Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Model Years 2030 and Beyond New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Standards, 57248-57254 [2022-20211]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
57248
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2022 / Notices
information collection by selecting
‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open
for Public Comments’’ or by using the
search function.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Kylie N. Key by email at: kylie.n.key@
faa.gov; phone: (405) 954–6839.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for FAA’s
performance; (b) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be
minimized without reducing the quality
of the collected information.
OMB Control Number: 2120–0707.
Title: Survey of Airman Satisfaction
with Aeromedical Certification Services.
Form Numbers: N/A.
Type of Review: Renewal of an
information collection.
Background: The Federal Register
Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following
collection of information was published
on March 14, 2022 (87 FR 49). No
comments were received. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), through
the Office of Aerospace Medicine
(OAM), is responsible for the medical
certification of pilots and certain other
personnel under 14 CFR 67 to ensure
they are medically qualified to operate
aircraft and perform their duties safely.
In the accomplishment of this
responsibility, OAM provides a number
of services to pilots, and has established
goals for the performance of those
services. This is a biennial survey
designed to meet the requirement to
survey stakeholder satisfaction under
Executive Order No. 12862, ‘‘Setting
Customer Service Standards,’’ and the
Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 (GPRA).
The survey of Airman Satisfaction
with Aeromedical Certification Services
assesses airman opinion of key
dimensions of service quality. These
dimensions, identified by the OMB
Statistical Policy Office in the 1993
‘‘Resource Manual for Customer
Surveys,’’ are courtesy, competence,
reliability, and communication. The
survey also provides airmen with the
opportunity to provide feedback on the
services and a medical certificate
application tool they use. This
information is used to inform
improvements in Aeromedical
Certification Services.
The survey was initially deployed in
2004, and deployed again in 2006, 2008,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
2012, 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2021 (OMB
Control No. 2120–0707). Across
collections, minor revisions have been
made to the survey items and response
options to reflect changes in operational
services and survey technology. To
reduce the burden on the individual
respondent and potentially improve the
response rate, this information
collection will be electronic.
Respondents: Approximately 4,300
Airmen.
Frequency: Biannually.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 15 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 15
minutes per respondent, 950 total
burden hours.
Issued in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on
September 14, 2022.
Ashley Catherine Awwad,
Management & Program Analyst, Civil
Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI), Flight
Deck Human Factors Research Lab, AAM–
510.
[FR Doc. 2022–20233 Filed 9–16–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0076]
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for
Model Years 2030 and Beyond New
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel
Efficiency Improvement Program
Standards
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 fuel efficiency (FE)
standards for model years (MYs) 2030
and beyond medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and some work
trucks (‘‘HD vehicles’’ that NHTSA will
be proposing pursuant to the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA). This notice initiates the process
for determining the scope of
considerations to be addressed in the
EIS and for identifying any significant
environmental issues related to the
proposed action. NHTSA invites
comments from Federal, State, and local
agencies, Indian tribes, stakeholders,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and the public in this scoping process
to help identify and focus any matters
of environmental significance and
reasonable alternatives to be examined
in the EIS.
DATES: The scoping process will
culminate in the preparation and
issuance of a Draft EIS (DEIS), which
will be made available for public
comment concurrently with the
issuance of a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). To ensure that
NHTSA has an opportunity to fully
consider scoping comments, scoping
comments should be received on or
before October 19, 2022. NHTSA will
consider comments received after that
date to the extent the rulemaking
schedule allows.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
electronically to the docket identified in
the heading of this document by visiting
the following website:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
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
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2022 / Notices
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:
Vinay Nagabhushana, Fuel Economy
Division, telephone: (202) 366–1452,
email: vinay.nagabhushana@dot.gov; or
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.
In a
forthcoming notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), the United States
Department of Transportation (DOT),
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) intends to
propose FE standards for MYs 2030 and
beyond for medium- and heavy-duty onhighway vehicles and some work trucks
(referred to herein as ‘‘HD vehicles’’)
vehicles pursuant to the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA).1 In particular, NHTSA will
propose the next phase (‘‘Phase 3’’) of
the Medium and Heavy Vehicle Fuel
Efficiency Standards program. In the
Phase 2 rulemaking, NHTSA tailored
the standards to the following regulatory
categories of HD vehicles: vocational
vehicles, combination tractors, gasoline
and diesel HD vehicle engines, and
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.2 3
NHTSA set separate categories of
standards based on fuel type, duty
cycle, vehicle application, and tractor
cab type. As discussed further below,
NHTSA is seeking comment on how to
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 Public Law 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19,
2007) (codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.).
2 In accordance with the notice 87 FR 50386,
NHTSA is seeking comment on including heavyduty pickup trucks and vans standards in a separate
action.
3 Pursuant to Truck Trailer Manufacturers Ass’n,
Inc v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 17 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir.
2021), NHTSA is not proposing trailer standards in
this rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
tailor Phase 3 standards to these
regulatory categories of HD vehicles.
The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) instructs Federal agencies to
consider the potential environmental
impacts of their proposed actions and
possible alternatives. In connection with
the action described above, NHTSA will
prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) to analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed
reasonable alternatives for HD vehicle
FE standards pursuant to NEPA and
implementing regulations issued by the
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ),4 DOT Order No. 5610.1C,5 and
NHTSA regulations.6 To inform
decision makers and the public, the EIS
will analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the agency’s
Preferred Alternative and a spectrum of
reasonable alternatives, including a ‘‘no
action’’ alternative.7 As required by
NEPA, the EIS will consider direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects of the
proposed action and alternatives.8
I. Purpose and Need
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975 (EPCA) 9 mandated that
NHTSA establish and implement a
regulatory program for motor vehicle
fuel economy as part of a
comprehensive approach to federal
energy policy. As codified in chapter
329 of title 49 of the U.S. Code, and as
amended by EISA, EPCA set forth
extensive requirements concerning the
establishment of fuel economy
standards for passenger cars and light
trucks. Pursuant to this statutory
authority, NHTSA sets Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards for those vehicles.10
In December 2007, Congress enacted
the EISA, which significantly amended
EPCA’s program requirements, granting
the DOT, and NHTSA by delegation,11
additional rulemaking authority and
requirements. EISA provided NHTSA
4 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.
6 49 CFR part 520.
7 40 CFR 1502.14.
8 Id. 1508.1(g).
9 Public Law 94–163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975).
10 See Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards, Final Rule, 75 FR 25324 (May
7, 2010); 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards, 77 FR 62624
(October 15, 2012).
11 The Secretary has delegated responsibility for
implementing fuel economy and fuel efficiency
requirements under EPCA and EISA to NHTSA. 49
CFR 1.95(a) and (j).
5 Procedures
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57249
authority to implement, through
rulemaking and regulations, ‘‘a
commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicle 12 and work truck 13
fuel efficiency improvement program
designed to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement[.]’’ 14 This
provision also directs NHTSA to ‘‘adopt
and implement appropriate test
methods, measurement metrics, fuel
economy standards, and compliance
and enforcement protocols that are
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicles and work trucks.’’ 15 This
authority permits NHTSA to set
‘‘separate standards for different classes
of vehicles.’’ 16
EISA also establishes requirements for
lead time and regulatory stability for
these vehicle types. New fuel efficiency
improvement program standards that
NHTSA adopts pursuant to EISA for
these vehicle types must provide not
less than 4 full model years of
regulatory lead-time and 3 full model
years of regulatory stability.17 Finally,
EISA directs that NHTSA’s HD
rulemaking must be conducted in
consultation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of Energy.18
On May 21, 2010, the President issued
a memorandum to the Secretary of
Transportation, the Secretary of Energy,
the Administrator of EPA, and the
12 EISA added the following definition to the
automobile fuel economy chapter of the United
States Code: ‘‘ ‘commercial medium- and heavyduty on-highway vehicle’ means an on-highway
vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000
pounds or more.’’ 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7).
13 EISA added the following definition to the
automobile fuel economy chapter of the United
States Code: ‘‘ ‘work truck’ means a vehicle that—
(A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds
gross vehicle weight; and (B) is not a medium-duty
passenger vehicle (as defined in section 86.1803–01
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect
on the date of the enactment of [EISA]).’’ 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(19).
14 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
15 Id.
16 Id. For background on the HD vehicle segment,
issues related to regulating this segment, and fuel
efficiency improvement technologies available for
these vehicles, see the reports recently issued by the
National Academy of Sciences. National Research
Council, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing
the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, Washington, DC (The National Academies
Press, 2010), available at https://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed April
25, 2014); National Research Council, Reducing the
Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two:
First Report, Washington, DC (The National
Academies Press, 2014), available at https://
www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18736 (last
accessed April 25, 2015).
17 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3).
18 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). As discussed later in this
document, both agencies have been invited to serve
as cooperating agencies on this EIS.
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
57250
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2022 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Administrator of NHTSA that called for
coordinated regulation of the heavyduty vehicle market segment under
EISA and under the Clean Air Act.19
NHTSA and EPA met that directive in
August 2011 by finalizing first-of-a-kind
standards for new HD engines and
vehicles in MYs 2014 through 2018
(‘‘Phase 1’’).20 The performance-based
standards created a national program
requiring manufacturers to meet targets
for FE and GHG emissions. The agencies
estimated that the Phase 1 standards
would save vehicle owners and
operators an estimated $50 billion in
fuel costs over the lifetime of those
vehicles while also reducing oil
consumption by a projected 530 billion
barrels and GHG pollution by
approximately 270 million metric
tons.21
Building on the success of Phase 1 of
the program, in a February 18, 2014,
Presidential Announcement, President
Obama directed NHTSA and EPA to
finalize the next phase of HD vehicle FE
and GHG standards by March 31,
2016.22 NHTSA and EPA met that
19 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://
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidentobama-directs-administration-create-first-evernational-efficiency-and-em (last accessed April 25,
2014).
20 See Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and
Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and HeavyDuty Engines and Vehicles, 76 FR 57106
(September 15, 2011).
21 See White House Announces First Ever Oil
Savings Standards for Heavy Duty Trucks, Buses
(August 9, 2011), available at 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 HeavyDuty Vehicles (August 2011), available at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/
420f11031.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).
22 See FACT SHEET—Opportunity For All:
Improving the Fuel Efficiency of American Trucks—
Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting Carbon
Pollution, Saving Money and Supporting
Manufacturing Innovation (February 18, 2014),
available at 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
directive in October 2016 by finalizing
standards for new HD engines and
vehicles in MYs 2018 and beyond
(‘‘Phase 2’’). NHTSA conducted the
Phase 2 rulemaking in consultation with
EPA and DOE. The Phase 2 standards
were expected to further reduce GHG
emissions (GHG) and increase FE for onroad heavy-duty vehicles. NHTSA’s fuel
consumption standards and EPA’s
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
standards were tailored to three
regulatory categories of heavy-duty
vehicles: (1) combination tractors; 23 (2)
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans; 24
and (3) vocational vehicles,25 as well as
gasoline and diesel heavy-duty
engines.26 In addition, the agencies
added new standards for combination
trailers. EPA’s hydrofluorocarbon
emissions standards that currently
apply to air conditioning systems in
tractors, pickup trucks, and vans, were
also applied to vocational vehicles.
Current Action
On August 5, 2021, President Biden
issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14037,
Strengthening American Leadership in
Clean Cars and Trucks, which directed
NHTSA and EPA to, as appropriate and
consistent with applicable law, take
actions under EPCA/EISA and the Clean
Air Act to set standards for light-,
medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles.27
Specifically, the E.O. directed NHTSA
to consider beginning work on
rulemakings to ‘‘establish new fuel
efficiency standards for medium- and
23 Combination tractors, which may be equipped
with sleeper cabs, including Class 7 and 8 truck
tractors, are used for freight transportation. Tractors
sometimes run without a trailer in between loads,
but most of the time they run with one or more
trailers that can carry up to 50,000 pounds or more
of payload. Pursuant to the decision in Truck
Trailer Manufacturers Association, Inc. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 16–1430
(D.C. Cir. 2021), NHTSA is not considering trailer
standards in this action.
24 Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are defined
in 49 CFR 523.7.
25 Vocational vehicles, which may span Classes
2b through 8, include smaller and larger van trucks;
delivery, utility, tank, flat-bed, and refuse trucks;
transit, shuttle, and school buses; fire trucks and
other emergency vehicles; motor homes; and tow
trucks, among others.
26 Phase 1 required that engines used in heavyduty vehicles be separately certified by their
manufacturer to meet GHG emissions and fuel
efficiency standards using the same test procedures
used to certify engines for criteria pollutants, unless
the vehicle is allowed to be chassis-certified
(typically, Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty pick-up trucks
and vans) whereby the separate engine certification
is not required. Phase 1 engine standards vary
depending on engine size linked to intended
vehicle service class and use. In particular, the
agencies created separate standards for sparkignition and compression-ignition engines.
27 86 FR 43583 (August 10, 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 fuel
efficiency standards for MYs 2030 and
Beyond HD vehicles in an upcoming
NPRM by July 2024. However, in
accordance with EISA’s lead time
requirements, NHTSA is statutorily
required to issue a final rule for MY
2030 the Phase 3 standards no later than
January 2025.28
Like past FE rules described above,
NHTSA will use full vehicle computer
models for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Compliance and other analysis
tools to determine the impacts of
different levels of HD vehicles FE
stringency. Pursuant to NEPA, NHTSA
will prepare an EIS to analyze the
potential environmental impacts of its
proposed action. This Notice of Intent
initiates the scoping process for the EIS
under NEPA and its implementing
regulations,29 and under NHTSA’s
NEPA regulations.30 Specifically, this
Notice of Intent requests public input on
the scope of NHTSA’s NEPA analysis
including the alternatives considered
and the significant environmental issues
relating to more stringent FE standards
for HD vehicles.
II. Considerations for the Range of
Alternatives
In an upcoming NPRM, NHTSA
intends to propose new FE standards, as
described above. This notice briefly
describes a variety of possible
alternatives that are currently under
consideration by the agency and seeks
input from the public about those
alternatives and about whether other
alternatives should be considered as
NHTSA proceeds with the rulemaking
and the EIS.
a. Framing the Range of Alternatives
The purpose of and need for an
agency’s action inform the range of
reasonable alternatives to be considered
in its NEPA analysis.31 In developing
alternatives for analysis in the EIS,
NHTSA must consider EISA’s
requirements for setting FE standards
under the MD/HD fuel efficiency
improvement program noted above.
With regards to the FE standards,
EISA requires that: (1) The program
28 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3)(A) requires the
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicle and work truck fuel economy standard to
provide not less than 4 full model years of
regulatory lead-time.
29 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347; 40 CFR parts 1500–1508.
30 See 40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g).
31 40 CFR 1502.13.
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2022 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
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.32 In considering
these various requirements, NHTSA will
also account for relevant environmental
and safety considerations.
For setting FE standards, NHTSA will
analyze action alternatives calculated at
the lower point and at the upper point
of a range of FE standards that would
satisfy EISA’s requirements of
increasing the FE of HD vehicles. The
lower bound would reflect the least
stringent of the range of alternatives to
achieve the maximum feasible
improvement in fuel efficiency. On the
other hand, the upper bound, represents
the most stringent fuel efficiency
improvement.
Similarly, the range of alternatives
will reflect differences in the degree of
technology adoption across the fleet; in
costs to manufacturers and consumers;
and in conservation of energy and
related impacts to the environment. For
example, the most stringent FE standard
NHTSA will evaluate would require
greater adoption of fuel-saving
technology across the fleet, including
more advanced technology, than the
least stringent standard NHTSA will
evaluate. As a result, the most stringent
alternative for the FE standard would
impose greater costs and achieve greater
energy conservation.
The range of alternatives would
provide a broad range of information for
NHTSA to use in evaluating and
weighing the statutory factors in the
EISA. It would also assist the decisionmaker in considering the differences
and uncertainties in the way in which
key economic inputs (e.g., the price of
fuel and the social cost of greenhouse
gas emissions) and technological inputs
are estimated or valued.
b. Considerations on Levels of
Standards for Regulatory Classes
Within the range of alternatives,
NHTSA may consider setting more
stringent standards for the earlier years
of the rule than for the later years, or,
alternatively, setting less stringent
standards for the earlier years of the rule
than for the later years, depending on
our assessment of what would be
‘‘maximum feasible’’ for those time
periods for each fleet. The changes in
stringency considered in the lower and
32 49
U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and (3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
upper bounds may be defined as
‘‘average’’ changes in stringency; the
preferred alternative and actual
standards may either be constant
throughout the period or may vary,
consistent with EISA’s regulatory
stability requirements. However,
analysis of the average yearly change
over that period would provide
sufficient environmental analysis to
bracket the range of environmental
impacts of reasonable alternatives and
allow for a reasoned choice among the
alternatives presented. NHTSA also may
select ‘‘maximum feasible’’ fuel
efficiency standards for some or all
model years that decrease or remain the
same as compared to prior model
year(s), consistent with EISA’s
regulatory stability requirements.
NHTSA (in consultation with EPA) is
still evaluating the costs and
effectiveness of the various technologies
available, the potential structure of the
program, the stringencies of potential
alternatives covering regulatory
categories of the HD sector), and the
range of reasonable alternatives for
consideration in this rulemaking and
EIS. NHTSA will evaluate several
factors in developing alternatives for
consideration and analysis, including
costs for technology development and
manufacture, costs that will be paid by
heavy-duty vehicle owners and
operators, FE (and corresponding GHG
reduction) benefits, industry structure,
and more.
For different regulatory vehicle
classes within HD vehicles, NHTSA
may consider setting standards at
different rates, or that change over
different rates during the timeframe of
the rule. NHTSA may also consider
setting different levels of standards for
vehicles that are powered by different
fuels (e.g., in past MD/HD FE rules,
NHTSA set separate standards for
gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles).
c. Considerations on Industry Lead Time
As noted above, there is no limitation
on the number of model years of
standards that NHTSA can set for HD
vehicles.
d. Considerations on Standard
Attributes and Form
In the previous MD/HD rulemaking,
NHTSA used different metrics for
setting HD vehicle standards. For HD
pickups trucks and vans, work factor 33
was the metric for setting vehicle
standards. NHTSA set standards
separately for vocational and truck
33 Work factor is an attribute that combines a
vehicle’s payload, towing capabilities, and the
presence of 4-wheel drive.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57251
tractors to account for differences in
vehicle applications and fuel type. As
discussed further below, NHTSA seeks
comment on the attribute used to set FE
standards, possible other attributes that
could be used to set FE standards, the
shape of the standards curves, and other
programmatic aspects that could help
fulfill the goals outlined herein.
e. Other Programmatic Considerations
As with any FE rulemaking, NHTSA
will also consider programmatic aspects
other than stringency (e.g., flexibilities)
that may affect model years including
those for which NHTSA would set FE
standards.
III. Range of Alternatives
NHTSA is considering the following
alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIS:
a. No Action Alternative
NEPA requires agencies to consider a
‘‘no action’’ alternative in their NEPA
analyses and to compare the effects of
not taking action with the effects of the
reasonable action alternatives in order
to demonstrate the different
environmental effects of the action
alternatives.34 In this EIS, NHTSA will
consider a ‘‘no action’’ alternative,
which assumes, for purposes of NEPA
analysis, that NHTSA would not issue a
new rule regarding HD FE standards.
Under these circumstances, the existing
FE standards established for the end of
Phase 2 would persist until NHTSA
takes additional action.35 The no-action
alternative would also take into account
CARB’s Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT)
program, set to begin in model year
2024. The ACT program stipulates that
manufacturers must electrify specified
percentages of their heavy-duty fleets
(including Class 2b and Class 3 heavyduty pickup trucks and vans) 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
34 See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14. CEQ has
explained that ‘‘[T]he regulations require the
analysis of the no action alternative even if the
agency is under a court order or legislative
command to act. This analysis provides a
benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare
the magnitude of environmental effects of the action
alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in
the EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the public,
and the President as intended by NEPA. [See 40
CFR 1500.1(a).]’’ Forty Most Asked Questions
Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy
Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis
added).
35 The ‘‘no action’’ alternative will also assume
that EPA would not issue a rule regarding HD GHG
emissions standards. The existing GHG standards
established for the end of Phase 1 would also
persist indefinitely.
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
57252
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2022 / Notices
for FE standards as the ‘‘No Action
Alternative’’ or as the ‘‘baseline.’’
b. Action Alternatives
The EIS will also analyze action
alternatives calculated at the lower
point and at the upper point of the range
the agency believes encompasses
reasonable alternatives meeting the
purpose and need of the proposed
action. These lower and upper
‘‘bounds’’ or ‘‘brackets’’ will account for
various potential structures for the FE
standards for the HD vehicles and
various levels of stringency for the
regulatory categories. These alternatives
would bracket the range of actions the
agency may select. In sum, in its final
rule, NHTSA would be able to select
from any stringency level within that
range. NHTSA seeks public comments
on the stringency levels at which to
define the lower and upper bounds of
this range of reasonable alternatives.
c. Preferred Alternative
In the EIS, NHTSA intends to identify
a Preferred Alternative, which may be
within the level of stringency that falls
within the range being considered or
may be the lower or upper bound levels
of stringency. The Preferred Alternative
would reflect what the agency believes
is the ‘‘maximum feasible
improvement’’ required under EISA.
The Preferred Alternative may include
improvements that are constant
throughout the regulatory period or that
vary in accordance with EISA’s
regulatory stability requirements, and
from segment to segment, in accordance
with predetermined stringency
increases that would be established by
this rule. However, the overall
stringency and impacts will fall at or
between the lower and upper brackets
discussed above. NHTSA has not yet
identified its Preferred Alternative.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
IV. Consideration of Expected Impacts
The scoping process initiated by this
notice seeks to determine ‘‘the range of
actions, alternatives, and impacts to be
considered’’ in the EIS and to identify
the most important issues for analysis
involving the potential environmental
impacts of NHTSA’s FE standards.36
NHTSA’s NEPA analysis will consider
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects
of the proposed action and those of
reasonable alternatives.
While the main focus of NHTSA’s
prior CAFE and FE EISs (i.e., the HD
36 See
40 CFR 1500.5(f), 1501.9.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
Phase 1 37 and Phase 2 38 EISs) was the
quantification of impacts to energy, air
quality, and climate, and qualitative
analysis of life-cycle impacts and
cumulative impacts, it also addressed
other potentially affected resources.
NHTSA conducted a qualitative review
of impacts on resources such as water
resources, biological resources, land
use, hazardous materials, safety, noise,
historic and cultural resources, and
environmental justice.
Similar to past EIS practice, NHTSA
plans to analyze environmental impacts
related to fuel and energy use, emissions
and their effects on climate change and
the environment,39 air quality,40 natural
resources, and the human environment.
NHTSA is considering examining 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 FE
standards, as well as the cumulative
effects 41 of the proposed FE standards
together with any past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Overall, NHTSA plans to analyze
impacts in much the same manner as it
did in its prior EISs, while incorporating
by reference any of the relevant
discussions from those documents.
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
37 Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program, Model Years 2014–2018,
Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0079–0151 (June 2011).
38 Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program, Model Years 2018–2027,
Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0074 (August 2016).
39 NHTSA is planning to include in this EIS a
quantitative analysis to estimate the impact of the
alternatives on ocean acidification based on
changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
40 Consistent with past practice, in addition to the
air quality analysis presented in the Draft and Final
EIS, NHTSA will conduct a national-scale
photochemical air quality modeling and health
risks assessment that will be included in the Final
EIS, but not the Draft EIS, due to the substantial
time required to complete the analysis. In addition,
because of the lead time required for this analysis,
it will be based on the alternatives presented in the
Draft EIS, but not the alternatives as they may be
revised for the Final EIS. Still, NHTSA believes the
analysis will provide meaningful information for
the decisionmaker and the public.
41 In accordance with CEQ regulations,
cumulative impacts are ‘‘the impacts on the
environment that result from the incremental
impacts of the action when added to the impacts
of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time.’’ 40 CFR
1508.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
change scenarios. Because all analysis of
possible future outcomes necessarily
involves uncertainty, including what
NHTSA will consider for this
rulemaking and EIS, NHTSA anticipates
uncertainty in its estimates of the
potential environmental impacts related
to climate change. To account for this
uncertainty, NHTSA plans to evaluate a
range of potential global temperature
changes that may result from changes in
fuel and energy consumption and GHG
emissions attributable to new FE
standards. It is difficult to quantify how
the specific impacts due to the potential
temperature changes attributable to new
FE standards may affect many aspects of
the environment. NHTSA will endeavor
to gather the key relevant and credible
information using a transparent process
that employs the best available peerreviewed science. NHTSA invites public
comments on the scope of its analysis
on climate change impacts, including
citations to peer-reviewed scientific
articles to frame and analyze the
relevant issues.
Because of the models NHTSA will
use for this rulemaking and EIS, the
agency anticipates analyzing impacts on
fuel/energy use and pollutant emissions
through 2050 and impacts on GHG
emissions, global temperature, and
climate change through 2100. Because
HD vehicles generally accumulate the
vast majority of their VMT in early
years, and because more distant
projections contain far more
uncertainty, NHTSA believes the
analysis year of 2050 for fuel/energy use
and air quality will provide sufficient
information for the decision-maker to
assess the totality of the impacts related
to the regulated vehicles. Because
climate impacts are more long-term,
NHTSA anticipates that the EIS will
assess these impacts to 2100.
In order to streamline its
documentation and eliminate
redundancy, NHTSA plans not to
include analyses of either monetized
health benefits in its air quality analysis
or monetized climate change benefits in
its climate change analysis in the EIS, as
both of those analyses will be included
in its RIA (consistent with past
practice), which is subject to public
notice and comment concurrently with
the EIS. NHTSA will incorporate the
analyses in the RIA by reference in the
EIS consistent with the requirements of
the CEQ implementing regulations.42
The EIS will continue to present
analyses on air quality emissions
(including non-monetized health
impacts), GHG emissions, and climate
change impacts (including impacts on
42 40
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
CFR 1501.12.
19SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2022 / Notices
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.’’ 43 Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA
analysis and documentation will
incorporate by reference relevant
materials, including portions of the
agency’s prior NEPA documents, where
appropriate.
V. The Scoping Process
NHTSA’s NEPA analysis will
consider the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental effects of
proposed standards and those of
reasonable alternatives. The scoping
process initiated by this notice seeks
public comment on the range of
alternatives under consideration, on the
impacts to be considered, and on the
most important matters for in-depth
analysis in the EIS. All comments
relevant to the scoping process are
welcome.
NHTSA invites the public to
participate in the scoping process 44 by
submitting written comments
concerning the appropriate scope of the
NEPA analysis for the proposed FE
standards to the docket number
identified in the heading of this notice,
using any of the methods described in
the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
NHTSA does not plan to hold a public
scoping meeting because, based on prior
experience, written comments will be
effective in identifying and narrowing
the considerations for analysis.
a. Comments on the Range of
Alternatives
NHTSA invites comments to ensure
that the agency considers a full range of
reasonable alternatives in setting new
HD vehicle FE improvement standards.
Comments may go beyond the
approaches and information that
NHTSA described above for developing
the alternatives. NHTSA understands
that there are a variety of potential
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
43 Id.
44 Consistent with NEPA and implementing
regulations, NHTSA is sending this notice directly
to: (1) Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law
or special expertise with respect to the
environmental impacts involved or authorized to
develop and enforce environmental standards; (2)
the Governors of every State, to share with the
appropriate agencies and offices within their
administrations and with the local jurisdictions
within their States; (3) organizations representing
state and local governments and Indian tribes; and
(4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably
expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for
the MY 2028–2032 CAFE standards. See 42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.8,
1506.6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
alternatives that could be considered
that fit within the purpose and need for
the proposed rulemaking, as set forth in
EISA. NHTSA is therefore interested in
comments on how best to structure or
describe proposed alternatives for
purposes of evaluation under NEPA.
Subject to the statutory restraints under
EISA, a variety of potential alternatives
could be considered within the purpose
and need for the proposed rulemaking,
each falling along a theoretically infinite
continuum of potential standards. As
described above, NHTSA plans to
address this issue by identifying
alternatives at the upper and lower
bounds of a range within which we
believe the statutory requirement for
‘‘maximum feasible improvement’’ 45
would be satisfied, as well as
identifying and analyzing the impacts of
a preferred alternative. In this way,
NHTSA expects to bracket the potential
environmental impacts of the standards
it may select.46
The agency may modify the proposed
alternatives that will be analyzed in
depth based upon the comments
received during the scoping process and
upon further agency analysis. When
suggesting an approach to developing
alternatives that the agency should
analyze, please explain the
recommended way to balance EISA’s
factors ((1) The program must be
‘‘designed to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement’’; (2) the various
required aspects of the program must be
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for MD/HD
vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted
under the program must provide not
less than four model years of lead time
and three model years of regulatory
stability).
b. Comments on Environmental Effects
NHTSA invites comments to ensure
that the agency identifies the
environmental impacts and focuses its
analyses on all the potentially
significant impacts related to each
alternative. Comments may go beyond
the approaches and information that
NHTSA described above for identifying
the potentially significant
environmental effects. The agency may
modify the environmental effects that
will be analyzed in depth based upon
45 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.
46 Should
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57253
the comments received during the
scoping process and upon further
agency analysis. When suggesting
additional resource areas to analyze,
please explain how the recommendation
will add value to the public and
decisionmaker in looking at the
environmental impacts of the range of
identified alternatives.
Two important purposes of scoping
are identifying the significant
considerations that merit in-depth
analysis in the EIS and identifying and
eliminating from detailed analysis the
matters that are not significant and
therefore require only a brief discussion
in the EIS.47 In light of these purposes,
written comments should include an
internet citation (with a date last
visited) to each study or report cited in
the comments, if one is available. If a
document cited is not available to the
public online, the commenter should
either provide sufficient bibliographical
information to allow NHTSA to locate
and obtain a copy of the study, or attach
a copy to the comments.48 Commenters
should indicate how each document
cited or attached to their comments is
relevant to the NEPA analysis and
indicate the specific pages and passages
in the attachment that are most
informative.
The more specific the comments are,
and the more support they provide in
identifying peer-reviewed scientific
studies and reports, the more useful the
comments will be to the NEPA process.
For example, if a comment identifies an
additional area of impact or
environmental concern that NHTSA
should analyze, or an analytical tool or
model that NHTSA should use to
evaluate these environmental impacts,
the comment should clearly describe it
and provide a reference to a specific
peer-reviewed scientific study, report,
tool, or model, if possible. Specific,
well-supported comments will help the
agency prepare an EIS that is focused
and relevant and will serve NEPA’s
overarching aims of making high quality
information available to decisionmakers
and the public by ‘‘avoid[ing] useless
bulk in statements and . . .
concentrate[ing] effort and attention on
important issues.’’ 49 By contrast, mere
assertions that the agency should
evaluate broad lists or categories of
concerns, without support, will not
assist the scoping process for the
proposed standards.
47 40
CFR 1500.4(g), 1502.2(b).
be mindful of copyright restrictions
when attaching documents to any comments, as
they will be made publicly available in the agency’s
docket.
49 40 CFR 1502.15.
48 Please
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
57254
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2022 / Notices
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 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2022–20211 Filed 9–16–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Real
Estate Lending and Appraisals
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
AGENCY:
The OCC, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
and respondent burden, invites
comment on a continuing information
collection, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In
accordance with the requirements of the
PRA, the OCC may not conduct or
sponsor, and the respondent is not
required to respond to, an information
collection unless it displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. The OCC is
soliciting comment concerning renewal
of its information collection titled, ‘‘Real
Estate Lending and Appraisals.’’ The
OCC also is giving notice that is has sent
the collection to OMB for review.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 16, 2022
Jkt 256001
Comments must be received by
October 19, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Commenters are encouraged
to submit comments by email, if
possible. You may submit comments by
any of the following methods:
• Email: prainfo@occ.treas.gov.
• Mail: Chief Counsel’s Office,
Attention: Comment Processing, 1557–
0190, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E–
218, Washington, DC 20219.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th
Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington,
DC 20219.
• Fax: (571) 465–4326.
Instructions: You must include
‘‘OCC’’ as the agency name and ‘‘1557–
0190’’ in your comment. In general, the
OCC will publish comments on
www.reginfo.gov without change,
including any business or personal
information provided, such as name and
address information, email addresses, or
phone numbers. Comments received,
including attachments and other
supporting materials, are part of the
public record and subject to public
disclosure. Do not include any
information in your comment or
supporting materials that you consider
confidential or inappropriate for public
disclosure.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should also be
sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/
do/PRAMain. You can find this
particular information collection by
selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day
Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or
by using the search function.
On June 7, 2022, the OCC published
a 60-day notice for this information
collection, 87 FR 34756. You may
review comments and other related
materials that pertain to this
information collection following the
close of the 30-day comment period for
this notice by the method set forth in
the next bullet.
• Viewing Comments Electronically:
Go to www.reginfo.gov. Hover over the
‘‘Information Collection Review’’ tab
and click on ‘‘Information Collection
Review’’ from the drop-down menu.
From the ‘‘Currently under Review’’
drop-down menu, select ‘‘Department of
Treasury’’ and then click ‘‘submit.’’ This
information collection can be located by
searching by OMB control number
‘‘1557–0190’’ or ‘‘Real Estate Lending
and Appraisals.’’ Upon finding the
appropriate information collection, click
on the related ‘‘ICR Reference Number.’’
On the next screen, select ‘‘View
Supporting Statement and Other
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Documents’’ and then click on the link
to any comment listed at the bottom of
the screen.
• For assistance in navigating
www.reginfo.gov, please contact the
Regulatory Information Service Center
at (202) 482–7340.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance
Officer, (202) 649–5490, Chief Counsel’s
Office, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E–
218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington, DC
20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing,
or have a speech disability, please dial
7–1–1 to access telecommunications
relay services.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the
OMB for each collection of information
that they conduct or sponsor.
‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined
in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) to include agency requests or
requirements that members of the public
submit reports, keep records, or provide
information to a third party. The OCC
asks that OMB extend its approval of the
collection in this notice.
Title: Real Estate Lending and
Appraisals.
OMB Control No.: 1557–0190.
Type of Review: Extension, without
revision, of a currently approved
collection.
Description: Twelve CFR parts 34 and
160 contain a number of reporting,
recordkeeping, and disclosure
requirements. Twelve CFR part 34,
subpart B (Adjustable-Rate Mortgages
(ARM)), subpart E (Other Real Estate
Owned (OREO)) and part 160 (Lending
and Investment) contain reporting
requirements. Twelve CFR part 34,
subpart C (Appraisal Requirements),
subpart D (Real Estate Lending
Standards), and part 160 contains
recordkeeping requirements. Twelve
CFR 190.4(h) contains a disclosure
requirement concerning Federallyrelated residential manufactured
housing loans.
Twelve CFR part 34, subpart B,
§ 34.22(a) and § 160.35(b) require that
for ARM loans, the loan documentation
must specify an index or combination of
indices to which changes in the interest
rate will be linked. Sections 34.22(b)
and 160.35(d)(3) set forth the notice
procedures for national banks and
Federal savings associations to use
when seeking to use an alternative
index.
Twelve CFR 34.44 provides minimum
standards for the performance of real
estate appraisals, including the
requirement that appraisals be in
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57248-57254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20211]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0076]
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
Model Years 2030 and Beyond New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement;
request for scoping comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), NHTSA intends to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of new fuel
efficiency (FE) standards for model years (MYs) 2030 and beyond medium-
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and some work trucks (``HD
vehicles'' that NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). This notice initiates the
process for determining the scope of considerations to be addressed in
the EIS and for identifying any significant environmental issues
related to the proposed action. NHTSA invites comments from Federal,
State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, stakeholders, and the public
in this scoping process to help identify and focus any matters of
environmental significance and reasonable alternatives to be examined
in the EIS.
DATES: The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and
issuance of a Draft EIS (DEIS), which will be made available for public
comment concurrently with the issuance of a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to fully
consider scoping comments, scoping comments should be received on or
before October 19, 2022. NHTSA will consider comments received after
that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket
identified in the heading of this document by visiting the following
website:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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
[[Page 57249]]
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: Vinay Nagabhushana, Fuel Economy
Division, telephone: (202) 366-1452, email: [email protected];
or 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 FE standards for MYs 2030 and beyond for medium- and heavy-
duty on-highway vehicles and some work trucks (referred to herein as
``HD vehicles'') vehicles pursuant to the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA).\1\ In particular, NHTSA will propose the
next phase (``Phase 3'') of the Medium and Heavy Vehicle Fuel
Efficiency Standards program. In the Phase 2 rulemaking, NHTSA tailored
the standards to the following regulatory categories of HD vehicles:
vocational vehicles, combination tractors, gasoline and diesel HD
vehicle engines, and heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.2 3
NHTSA set separate categories of standards based on fuel type, duty
cycle, vehicle application, and tractor cab type. As discussed further
below, NHTSA is seeking comment on how to tailor Phase 3 standards to
these regulatory categories of HD vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007) (codified
at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.).
\2\ In accordance with the notice 87 FR 50386, NHTSA is seeking
comment on including heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans standards in
a separate action.
\3\ Pursuant to Truck Trailer Manufacturers Ass'n, Inc v. Env't
Prot. Agency, 17 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2021), NHTSA is not proposing
trailer standards in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) instructs Federal
agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of their
proposed actions and possible alternatives. In connection with the
action described above, NHTSA will prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed reasonable alternatives for HD vehicle FE standards pursuant
to NEPA and implementing regulations issued by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ),\4\ DOT Order No. 5610.1C,\5\ and NHTSA
regulations.\6\ To inform decision makers and the public, the EIS will
analyze the potential environmental impacts of the agency's Preferred
Alternative and a spectrum of reasonable alternatives, including a ``no
action'' alternative.\7\ As required by NEPA, the EIS will consider
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and
alternatives.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
\5\ Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (1979)
(revised 1985), available at https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/procedures-considering-environmental-impacts-dot-order-56101c.
\6\ 49 CFR part 520.
\7\ 40 CFR 1502.14.
\8\ Id. 1508.1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Purpose and Need
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) \9\ mandated
that NHTSA establish and implement a regulatory program for motor
vehicle fuel economy as part of a comprehensive approach to federal
energy policy. As codified in chapter 329 of title 49 of the U.S. Code,
and as amended by EISA, EPCA set forth extensive requirements
concerning the establishment of fuel economy standards for passenger
cars and light trucks. Pursuant to this statutory authority, NHTSA sets
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for those vehicles.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Public Law 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975).
\10\ See Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards
and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Final Rule, 75 FR
25324 (May 7, 2010); 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, 77 FR 62624 (October 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2007, Congress enacted the EISA, which significantly
amended EPCA's program requirements, granting the DOT, and NHTSA by
delegation,\11\ additional rulemaking authority and requirements. EISA
provided NHTSA authority to implement, through rulemaking and
regulations, ``a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle
\12\ and work truck \13\ fuel efficiency improvement program designed
to achieve the maximum feasible improvement[.]'' \14\ This provision
also directs NHTSA to ``adopt and implement appropriate test methods,
measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance and
enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-
highway vehicles and work trucks.'' \15\ This authority permits NHTSA
to set ``separate standards for different classes of vehicles.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Secretary has delegated responsibility for implementing
fuel economy and fuel efficiency requirements under EPCA and EISA to
NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95(a) and (j).
\12\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the United States Code: `` `commercial medium-
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle' means an on-highway vehicle with
a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more.'' 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(7).
\13\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the United States Code: `` `work truck' means a
vehicle that--(A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight; and (B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle (as
defined in section 86.1803-01 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, as in effect on the date of the enactment of [EISA]).''
49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(19).
\14\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id. For background on the HD vehicle segment, issues
related to regulating this segment, and fuel efficiency improvement
technologies available for these vehicles, see the reports recently
issued by the National Academy of Sciences. National Research
Council, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel
Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Washington, DC (The
National Academies Press, 2010), available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed April 25, 2014); National
Research Council, Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two: First
Report, Washington, DC (The National Academies Press, 2014),
available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18736 (last
accessed April 25, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EISA also establishes requirements for lead time and regulatory
stability for these vehicle types. New fuel efficiency improvement
program standards that NHTSA adopts pursuant to EISA for these vehicle
types must provide not less than 4 full model years of regulatory lead-
time and 3 full model years of regulatory stability.\17\ Finally, EISA
directs that NHTSA's HD rulemaking must be conducted in consultation
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of
Energy.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3).
\18\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). As discussed later in this document,
both agencies have been invited to serve as cooperating agencies on
this EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 21, 2010, the President issued a memorandum to the Secretary
of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of EPA,
and the
[[Page 57250]]
Administrator of NHTSA that called for coordinated regulation of the
heavy-duty vehicle market segment under EISA and under the Clean Air
Act.\19\ NHTSA and EPA met that directive in August 2011 by finalizing
first-of-a-kind standards for new HD engines and vehicles in MYs 2014
through 2018 (``Phase 1'').\20\ The performance-based standards created
a national program requiring manufacturers to meet targets for FE and
GHG emissions. The agencies estimated that the Phase 1 standards would
save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50 billion in fuel
costs over the lifetime of those vehicles while also reducing oil
consumption by a projected 530 billion barrels and GHG pollution by
approximately 270 million metric tons.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21,
2010), available at 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).
\20\ See Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 76 FR
57106 (September 15, 2011).
\21\ See White House Announces First Ever Oil Savings Standards
for Heavy Duty Trucks, Buses (August 9, 2011), available at 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 FE and GHG standards by
March 31, 2016.\22\ NHTSA and EPA met that directive in October 2016 by
finalizing standards for new HD engines and vehicles in MYs 2018 and
beyond (``Phase 2''). NHTSA conducted the Phase 2 rulemaking in
consultation with EPA and DOE. The Phase 2 standards were expected to
further reduce GHG emissions (GHG) and increase FE for on-road heavy-
duty vehicles. NHTSA's fuel consumption standards and EPA's carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions standards were tailored to three
regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles: (1) combination tractors;
\23\ (2) heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans; \24\ and (3) vocational
vehicles,\25\ as well as gasoline and diesel heavy-duty engines.\26\ In
addition, the agencies added new standards for combination trailers.
EPA's hydrofluorocarbon emissions standards that currently apply to air
conditioning systems in tractors, pickup trucks, and vans, were also
applied to vocational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See FACT SHEET--Opportunity For All: Improving the Fuel
Efficiency of American Trucks--Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting
Carbon Pollution, Saving Money and Supporting Manufacturing
Innovation (February 18, 2014), available at 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).
\23\ Combination tractors, which may be equipped with sleeper
cabs, including Class 7 and 8 truck tractors, are used for freight
transportation. Tractors sometimes run without a trailer in between
loads, but most of the time they run with one or more trailers that
can carry up to 50,000 pounds or more of payload. Pursuant to the
decision in Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, Inc. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 16-1430 (D.C. Cir. 2021), NHTSA
is not considering trailer standards in this action.
\24\ Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are defined in 49 CFR
523.7.
\25\ Vocational vehicles, which may span Classes 2b through 8,
include smaller and larger van trucks; delivery, utility, tank,
flat-bed, and refuse trucks; transit, shuttle, and school buses;
fire trucks and other emergency vehicles; motor homes; and tow
trucks, among others.
\26\ Phase 1 required that engines used in heavy-duty vehicles
be separately certified by their manufacturer to meet GHG emissions
and fuel efficiency standards using the same test procedures used to
certify engines for criteria pollutants, unless the vehicle is
allowed to be chassis-certified (typically, Class 2b and 3 heavy-
duty pick-up trucks and vans) whereby the separate engine
certification is not required. Phase 1 engine standards vary
depending on engine size linked to intended vehicle service class
and use. In particular, the agencies created separate standards for
spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Action
On August 5, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.)
14037, Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks,
which directed NHTSA and EPA to, as appropriate and consistent with
applicable law, take actions under EPCA/EISA and the Clean Air Act to
set standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles.\27\
Specifically, the E.O. directed NHTSA to consider beginning work on
rulemakings to ``establish new fuel efficiency standards for medium-
and heavy-duty engines and vehicles to begin as soon as model year
2030.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 86 FR 43583 (August 10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with E.O. 14037, but pursuant to the agency's own
exercise of authority consistent with EPCA/EISA, NHTSA intends to
propose fuel efficiency standards for MYs 2030 and Beyond HD vehicles
in an upcoming NPRM by July 2024. However, in accordance with EISA's
lead time requirements, NHTSA is statutorily required to issue a final
rule for MY 2030 the Phase 3 standards no later than January 2025.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3)(A) requires the commercial medium-
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel economy
standard to provide not less than 4 full model years of regulatory
lead-time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like past FE rules described above, NHTSA will use full vehicle
computer models for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Compliance and other
analysis tools to determine the impacts of different levels of HD
vehicles FE stringency. Pursuant to NEPA, NHTSA will prepare an EIS to
analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed action.
This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process for the EIS under
NEPA and its implementing regulations,\29\ and under NHTSA's NEPA
regulations.\30\ Specifically, this Notice of Intent requests public
input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis including the alternatives
considered and the significant environmental issues relating to more
stringent FE standards for HD vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
\30\ See 40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Considerations for the Range of Alternatives
In an upcoming NPRM, NHTSA intends to propose new FE standards, as
described above. This notice briefly describes a variety of possible
alternatives that are currently under consideration by the agency and
seeks input from the public about those alternatives and about whether
other alternatives should be considered as NHTSA proceeds with the
rulemaking and the EIS.
a. Framing the Range of Alternatives
The purpose of and need for an agency's action inform the range of
reasonable alternatives to be considered in its NEPA analysis.\31\ In
developing alternatives for analysis in the EIS, NHTSA must consider
EISA's requirements for setting FE standards under the MD/HD fuel
efficiency improvement program noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 40 CFR 1502.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to the FE standards, EISA requires that: (1) The
program
[[Page 57251]]
must be ``designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement''; (2)
the various required aspects of the program must be appropriate, cost-
effective, and technologically feasible for MD/HD vehicles; and (3) the
standards adopted under the program must provide not less than four
model years of lead time and three model years of regulatory
stability.\32\ In considering these various requirements, NHTSA will
also account for relevant environmental and safety considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For setting FE standards, NHTSA will analyze action alternatives
calculated at the lower point and at the upper point of a range of FE
standards that would satisfy EISA's requirements of increasing the FE
of HD vehicles. The lower bound would reflect the least stringent of
the range of alternatives to achieve the maximum feasible improvement
in fuel efficiency. On the other hand, the upper bound, represents the
most stringent fuel efficiency improvement.
Similarly, the range of alternatives will reflect differences in
the degree of technology adoption across the fleet; in costs to
manufacturers and consumers; and in conservation of energy and related
impacts to the environment. For example, the most stringent FE standard
NHTSA will evaluate would require greater adoption of fuel-saving
technology across the fleet, including more advanced technology, than
the least stringent standard NHTSA will evaluate. As a result, the most
stringent alternative for the FE standard would impose greater costs
and achieve greater energy conservation.
The range of alternatives would provide a broad range of
information for NHTSA to use in evaluating and weighing the statutory
factors in the EISA. It would also assist the decision-maker in
considering the differences and uncertainties in the way in which key
economic inputs (e.g., the price of fuel and the social cost of
greenhouse gas emissions) and technological inputs are estimated or
valued.
b. Considerations on Levels of Standards for Regulatory Classes
Within the range of alternatives, NHTSA may consider setting more
stringent standards for the earlier years of the rule than for the
later years, or, alternatively, setting less stringent standards for
the earlier years of the rule than for the later years, depending on
our assessment of what would be ``maximum feasible'' for those time
periods for each fleet. The changes in stringency considered in the
lower and upper bounds may be defined as ``average'' changes in
stringency; the preferred alternative and actual standards may either
be constant throughout the period or may vary, consistent with EISA's
regulatory stability requirements. However, analysis of the average
yearly change over that period would provide sufficient environmental
analysis to bracket the range of environmental impacts of reasonable
alternatives and allow for a reasoned choice among the alternatives
presented. NHTSA also may select ``maximum feasible'' fuel efficiency
standards for some or all model years that decrease or remain the same
as compared to prior model year(s), consistent with EISA's regulatory
stability requirements.
NHTSA (in consultation with EPA) is still evaluating the costs and
effectiveness of the various technologies available, the potential
structure of the program, the stringencies of potential alternatives
covering regulatory categories of the HD sector), and the range of
reasonable alternatives for consideration in this rulemaking and EIS.
NHTSA will evaluate several factors in developing alternatives for
consideration and analysis, including costs for technology development
and manufacture, costs that will be paid by heavy-duty vehicle owners
and operators, FE (and corresponding GHG reduction) benefits, industry
structure, and more.
For different regulatory vehicle classes within HD vehicles, NHTSA
may consider setting standards at different rates, or that change over
different rates during the timeframe of the rule. NHTSA may also
consider setting different levels of standards for vehicles that are
powered by different fuels (e.g., in past MD/HD FE rules, NHTSA set
separate standards for gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles).
c. Considerations on Industry Lead Time
As noted above, there is no limitation on the number of model years
of standards that NHTSA can set for HD vehicles.
d. Considerations on Standard Attributes and Form
In the previous MD/HD rulemaking, NHTSA used different metrics for
setting HD vehicle standards. For HD pickups trucks and vans, work
factor \33\ was the metric for setting vehicle standards. NHTSA set
standards separately for vocational and truck tractors to account for
differences in vehicle applications and fuel type. As discussed further
below, NHTSA seeks comment on the attribute used to set FE standards,
possible other attributes that could be used to set FE standards, the
shape of the standards curves, and other programmatic aspects that
could help fulfill the goals outlined herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Work factor is an attribute that combines a vehicle's
payload, towing capabilities, and the presence of 4-wheel drive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Other Programmatic Considerations
As with any FE rulemaking, NHTSA will also consider programmatic
aspects other than stringency (e.g., flexibilities) that may affect
model years including those for which NHTSA would set FE standards.
III. Range of Alternatives
NHTSA is considering the following alternatives for analysis in the
Draft EIS:
a. No Action Alternative
NEPA requires agencies to consider a ``no action'' alternative in
their NEPA analyses and to compare the effects of not taking action
with the effects of the reasonable action alternatives in order to
demonstrate the different environmental effects of the action
alternatives.\34\ In this EIS, NHTSA will consider a ``no action''
alternative, which assumes, for purposes of NEPA analysis, that NHTSA
would not issue a new rule regarding HD FE standards. Under these
circumstances, the existing FE standards established for the end of
Phase 2 would persist until NHTSA takes additional action.\35\ The no-
action alternative would also take into account CARB's Advanced Clean
Trucks (ACT) program, set to begin in model year 2024. The ACT program
stipulates that manufacturers must electrify specified percentages of
their heavy-duty fleets (including Class 2b and Class 3 heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans) in order to continue selling heavy-duty
vehicles in California and other states that have formally adopted the
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14. CEQ has explained that
``[T]he regulations require the analysis of the no action
alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative
command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling
decision makers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of
the action alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in the
EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the President
as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 1500.1(a).]'' Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis added).
\35\ The ``no action'' alternative will also assume that EPA
would not issue a rule regarding HD GHG emissions standards. The
existing GHG standards established for the end of Phase 1 would also
persist indefinitely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA will refer to this alternative that includes the conditions
described
[[Page 57252]]
for FE standards as the ``No Action Alternative'' or as the
``baseline.''
b. Action Alternatives
The EIS will also analyze action alternatives calculated at the
lower point and at the upper point of the range the agency believes
encompasses reasonable alternatives meeting the purpose and need of the
proposed action. These lower and upper ``bounds'' or ``brackets'' will
account for various potential structures for the FE standards for the
HD vehicles and various levels of stringency for the regulatory
categories. These alternatives would bracket the range of actions the
agency may select. In sum, in its final rule, NHTSA would be able to
select from any stringency level within that range. NHTSA seeks public
comments on the stringency levels at which to define the lower and
upper bounds of this range of reasonable alternatives.
c. Preferred Alternative
In the EIS, NHTSA intends to identify a Preferred Alternative,
which may be within the level of stringency that falls within the range
being considered or may be the lower or upper bound levels of
stringency. The Preferred Alternative would reflect what the agency
believes is the ``maximum feasible improvement'' required under EISA.
The Preferred Alternative may include improvements that are constant
throughout the regulatory period or that vary in accordance with EISA's
regulatory stability requirements, and from segment to segment, in
accordance with predetermined stringency increases that would be
established by this rule. However, the overall stringency and impacts
will fall at or between the lower and upper brackets discussed above.
NHTSA has not yet identified its Preferred Alternative.
IV. Consideration of Expected Impacts
The scoping process initiated by this notice seeks to determine
``the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered'' in
the EIS and to identify the most important issues for analysis
involving the potential environmental impacts of NHTSA's FE
standards.\36\ NHTSA's NEPA analysis will consider direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects of the proposed action and those of reasonable
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 40 CFR 1500.5(f), 1501.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the main focus of NHTSA's prior CAFE and FE EISs (i.e., the
HD Phase 1 \37\ and Phase 2 \38\ EISs) was the quantification of
impacts to energy, air quality, and climate, and qualitative analysis
of life-cycle impacts and cumulative impacts, it also addressed other
potentially affected resources. NHTSA conducted a qualitative review of
impacts on resources such as water resources, biological resources,
land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural
resources, and environmental justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, Model Years 2014-2018,
Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079-0151 (June 2011).
\38\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, Model Years 2018-2027,
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0074 (August 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to past EIS practice, NHTSA plans to analyze environmental
impacts related to fuel and energy use, emissions and their effects on
climate change and the environment,\39\ air quality,\40\ natural
resources, and the human environment. NHTSA is considering examining
life-cycle impacts consistent with its past EISs and looking at tools
that may be available for quantitative analysis. NHTSA will consider
the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed FE standards, as well
as the cumulative effects \41\ of the proposed FE standards together
with any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Overall, NHTSA plans to analyze impacts in much the same manner as it
did in its prior EISs, while incorporating by reference any of the
relevant discussions from those documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ NHTSA is planning to include in this EIS a quantitative
analysis to estimate the impact of the alternatives on ocean
acidification based on changes in atmospheric CO2
concentrations.
\40\ Consistent with past practice, in addition to the air
quality analysis presented in the Draft and Final EIS, NHTSA will
conduct a national-scale photochemical air quality modeling and
health risks assessment that will be included in the Final EIS, but
not the Draft EIS, due to the substantial time required to complete
the analysis. In addition, because of the lead time required for
this analysis, it will be based on the alternatives presented in the
Draft EIS, but not the alternatives as they may be revised for the
Final EIS. Still, NHTSA believes the analysis will provide
meaningful information for the decisionmaker and the public.
\41\ In accordance with CEQ regulations, cumulative impacts are
``the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental
impacts of the action when added to the impacts of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of
time.'' 40 CFR 1508.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates of fuel used as a result of different levels of standards
are used as inputs for the EIS's climate modeling. As with any model,
uncertainties exist in modeling potential future climate change
scenarios. Because all analysis of possible future outcomes necessarily
involves uncertainty, including what NHTSA will consider for this
rulemaking and EIS, NHTSA anticipates uncertainty in its estimates of
the potential environmental impacts related to climate change. To
account for this uncertainty, NHTSA plans to evaluate a range of
potential global temperature changes that may result from changes in
fuel and energy consumption and GHG emissions attributable to new FE
standards. It is difficult to quantify how the specific impacts due to
the potential temperature changes attributable to new FE standards may
affect many aspects of the environment. NHTSA will endeavor to gather
the key relevant and credible information using a transparent process
that employs the best available peer-reviewed science. NHTSA invites
public comments on the scope of its analysis on climate change impacts,
including citations to peer-reviewed scientific articles to frame and
analyze the relevant issues.
Because of the models NHTSA will use for this rulemaking and EIS,
the agency anticipates analyzing impacts on fuel/energy use and
pollutant emissions through 2050 and impacts on GHG emissions, global
temperature, and climate change through 2100. Because HD vehicles
generally accumulate the vast majority of their VMT in early years, and
because more distant projections contain far more uncertainty, NHTSA
believes the analysis year of 2050 for fuel/energy use and air quality
will provide sufficient information for the decision-maker to assess
the totality of the impacts related to the regulated vehicles. Because
climate impacts are more long-term, NHTSA anticipates that the EIS will
assess these impacts to 2100.
In order to streamline its documentation and eliminate redundancy,
NHTSA plans not to include analyses of either monetized health benefits
in its air quality analysis or monetized climate change benefits in its
climate change analysis in the EIS, as both of those analyses will be
included in its RIA (consistent with past practice), which is subject
to public notice and comment concurrently with the EIS. NHTSA will
incorporate the analyses in the RIA by reference in the EIS consistent
with the requirements of the CEQ implementing regulations.\42\ The EIS
will continue to present analyses on air quality emissions (including
non-monetized health impacts), GHG emissions, and climate change
impacts (including impacts on
[[Page 57253]]
CO2 concentrations, temperature, sea-level rise, and
precipitation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 40 CFR 1501.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA expects to rely on previously published EISs, incorporating
material by reference ``when the effect will be to cut down on bulk
without impeding agency and public review of the action.'' \43\
Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA analysis and documentation will incorporate
by reference relevant materials, including portions of the agency's
prior NEPA documents, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. The Scoping Process
NHTSA's NEPA analysis will consider the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental effects of proposed standards and those of
reasonable alternatives. The scoping process initiated by this notice
seeks public comment on the range of alternatives under consideration,
on the impacts to be considered, and on the most important matters for
in-depth analysis in the EIS. All comments relevant to the scoping
process are welcome.
NHTSA invites the public to participate in the scoping process \44\
by submitting written comments concerning the appropriate scope of the
NEPA analysis for the proposed FE standards to the docket number
identified in the heading of this notice, using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. NHTSA does not plan
to hold a public scoping meeting because, based on prior experience,
written comments will be effective in identifying and narrowing the
considerations for analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Consistent with NEPA and implementing regulations, NHTSA is
sending this notice directly to: (1) Federal agencies having
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the
environmental impacts involved or authorized to develop and enforce
environmental standards; (2) the Governors of every State, to share
with the appropriate agencies and offices within their
administrations and with the local jurisdictions within their
States; (3) organizations representing state and local governments
and Indian tribes; and (4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably
expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for the MY 2028-2032
CAFE standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR
1501.8, 1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Comments on the Range of Alternatives
NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency considers a full
range of reasonable alternatives in setting new HD vehicle FE
improvement standards. Comments may go beyond the approaches and
information that NHTSA described above for developing the alternatives.
NHTSA understands that there are a variety of potential alternatives
that could be considered that fit within the purpose and need for the
proposed rulemaking, as set forth in EISA. NHTSA is therefore
interested in comments on how best to structure or describe proposed
alternatives for purposes of evaluation under NEPA. Subject to the
statutory restraints under EISA, a variety of potential alternatives
could be considered within the purpose and need for the proposed
rulemaking, each falling along a theoretically infinite continuum of
potential standards. As described above, NHTSA plans to address this
issue by identifying alternatives at the upper and lower bounds of a
range within which we believe the statutory requirement for ``maximum
feasible improvement'' \45\ would be satisfied, as well as identifying
and analyzing the impacts of a preferred alternative. In this way,
NHTSA expects to bracket the potential environmental impacts of the
standards it may select.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
\46\ Should NHTSA ultimately choose to set standards at levels
other than the Preferred Alternative, we believe that this
bracketing will properly inform the decision-maker, so long as the
standards are set within its bounds. This methodology permits the
analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives the agency may pick,
while providing the agency flexibility to select the alternative
based on the most up-to-date information and analyses available at
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency may modify the proposed alternatives that will be
analyzed in depth based upon the comments received during the scoping
process and upon further agency analysis. When suggesting an approach
to developing alternatives that the agency should analyze, please
explain the recommended way to balance EISA's factors ((1) The program
must be ``designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement''; (2)
the various required aspects of the program must be appropriate, cost-
effective, and technologically feasible for MD/HD vehicles; and (3) the
standards adopted under the program must provide not less than four
model years of lead time and three model years of regulatory
stability).
b. Comments on Environmental Effects
NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency identifies the
environmental impacts and focuses its analyses on all the potentially
significant impacts related to each alternative. Comments may go beyond
the approaches and information that NHTSA described above for
identifying the potentially significant environmental effects. The
agency may modify the environmental effects that will be analyzed in
depth based upon the comments received during the scoping process and
upon further agency analysis. When suggesting additional resource areas
to analyze, please explain how the recommendation will add value to the
public and decisionmaker in looking at the environmental impacts of the
range of identified alternatives.
Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant
considerations that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying
and eliminating from detailed analysis the matters that are not
significant and therefore require only a brief discussion in the
EIS.\47\ In light of these purposes, written comments should include an
internet citation (with a date last visited) to each study or report
cited in the comments, if one is available. If a document cited is not
available to the public online, the commenter should either provide
sufficient bibliographical information to allow NHTSA to locate and
obtain a copy of the study, or attach a copy to the comments.\48\
Commenters should indicate how each document cited or attached to their
comments is relevant to the NEPA analysis and indicate the specific
pages and passages in the attachment that are most informative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1502.2(b).
\48\ Please be mindful of copyright restrictions when attaching
documents to any comments, as they will be made publicly available
in the agency's docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more specific the comments are, and the more support they
provide in identifying peer-reviewed scientific studies and reports,
the more useful the comments will be to the NEPA process. For example,
if a comment identifies an additional area of impact or environmental
concern that NHTSA should analyze, or an analytical tool or model that
NHTSA should use to evaluate these environmental impacts, the comment
should clearly describe it and provide a reference to a specific peer-
reviewed scientific study, report, tool, or model, if possible.
Specific, well-supported comments will help the agency prepare an EIS
that is focused and relevant and will serve NEPA's overarching aims of
making high quality information available to decisionmakers and the
public by ``avoid[ing] useless bulk in statements and . . .
concentrate[ing] effort and attention on important issues.'' \49\ By
contrast, mere assertions that the agency should evaluate broad lists
or categories of concerns, without support, will not assist the scoping
process for the proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 40 CFR 1502.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57254]]
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 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2022-20211 Filed 9-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
