Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Model Year 2022-2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards |
|---|
|
James Tamm
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
26 July 2017
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34740-34745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15701]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0069]
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
Model Year 2022-2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement;
request for scoping comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), NHTSA intends to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of new Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model year (MY) 2022-2025
passenger automobiles (referred to herein as ``passenger cars'') and
non-passenger automobiles (referred to herein as ``light trucks'') that
NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 (EISA). This notice initiates the process for determining
the scope of considerations to be addressed in the EIS and for
identifying any significant environmental matters related to the
proposed action. NHTSA invites public 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, 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 August 25, 2017. NHTSA will consider comments received after
that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you must include the
docket number identified in the heading of this notice. Note that all
comments received, including any personal information provided, will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' heading below.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9324.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. We will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available.
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, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Ken
Katz, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel
Economy, and Consumer Programs, telephone: 202-366-4936, email:
Ken.Katz@dot.gov; for legal issues, contact Russell Krupen, Legislation
& General Law Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone: 202-
366-1834, email: Russell.Krupen@dot.gov, at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a forthcoming NPRM, NHTSA intends to
propose CAFE standards for MY 2022-2025 passenger cars and light trucks
pursuant to EPCA (Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975)), as
amended by EISA (Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007)).\1\
In connection with this action, NHTSA will prepare an EIS to analyze
the potential environmental impacts of the proposed CAFE standards and
reasonable alternative standards pursuant to NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347)
and implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) issued by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), DOT Order No. 5610.1C
(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), and NHTSA regulations (49 CFR part 520). NEPA instructs
Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of
their proposed actions and those of possible alternative actions. 42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). To inform decisionmakers and the public, the EIS
will analyze the potential environmental impacts of NHTSA's preferred
alternative, which will correspond to the proposed rule, and a spectrum
of reasonable alternatives, including a ``no action'' alternative. 40
CFR 1502.1, 1502.14. The EIS will consider direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts of the proposed action and alternatives and will
discuss impacts in proportion to their significance. Id. Sec. Sec.
1502.2(b), 1508.25(b)-(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA's fuel economy authorities are codified at 49 U.S.C.
32901 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background. EPCA requires that the Secretary of Transportation \2\
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
[[Page 34741]]
amended by EISA, EPCA set forth specific requirements concerning the
establishment of CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Secretary has delegated responsibility for implementing
fuel economy requirements under EPCA and EISA to NHTSA. 49 CFR
1.95(a) and (j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary must prescribe average fuel economy standards by
regulation at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year
and to set them at ``the maximum feasible average fuel economy level
that . . . the manufacturers can achieve in that model year.'' 49
U.S.C. 32902(a). The standards apply to each manufacturer's fleet
average, not to the manufacturer's individual vehicles. The Secretary,
after consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), must establish average
fuel economy standards separately for passenger cars and for light
trucks manufactured in each model year. Id. Sec. 32902(b)(1)-(2). In
doing so, for the model years to be addressed in the NPRM, the
Secretary of Transportation must set each passenger car and light truck
standard at the ``maximum feasible'' average fuel economy standard for
each model year. Id. Sec. 32902(b)(2)(B), (f). When setting ``maximum
feasible'' average fuel economy standards, the Secretary must
``consider technological feasibility, economic practicability, the
effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel
economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.'' Id.
Sec. 32902(f). NHTSA construes the aforementioned statutory factors as
including environmental and safety considerations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For environmental considerations, see Center for Auto Safety
v. NHTSA, 793 F.2d 1322, 1325 n. 12 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Public Citizen
v. NHTSA, 848 F.2d 256, 262-3 n. 27 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting that
``NHTSA itself has interpreted the factors it must consider in
setting CAFE standards as including environmental effects''); Center
for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1196 (9th Cir.
2008); 40 CFR 1500.6. For safety considerations, see, e.g.,
Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 956 F.2d 321, 322 (D.C. Cir.
1992) (citing Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 901 F.2d 107,
120 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards for passenger cars and light trucks must be ``based
on 1 or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy'' and expressed
``in the form of a mathematical function,'' and they may be established
for not more than five model years at a time. 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A)-
(B). In addition, each manufacturer must meet the minimum standard for
domestically manufactured passenger cars, which is 92 percent of the
projected average fuel economy for the combined domestic and non-
domestic passenger car fleet for each model year, calculated at the
time the final rule establishing the passenger car standards for those
model years is promulgated. Id. Sec. 32902(b)(4).
Regulatory History. NHTSA set the first fuel economy standards in
1977, applying to passenger cars beginning in MY 1978 and light trucks
beginning in MY 1979. The stringency of the standards increased through
MY 1985, and then changed little until MY 2005 for light trucks, when
NHTSA reformed the light truck fuel economy program by introducing
attribute-based standards, and MY 2011 for passenger cars, when NHTSA
introduced attribute-based standards for passenger cars using new
authority provided by EISA. CAFE standards have increased progressively
for light trucks since MY 2005 and for passenger cars since MY 2011.
More recently, NHTSA has conducted its fuel economy rulemaking
jointly with EPA's rulemaking to establish greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission standards. In April 2010, NHTSA and EPA issued a joint final
rule establishing fuel economy standards and GHG emissions standards
\4\ for MY 2012-2016 passenger cars and light trucks. Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards; Final Rule, 75 FR 25323 (May 7, 2010). The CAFE
standards were estimated to require a combined average fleet-wide fuel
economy of 34.1 miles per gallon (mpg) by MY 2016.\5\ Subsequently, on
August 28, 2012, NHTSA and EPA issued a final rule setting CAFE and GHG
emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years
2017 and beyond. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
77 FR 62623 (Oct. 15, 2012). Consistent with its statutory authority,
NHTSA developed two phases of passenger car and light truck standards.
The first phase, covering MYs 2017-2021, included final standards that
were projected to require, on an average industry fleet wide basis, a
range from 40.3-41.0 mpg in MY 2021. The second phase of the CAFE
program, covering MYs 2022-2025, included standards that were not
final, due to the statutory requirement that NHTSA set average fuel
economy standards not more than five model years at a time. Rather,
NHTSA wrote that those standards were ``augural,'' meaning that they
represented its best estimate, based on the information available at
that time, of what levels of stringency might be maximum feasible in
those model years. NHTSA projected that those standards could require,
on an average industry fleet wide basis, a range from 48.7-49.7 mpg in
model year 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA issued GHG emissions standards pursuant to the Clean Air
Act. See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a).
\5\ The EPA GHG standards were estimated to require a combined
average fleet-wide level of 250 grams/mile CO2-equivalent
for MY 2016, which is equivalent to 35.5 mpg if all of the
technologies used to reduce GHG emissions were tailpipe
CO2 reducing technologies. The 250 g/mi CO2
equivalent level assumed the use of credits for air conditioning
improvements worth 15 g/mi in MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the final rulemaking, EPA committed to conducting a Mid-
Term Evaluation of its GHG standards established for MYs 2022-2025. As
NHTSA did not issue final CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025 in its 2012
final rule, it does not have any standards for those MYs to be
evaluated. Instead, NHTSA is obligated to conduct a de novo rulemaking,
with fresh inputs and a fresh consideration and balancing of all
relevant factors, to establish final CAFE standards for those MYs.
Meanwhile, EPA's regulations require it to determine whether the GHG
standards for MYs 2022-2025 are appropriate under section 202(a) of the
Clean Air Act, in light of the record then before the Administrator. 40
CFR 86.1818-12(h).
In July 2016, NHTSA, EPA, and the California Air Resources Board
released for public comment a jointly prepared Draft Technical
Assessment Report (TAR), which examined a range of matters relevant to
CAFE and GHG emissions standards for MYs 2022-2025. Notice of
Availability of Midterm Evaluation Draft Technical Assessment Report
for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE
Standards, 81 FR 49217 (July 27, 2016). In November 2016, EPA issued a
proposed determination for the Mid-Term Evaluation. Proposed
Determination on the Appropriateness of the Model Year 2022-2025 Light-
Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Under the Midterm
Evaluation, 81 FR 87927 (Dec. 6, 2016). On January 12, 2017, the EPA
Administrator signed the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation
of light-duty GHG emissions standards for MYs 2022-2025. Subsequently,
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Transportation Secretary Elaine L.
Chao issued a joint notice announcing EPA's conclusion that it would
reconsider its Final Determination in order to allow additional
consultation and coordination with NHTSA in support of a national
harmonized program. Notice of Intention to Reconsider the Final
Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles, 82 FR 14671
(Mar. 22, 2017). As a result, EPA
[[Page 34742]]
intends to make a new Final Determination regarding the appropriateness
of the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards no later than April 1, 2018. NHTSA is
statutorily required to issue a final rule for MY 2022 CAFE standards
no later than April 1, 2020. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(a).
Analysis of Alternatives. Pursuant to NEPA, NHTSA will prepare an
EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of its proposed
action. Although NHTSA evaluated the impacts of the augural standards
in its EIS accompanying the MY 2017-2025 rulemaking (NHTSA, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2017-2025,
Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056 (July 2012)), NHTSA will prepare a new Draft
EIS and Final EIS as part of this de novo rulemaking in order to
provide for fresh consideration of all available information.
In an upcoming NPRM, NHTSA intends to propose separate attribute-
based standards for passenger cars and light trucks for each of MYs
2022-2025. As in the previous CAFE rulemaking, NHTSA plans to propose
vehicle footprint \6\ as the attribute. The standards are expected to
be defined as footprint ``curves'' for passenger cars and light trucks
in each model year, where vehicles of different footprints have
specific fuel economy ``targets,'' with larger vehicles (and light
trucks) generally having lower fuel economy targets than smaller
vehicles (and passenger cars), reflecting their fuel economy
capabilities.\7\ The shape and stringency of the curves would reflect,
in part, NHTSA's analysis of the technological and economic
capabilities of the industry within the rulemaking timeframe. A
manufacturer's individual CAFE standards for cars and trucks, in turn,
would be based on the target levels set for the footprints of its
particular mix of cars and trucks manufactured in that model year. A
manufacturer with a relatively high percentage of smaller vehicles
would have a higher standard than a manufacturer with a relatively low
percentage of smaller vehicles. Compliance would be determined by
comparing a manufacturer's harmonically averaged fleet fuel economy
level in a model year with a required fuel economy level calculated
using the manufacturer's actual production levels and the targets for
each vehicle it produces.\8\ As part of this rulemaking, NHTSA may
evaluate the MY 2021 standards it finalized in 2012 to ensure they
remain ``maximum feasible.'' As with any CAFE rulemaking, NHTSA will
also consider other programmatic aspects other than stringency (e.g.,
flexibilities and vehicle classification) that may affect model years
prior to and including those for which NHTSA would set fuel economy
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Footprint, which is a measure of vehicle size, is calculated
by multiplying a vehicle's wheelbase by its track width.
\7\ Vehicle models of the same fleet but made by different
manufacturers would have the same fuel economy target if they had
the same vehicle footprint (i.e., the quantity of the attribute upon
which the standards would be based).
\8\ While manufacturers may use a variety of flexibility
mechanisms to comply with CAFE, including credits earned for over-
compliance, NHTSA is statutorily prohibited from considering
manufacturers' ability to use statutorily-provided flexibility
mechanisms in determining what level of CAFE standards would be
maximum feasible. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of and need for an agency's action inform the
reasonable range of alternatives to be considered in its NEPA analysis.
40 CFR 1502.13. NHTSA sets CAFE standards as part of a comprehensive
energy policy established by EPCA (and amended by EISA) with the
purposes of conserving petroleum and of addressing energy independence
and security by reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
In developing alternatives for analysis in the EIS, NHTSA must
consider EPCA's requirements for setting CAFE standards. As discussed
above, EPCA requires NHTSA to determine what level of CAFE stringency
would be the ``maximum feasible'' for each model year, a determination
made based on the consideration of four statutory factors:
Technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other
standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United
States to conserve energy. 49 U.S.C. 32902(f). In addition, EISA
required fuel economy standards for MY 2011-2020 passenger cars and
light trucks to ``achieve a combined fuel economy average for model
year 2020 of at least 35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of
passenger and non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the
United States for that model year.'' Id. Sec. 32902(b)(2)(A). NHTSA
was required to ``prescribe annual fuel economy standard increases that
increase the applicable average fuel economy standard ratably beginning
with model year 2011 and ending with model year 2020.'' Id. Sec.
32902(b)(2)(C). For MY 2021-2030 passenger cars and light trucks, EISA
does not set a target fuel economy or require that standards ``increase
. . . ratably'' over the ten-year period. See id. Sec. 32902(b)(2)(B).
NHTSA is considering the following alternatives for analysis in the
Draft EIS:
A ``no action'' alternative (also referred to as the
``baseline''), which assumes, for purposes of NEPA analysis, that NHTSA
would issue a rule that would continue the current CAFE standards for
MY 2021 indefinitely. 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 reasonable action alternatives
in order to demonstrate the different environmental effects of the
action alternatives. See 40 CFR 1502.14(d). Given that NHTSA must set
new CAFE standards and may not strictly take no action on fuel
economy,\9\ the agency has determined that, for this rulemaking, the
closest analogue to a true ``no action'' alternative would be to
continue the already existing and enforceable standards indefinitely
without further change.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(a). CEQ has explained that ``[T]he
regulations require the analysis of the no action alternative even
if the agency is under a court order or legislative command to act.
This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to
compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action
alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is
necessary to inform the Congress, the public, and the President as
intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 1500.1(a).]'' Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis added).
\10\ Although NHTSA included ``augural'' standards for MYs 2022-
2025 in its previous CAFE rulemaking, those standards are not final.
In the absence of additional rulemaking activity, those standards
would not be enforceable. However, assuming that no standard would
exist after MY 2021 for purposes of the ``no action'' alternative
would not be a reasonable assumption (in light of NHTSA's statutory
responsibility to promulgate standards and the continuous forty-year
history of the program), nor would it provide meaningful information
to the decisionmaker for purposes of evaluating the impacts of the
action alternatives. At this time, NHTSA believes that the
continuation of the status quo ante, particularly that the final MY
2021 standards would continue indefinitely, is the most appropriate
baseline against which to compare the proposed regulatory
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Action'' alternatives represented by calculating a lower
bound and upper bound of a range of reasonable annual fuel economy
standards, from MY 2022 forward.\11\ The calculations and the related
evaluation of impacts would be performed separately for passenger cars
and light trucks at each of these points so as to demonstrate their
effects independently, since car and truck standards could change at
different rates
[[Page 34743]]
from one another and at different rates in different years. These
alternatives would bracket the range of actions NHTSA may select. In
sum, in its final rule, NHTSA would be able to select an action
alternative 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CEQ guidance provides that agencies may use representative
examples covering the ``full spectrum'' of reasonable alternatives
for purposes of presenting the ``range of alternatives'' in an EIS.
Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental
Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (Mar. 23, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preferred alternative, reflecting annual fuel economy
standards for both passenger cars and light trucks that fall at or
between the upper and lower bounds identified above. NHTSA has not yet
identified its preferred alternative. NHTSA seeks comments on how it
should define and balance the statutory criteria to choose the
preferred alternative, given the statutory requirement of setting
``maximum feasible'' fuel economy standards. 49 U.S.C. 32902(f). When
suggesting an approach, please explain the recommended way to balance
EPCA's factors (technological feasibility, economic practicability, the
effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel
economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Note that NHTSA is statutorily prohibited from considering
statutorily-provided flexibility mechanisms in determining what
standards would be maximum feasible. 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, NHTSA plans to analyze the impacts of eight different
standards in the Draft EIS: Two points bracketing the possible action
alternatives for passenger cars, two points bracketing the possible
alternatives for light trucks, a No Action Alternative and a preferred
alternative for passenger cars, and a No Action Alternative and a
preferred alternative for light trucks. We note that the NPRM and
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) may analyze additional alternatives
within the brackets described in the Draft EIS in order to explore
different approaches to balancing the statutory factors.
NHTSA will analyze the lower bound and upper bound of a range of
average annual fuel economy standards that would satisfy EPCA's
requirement that the standards be ``maximum feasible'' for each model
year, based on the different ways NHTSA could weigh EPCA's four
statutory factors. Generally speaking, more stringent average annual
fuel economy standards might weigh energy conservation and
environmental considerations more heavily and technological feasibility
and economic practicability concerns less heavily. In contrast, less
stringent average annual fuel economy standards might weigh
technological feasibility and economic practicability concerns more
heavily and energy conservation and environmental considerations less
heavily.
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 oil and related impacts to the
environment. For example, the most stringent average annual fuel
economy standard NHTSA will evaluate would require greater adoption of
fuel-saving technology across the fleet, including more advanced
technology, than the least stringent average annual fuel economy
standard NHTSA will evaluate. As a result, the most stringent
alternative would impose greater costs and achieve greater energy
conservation.
The changes in stringency considered in the lower and upper bounds
may be defined as ``average'' changes in stringency; the preferred
alternative and actual standards may either be constant throughout the
period or may vary from year to year. However, analysis of the average
yearly change over that period would provide sufficient environmental
analysis to bracket the range of environmental impacts of reasonable
alternatives and allow for a reasoned choice among the alternatives
presented.
NHTSA may select the lower or upper bound levels of stringency for
passenger cars and for light trucks as its preferred alternative, or it
may select levels of stringency that fall between those bounds. Within
the range identified above, 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. In addition, NHTSA may consider setting standards for passenger
cars and light trucks that change at different rates between the low
and high levels it is considering, depending on a determination of the
maximum feasible level for each fleet over time. NHTSA also may select
``maximum feasible'' fuel economy standards for some or all model years
that decrease or remain the same as compared to the immediately prior
model year(s).
In selecting a preferred alternative, NHTSA is also mindful of its
responsibility under Executive Order 13783, signed by President Donald
J. Trump on March 28, 2017, to ensure that ``necessary and appropriate
environmental regulations comply with the law, are of greater benefit
than cost, when permissible, achieve environmental improvements for the
American people, and are developed through transparent processes that
employ the best available peer-reviewed science and economics.'' \13\
E.O. 13783, Promoting Energy independence and Economic Growth (Mar. 28,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The CAFE program is not strictly an environmental one, as
it was created under EPCA as part of a national energy policy to
reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. However, fuel economy standards
do have environmental impacts, and as noted above, NHTSA construes
the statutory factors in EPCA as including environmental
considerations. The environmental impacts will be analyzed in the
EIS, and NHTSA is mindful of its obligations under E.O. 13783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planned Analysis. While the main focus of NHTSA's prior CAFE EISs
for light duty vehicles (i.e., the EIS for MYs 2012-2016 and MYs 2017-
2025) 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,\14\ air quality,\15\ natural
resources, and the human environment. NHTSA will address life-cycle
impacts consistent with its past EISs, by focusing on reviewing and
summarizing findings from existing, credible scientific information
evaluating the most significant environmental impacts from some of the
fuels, materials, and technologies that may be used to comply with the
Proposed Action and alternatives. NHTSA also will consider the
cumulative impacts of the proposed standards for MY 2022-2025 passenger
cars and light trucks together with any past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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.
\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34744]]
NHTSA anticipates uncertainty in estimating the potential
environmental impacts related to climate change. To account for this
uncertainty, NHTSA plans to evaluate a range of potential global
temperature changes that may result from changes in fuel and energy
consumption and GHG emissions attributable to new CAFE standards. It is
difficult to quantify how the specific impacts due to the potential
temperature changes attributable to new CAFE standards may affect many
aspects of the environment. NHTSA will endeavor to gather the key
relevant and credible information using a transparent process that
employs the best available peer-reviewed science and economics. NHTSA
invites public comments on the scope of its analysis on climate change
impacts, including citations to peer-reviewed scientific articles to
frame and analyze the relevant issues.
In order to streamline its documentation and eliminate redundancy,
NHTSA plans not to include analyses of either monetized health benefits
in its air quality analysis or monetized climate change benefits in its
climate change analysis in the EIS, as both of those analyses will be
included in its RIA (consistent with past practice), which is subject
to public notice and comment concurrently with the EIS. NHTSA will
incorporate the analyses in the RIA by reference in the EIS consistent
with the requirements of the CEQ implementing regulations. 40 CFR
1502.21. The EIS will continue to present analyses on air quality
emissions (including non-monetized health impacts), GHG emissions, and
climate change impacts (including impacts on CO2
concentrations, temperature, sea-level rise, and precipitation).
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.'' Id.
Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA analysis and documentation will incorporate
by reference relevant materials, including portions of the agency's
prior NEPA documents, where appropriate.
Scoping and Public Participation. NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the MY
2022-2025 CAFE standards will consider the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts 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. See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
All comments relevant to the scoping process are welcome.
NHTSA invites the public to participate in the scoping process \16\
by submitting written comments concerning the appropriate scope of the
NEPA analysis for the proposed CAFE 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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 2022-2025
CAFE standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR
1501.7, 1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is interested in comments on its bracketing approach to
presenting a reasonable range of alternatives. Subject to the statutory
requirements of EPCA/EISA, a variety of potential alternatives could be
considered that meet the purpose and need for the agency's action, each
falling along a theoretically infinite continuum of potential
standards. As described above, NHTSA plans to address this by
identifying alternatives at the upper and lower bounds of a range
within which we believe the statutory requirement for ``maximum
feasible'' 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Should NHTSA ultimately choose to set standards at levels
other than the preferred alternative identified in the NPRM and
Draft EIS, we believe that this bracketing will properly inform the
decisionmaker, so long as the standards are set within its
parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a). 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.\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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 ``concentrat[ing] on the issues that are truly significant to
the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.'' 40 CFR
1500.1(b). By contrast, mere assertions that the agency should evaluate
broad lists or categories of concerns, without support, will not assist
the scoping process for the proposed standards.
Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the
heading of this notice in any submitted comments. All comments and
materials received, including the names and addresses of the commenters
who submit them, will become part of the administrative record and will
be posted on the web at http://www.regulations.gov.
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
[[Page 34745]]
the NEPA process and this CAFE rulemaking on its Web site (http://www.nhtsa.gov).
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2017 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR parts 1.81 and 1.95.
James Tamm,
Chief, Fuel Economy Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-15701 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P