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3)(A) requires the
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicle and work truck fuel economy standard to
provide not less than 4 full model years of
regulatory lead-time.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
37 49
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 15, 2022
Jkt 256001
CAFE Model and other analytic tools to
determine the impacts of different levels
of CAFE and FE stringency. Many of the
technologies that vehicle manufacturers
use to improve fuel economy and fuel
efficiency on LD and HD pickup trucks
and vans are similar, and the CAFE
Model is (and has also historically been)
equipped to analyze the impacts of
different levels of stringency for both
types of vehicles.
Pursuant to NEPA, NHTSA will
prepare an EIS to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of its proposed
action. This Notice of Intent initiates the
scoping process for the EIS under NEPA
and its implementing regulations,39 and
under NHTSA’s NEPA regulations.40
Specifically, this Notice of Intent
requests public input on the scope of
NHTSA’s NEPA analysis, including the
alternatives considered and the
significant environmental issues relating
to more stringent CAFE standards for LD
and HD pickup trucks and vans.
II. Considerations for the Range of
Alternatives
In an upcoming NPRM, NHTSA
intends to propose new CAFE and FE
standards, as described above. This
notice briefly describes a variety of
possible alternatives that are currently
under consideration by the agency and
seeks input from the public about these
alternatives and about whether other
alternatives should be considered as
NHTSA proceeds with the rulemaking
and the EIS.
a. Framing the Range of Alternatives
The purpose of and need for an
agency’s action inform the reasonable
range of alternatives to be considered in
its NEPA analysis.41 In developing
alternatives for analysis in the EIS,
NHTSA must consider EPCA’s
requirements for setting CAFE standards
and EISA’s requirements for setting FE
standards.
NHTSA sets CAFE standards as part
of a comprehensive energy policy
established by EPCA (and amended by
EISA) with the purposes of conserving
energy and of addressing energy
independence and security by reducing
U.S. reliance on foreign oil. EPCA
requires NHTSA to determine what
level of CAFE stringency would be the
‘‘maximum feasible’’ for each model
year, a determination made based on the
consideration of four statutory factors:
technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other
standards of the Government on fuel
U.S.C. 4321–4347; 40 CFR Pt. 1500–1508.
40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g).
41 40 CFR 1502.13.
economy, and the need of the United
States to conserve energy.42
With regards to the FE standards for
medium and heavy duty trucks, EISA
requires that: (1) The program must be
‘‘designed to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement’’; (2) the various
required aspects of the program must be
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for MD/HD
vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted
under the program must provide not
less than four model years of lead time
and three model years of regulatory
stability.43 In considering these various
requirements, NHTSA will also account
for relevant environmental and safety
considerations.
The range of alternatives will reflect
differences in the degree of technology
adoption across the fleet, in costs to
manufacturers and consumers, and in
conservation of energy and related
impacts to the environment. For
example, the most stringent average
annual fuel economy standard and the
most stringent fuel efficiency standard
NHTSA will evaluate would require
greater adoption of fuel-saving
technology across the fleet, including
more advanced technology, than the
least stringent standard NHTSA will
evaluate. As a result, the most stringent
alternative for both the CAFE standard
and FE standard would impose greater
costs and achieve greater energy
conservation.
More specifically, for CAFE
standards, NHTSA will analyze the
lower bound and upper bound of a
range of average annual fuel economy
standards that would satisfy EPCA’s
requirement that the standards be
‘‘maximum feasible’’ for each model
year, based on the different ways
NHTSA could weigh EPCA’s four
statutory factors. Generally speaking,
more stringent average annual fuel
economy standards might weigh energy
conservation and environmental
considerations more heavily and
economic practicability concerns less
heavily. In contrast, less stringent
standards might weigh economic
practicability concerns more heavily
and energy conservation and
environmental considerations less
heavily.
For setting FE standards, NHTSA will
also analyze action alternatives
calculated at the lower point and at the
upper point of a range of FE standards
that would satisfy EISA’s requirements
of increasing the fuel efficiency of HD
pickup trucks and vans. The lower and
upper bounds of the range of reasonable
39 42
40 See
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50389
42 49
43 49
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
U.S.C. 32902(f).
U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and (3).
16AUN1
50390
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2022 / Notices
alternatives would reflect different ways
NHTSA could weigh the considerations
before the agency in the rulemaking.
The lower bound would reflect the least
stringent of the range of alternatives to
achieve the maximum feasible
improvement in fuel efficiency. On the
other hand, the upper bound represents
the most stringent fuel efficiency
improvement.
The range of alternatives would
provide a broad range of information for
NHTSA to use in evaluating and
weighing the statutory factors in EPCA
and EISA. The range would also assist
the decision-maker in considering the
differences and uncertainties in the way
in which key economic inputs (e.g., the
price of fuel and the social cost of
carbon) and technological inputs are
estimated or valued.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
b. Considerations on Levels of
Standards for Regulatory Classes
Within the range of alternatives,
NHTSA may consider setting more
stringent standards for the earlier years
of the rule than for the later years, or,
alternatively, setting less stringent
standards for the earlier years of the rule
than for the later years, depending on
our assessment of what would be
‘‘maximum feasible’’ for those time
periods for each fleet. The changes in
stringency considered in the lower and
upper bounds may be defined as
‘‘average’’ changes in stringency; the
preferred alternative and actual
standards may either be constant
throughout the period or may vary from
year to year. However, analysis of the
average yearly change over that period
would provide sufficient environmental
analysis to bracket the range of
environmental impacts of reasonable
alternatives and allow for a reasoned
choice among the alternatives
presented. NHTSA also may select
‘‘maximum feasible’’ fuel economy
standards for some or all model years
that decrease or remain the same as
compared to the immediately prior
model year(s).
NHTSA may also consider setting
standards for passenger cars and light
trucks at different rates, or that change
over different rates during the timeframe
of the rule. For HD pickup trucks and
vans, NHTSA may consider setting
pickup truck and van standards at
different rates. NHTSA may also
consider setting different levels of
standards for HD pickup trucks and
vans that are powered by different fuels
(e.g., in past MD/HD FE rules, NHTSA
set separate standards for gasoline- and
diesel-powered vehicles).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 15, 2022
Jkt 256001
c. Considerations on Industry Lead Time
As noted above, NHTSA’s statutory
authority allows the agency to take final
action prescribing CAFE standards in
increments of no more than five model
years,44 with no limitation on the
number of model years of standards that
NHTSA can set for HD pickup trucks
and vans. Consistent with the aims of
EPCA/EISA, which NHTSA interprets to
be improving the efficiency of internal
combustion engine vehicles, and with
the aims outlined in E.O. 14037,
NHTSA will consider a combination of
proposed and potentially augural
standards to accomplish these goals. As
discussed above, NHTSA has used
augural standards in the past to give the
automotive industry as much lead time
as possible to respond to a set of
coordinated federal standards. As
discussed below, NHTSA seeks
comment on whether and how the
agency could use a combination of
proposed and augural standards to
fulfill the goals stated herein.
d. Considerations on Standard
Attributes and Form
In the previous CAFE rulemaking, for
the LD program, NHTSA used vehicle
footprint 45 as the attribute. The
standards were defined as footprint
‘‘curves’’ for passenger cars and light
trucks in each model year, where
vehicles of different footprints have
specific fuel economy ‘‘targets,’’ with
larger vehicles (and light trucks)
generally having lower fuel economy
targets than smaller vehicles (and
passenger cars), reflecting their fuel
economy capabilities.46 In the previous
MD/HD rulemaking, for HD pickup
trucks and vans, NHTSA used work
factor 47 as the metric for setting HD
pickup trucks and vans FE standards.
NHTSA established separate curves for
diesel and gasoline HD pickup trucks
and vans. As discussed further below,
NHTSA seeks comment on the attribute
used to set CAFE and FE standards,
possible other attributes that could be
used to set CAFE and FE standards, the
shape of the standards curves, and other
programmatic aspects that could help
fulfill the goals outlined herein.
44 49
U.S.C. 32902(b)(3).
which is a measure of vehicle size,
is calculated by multiplying a vehicle’s wheelbase
by its track width.
46 Vehicle models of the same fleet but made by
different manufacturers would have the same fuel
economy target if they had the same vehicle
footprint (i.e., the quantity of the attribute upon
which the standards would be based).
47 Work factor is an attribute that combines a
vehicle’s payload, towing capabilities, and the
presence of 4-wheel drive.
45 Footprint,
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
e. Other Programmatic Considerations
As with any CAFE and FE
rulemaking, NHTSA will also consider
programmatic aspects other than
stringency (e.g., flexibilities and vehicle
classification) that may affect model
years including those for which NHTSA
would set CAFE and FE standards.
III. Range of Alternatives
NHTSA is considering the following
alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIS:
a. No Action Alternative
NEPA requires agencies to consider a
‘‘no action’’ alternative in their NEPA
analyses and to compare the effects of
not taking action with the effects of the
reasonable action alternatives in order
to demonstrate the different
environmental effects of the action
alternatives.48 In this EIS, with regards
to CAFE standards, NHTSA will
consider a ‘‘no action’’ alternative,
which assumes for purposes of NEPA
analysis that NHTSA would issue a rule
that would continue the current CAFE
standards for MY 2026. Given that
NHTSA must set new CAFE standards
and may not strictly take no action on
fuel economy,49 the agency has
determined that, for this rulemaking, the
closest analogue to a true ‘‘no action’’
alternative would be to continue the
already existing and enforceable
standards indefinitely without further
change. The no action alternative would
also take into account the California Air
Resources Board’s (CARB) Advanced
Clean Cars (ACC) II program, set to
begin in model year 2026. The ACC II
program requires an increasing number
of zero-emission vehicles sold in the
state through through 2035, at which
point all new passenger cars, trucks, and
48 See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14. CEQ has
explained that ‘‘[T]he regulations require the
analysis of the no action alternative even if the
agency is under a court order or legislative
command to act. This analysis provides a
benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare
the magnitude of environmental effects of the action
alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in
the EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the public,
and the President as intended by NEPA. [See 40
CFR 1500.1(a).]’’ Forty Most Asked Questions
Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy
Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis
added).
49 See 49 U.S.C. 32902(a). 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
decisionmakers to compare the magnitude of
environmental effects of the action
alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in
the EIS is necessary to inform the 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).
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2022 / Notices
SUVs sold in California will be zero
emissions. Several other states have
formally adopted California’s vehicle
emissions standards under section 177
of the Federal Clean Air Act, and are
assumed to continue to do so with ACC
II.
With regards to FE standards, NHTSA
will consider a ‘‘no action’’ alternative,
which assumes, for purposes of NEPA
analysis, that NHTSA would not issue a
new rule regarding HD pickup trucks
and vans fuel efficiency standards.
Under these circumstances, the existing
fuel efficiency standards established for
the end of Phase 2 would persist until
NHTSA takes additional action. The no
action alternative would also take into
account CARB’s Advanced Clean Trucks
(ACT) program, set to begin in model
year 2024. The ACT program stipulates
that manufacturers must electrify
specified percentages of their heavyduty fleets in order to continue selling
heavy-duty vehicles in California and
other states that have formally adopted
the program.
NHTSA will refer to this alternative
that includes the conditions described
for CAFE and FE standards as the ‘‘No
Action Alternative’’ or as the
‘‘baseline.’’
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
b. Action Alternatives
The EIS will also analyze action
alternatives calculated at the lower
point and at the upper point of the range
the agency believes encompasses
reasonable alternatives meeting the
purpose and need of the proposed
action. These lower and upper
‘‘bounds’’ or ‘‘brackets’’ will account for
various potential structures for the
CAFE standards for passenger cars and
light trucks and for the FE standards for
the HD pickup trucks and vans and
various levels of stringency for the
regulatory categories (see more about
the bounds discussed in this notice
above). These alternatives would
bracket the range of actions the agency
may select. In sum, in its final rule,
NHTSA would be able to select from
any stringency level within that range.
NHTSA seeks public comments on the
stringency levels at which to define the
lower and upper bounds of this range of
reasonable alternatives.
c. Preferred Alternative
In the EIS, NHTSA intends to identify
a Preferred Alternative, which may be
within the level of stringency that falls
within the range being considered or
may be the lower or upper bound levels
of stringency. The Preferred Alternative
would reflect what the agency believes
is the ‘‘maximum feasible’’ fuel
economy standards for passenger cars
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 15, 2022
Jkt 256001
and light trucks and the ‘‘maximum
feasible improvement’’ required under
EISA for FE standards. The Preferred
Alternative may include improvements
that are constant throughout the
regulatory period or that vary from year
to year (and from segment to segment)
in accordance with predetermined
stringency increases that would be
established by this rule. However, the
overall stringency and impacts will fall
at or between the lower and upper
brackets discussed above. NHTSA has
not yet identified its Preferred
Alternative.
IV. Consideration of Expected Impacts
The scoping process initiated by this
notice seeks to determine ‘‘the range of
actions, alternatives, and impacts to be
considered’’ in the EIS and to identify
the most important issues for analysis
involving the potential environmental
impacts of NHTSA’s CAFE and FE
standards.50 NHTSA’s NEPA analysis
will consider direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of the proposed
action and those of reasonable
alternatives.
While the main focus of NHTSA’s
prior CAFE EISs (i.e., the CAFE EISs for
MYs 2017–2025,51 MY 2021–2026,52
and MYs 2024–2026,53 and the HD
Phase 1 54 and Phase 2 55 EIS) was the
quantification of impacts to energy, air
quality, and climate, and qualitative
analysis of life-cycle impacts and
cumulative impacts, it also addressed
other potentially affected resources.
NHTSA conducted a qualitative review
of impacts on resources such as water
resources, biological resources, land
use, hazardous materials, safety, noise,
historic and cultural resources, and
environmental justice.
Similar to past EIS practice, NHTSA
plans to analyze environmental impacts
related to fuel and energy use, emissions
and their effects on climate change and
50 See
40 CFR 1500.5(f), 1501.7, 1501.9.
Environmental Impact Statement,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2017–2025, Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0056–2089
(July 2012).
52 Final Environmental Impact Statement, SAFER
Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rules, Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2021–2026,
Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0056–2089 (July 2012).
53 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model
Years 2024–2026, Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0054
(March 2022).
54 Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program, Model Years 2014–2018,
Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0079–0151 (June 2011).
55 Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program, Model Years 2018–2027,
Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0074 (August 2016).
51 Final
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50391
the environment,56 air quality,57 natural
resources, and the human environment.
NHTSA is considering examining lifecycle impacts consistent with its past
EISs and looking at tools that may be
available for quantitative analysis.
NHTSA will consider the direct and
indirect impacts of the proposed CAFE
and FE standards, as well as the
cumulative effects 58 of the proposed
CAFE and FE standards together with
any past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions.
Estimates of fuel used as a result of
different levels of standards are used as
inputs for the EIS’s climate modeling.
As with any model, uncertainties exist
in modeling potential future climate
change scenarios. Because all analysis of
possible future outcomes necessarily
involves uncertainty, including what
NHTSA will consider for this
rulemaking and EIS, NHTSA anticipates
uncertainty in its estimates of the
potential environmental impacts related
to climate change. To account for this
uncertainty, NHTSA plans to evaluate a
range of potential global temperature
changes that may result from changes in
fuel and energy consumption and GHG
emissions attributable to new CAFE and
FE standards. It is difficult to quantify
how the specific impacts due to the
potential temperature changes
attributable to new CAFE and FE
standards may affect many aspects of
the environment. NHTSA will endeavor
to gather the key relevant and credible
information using a transparent process
that employs the best available peerreviewed science and economics.
NHTSA invites public comments on the
scope of its analysis on climate change
impacts, including citations to peer56 NHTSA is planning to include in this EIS a
quantitative analysis to estimate the impact of the
alternatives on ocean acidification based on
changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
57 Consistent with past practice, in addition to the
air quality analysis presented in the Draft and Final
EIS, NHTSA will conduct a national-scale
photochemical air quality modeling and health
risks assessment that will be included in the Final
EIS, but not the Draft EIS, due to the substantial
time required to complete the analysis. In addition,
because of the lead time required for this analysis,
it will be based on the alternatives presented in the
Draft EIS, but not the alternatives as they may be
revised for the Final EIS. Still, NHTSA believes the
analysis will provide meaningful information for
the decisionmaker and the public.
58 In accordance with CEQ regulations,
cumulative impacts are ‘‘the impacts on the
environment that result from the incremental
impacts of the action when added to the impacts
of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time.’’ 40 CFR
1508.1.
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
50392
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2022 / Notices
reviewed scientific articles to frame and
analyze the relevant issues.
In order to streamline its
documentation and eliminate
redundancy, NHTSA plans not to
include analyses of either monetized
health benefits in its air quality analysis
or monetized climate change benefits in
its climate change analysis in the EIS, as
both of those analyses will be included
in its RIA (consistent with past
practice), which is subject to public
notice and comment concurrently with
the EIS. NHTSA will incorporate the
analyses in the RIA by reference in the
EIS consistent with the requirements of
the CEQ implementing regulations.59
The EIS will continue to present
analyses on air quality emissions
(including non-monetized health
impacts), GHG emissions, and climate
change impacts (including impacts on
CO2 concentrations, temperature, sealevel rise, and precipitation).
NHTSA expects to rely on previously
published EISs, incorporating material
by reference ‘‘when the effect will be to
cut down on bulk without impeding
agency and public review of the
action.’’ 60 Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA
analysis and documentation will
incorporate by reference relevant
materials, including portions of the
agency’s prior NEPA documents, where
appropriate.
V. The Scoping Process
NHTSA’s NEPA analysis will
consider the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental effects of
proposed standards and those of
reasonable alternatives. The scoping
process initiated by this notice seeks
public comment on the range of
alternatives under consideration, on the
impacts to be considered, and on the
most important matters for in-depth
analysis in the EIS. All comments
relevant to the scoping process are
welcome.
NHTSA invites the public to
participate in the scoping process 61 by
submitting written comments
59 40
CFR 1501.12.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
60 Id.
61 Consistent with NEPA and implementing
regulations, NHTSA is sending this notice directly
to: (1) Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law
or special expertise with respect to the
environmental impacts involved or authorized to
develop and enforce environmental standards; (2)
the Governors of every State, to share with the
appropriate agencies and offices within their
administrations and with the local jurisdictions
within their States; (3) organizations representing
state and local governments and Indian tribes; and
(4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably
expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for
the MY 2028–2032 CAFE standards. See 42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7,
1506.6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 15, 2022
Jkt 256001
concerning the appropriate scope of the
NEPA analysis for the proposed CAFE
and FE standards to the docket number
identified in the heading of this notice,
using any of the methods described in
the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
NHTSA does not plan to hold a public
scoping meeting because, based on prior
experience, written comments will be
effective in identifying and narrowing
the considerations for analysis.
a. Comments on the Range of
Alternatives
NHTSA invites comments to ensure
that the agency considers a full range of
reasonable alternatives in setting new
CAFE standards for MYs 2027 and
beyond passenger cars and light trucks
and new FE standards for MYs 2029 and
beyond HD pickup trucks and vans.
Comments may go beyond the
approaches and information that
NHTSA described above for developing
the alternatives. NHTSA understands
that there are a variety of potential
alternatives that could be considered
that fit within the purpose and need for
the proposed rulemaking, as set forth in
both the EPCA and EISA. NHTSA is
therefore interested in comments on
how best to structure or describe
proposed alternatives for purposes of
evaluation under NEPA. Subject to the
statutory restraints under the EPCA and
EISA, a variety of potential alternatives
could be considered within the purpose
and need for the proposed rulemaking,
each falling along a theoretically infinite
continuum of potential standards. As
described above, NHTSA plans to
address this issue by identifying
alternatives at the upper and lower
bounds of a range within which we
believe the statutory requirement for
‘‘maximum feasible improvement’’ 62
would be satisfied, as well as
identifying and analyzing the impacts of
a preferred alternative. In this way,
NHTSA expects to bracket the potential
environmental impacts of the standards
it may select.63
The agency may modify the proposed
alternatives that will be analyzed in
depth based upon the comments
received during the scoping process and
upon further agency analysis. When
suggesting an approach to developing
alternatives that the agency should
62 See
49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
NHTSA ultimately choose to set
standards at levels other than the Preferred
Alternative, we believe that this bracketing will
properly inform the decision-maker, so long as the
standards are set within its bounds. This
methodology permits the analysis of a range of
reasonable alternatives the agency may pick, while
providing the agency flexibility to select the
alternative based on the most up-to-date
information and analyses available at that time.
63 Should
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
analyze, please explain the
recommended way to balance EPCA’s
factors (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).64 Similarly, when suggesting an
approach to developing alternatives for
HD pickup trucks and vans, please
explain the recommended way to
balance EISA’s factors ((1) The program
must be ‘‘designed to achieve the
maximum feasible improvement’’; (2)
the various required aspects of the
program must be appropriate, costeffective, and technologically feasible
for MD/HD vehicles; and (3) the
standards adopted under the program
must provide not less than four model
years of lead time and three model years
of regulatory stability).
b. Comments on Environmental Effects
NHTSA invites comments to ensure
that the agency identifies the
environmental impacts and focuses its
analyses on all the potentially
significant impacts related to each
alternative. Comments may go beyond
the approaches and information that
NHTSA described above for identifying
the potentially significant
environmental effects. The agency may
modify the environmental effects that
will be analyzed in depth based upon
the comments received during the
scoping process and upon further
agency analysis. When suggesting
additional resource areas to analyze,
please explain how the recommendation
will add value to the public and
decisionmaker in looking at the
environmental impacts of the range of
identified alternatives.
Two important purposes of scoping
are identifying the significant
considerations that merit in-depth
analysis in the EIS and identifying and
eliminating from detailed analysis the
matters that are not significant and
therefore require only a brief discussion
in the EIS.65 In light of these purposes,
written comments should include an
internet citation (with a date last
visited) to each study or report cited in
the comments, if one is available. If a
document cited is not available to the
public online, the commenter should
either provide sufficient bibliographical
information to allow NHTSA to locate
and obtain a copy of the study or attach
64 Note that NHTSA is statutorily prohibited from
considering statutorily-provided flexibility
mechanisms in determining what standards would
be maximum feasible. 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).
65 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1502.2(b).
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2022 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
a copy to the comments.66 Commenters
should indicate how each document
cited or attached to their comments is
relevant to the NEPA analysis and
indicate the specific pages and passages
in the attachment that are most
informative.
The more specific the comments are,
and the more support they provide in
identifying peer-reviewed scientific
studies and reports, the more useful the
comments will be to the NEPA process.
For example, if a comment identifies an
additional area of impact or
environmental concern that NHTSA
should analyze, or an analytical tool or
model that NHTSA should use to
evaluate these environmental impacts,
the comment should clearly describe it
and provide a reference to a specific
peer-reviewed scientific study, report,
tool, or model, if possible. Specific,
well-supported comments will help the
agency prepare an EIS that is focused
and relevant and will serve NEPA’s
overarching aims of making high quality
information available to decisionmakers
and the public by ‘‘avoid[ing] useless
bulk in statements and . . .
concentrate[ing] effort and attention on
important issues.’’ 67 By contrast, mere
assertions that the agency should
evaluate broad lists or categories of
concerns, without support, will not
assist the scoping process for the
proposed standards.
Please be sure to reference the docket
number identified in the heading of this
notice in any submitted comments. All
comments and materials received,
including the names and addresses of
the commenters who submit them, will
become part of the administrative record
and will be posted on the web at https://
www.regulations.gov.
c. Schedule for Decision-Making
Separate Federal Register notices
published by EPA will announce the
availability of the Draft EIS, which will
be available for public comment, and
the Final EIS. NHTSA will issue the
Draft EIS concurrently with its NPRM.
In addition, NHTSA will
simultaneously issue a Final EIS and
Record of Decision (Final Rule),
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 304a, unless it is
determined that statutory criteria or
practicability considerations preclude
concurrent issuance. NHTSA also plans
to continue to post information about
the NEPA process and this CAFE
rulemaking on its website (https://
www.nhtsa.gov).
66 Please be mindful of copyright restrictions
when attaching documents to any comments, as
they will be made publicly available in the agency’s
docket.
67 40 CFR 1502.15.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 15, 2022
Jkt 256001
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR parts 1.95, 501.5 and
501.8.
Milton E. Cooper,
Director, Rulemaking Operations.
[FR Doc. 2022–17558 Filed 8–15–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–51–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
United States Mint
Request for Citizens Coinage Advisory
Committee Membership Applications
ACTION:
Notice.
The United States Mint is
accepting applications for appointment
to the Citizens Coinage Advisory
Committee (CCAC) as the member
specially qualified to serve on the CCAC
by the virtue of his or her education,
training, or experience in American
history.
DATES: 5 p.m. (EDT), October 7, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Any member of the public
wishing to be considered for
appointment to the CCAC should
submit a resume and cover letter
describing his or her reasons for seeking
and qualifications for membership, by
email to info@ccac.gov, Attn: Jennifer
Warren. The deadline to email
submissions is no later than 5 p.m.
(EDT) on Friday, October 7, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Warren, United States Mint
Liaison to the CCAC; jennifer.warren@
usmint.treas.gov or 202–354–7208.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCAC
was established to:
D Advise the Secretary of the Treasury
on any theme or design proposals
relating to circulating coinage, bullion
coinage, Congressional Gold Medals,
and national and other medals produced
by the United States Mint.
D Advise the Secretary of the Treasury
with regard to the events, persons, or
places that the CCAC recommends to be
commemorated by the issuance of
commemorative coins in each of the five
calendar years succeeding the year in
which a commemorative coin
designation is made.
D Make recommendations with
respect to the mintage level for any
commemorative coin recommended.
Total membership consists of 11
voting members appointed by the
Secretary of the Treasury:
D One person specially qualified by
virtue of his or her education, training,
or experience as nationally or
internationally recognized curator in the
United States of a numismatic
collection;
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50393
D One person specially qualified by
virtue of his or her experience in the
medallic arts or sculpture;
D One person specially qualified by
virtue of his or her education, training,
or experience in American history;
D One person specially qualified by
virtue of his or her education, training,
or experience in numismatics;
D Three persons who can represent
the interests of the general public in the
coinage of the United States; and
D Four persons appointed by the
Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of
the recommendations by the House and
Senate leadership.
Members are appointed for a term of
four years. No individual may be
appointed to the CCAC while serving as
an officer or employee of the Federal
Government.
The CCAC is subject to the direction
of the Secretary of the Treasury.
Meetings of the CCAC are open to the
public and are held approximately four
to six times per year. The United States
Mint is responsible for providing the
necessary support, technical services,
and advice to the CCAC. CCAC
members are not paid for their time or
services, but, consistent with Federal
Travel Regulations, members are
reimbursed for their travel and lodging
expenses to attend meetings. Members
are Special Government Employees and
are subject to the Standards of Ethical
Conduct for Employees of the Executive
Branch (5 CFR part 2653).
The United States Mint will review all
submissions and will forward its
recommendations to the Secretary of the
Treasury for appointment consideration.
Candidates should include specific
skills, abilities, talents, and credentials
to support their applications. The
United States Mint is interested in
candidates who, in addition to their
experience in American history, have
demonstrated interest and a
commitment to actively participate in
meetings and activities, and a
demonstrated understanding of the role
of the CCAC and the obligations of a
Special Government Employee; possess
demonstrated leadership skills in their
fields of expertise or discipline; possess
a demonstrated desire for public service
and have a history of honorable
professional and personal conduct, as
well as successful standing in their
communities; and who are free of
professional, political, or financial
interests that could negatively affect
their ability to provide impartial advice.
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50386-50393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17558]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0075]
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
Model Years 2027 and Beyond Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
and Model Years 2029 and Beyond Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement;
request for scoping comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), NHTSA intends to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of new Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model years (MYs) 2027 and
beyond passenger automobiles (referred to herein as ``passenger cars'')
and non-passenger automobiles (referred to herein as ``light trucks'')
and new fuel efficiency (FE) standards for MYs 2029 and beyond heavy-
duty pickup trucks and vans that NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended by
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). This notice
initiates the process for determining the scope of considerations to be
addressed in the EIS and for identifying any significant environmental
matters related to the proposed action. NHTSA invites comments from
Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, stakeholders, and
the public in this scoping process to help identify and focus any
matters of environmental significance and reasonable alternatives to be
examined in the EIS.
DATES: The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and
issuance of a Draft EIS (DEIS), which will be made available for public
comment concurrently with the issuance of a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to fully
consider scoping comments, scoping comments should be received on or
before September 15, 2022. NHTSA will consider comments received after
that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket
identified in the heading of this document by visiting the following
website:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods:
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call (202) 366-9826 before coming.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number identified in the heading of this document.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Supplementary
Information section of this document. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment
tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name,
or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is
completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all
timely comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or confidential information, please
contact the agency for alternate submission instructions.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Vinay
Nagabhushana, Fuel Economy Division, telephone: (202) 366-1452, email:
[email protected]; for legal issues, contact Hannah Fish,
Vehicle Safety Standards & Harmonization, Office of the Chief Counsel,
telephone: (202) 366-1099, email: [email protected] or Stephanie
Walters, Legislation & General Law Division, Office of the Chief
Counsel, telephone: (202) 819-3642, email: [email protected],
at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a forthcoming notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), the United States Department of Transportation
(DOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends
to propose Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model
years (MYs) 2027 and beyond passenger cars and light trucks (also
referred to as light-duty (LD) vehicles), and fuel efficiency (FE)
standards for MYs 2029 and beyond heavy-duty (HD) pickup trucks and
vans \1\ pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
(EPCA) \2\ as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA).3 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are defined in 49 CFR
523.7. The category of vehicles that fall into the compliance
category under this EIS includes pickup trucks and vans with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 8,501 pounds and 14,000 pounds
(also known as Class 2b through 3 vehicles) and anything that
manufacturers choose to certify under Sec. 523.7(b). Incomplete
heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR may ultimately be
considered as part of the subsequent HD CAFE rulemaking.
\2\ Public Law 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975).
\3\ Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007).
\4\ NHTSA's fuel economy authorities are codified at 49 U.S.C.
32901 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) instructs Federal
agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of their
proposed actions and possible alternatives. In connection with the
action described above, NHTSA will prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed
[[Page 50387]]
reasonable alternatives for CAFE and FE standards pursuant to NEPA and
implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ),\5\ DOT Order No. 5610.1C,\6\ and NHTSA regulations.\7\ To inform
decisionmakers and the public, the EIS will analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the agency's Preferred Alternative and a
spectrum of reasonable alternatives, including a ``no action''
alternative.\8\ As required by NEPA, the EIS will consider direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and
alternatives.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
\6\ Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (1979)
(revised 1985), available at https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/procedures-considering-environmental-impacts-dot-order-56101c.
\7\ 49 CFR part 520.
\8\ 40 CFR 1502.1, 1502.14.
\9\ Id. Sec. 1508.1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Purpose and Need
NHTSA has administered the CAFE program since the mid-1970s when
Congress enacted EPCA. EPCA requires that the Secretary of
Transportation, and NHTSA by delegation,\10\ establish and implement a
regulatory program for motor vehicle fuel economy as part of a
comprehensive approach to Federal energy policy. In December 2007,
Congress enacted the EISA, which significantly amended EPCA's program
requirements, granting the DOT, and NHTSA by delegation, additional
rulemaking authority and requirements. The following sections discuss
EPCA and EISA's requirements for setting CAFE standards for passenger
cars and light trucks, and FE standards for HD pickup trucks and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Secretary has delegated responsibility for implementing
fuel economy and fuel efficiency requirements under EPCA and EISA to
NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95(a) and (j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. CAFE Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
EPCA requires that the Secretary of Transportation establish and
implement a regulatory program for motor vehicle fuel economy as part
of a comprehensive approach to Federal energy policy. As codified in
Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, and as amended by EISA, EPCA
sets forth specific requirements concerning the establishment of CAFE
standards for passenger cars and light trucks. EPCA requires the
Secretary of Transportation 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 manufacturers can achieve in that model year.'' \11\ The standards
apply to each manufacturer's fleet average, not to the manufacturer's
individual vehicles. The Secretary, after consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), must establish average fuel economy standards
separately for passenger cars and for light trucks manufactured in each
model year.\12\ In doing so, for the model years to be addressed, the
Secretary of Transportation must set each passenger car and light truck
standard at the ``maximum feasible'' average fuel economy standard for
each model year.\13\ When setting ``maximum feasible'' average fuel
economy standards, the Secretary must ``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.'' \14\ NHTSA construes the aforementioned
statutory factors as including environmental and safety
considerations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(a).
\12\ Id. 32902(b)(1)-(2).
\13\ Id. 32902(b)(2)(B), (f).
\14\ Id. 32902(f).
\15\ For environmental considerations, see Center for Auto
Safety v. NHTSA, 793 F.2d 1322, 1325 n. 12 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Public
Citizen v. NHTSA, 848 F.2d 256, 262-3 n. 27 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting
that ``NHTSA itself has interpreted the factors it must consider in
setting CAFE standards as including environmental effects''); Center
for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1196 (9th Cir.
2008); 40 CFR 1500.6. For safety considerations, 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards for passenger cars and light trucks must be ``based
on 1 or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy'' and expressed
``in the form of a mathematical function,'' and they may be established
for not more than five model years at a time.\16\ In addition, NHTSA
must establish minimum standards for domestically manufactured
passenger cars for each model year, which is 92 percent of the
projected average fuel economy for the combined domestic and non-
domestic passenger car fleet for each model year, calculated at the
time the final rule establishing the passenger car standards for those
model years is promulgated.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A)-(B).
\17\ Id. 32902(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA set the first fuel economy standards in 1977, applying to
passenger cars beginning in MY 1978 and light trucks beginning in MY
1979. The stringency of the standards increased through MY 1985, and
then changed little until MY 2005 for light trucks, when NHTSA reformed
the light truck fuel economy program by introducing attribute-based
standards, and MY 2011 for passenger cars, when NHTSA introduced
attribute-based standards for passenger cars using new authority
provided by EISA. CAFE standards have increased progressively for light
trucks since MY 2005 and for passenger cars since MY 2011.
More recently, NHTSA has conducted its fuel economy rulemaking in
coordination with EPA rulemakings that establish greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission standards. In April 2010, NHTSA and EPA issued a joint final
rule establishing fuel economy standards and GHG emissions standards
\18\ for MY 2012-2016 passenger cars and light trucks.\19\ The CAFE
standards were estimated to require a combined average fleet-wide fuel
economy of 34.1 miles per gallon (mpg) by MY 2016.\20\ Subsequently, on
August 28, 2012, NHTSA and EPA issued a final rule setting CAFE and GHG
emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years
2017 and beyond.\21\ Consistent with its statutory authority, NHTSA
developed two phases of passenger car and light truck standards. The
first phase, covering MYs 2017-2021, included final standards that were
projected to require, on an average industry fleet wide basis, a range
from 40.3-41.0 mpg in MY 2021. The second phase of the CAFE program,
covering MYs 2022-2025, included standards that were not final, due to
the statutory requirement that NHTSA set average fuel economy standards
not more than five model years at a time. Rather, NHTSA wrote that
those standards were ``augural,'' meaning that they represented its
best estimate, based on the information available at that time, of what
levels of stringency might be maximum feasible in those model years.
NHTSA projected that those standards could require, on an average
industry fleet wide basis, a range from 48.7-49.7 mpg in model year
2025. EPA confirmed the appropriateness of its final MY 2022-2025
standards in a Mid-
[[Page 50388]]
Term and Final Evaluation in 2016 and 2017.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ EPA issued GHG emissions standards pursuant to the Clean
Air Act. See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a).
\19\ Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule, 75 FR 25323
(May 7, 2010).
\20\ The EPA GHG standards were estimated to require a combined
average fleet-wide level of 250 grams/mile CO2-equivalent
for MY 2016, which is equivalent to 35.5 mpg if all of the
technologies used to reduce GHG emissions were tailpipe
CO2 reducing technologies. The 250 g/mi CO2
equivalent level assumed the use of credits for air conditioning
improvements worth 15 g/mi in MY 2016.
\21\ 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 77 FR 62623
(Oct. 15, 2012).
\22\ Proposed Determination on the Appropriateness of the Model
Year 2022-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
Under the Midterm Evaluation, 81 FR 87927 (Dec. 6, 2016); Final
Determination on the Appropriateness of the Model Year 2022-2025
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Under the
Midterm Evaluation, 81 FR 87927 (Jan. 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently in 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and
Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao issued a joint notice
announcing EPA's conclusion that it would reconsider its Final
Determination in order to allow additional consultation and
coordination with NHTSA in support of a national harmonized
program.\23\ In 2018, NHTSA and EPA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (also referred to as the ``SAFE Vehicles'' NPRM) in
which the agencies proposed revising the MY 2021 light-duty fuel
economy and CO2 standards and issuing new standards for MYs
2022-2026.\24\ In the 2020 SAFE Vehicles Final Rule, the agencies
amended MY 2021 standards and established standards for MYs 2022-2026
that would increase in stringency at 1.5 percent per year from 2020
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Notice of Intention to Reconsider the Final Determination
of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for
Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles, 82 FR 14671 (Mar. 22,
2017).
\24\ The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule
for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 83 FR 42986 (Aug. 24, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued E.O. 13990, Protecting
Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the
Climate Crisis,\25\ which directed NHTSA and EPA to consider publishing
for notice and comment a proposed rule suspending, revising, or
rescinding the SAFE Vehicles Final Rule by July 2021. Though E.O. 13990
prompted NHTSA's review, NHTSA exercised its own authority, consistent
with its statutory factors, to amend the CAFE standards for MY 2024-
2026 passenger cars and light trucks in a final rule. This action
reflects a conclusion significantly different from the conclusion that
NHTSA reached in the 2020 SAFE Vehicles Final Rule. NHTSA concluded
that significantly more stringent standards were maximum feasible. The
amended CAFE standards increased in stringency for both passenger cars
and light trucks, by 8 percent per year for MYs 2024-2026. While E.O.
13990 directed the review of CAFE standards for MYs 2021-2026, NHTSA
retained the existing CAFE standards for MYs 2021-2023 in light of
EPCA's requirement that amendments that make an average fuel economy
standard more stringent be prescribed at least 18 months before the
beginning of the model year to which the amendment applies.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Executive Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis, 86
FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021).
\26\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. FE Standards for HD Pickup Trucks and Vans
EISA also provided the DOT and NHTSA authority to implement, via
rulemaking and regulations, ``a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-
highway vehicle \27\ and work truck \28\ fuel efficiency improvement
program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement.'' \29\
This program includes on-highway vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more and work trucks rated between
8,500 to 10,000 pounds GVWR. 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.'' \30\ This authority permits NHTSA to set ``separate standards
for different classes of vehicles.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the U.S. 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).
\28\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the U.S. 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).
\29\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 21, 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum to the
Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator
of EPA, and the Administrator of NHTSA that called for coordinated
regulation of the heavy-duty vehicle market segment under EISA and
under the Clean Air Act.\32\ NHTSA and EPA met that directive in August
2011 by finalizing first-of-a-kind standards for new HD engines and
vehicles, as part of a comprehensive HD National Program to reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption for HD vehicles, in MYs 2014 through
2018 (``Phase 1'').\33\ The performance-based standards created a
national program requiring manufacturers to meet targets for fuel
efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. The agencies estimated that
the Phase 1 standards would save vehicle owners and operators an
estimated $50 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of those vehicles
while also reducing oil consumption by a projected 530 billion barrels
and greenhouse gas pollution by approximately 270 million metric
tons.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 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 April 25, 2014); see also The White House, Office of the
Press Secretary, President Obama Directs Administration to Create
First-Ever National Efficiency and Emissions Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Trucks (May 21, 2010), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-directs-administration-create-first-ever-national-efficiency-and-em (last
accessed April 25, 2014).
\33\ See Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 76 FR
57106 (September 15, 2011).
\34\ See White House Announces First Ever Oil Savings Standards
for Heavy Duty Trucks, Buses (August 9, 2011), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2011/White+House+Announces+First+Ever+Oil+Savings+Standards+for+Heavy+Duty+Trucks,+Buses (last accessed April 28, 2014). For more information
on the rulemaking, see also EPA Regulatory Announcement, EPA and
NHTSA Adopt First-Ever Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
(August 2011), available at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building on the success of Phase 1 of the program, in a February
18, 2014, Presidential Announcement, President Obama directed NHTSA and
EPA to finalize the next phase of HD vehicle fuel efficiency and
greenhouse gas standards by March 31, 2016.\35\ NHTSA and EPA met that
directive in October 2016 by finalizing standards for new HD engines
and vehicles in MYs 2018 and beyond (``Phase 2''). NHTSA conducted the
Phase 2 rulemaking in consultation with EPA and DOE. The Phase 2
standards were expected to further reduce GHG and increase fuel
efficiency for on-road heavy-duty vehicles. NHTSA's fuel consumption
standards and EPA's carbon dioxide (CO2)
[[Page 50389]]
emissions standards were tailored to each of the three current
regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles: (1) Combination Tractors;
(2) Heavy-duty Pickup Trucks and Vans; and (3) Vocational Vehicles, as
well as gasoline and diesel heavy-duty engines. In addition, the
agencies added new standards for combination trailers. EPA's
hydrofluorocarbon emissions standards that currently apply to air
conditioning systems in tractors, pickup trucks, and vans, were also be
applied to vocational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See FACT SHEET--Opportunity For All: Improving the Fuel
Efficiency of American Trucks--Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting
Carbon Pollution, Saving Money and Supporting Manufacturing
Innovation (February 18, 2014), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/18/fact-sheet-opportunity-all-improving-fuel-efficiency-american-trucks-bol (last
accessed April 28, 2014); Improving the Fuel Efficiency of American
Trucks--Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting Carbon Pollution, Saving
Money and Supporting Manufacturing Innovation (February 2014),
available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/finaltrucksreport.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Current Action
On August 5, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.)
14037, Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks,
which directed NHTSA and EPA to, as appropriate and consistent with
applicable law, take actions under EPCA/EISA and the Clean Air Act
(CAA) to set standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty
vehicles.\36\ Specifically, the E.O. directed NHTSA to consider
beginning work on rulemakings to ``establish new fuel economy standards
for passenger cars and light-duty trucks beginning with model year 2027
and extending through and including at least model year 2030,'';
``establish new fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans beginning with model year 2028 and extending through and
including at least model year 2030,''; and ``establish new fuel
efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles to
begin as soon as model year 2030.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 86 FR 43583 (August 10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with E.O. 14037, but pursuant to the agency's own
exercise of authority consistent with EPCA/EISA, NHTSA intends to
propose CAFE standards for MYs 2027 and beyond passenger cars and light
trucks, and FE standards for MYs 2029 and beyond HD pickup trucks and
vans in an upcoming NPRM. In accordance with EPCA/EISA's lead time
requirements, NHTSA is statutorily required to issue a final rule for
MY 2027 CAFE standards no later than April, 2025,\37\ and a final rule
for MY 2029 FE standards no later than July 2025.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(a) requires standards to be prescribed at
least 18 months before the beginning of each model year; for CAFE
purposes, NHTSA and manufacturers have historically considered April
of the prior calendar year to mark 18 months before the beginning of
a model year.
\38\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3)(A) requires the commercial medium-
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel economy
standard to provide not less than 4 full model years of regulatory
lead-time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the past CAFE and FE rules described above, NHTSA will use
the CAFE Model and other analytic tools to determine the impacts of
different levels of CAFE and FE stringency. Many of the technologies
that vehicle manufacturers use to improve fuel economy and fuel
efficiency on LD and HD pickup trucks and vans are similar, and the
CAFE Model is (and has also historically been) equipped to analyze the
impacts of different levels of stringency for both types of vehicles.
Pursuant to NEPA, NHTSA will prepare an EIS to evaluate the
potential environmental impacts of its proposed action. This Notice of
Intent initiates the scoping process for the EIS under NEPA and its
implementing regulations,\39\ and under NHTSA's NEPA regulations.\40\
Specifically, this Notice of Intent requests public input on the scope
of NHTSA's NEPA analysis, including the alternatives considered and the
significant environmental issues relating to more stringent CAFE
standards for LD and HD pickup trucks and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR Pt. 1500-1508.
\40\ See 40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Considerations for the Range of Alternatives
In an upcoming NPRM, NHTSA intends to propose new CAFE and FE
standards, as described above. This notice briefly describes a variety
of possible alternatives that are currently under consideration by the
agency and seeks input from the public about these alternatives and
about whether other alternatives should be considered as NHTSA proceeds
with the rulemaking and the EIS.
a. Framing the Range of Alternatives
The purpose of and need for an agency's action inform the
reasonable range of alternatives to be considered in its NEPA
analysis.\41\ In developing alternatives for analysis in the EIS, NHTSA
must consider EPCA's requirements for setting CAFE standards and EISA's
requirements for setting FE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 40 CFR 1502.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA sets CAFE standards as part of a comprehensive energy policy
established by EPCA (and amended by EISA) with the purposes of
conserving energy and of addressing energy independence and security by
reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil. EPCA requires NHTSA to determine
what level of CAFE stringency would be the ``maximum feasible'' for
each model year, a determination made based on the consideration of
four statutory factors: technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other standards of the Government on fuel
economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to the FE standards for medium and heavy duty trucks,
EISA requires that: (1) The program must be ``designed to achieve the
maximum feasible improvement''; (2) the various required aspects of the
program must be appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically
feasible for MD/HD vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted under the
program must provide not less than four model years of lead time and
three model years of regulatory stability.\43\ In considering these
various requirements, NHTSA will also account for relevant
environmental and safety considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The range of alternatives will reflect differences in the degree of
technology adoption across the fleet, in costs to manufacturers and
consumers, and in conservation of energy and related impacts to the
environment. For example, the most stringent average annual fuel
economy standard and the most stringent fuel efficiency standard NHTSA
will evaluate would require greater adoption of fuel-saving technology
across the fleet, including more advanced technology, than the least
stringent standard NHTSA will evaluate. As a result, the most stringent
alternative for both the CAFE standard and FE standard would impose
greater costs and achieve greater energy conservation.
More specifically, for CAFE standards, NHTSA will analyze the lower
bound and upper bound of a range of average annual fuel economy
standards that would satisfy EPCA's requirement that the standards be
``maximum feasible'' for each model year, based on the different ways
NHTSA could weigh EPCA's four statutory factors. Generally speaking,
more stringent average annual fuel economy standards might weigh energy
conservation and environmental considerations more heavily and economic
practicability concerns less heavily. In contrast, less stringent
standards might weigh economic practicability concerns more heavily and
energy conservation and environmental considerations less heavily.
For setting FE standards, NHTSA will also analyze action
alternatives calculated at the lower point and at the upper point of a
range of FE standards that would satisfy EISA's requirements of
increasing the fuel efficiency of HD pickup trucks and vans. The lower
and upper bounds of the range of reasonable
[[Page 50390]]
alternatives would reflect different ways NHTSA could weigh the
considerations before the agency in the rulemaking. The lower bound
would reflect the least stringent of the range of alternatives to
achieve the maximum feasible improvement in fuel efficiency. On the
other hand, the upper bound represents the most stringent fuel
efficiency improvement.
The range of alternatives would provide a broad range of
information for NHTSA to use in evaluating and weighing the statutory
factors in EPCA and EISA. The range would also assist the decision-
maker in considering the differences and uncertainties in the way in
which key economic inputs (e.g., the price of fuel and the social cost
of carbon) and technological inputs are estimated or valued.
b. Considerations on Levels of Standards for Regulatory Classes
Within the range of alternatives, NHTSA may consider setting more
stringent standards for the earlier years of the rule than for the
later years, or, alternatively, setting less stringent standards for
the earlier years of the rule than for the later years, depending on
our assessment of what would be ``maximum feasible'' for those time
periods for each fleet. The changes in stringency considered in the
lower and upper bounds may be defined as ``average'' changes in
stringency; the preferred alternative and actual standards may either
be constant throughout the period or may vary from year to year.
However, analysis of the average yearly change over that period would
provide sufficient environmental analysis to bracket the range of
environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives and allow for a
reasoned choice among the alternatives presented. NHTSA also may select
``maximum feasible'' fuel economy standards for some or all model years
that decrease or remain the same as compared to the immediately prior
model year(s).
NHTSA may also consider setting standards for passenger cars and
light trucks at different rates, or that change over different rates
during the timeframe of the rule. For HD pickup trucks and vans, NHTSA
may consider setting pickup truck and van standards at different rates.
NHTSA may also consider setting different levels of standards for HD
pickup trucks and vans that are powered by different fuels (e.g., in
past MD/HD FE rules, NHTSA set separate standards for gasoline- and
diesel-powered vehicles).
c. Considerations on Industry Lead Time
As noted above, NHTSA's statutory authority allows the agency to
take final action prescribing CAFE standards in increments of no more
than five model years,\44\ with no limitation on the number of model
years of standards that NHTSA can set for HD pickup trucks and vans.
Consistent with the aims of EPCA/EISA, which NHTSA interprets to be
improving the efficiency of internal combustion engine vehicles, and
with the aims outlined in E.O. 14037, NHTSA will consider a combination
of proposed and potentially augural standards to accomplish these
goals. As discussed above, NHTSA has used augural standards in the past
to give the automotive industry as much lead time as possible to
respond to a set of coordinated federal standards. As discussed below,
NHTSA seeks comment on whether and how the agency could use a
combination of proposed and augural standards to fulfill the goals
stated herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Considerations on Standard Attributes and Form
In the previous CAFE rulemaking, for the LD program, NHTSA used
vehicle footprint \45\ as the attribute. The standards were defined as
footprint ``curves'' for passenger cars and light trucks in each model
year, where vehicles of different footprints have specific fuel economy
``targets,'' with larger vehicles (and light trucks) generally having
lower fuel economy targets than smaller vehicles (and passenger cars),
reflecting their fuel economy capabilities.\46\ In the previous MD/HD
rulemaking, for HD pickup trucks and vans, NHTSA used work factor \47\
as the metric for setting HD pickup trucks and vans FE standards. NHTSA
established separate curves for diesel and gasoline HD pickup trucks
and vans. As discussed further below, NHTSA seeks comment on the
attribute used to set CAFE and FE standards, possible other attributes
that could be used to set CAFE and FE standards, the shape of the
standards curves, and other programmatic aspects that could help
fulfill the goals outlined herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Footprint, which is a measure of vehicle size, is
calculated by multiplying a vehicle's wheelbase by its track width.
\46\ Vehicle models of the same fleet but made by different
manufacturers would have the same fuel economy target if they had
the same vehicle footprint (i.e., the quantity of the attribute upon
which the standards would be based).
\47\ Work factor is an attribute that combines a vehicle's
payload, towing capabilities, and the presence of 4-wheel drive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Other Programmatic Considerations
As with any CAFE and FE rulemaking, NHTSA will also consider
programmatic aspects other than stringency (e.g., flexibilities and
vehicle classification) that may affect model years including those for
which NHTSA would set CAFE and FE standards.
III. Range of Alternatives
NHTSA is considering the following alternatives for analysis in the
Draft EIS:
a. No Action Alternative
NEPA requires agencies to consider a ``no action'' alternative in
their NEPA analyses and to compare the effects of not taking action
with the effects of the reasonable action alternatives in order to
demonstrate the different environmental effects of the action
alternatives.\48\ In this EIS, with regards to CAFE standards, NHTSA
will consider a ``no action'' alternative, which assumes for purposes
of NEPA analysis that NHTSA would issue a rule that would continue the
current CAFE standards for MY 2026. Given that NHTSA must set new CAFE
standards and may not strictly take no action on fuel economy,\49\ the
agency has determined that, for this rulemaking, the closest analogue
to a true ``no action'' alternative would be to continue the already
existing and enforceable standards indefinitely without further change.
The no action alternative would also take into account the California
Air Resources Board's (CARB) Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II program, set
to begin in model year 2026. The ACC II program requires an increasing
number of zero-emission vehicles sold in the state through through
2035, at which point all new passenger cars, trucks, and
[[Page 50391]]
SUVs sold in California will be zero emissions. Several other states
have formally adopted California's vehicle emissions standards under
section 177 of the Federal Clean Air Act, and are assumed to continue
to do so with ACC II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14. CEQ has explained that
``[T]he regulations require the analysis of the no action
alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative
command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling
decision makers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of
the action alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in the
EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the President
as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 1500.1(a).]'' Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis added).
\49\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(a). 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 decisionmakers to
compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action
alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is
necessary to inform the 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to FE standards, NHTSA will consider a ``no action''
alternative, which assumes, for purposes of NEPA analysis, that NHTSA
would not issue a new rule regarding HD pickup trucks and vans fuel
efficiency standards. Under these circumstances, the existing fuel
efficiency standards established for the end of Phase 2 would persist
until NHTSA takes additional action. The no action alternative would
also take into account CARB's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) program, set
to begin in model year 2024. The ACT program stipulates that
manufacturers must electrify specified percentages of their heavy-duty
fleets in order to continue selling heavy-duty vehicles in California
and other states that have formally adopted the program.
NHTSA will refer to this alternative that includes the conditions
described for CAFE and FE standards as the ``No Action Alternative'' or
as the ``baseline.''
b. Action Alternatives
The EIS will also analyze action alternatives calculated at the
lower point and at the upper point of the range the agency believes
encompasses reasonable alternatives meeting the purpose and need of the
proposed action. These lower and upper ``bounds'' or ``brackets'' will
account for various potential structures for the CAFE standards for
passenger cars and light trucks and for the FE standards for the HD
pickup trucks and vans and various levels of stringency for the
regulatory categories (see more about the bounds discussed in this
notice above). These alternatives would bracket the range of actions
the agency may select. In sum, in its final rule, NHTSA would be able
to select from any stringency level within that range. NHTSA seeks
public comments on the stringency levels at which to define the lower
and upper bounds of this range of reasonable alternatives.
c. Preferred Alternative
In the EIS, NHTSA intends to identify a Preferred Alternative,
which may be within the level of stringency that falls within the range
being considered or may be the lower or upper bound levels of
stringency. The Preferred Alternative would reflect what the agency
believes is the ``maximum feasible'' fuel economy standards for
passenger cars and light trucks and the ``maximum feasible
improvement'' required under EISA for FE standards. The Preferred
Alternative may include improvements that are constant throughout the
regulatory period or that vary from year to year (and from segment to
segment) in accordance with predetermined stringency increases that
would be established by this rule. However, the overall stringency and
impacts will fall at or between the lower and upper brackets discussed
above. NHTSA has not yet identified its Preferred Alternative.
IV. Consideration of Expected Impacts
The scoping process initiated by this notice seeks to determine
``the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered'' in
the EIS and to identify the most important issues for analysis
involving the potential environmental impacts of NHTSA's CAFE and FE
standards.\50\ NHTSA's NEPA analysis will consider direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects of the proposed action and those of reasonable
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See 40 CFR 1500.5(f), 1501.7, 1501.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the main focus of NHTSA's prior CAFE EISs (i.e., the CAFE
EISs for MYs 2017-2025,\51\ MY 2021-2026,\52\ and MYs 2024-2026,\53\
and the HD Phase 1 \54\ and Phase 2 \55\ EIS) was the quantification of
impacts to energy, air quality, and climate, and qualitative analysis
of life-cycle impacts and cumulative impacts, it also addressed other
potentially affected resources. NHTSA conducted a qualitative review of
impacts on resources such as water resources, biological resources,
land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural
resources, and environmental justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2017-2025, Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056-2089 (July 2012).
\52\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, SAFER Affordable
Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rules, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,
Model Years 2021-2026, Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056-2089 (July 2012).
\53\ Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks, Model Years 2024-2026, Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0054 (March
2022).
\54\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, Model Years 2014-2018,
Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079-0151 (June 2011).
\55\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, Model Years 2018-2027,
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0074 (August 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to past EIS practice, NHTSA plans to analyze environmental
impacts related to fuel and energy use, emissions and their effects on
climate change and the environment,\56\ air quality,\57\ natural
resources, and the human environment. NHTSA is considering examining
life-cycle impacts consistent with its past EISs and looking at tools
that may be available for quantitative analysis. NHTSA will consider
the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed CAFE and FE standards,
as well as the cumulative effects \58\ of the proposed CAFE and FE
standards together with any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ NHTSA is planning to include in this EIS a quantitative
analysis to estimate the impact of the alternatives on ocean
acidification based on changes in atmospheric CO2
concentrations.
\57\ Consistent with past practice, in addition to the air
quality analysis presented in the Draft and Final EIS, NHTSA will
conduct a national-scale photochemical air quality modeling and
health risks assessment that will be included in the Final EIS, but
not the Draft EIS, due to the substantial time required to complete
the analysis. In addition, because of the lead time required for
this analysis, it will be based on the alternatives presented in the
Draft EIS, but not the alternatives as they may be revised for the
Final EIS. Still, NHTSA believes the analysis will provide
meaningful information for the decisionmaker and the public.
\58\ In accordance with CEQ regulations, cumulative impacts are
``the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental
impacts of the action when added to the impacts of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of
time.'' 40 CFR 1508.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates of fuel used as a result of different levels of standards
are used as inputs for the EIS's climate modeling. As with any model,
uncertainties exist in modeling potential future climate change
scenarios. Because all analysis of possible future outcomes necessarily
involves uncertainty, including what NHTSA will consider for this
rulemaking and EIS, NHTSA anticipates uncertainty in its estimates of
the potential environmental impacts related to climate change. To
account for this uncertainty, NHTSA plans to evaluate a range of
potential global temperature changes that may result from changes in
fuel and energy consumption and GHG emissions attributable to new CAFE
and FE standards. It is difficult to quantify how the specific impacts
due to the potential temperature changes attributable to new CAFE and
FE standards may affect many aspects of the environment. NHTSA will
endeavor to gather the key relevant and credible information using a
transparent process that employs the best available peer-reviewed
science and economics. NHTSA invites public comments on the scope of
its analysis on climate change impacts, including citations to peer-
[[Page 50392]]
reviewed scientific articles to frame and analyze the relevant issues.
In order to streamline its documentation and eliminate redundancy,
NHTSA plans not to include analyses of either monetized health benefits
in its air quality analysis or monetized climate change benefits in its
climate change analysis in the EIS, as both of those analyses will be
included in its RIA (consistent with past practice), which is subject
to public notice and comment concurrently with the EIS. NHTSA will
incorporate the analyses in the RIA by reference in the EIS consistent
with the requirements of the CEQ implementing regulations.\59\ The EIS
will continue to present analyses on air quality emissions (including
non-monetized health impacts), GHG emissions, and climate change
impacts (including impacts on CO2 concentrations,
temperature, sea-level rise, and precipitation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 40 CFR 1501.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA expects to rely on previously published EISs, incorporating
material by reference ``when the effect will be to cut down on bulk
without impeding agency and public review of the action.'' \60\
Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA analysis and documentation will incorporate
by reference relevant materials, including portions of the agency's
prior NEPA documents, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. The Scoping Process
NHTSA's NEPA analysis will consider the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental effects of proposed standards and those of
reasonable alternatives. The scoping process initiated by this notice
seeks public comment on the range of alternatives under consideration,
on the impacts to be considered, and on the most important matters for
in-depth analysis in the EIS. All comments relevant to the scoping
process are welcome.
NHTSA invites the public to participate in the scoping process \61\
by submitting written comments concerning the appropriate scope of the
NEPA analysis for the proposed CAFE and FE standards to the docket
number identified in the heading of this notice, using any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. NHTSA does
not plan to hold a public scoping meeting because, based on prior
experience, written comments will be effective in identifying and
narrowing the considerations for analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Consistent with NEPA and implementing regulations, NHTSA is
sending this notice directly to: (1) Federal agencies having
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the
environmental impacts involved or authorized to develop and enforce
environmental standards; (2) the Governors of every State, to share
with the appropriate agencies and offices within their
administrations and with the local jurisdictions within their
States; (3) organizations representing state and local governments
and Indian tribes; and (4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably
expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for the MY 2028-2032
CAFE standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR
1501.7, 1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Comments on the Range of Alternatives
NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency considers a full
range of reasonable alternatives in setting new CAFE standards for MYs
2027 and beyond passenger cars and light trucks and new FE standards
for MYs 2029 and beyond HD pickup trucks and vans. Comments may go
beyond the approaches and information that NHTSA described above for
developing the alternatives. NHTSA understands that there are a variety
of potential alternatives that could be considered that fit within the
purpose and need for the proposed rulemaking, as set forth in both the
EPCA and EISA. NHTSA is therefore interested in comments on how best to
structure or describe proposed alternatives for purposes of evaluation
under NEPA. Subject to the statutory restraints under the EPCA and
EISA, a variety of potential alternatives could be considered within
the purpose and need for the proposed rulemaking, each falling along a
theoretically infinite continuum of potential standards. As described
above, NHTSA plans to address this issue by identifying alternatives at
the upper and lower bounds of a range within which we believe the
statutory requirement for ``maximum feasible improvement'' \62\ would
be satisfied, as well as identifying and analyzing the impacts of a
preferred alternative. In this way, NHTSA expects to bracket the
potential environmental impacts of the standards it may select.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
\63\ Should NHTSA ultimately choose to set standards at levels
other than the Preferred Alternative, we believe that this
bracketing will properly inform the decision-maker, so long as the
standards are set within its bounds. This methodology permits the
analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives the agency may pick,
while providing the agency flexibility to select the alternative
based on the most up-to-date information and analyses available at
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency may modify the proposed alternatives that will be
analyzed in depth based upon the comments received during the scoping
process and upon further agency analysis. When suggesting an approach
to developing alternatives that the agency should analyze, please
explain the recommended way to balance EPCA's factors (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).\64\ Similarly, when suggesting an approach
to developing alternatives for HD pickup trucks and vans, please
explain the recommended way to balance EISA's factors ((1) The program
must be ``designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement''; (2)
the various required aspects of the program must be appropriate, cost-
effective, and technologically feasible for MD/HD vehicles; and (3) the
standards adopted under the program must provide not less than four
model years of lead time and three model years of regulatory
stability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Note that NHTSA is statutorily prohibited from considering
statutorily-provided flexibility mechanisms in determining what
standards would be maximum feasible. 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Comments on Environmental Effects
NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency identifies the
environmental impacts and focuses its analyses on all the potentially
significant impacts related to each alternative. Comments may go beyond
the approaches and information that NHTSA described above for
identifying the potentially significant environmental effects. The
agency may modify the environmental effects that will be analyzed in
depth based upon the comments received during the scoping process and
upon further agency analysis. When suggesting additional resource areas
to analyze, please explain how the recommendation will add value to the
public and decisionmaker in looking at the environmental impacts of the
range of identified alternatives.
Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant
considerations that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying
and eliminating from detailed analysis the matters that are not
significant and therefore require only a brief discussion in the
EIS.\65\ In light of these purposes, written comments should include an
internet citation (with a date last visited) to each study or report
cited in the comments, if one is available. If a document cited is not
available to the public online, the commenter should either provide
sufficient bibliographical information to allow NHTSA to locate and
obtain a copy of the study or attach
[[Page 50393]]
a copy to the comments.\66\ Commenters should indicate how each
document cited or attached to their comments is relevant to the NEPA
analysis and indicate the specific pages and passages in the attachment
that are most informative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1502.2(b).
\66\ Please be mindful of copyright restrictions when attaching
documents to any comments, as they will be made publicly available
in the agency's docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more specific the comments are, and the more support they
provide in identifying peer-reviewed scientific studies and reports,
the more useful the comments will be to the NEPA process. For example,
if a comment identifies an additional area of impact or environmental
concern that NHTSA should analyze, or an analytical tool or model that
NHTSA should use to evaluate these environmental impacts, the comment
should clearly describe it and provide a reference to a specific peer-
reviewed scientific study, report, tool, or model, if possible.
Specific, well-supported comments will help the agency prepare an EIS
that is focused and relevant and will serve NEPA's overarching aims of
making high quality information available to decisionmakers and the
public by ``avoid[ing] useless bulk in statements and . . .
concentrate[ing] effort and attention on important issues.'' \67\ By
contrast, mere assertions that the agency should evaluate broad lists
or categories of concerns, without support, will not assist the scoping
process for the proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ 40 CFR 1502.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the
heading of this notice in any submitted comments. All comments and
materials received, including the names and addresses of the commenters
who submit them, will become part of the administrative record and will
be posted on the web at https://www.regulations.gov.
c. Schedule for Decision-Making
Separate Federal Register notices published by EPA will announce
the availability of the Draft EIS, which will be available for public
comment, and the Final EIS. NHTSA will issue the Draft EIS concurrently
with its NPRM. In addition, NHTSA will simultaneously issue a Final EIS
and Record of Decision (Final Rule), pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 304a, unless
it is determined that statutory criteria or practicability
considerations preclude concurrent issuance. NHTSA also plans to
continue to post information about the NEPA process and this CAFE
rulemaking on its website (https://www.nhtsa.gov).
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
parts 1.95, 501.5 and 501.8.
Milton E. Cooper,
Director, Rulemaking Operations.
[FR Doc. 2022-17558 Filed 8-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-51-P
