Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Model Years 2027 and Beyond Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and Model Years 2029 and Beyond Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Standards

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Model Years 2027 and Beyond Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and Model Years 2029 and Beyond Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Standards

Publication: Federal Register
Signing Official: Milton E. Cooper
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Date: 16 August 2022

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50386-50393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17558]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0075]

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement;
request for scoping comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), NHTSA intends to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of new Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model years (MYs) 2027 and
beyond passenger automobiles (referred to herein as ``passenger cars'')
and non-passenger automobiles (referred to herein as ``light trucks'')
and new fuel efficiency (FE) standards for MYs 2029 and beyond heavy-
duty pickup trucks and vans that NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended by
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). This notice
initiates the process for determining the scope of considerations to be
addressed in the EIS and for identifying any significant environmental
matters related to the proposed action. NHTSA invites comments from
Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, stakeholders, and
the public in this scoping process to help identify and focus any
matters of environmental significance and reasonable alternatives to be
examined in the EIS.

DATES: The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and
issuance of a Draft EIS (DEIS), which will be made available for public
comment concurrently with the issuance of a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to fully
consider scoping comments, scoping comments should be received on or
before September 15, 2022. NHTSA will consider comments received after
that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket
identified in the heading of this document by visiting the following
website:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://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 http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment
tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name,
or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is
completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all
timely comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or confidential information, please
contact the agency for alternate submission instructions.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Vinay
Nagabhushana, Fuel Economy Division, telephone: (202) 366-1452, email:
vinay.nagabhushana@dot.gov; for legal issues, contact Hannah Fish,
Vehicle Safety Standards & Harmonization, Office of the Chief Counsel,
telephone: (202) 366-1099, email: hannah.fish@dot.gov or Stephanie
Walters, Legislation & General Law Division, Office of the Chief
Counsel, telephone: (202) 819-3642, email: stephanie.walters@dot.gov,
at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a forthcoming notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), the United States Department of Transportation
(DOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends
to propose Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model
years (MYs) 2027 and beyond passenger cars and light trucks (also
referred to as light-duty (LD) vehicles), and fuel efficiency (FE)
standards for MYs 2029 and beyond heavy-duty (HD) pickup trucks and
vans \1\ pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
(EPCA) \2\ as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA).3 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are defined in 49 CFR
523.7. The category of vehicles that fall into the compliance
category under this EIS includes pickup trucks and vans with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 8,501 pounds and 14,000 pounds
(also known as Class 2b through 3 vehicles) and anything that
manufacturers choose to certify under Sec. 523.7(b). Incomplete
heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR may ultimately be
considered as part of the subsequent HD CAFE rulemaking.
\2\ Public Law 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975).
\3\ Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007).
\4\ NHTSA's fuel economy authorities are codified at 49 U.S.C.
32901 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) instructs Federal
agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of their
proposed actions and possible alternatives. In connection with the
action described above, NHTSA will prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed

[[Page 50387]]

reasonable alternatives for CAFE and FE standards pursuant to NEPA and
implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ),\5\ DOT Order No. 5610.1C,\6\ and NHTSA regulations.\7\ To inform
decisionmakers and the public, the EIS will analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the agency's Preferred Alternative and a
spectrum of reasonable alternatives, including a ``no action''
alternative.\8\ As required by NEPA, the EIS will consider direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and
alternatives.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
\6\ Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (1979)
(revised 1985), available at https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/procedures-considering-environmental-impacts-dot-order-56101c.
\7\ 49 CFR part 520.
\8\ 40 CFR 1502.1, 1502.14.
\9\ Id. Sec. 1508.1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Purpose and Need

NHTSA has administered the CAFE program since the mid-1970s when
Congress enacted EPCA. EPCA requires that the Secretary of
Transportation, and NHTSA by delegation,\10\ establish and implement a
regulatory program for motor vehicle fuel economy as part of a
comprehensive approach to Federal energy policy. In December 2007,
Congress enacted the EISA, which significantly amended EPCA's program
requirements, granting the DOT, and NHTSA by delegation, additional
rulemaking authority and requirements. The following sections discuss
EPCA and EISA's requirements for setting CAFE standards for passenger
cars and light trucks, and FE standards for HD pickup trucks and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ The Secretary has delegated responsibility for implementing
fuel economy and fuel efficiency requirements under EPCA and EISA to
NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95(a) and (j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. CAFE Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

EPCA requires that the Secretary of Transportation establish and
implement a regulatory program for motor vehicle fuel economy as part
of a comprehensive approach to Federal energy policy. As codified in
Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, and as amended by EISA, EPCA
sets forth specific requirements concerning the establishment of CAFE
standards for passenger cars and light trucks. EPCA requires the
Secretary of Transportation to establish average fuel economy standards
at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year and to set
them at ``the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that . . .
the manufacturers can achieve in that model year.'' \11\ The standards
apply to each manufacturer's fleet average, not to the manufacturer's
individual vehicles. The Secretary, after consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), must establish average fuel economy standards
separately for passenger cars and for light trucks manufactured in each
model year.\12\ In doing so, for the model years to be addressed, the
Secretary of Transportation must set each passenger car and light truck
standard at the ``maximum feasible'' average fuel economy standard for
each model year.\13\ When setting ``maximum feasible'' average fuel
economy standards, the Secretary must ``consider technological
feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle
standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United
States to conserve energy.'' \14\ NHTSA construes the aforementioned
statutory factors as including environmental and safety
considerations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(a).
\12\ Id. 32902(b)(1)-(2).
\13\ Id. 32902(b)(2)(B), (f).
\14\ Id. 32902(f).
\15\ For environmental considerations, see Center for Auto
Safety v. NHTSA, 793 F.2d 1322, 1325 n. 12 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Public
Citizen v. NHTSA, 848 F.2d 256, 262-3 n. 27 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting
that ``NHTSA itself has interpreted the factors it must consider in
setting CAFE standards as including environmental effects''); Center
for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1196 (9th Cir.
2008); 40 CFR 1500.6. For safety considerations, see, e.g.,
Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 956 F.2d 321, 322 (D.C. Cir.
1992) (citing Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 901 F.2d 107,
120 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The standards for passenger cars and light trucks must be ``based
on 1 or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy'' and expressed
``in the form of a mathematical function,'' and they may be established
for not more than five model years at a time.\16\ In addition, NHTSA
must establish minimum standards for domestically manufactured
passenger cars for each model year, which is 92 percent of the
projected average fuel economy for the combined domestic and non-
domestic passenger car fleet for each model year, calculated at the
time the final rule establishing the passenger car standards for those
model years is promulgated.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A)-(B).
\17\ Id. 32902(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA set the first fuel economy standards in 1977, applying to
passenger cars beginning in MY 1978 and light trucks beginning in MY
1979. The stringency of the standards increased through MY 1985, and
then changed little until MY 2005 for light trucks, when NHTSA reformed
the light truck fuel economy program by introducing attribute-based
standards, and MY 2011 for passenger cars, when NHTSA introduced
attribute-based standards for passenger cars using new authority
provided by EISA. CAFE standards have increased progressively for light
trucks since MY 2005 and for passenger cars since MY 2011.
More recently, NHTSA has conducted its fuel economy rulemaking in
coordination with EPA rulemakings that establish greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission standards. In April 2010, NHTSA and EPA issued a joint final
rule establishing fuel economy standards and GHG emissions standards
\18\ for MY 2012-2016 passenger cars and light trucks.\19\ The CAFE
standards were estimated to require a combined average fleet-wide fuel
economy of 34.1 miles per gallon (mpg) by MY 2016.\20\ Subsequently, on
August 28, 2012, NHTSA and EPA issued a final rule setting CAFE and GHG
emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years
2017 and beyond.\21\ Consistent with its statutory authority, NHTSA
developed two phases of passenger car and light truck standards. The
first phase, covering MYs 2017-2021, included final standards that were
projected to require, on an average industry fleet wide basis, a range
from 40.3-41.0 mpg in MY 2021. The second phase of the CAFE program,
covering MYs 2022-2025, included standards that were not final, due to
the statutory requirement that NHTSA set average fuel economy standards
not more than five model years at a time. Rather, NHTSA wrote that
those standards were ``augural,'' meaning that they represented its
best estimate, based on the information available at that time, of what
levels of stringency might be maximum feasible in those model years.
NHTSA projected that those standards could require, on an average
industry fleet wide basis, a range from 48.7-49.7 mpg in model year
2025. EPA confirmed the appropriateness of its final MY 2022-2025
standards in a Mid-

[[Page 50388]]

Term and Final Evaluation in 2016 and 2017.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ EPA issued GHG emissions standards pursuant to the Clean
Air Act. See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a).
\19\ Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule, 75 FR 25323
(May 7, 2010).
\20\ The EPA GHG standards were estimated to require a combined
average fleet-wide level of 250 grams/mile CO2-equivalent
for MY 2016, which is equivalent to 35.5 mpg if all of the
technologies used to reduce GHG emissions were tailpipe
CO2 reducing technologies. The 250 g/mi CO2
equivalent level assumed the use of credits for air conditioning
improvements worth 15 g/mi in MY 2016.
\21\ 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 77 FR 62623
(Oct. 15, 2012).
\22\ Proposed Determination on the Appropriateness of the Model
Year 2022-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
Under the Midterm Evaluation, 81 FR 87927 (Dec. 6, 2016); Final
Determination on the Appropriateness of the Model Year 2022-2025
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Under the
Midterm Evaluation, 81 FR 87927 (Jan. 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequently in 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and
Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao issued a joint notice
announcing EPA's conclusion that it would reconsider its Final
Determination in order to allow additional consultation and
coordination with NHTSA in support of a national harmonized
program.\23\ In 2018, NHTSA and EPA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (also referred to as the ``SAFE Vehicles'' NPRM) in
which the agencies proposed revising the MY 2021 light-duty fuel
economy and CO2 standards and issuing new standards for MYs
2022-2026.\24\ In the 2020 SAFE Vehicles Final Rule, the agencies
amended MY 2021 standards and established standards for MYs 2022-2026
that would increase in stringency at 1.5 percent per year from 2020
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Notice of Intention to Reconsider the Final Determination
of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for
Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles, 82 FR 14671 (Mar. 22,
2017).
\24\ The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule
for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 83 FR 42986 (Aug. 24, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued E.O. 13990, Protecting
Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the
Climate Crisis,\25\ which directed NHTSA and EPA to consider publishing
for notice and comment a proposed rule suspending, revising, or
rescinding the SAFE Vehicles Final Rule by July 2021. Though E.O. 13990
prompted NHTSA's review, NHTSA exercised its own authority, consistent
with its statutory factors, to amend the CAFE standards for MY 2024-
2026 passenger cars and light trucks in a final rule. This action
reflects a conclusion significantly different from the conclusion that
NHTSA reached in the 2020 SAFE Vehicles Final Rule. NHTSA concluded
that significantly more stringent standards were maximum feasible. The
amended CAFE standards increased in stringency for both passenger cars
and light trucks, by 8 percent per year for MYs 2024-2026. While E.O.
13990 directed the review of CAFE standards for MYs 2021-2026, NHTSA
retained the existing CAFE standards for MYs 2021-2023 in light of
EPCA's requirement that amendments that make an average fuel economy
standard more stringent be prescribed at least 18 months before the
beginning of the model year to which the amendment applies.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Executive Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis, 86
FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021).
\26\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. FE Standards for HD Pickup Trucks and Vans

EISA also provided the DOT and NHTSA authority to implement, via
rulemaking and regulations, ``a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-
highway vehicle \27\ and work truck \28\ fuel efficiency improvement
program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement.'' \29\
This program includes on-highway vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more and work trucks rated between
8,500 to 10,000 pounds GVWR. This provision also directs NHTSA to
``adopt and implement appropriate test methods, measurement metrics,
fuel economy standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols that
are appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work
trucks.'' \30\ This authority permits NHTSA to set ``separate standards
for different classes of vehicles.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the U.S. Code: ``commercial medium- and heavy-
duty on-highway vehicle'' means an on-highway vehicle with a gross
vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(7).
\28\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the U.S. Code: ``work truck'' means a vehicle
that--(A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight; and (B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle (as defined
in section 86.1803-01 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as
in effect on the date of the enactment of [EISA]). 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(19).
\29\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 21, 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum to the
Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator
of EPA, and the Administrator of NHTSA that called for coordinated
regulation of the heavy-duty vehicle market segment under EISA and
under the Clean Air Act.\32\ NHTSA and EPA met that directive in August
2011 by finalizing first-of-a-kind standards for new HD engines and
vehicles, as part of a comprehensive HD National Program to reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption for HD vehicles, in MYs 2014 through
2018 (``Phase 1'').\33\ The performance-based standards created a
national program requiring manufacturers to meet targets for fuel
efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. The agencies estimated that
the Phase 1 standards would save vehicle owners and operators an
estimated $50 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of those vehicles
while also reducing oil consumption by a projected 530 billion barrels
and greenhouse gas pollution by approximately 270 million metric
tons.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ See The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21,
2010), available at http://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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-directs-administration-create-first-ever-national-efficiency-and-em (last
accessed April 25, 2014).
\33\ See Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 76 FR
57106 (September 15, 2011).
\34\ See White House Announces First Ever Oil Savings Standards
for Heavy Duty Trucks, Buses (August 9, 2011), available at http://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 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Building on the success of Phase 1 of the program, in a February
18, 2014, Presidential Announcement, President Obama directed NHTSA and
EPA to finalize the next phase of HD vehicle fuel efficiency and
greenhouse gas standards by March 31, 2016.\35\ NHTSA and EPA met that
directive in October 2016 by finalizing standards for new HD engines
and vehicles in MYs 2018 and beyond (``Phase 2''). NHTSA conducted the
Phase 2 rulemaking in consultation with EPA and DOE. The Phase 2
standards were expected to further reduce GHG and increase fuel
efficiency for on-road heavy-duty vehicles. NHTSA's fuel consumption
standards and EPA's carbon dioxide (CO2)

[[Page 50389]]

emissions standards were tailored to each of the three current
regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles: (1) Combination Tractors;
(2) Heavy-duty Pickup Trucks and Vans; and (3) Vocational Vehicles, as
well as gasoline and diesel heavy-duty engines. In addition, the
agencies added new standards for combination trailers. EPA's
hydrofluorocarbon emissions standards that currently apply to air
conditioning systems in tractors, pickup trucks, and vans, were also be
applied to vocational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ See FACT SHEET--Opportunity For All: Improving the Fuel
Efficiency of American Trucks--Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting
Carbon Pollution, Saving Money and Supporting Manufacturing
Innovation (February 18, 2014), available at http://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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/finaltrucksreport.pdf (last accessed April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Current Action

On August 5, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.)
14037, Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks,
which directed NHTSA and EPA to, as appropriate and consistent with
applicable law, take actions under EPCA/EISA and the Clean Air Act
(CAA) to set standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty
vehicles.\36\ Specifically, the E.O. directed NHTSA to consider
beginning work on rulemakings to ``establish new fuel economy standards
for passenger cars and light-duty trucks beginning with model year 2027
and extending through and including at least model year 2030,'';
``establish new fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans beginning with model year 2028 and extending through and
including at least model year 2030,''; and ``establish new fuel
efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles to
begin as soon as model year 2030.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ 86 FR 43583 (August 10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with E.O. 14037, but pursuant to the agency's own
exercise of authority consistent with EPCA/EISA, NHTSA intends to
propose CAFE standards for MYs 2027 and beyond passenger cars and light
trucks, and FE standards for MYs 2029 and beyond HD pickup trucks and
vans in an upcoming NPRM. In accordance with EPCA/EISA's lead time
requirements, NHTSA is statutorily required to issue a final rule for
MY 2027 CAFE standards no later than April, 2025,\37\ and a final rule
for MY 2029 FE standards no later than July 2025.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(a) requires standards to be prescribed at
least 18 months before the beginning of each model year; for CAFE
purposes, NHTSA and manufacturers have historically considered April
of the prior calendar year to mark 18 months before the beginning of
a model year.
\38\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3)(A) requires the commercial medium-
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel economy
standard to provide not less than 4 full model years of regulatory
lead-time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As with the past CAFE and FE rules described above, NHTSA will use
the CAFE Model and other analytic tools to determine the impacts of
different levels of CAFE and FE stringency. Many of the technologies
that vehicle manufacturers use to improve fuel economy and fuel
efficiency on LD and HD pickup trucks and vans are similar, and the
CAFE Model is (and has also historically been) equipped to analyze the
impacts of different levels of stringency for both types of vehicles.
Pursuant to NEPA, NHTSA will prepare an EIS to evaluate the
potential environmental impacts of its proposed action. This Notice of
Intent initiates the scoping process for the EIS under NEPA and its
implementing regulations,\39\ and under NHTSA's NEPA regulations.\40\
Specifically, this Notice of Intent requests public input on the scope
of NHTSA's NEPA analysis, including the alternatives considered and the
significant environmental issues relating to more stringent CAFE
standards for LD and HD pickup trucks and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR Pt. 1500-1508.
\40\ See 40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Considerations for the Range of Alternatives

In an upcoming NPRM, NHTSA intends to propose new CAFE and FE
standards, as described above. This notice briefly describes a variety
of possible alternatives that are currently under consideration by the
agency and seeks input from the public about these alternatives and
about whether other alternatives should be considered as NHTSA proceeds
with the rulemaking and the EIS.

a. Framing the Range of Alternatives

The purpose of and need for an agency's action inform the
reasonable range of alternatives to be considered in its NEPA
analysis.\41\ In developing alternatives for analysis in the EIS, NHTSA
must consider EPCA's requirements for setting CAFE standards and EISA's
requirements for setting FE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ 40 CFR 1502.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA sets CAFE standards as part of a comprehensive energy policy
established by EPCA (and amended by EISA) with the purposes of
conserving energy and of addressing energy independence and security by
reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil. EPCA requires NHTSA to determine
what level of CAFE stringency would be the ``maximum feasible'' for
each model year, a determination made based on the consideration of
four statutory factors: technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other standards of the Government on fuel
economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regards to the FE standards for medium and heavy duty trucks,
EISA requires that: (1) The program must be ``designed to achieve the
maximum feasible improvement''; (2) the various required aspects of the
program must be appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically
feasible for MD/HD vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted under the
program must provide not less than four model years of lead time and
three model years of regulatory stability.\43\ In considering these
various requirements, NHTSA will also account for relevant
environmental and safety considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The range of alternatives will reflect differences in the degree of
technology adoption across the fleet, in costs to manufacturers and
consumers, and in conservation of energy and related impacts to the
environment. For example, the most stringent average annual fuel
economy standard and the most stringent fuel efficiency standard NHTSA
will evaluate would require greater adoption of fuel-saving technology
across the fleet, including more advanced technology, than the least
stringent standard NHTSA will evaluate. As a result, the most stringent
alternative for both the CAFE standard and FE standard would impose
greater costs and achieve greater energy conservation.
More specifically, for CAFE standards, NHTSA will analyze the lower
bound and upper bound of a range of average annual fuel economy
standards that would satisfy EPCA's requirement that the standards be
``maximum feasible'' for each model year, based on the different ways
NHTSA could weigh EPCA's four statutory factors. Generally speaking,
more stringent average annual fuel economy standards might weigh energy
conservation and environmental considerations more heavily and economic
practicability concerns less heavily. In contrast, less stringent
standards might weigh economic practicability concerns more heavily and
energy conservation and environmental considerations less heavily.
For setting FE standards, NHTSA will also analyze action
alternatives calculated at the lower point and at the upper point of a
range of FE standards that would satisfy EISA's requirements of
increasing the fuel efficiency of HD pickup trucks and vans. The lower
and upper bounds of the range of reasonable

[[Page 50390]]

alternatives would reflect different ways NHTSA could weigh the
considerations before the agency in the rulemaking. The lower bound
would reflect the least stringent of the range of alternatives to
achieve the maximum feasible improvement in fuel efficiency. On the
other hand, the upper bound represents the most stringent fuel
efficiency improvement.
The range of alternatives would provide a broad range of
information for NHTSA to use in evaluating and weighing the statutory
factors in EPCA and EISA. The range would also assist the decision-
maker in considering the differences and uncertainties in the way in
which key economic inputs (e.g., the price of fuel and the social cost
of carbon) and technological inputs are estimated or valued.

b. Considerations on Levels of Standards for Regulatory Classes

Within the range of alternatives, NHTSA may consider setting more
stringent standards for the earlier years of the rule than for the
later years, or, alternatively, setting less stringent standards for
the earlier years of the rule than for the later years, depending on
our assessment of what would be ``maximum feasible'' for those time
periods for each fleet. The changes in stringency considered in the
lower and upper bounds may be defined as ``average'' changes in
stringency; the preferred alternative and actual standards may either
be constant throughout the period or may vary from year to year.
However, analysis of the average yearly change over that period would
provide sufficient environmental analysis to bracket the range of
environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives and allow for a
reasoned choice among the alternatives presented. NHTSA also may select
``maximum feasible'' fuel economy standards for some or all model years
that decrease or remain the same as compared to the immediately prior
model year(s).
NHTSA may also consider setting standards for passenger cars and
light trucks at different rates, or that change over different rates
during the timeframe of the rule. For HD pickup trucks and vans, NHTSA
may consider setting pickup truck and van standards at different rates.
NHTSA may also consider setting different levels of standards for HD
pickup trucks and vans that are powered by different fuels (e.g., in
past MD/HD FE rules, NHTSA set separate standards for gasoline- and
diesel-powered vehicles).

c. Considerations on Industry Lead Time

As noted above, NHTSA's statutory authority allows the agency to
take final action prescribing CAFE standards in increments of no more
than five model years,\44\ with no limitation on the number of model
years of standards that NHTSA can set for HD pickup trucks and vans.
Consistent with the aims of EPCA/EISA, which NHTSA interprets to be
improving the efficiency of internal combustion engine vehicles, and
with the aims outlined in E.O. 14037, NHTSA will consider a combination
of proposed and potentially augural standards to accomplish these
goals. As discussed above, NHTSA has used augural standards in the past
to give the automotive industry as much lead time as possible to
respond to a set of coordinated federal standards. As discussed below,
NHTSA seeks comment on whether and how the agency could use a
combination of proposed and augural standards to fulfill the goals
stated herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Considerations on Standard Attributes and Form

In the previous CAFE rulemaking, for the LD program, NHTSA used
vehicle footprint \45\ as the attribute. The standards were defined as
footprint ``curves'' for passenger cars and light trucks in each model
year, where vehicles of different footprints have specific fuel economy
``targets,'' with larger vehicles (and light trucks) generally having
lower fuel economy targets than smaller vehicles (and passenger cars),
reflecting their fuel economy capabilities.\46\ In the previous MD/HD
rulemaking, for HD pickup trucks and vans, NHTSA used work factor \47\
as the metric for setting HD pickup trucks and vans FE standards. NHTSA
established separate curves for diesel and gasoline HD pickup trucks
and vans. As discussed further below, NHTSA seeks comment on the
attribute used to set CAFE and FE standards, possible other attributes
that could be used to set CAFE and FE standards, the shape of the
standards curves, and other programmatic aspects that could help
fulfill the goals outlined herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ Footprint, which is a measure of vehicle size, is
calculated by multiplying a vehicle's wheelbase by its track width.
\46\ Vehicle models of the same fleet but made by different
manufacturers would have the same fuel economy target if they had
the same vehicle footprint (i.e., the quantity of the attribute upon
which the standards would be based).
\47\ Work factor is an attribute that combines a vehicle's
payload, towing capabilities, and the presence of 4-wheel drive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Other Programmatic Considerations

As with any CAFE and FE rulemaking, NHTSA will also consider
programmatic aspects other than stringency (e.g., flexibilities and
vehicle classification) that may affect model years including those for
which NHTSA would set CAFE and FE standards.

III. Range of Alternatives

NHTSA is considering the following alternatives for analysis in the
Draft EIS:

a. No Action Alternative

NEPA requires agencies to consider a ``no action'' alternative in
their NEPA analyses and to compare the effects of not taking action
with the effects of the reasonable action alternatives in order to
demonstrate the different environmental effects of the action
alternatives.\48\ In this EIS, with regards to CAFE standards, NHTSA
will consider a ``no action'' alternative, which assumes for purposes
of NEPA analysis that NHTSA would issue a rule that would continue the
current CAFE standards for MY 2026. Given that NHTSA must set new CAFE
standards and may not strictly take no action on fuel economy,\49\ the
agency has determined that, for this rulemaking, the closest analogue
to a true ``no action'' alternative would be to continue the already
existing and enforceable standards indefinitely without further change.
The no action alternative would also take into account the California
Air Resources Board's (CARB) Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II program, set
to begin in model year 2026. The ACC II program requires an increasing
number of zero-emission vehicles sold in the state through through
2035, at which point all new passenger cars, trucks, and

[[Page 50391]]

SUVs sold in California will be zero emissions. Several other states
have formally adopted California's vehicle emissions standards under
section 177 of the Federal Clean Air Act, and are assumed to continue
to do so with ACC II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14. CEQ has explained that
``[T]he regulations require the analysis of the no action
alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative
command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling
decision makers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of
the action alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in the
EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the President
as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 1500.1(a).]'' Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis added).
\49\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(a). CEQ has explained that ``[T]he
regulations require the analysis of the no action alternative even
if the agency is under a court order or legislative command to act.
This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to
compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action
alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is
necessary to inform the Congress, the public, and the President as
intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 1500.1(a).]'' Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regards to FE standards, NHTSA will consider a ``no action''
alternative, which assumes, for purposes of NEPA analysis, that NHTSA
would not issue a new rule regarding HD pickup trucks and vans fuel
efficiency standards. Under these circumstances, the existing fuel
efficiency standards established for the end of Phase 2 would persist
until NHTSA takes additional action. The no action alternative would
also take into account CARB's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) program, set
to begin in model year 2024. The ACT program stipulates that
manufacturers must electrify specified percentages of their heavy-duty
fleets in order to continue selling heavy-duty vehicles in California
and other states that have formally adopted the program.
NHTSA will refer to this alternative that includes the conditions
described for CAFE and FE standards as the ``No Action Alternative'' or
as the ``baseline.''

b. Action Alternatives

The EIS will also analyze action alternatives calculated at the
lower point and at the upper point of the range the agency believes
encompasses reasonable alternatives meeting the purpose and need of the
proposed action. These lower and upper ``bounds'' or ``brackets'' will
account for various potential structures for the CAFE standards for
passenger cars and light trucks and for the FE standards for the HD
pickup trucks and vans and various levels of stringency for the
regulatory categories (see more about the bounds discussed in this
notice above). These alternatives would bracket the range of actions
the agency may select. In sum, in its final rule, NHTSA would be able
to select from any stringency level within that range. NHTSA seeks
public comments on the stringency levels at which to define the lower
and upper bounds of this range of reasonable alternatives.

c. Preferred Alternative

In the EIS, NHTSA intends to identify a Preferred Alternative,
which may be within the level of stringency that falls within the range
being considered or may be the lower or upper bound levels of
stringency. The Preferred Alternative would reflect what the agency
believes is the ``maximum feasible'' fuel economy standards for
passenger cars and light trucks and the ``maximum feasible
improvement'' required under EISA for FE standards. The Preferred
Alternative may include improvements that are constant throughout the
regulatory period or that vary from year to year (and from segment to
segment) in accordance with predetermined stringency increases that
would be established by this rule. However, the overall stringency and
impacts will fall at or between the lower and upper brackets discussed
above. NHTSA has not yet identified its Preferred Alternative.

IV. Consideration of Expected Impacts

The scoping process initiated by this notice seeks to determine
``the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered'' in
the EIS and to identify the most important issues for analysis
involving the potential environmental impacts of NHTSA's CAFE and FE
standards.\50\ NHTSA's NEPA analysis will consider direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects of the proposed action and those of reasonable
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ See 40 CFR 1500.5(f), 1501.7, 1501.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the main focus of NHTSA's prior CAFE EISs (i.e., the CAFE
EISs for MYs 2017-2025,\51\ MY 2021-2026,\52\ and MYs 2024-2026,\53\
and the HD Phase 1 \54\ and Phase 2 \55\ EIS) was the quantification of
impacts to energy, air quality, and climate, and qualitative analysis
of life-cycle impacts and cumulative impacts, it also addressed other
potentially affected resources. NHTSA conducted a qualitative review of
impacts on resources such as water resources, biological resources,
land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural
resources, and environmental justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2017-2025, Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056-2089 (July 2012).
\52\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, SAFER Affordable
Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rules, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,
Model Years 2021-2026, Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056-2089 (July 2012).
\53\ Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks, Model Years 2024-2026, Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0054 (March
2022).
\54\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, Model Years 2014-2018,
Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079-0151 (June 2011).
\55\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, Model Years 2018-2027,
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0074 (August 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similar to past EIS practice, NHTSA plans to analyze environmental
impacts related to fuel and energy use, emissions and their effects on
climate change and the environment,\56\ air quality,\57\ natural
resources, and the human environment. NHTSA is considering examining
life-cycle impacts consistent with its past EISs and looking at tools
that may be available for quantitative analysis. NHTSA will consider
the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed CAFE and FE standards,
as well as the cumulative effects \58\ of the proposed CAFE and FE
standards together with any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ NHTSA is planning to include in this EIS a quantitative
analysis to estimate the impact of the alternatives on ocean
acidification based on changes in atmospheric CO2
concentrations.
\57\ Consistent with past practice, in addition to the air
quality analysis presented in the Draft and Final EIS, NHTSA will
conduct a national-scale photochemical air quality modeling and
health risks assessment that will be included in the Final EIS, but
not the Draft EIS, due to the substantial time required to complete
the analysis. In addition, because of the lead time required for
this analysis, it will be based on the alternatives presented in the
Draft EIS, but not the alternatives as they may be revised for the
Final EIS. Still, NHTSA believes the analysis will provide
meaningful information for the decisionmaker and the public.
\58\ In accordance with CEQ regulations, cumulative impacts are
``the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental
impacts of the action when added to the impacts of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of
time.'' 40 CFR 1508.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimates of fuel used as a result of different levels of standards
are used as inputs for the EIS's climate modeling. As with any model,
uncertainties exist in modeling potential future climate change
scenarios. Because all analysis of possible future outcomes necessarily
involves uncertainty, including what NHTSA will consider for this
rulemaking and EIS, NHTSA anticipates uncertainty in its estimates of
the potential environmental impacts related to climate change. To
account for this uncertainty, NHTSA plans to evaluate a range of
potential global temperature changes that may result from changes in
fuel and energy consumption and GHG emissions attributable to new CAFE
and FE standards. It is difficult to quantify how the specific impacts
due to the potential temperature changes attributable to new CAFE and
FE standards may affect many aspects of the environment. NHTSA will
endeavor to gather the key relevant and credible information using a
transparent process that employs the best available peer-reviewed
science and economics. NHTSA invites public comments on the scope of
its analysis on climate change impacts, including citations to peer-

[[Page 50392]]

reviewed scientific articles to frame and analyze the relevant issues.
In order to streamline its documentation and eliminate redundancy,
NHTSA plans not to include analyses of either monetized health benefits
in its air quality analysis or monetized climate change benefits in its
climate change analysis in the EIS, as both of those analyses will be
included in its RIA (consistent with past practice), which is subject
to public notice and comment concurrently with the EIS. NHTSA will
incorporate the analyses in the RIA by reference in the EIS consistent
with the requirements of the CEQ implementing regulations.\59\ The EIS
will continue to present analyses on air quality emissions (including
non-monetized health impacts), GHG emissions, and climate change
impacts (including impacts on CO2 concentrations,
temperature, sea-level rise, and precipitation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ 40 CFR 1501.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA expects to rely on previously published EISs, incorporating
material by reference ``when the effect will be to cut down on bulk
without impeding agency and public review of the action.'' \60\
Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA analysis and documentation will incorporate
by reference relevant materials, including portions of the agency's
prior NEPA documents, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. The Scoping Process

NHTSA's NEPA analysis will consider the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental effects of proposed standards and those of
reasonable alternatives. The scoping process initiated by this notice
seeks public comment on the range of alternatives under consideration,
on the impacts to be considered, and on the most important matters for
in-depth analysis in the EIS. All comments relevant to the scoping
process are welcome.
NHTSA invites the public to participate in the scoping process \61\
by submitting written comments concerning the appropriate scope of the
NEPA analysis for the proposed CAFE and FE standards to the docket
number identified in the heading of this notice, using any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. NHTSA does
not plan to hold a public scoping meeting because, based on prior
experience, written comments will be effective in identifying and
narrowing the considerations for analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ Consistent with NEPA and implementing regulations, NHTSA is
sending this notice directly to: (1) Federal agencies having
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the
environmental impacts involved or authorized to develop and enforce
environmental standards; (2) the Governors of every State, to share
with the appropriate agencies and offices within their
administrations and with the local jurisdictions within their
States; (3) organizations representing state and local governments
and Indian tribes; and (4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably
expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for the MY 2028-2032
CAFE standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR
1501.7, 1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Comments on the Range of Alternatives

NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency considers a full
range of reasonable alternatives in setting new CAFE standards for MYs
2027 and beyond passenger cars and light trucks and new FE standards
for MYs 2029 and beyond HD pickup trucks and vans. Comments may go
beyond the approaches and information that NHTSA described above for
developing the alternatives. NHTSA understands that there are a variety
of potential alternatives that could be considered that fit within the
purpose and need for the proposed rulemaking, as set forth in both the
EPCA and EISA. NHTSA is therefore interested in comments on how best to
structure or describe proposed alternatives for purposes of evaluation
under NEPA. Subject to the statutory restraints under the EPCA and
EISA, a variety of potential alternatives could be considered within
the purpose and need for the proposed rulemaking, each falling along a
theoretically infinite continuum of potential standards. As described
above, NHTSA plans to address this issue by identifying alternatives at
the upper and lower bounds of a range within which we believe the
statutory requirement for ``maximum feasible improvement'' \62\ would
be satisfied, as well as identifying and analyzing the impacts of a
preferred alternative. In this way, NHTSA expects to bracket the
potential environmental impacts of the standards it may select.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
\63\ Should NHTSA ultimately choose to set standards at levels
other than the Preferred Alternative, we believe that this
bracketing will properly inform the decision-maker, so long as the
standards are set within its bounds. This methodology permits the
analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives the agency may pick,
while providing the agency flexibility to select the alternative
based on the most up-to-date information and analyses available at
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency may modify the proposed alternatives that will be
analyzed in depth based upon the comments received during the scoping
process and upon further agency analysis. When suggesting an approach
to developing alternatives that the agency should analyze, please
explain the recommended way to balance EPCA's factors (technological
feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle
standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United
States to conserve energy).\64\ Similarly, when suggesting an approach
to developing alternatives for HD pickup trucks and vans, please
explain the recommended way to balance EISA's factors ((1) The program
must be ``designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement''; (2)
the various required aspects of the program must be appropriate, cost-
effective, and technologically feasible for MD/HD vehicles; and (3) the
standards adopted under the program must provide not less than four
model years of lead time and three model years of regulatory
stability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ Note that NHTSA is statutorily prohibited from considering
statutorily-provided flexibility mechanisms in determining what
standards would be maximum feasible. 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments on Environmental Effects

NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency identifies the
environmental impacts and focuses its analyses on all the potentially
significant impacts related to each alternative. Comments may go beyond
the approaches and information that NHTSA described above for
identifying the potentially significant environmental effects. The
agency may modify the environmental effects that will be analyzed in
depth based upon the comments received during the scoping process and
upon further agency analysis. When suggesting additional resource areas
to analyze, please explain how the recommendation will add value to the
public and decisionmaker in looking at the environmental impacts of the
range of identified alternatives.
Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant
considerations that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying
and eliminating from detailed analysis the matters that are not
significant and therefore require only a brief discussion in the
EIS.\65\ In light of these purposes, written comments should include an
internet citation (with a date last visited) to each study or report
cited in the comments, if one is available. If a document cited is not
available to the public online, the commenter should either provide
sufficient bibliographical information to allow NHTSA to locate and
obtain a copy of the study or attach

[[Page 50393]]

a copy to the comments.\66\ Commenters should indicate how each
document cited or attached to their comments is relevant to the NEPA
analysis and indicate the specific pages and passages in the attachment
that are most informative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1502.2(b).
\66\ Please be mindful of copyright restrictions when attaching
documents to any comments, as they will be made publicly available
in the agency's docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The more specific the comments are, and the more support they
provide in identifying peer-reviewed scientific studies and reports,
the more useful the comments will be to the NEPA process. For example,
if a comment identifies an additional area of impact or environmental
concern that NHTSA should analyze, or an analytical tool or model that
NHTSA should use to evaluate these environmental impacts, the comment
should clearly describe it and provide a reference to a specific peer-
reviewed scientific study, report, tool, or model, if possible.
Specific, well-supported comments will help the agency prepare an EIS
that is focused and relevant and will serve NEPA's overarching aims of
making high quality information available to decisionmakers and the
public by ``avoid[ing] useless bulk in statements and . . .
concentrate[ing] effort and attention on important issues.'' \67\ By
contrast, mere assertions that the agency should evaluate broad lists
or categories of concerns, without support, will not assist the scoping
process for the proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ 40 CFR 1502.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the
heading of this notice in any submitted comments. All comments and
materials received, including the names and addresses of the commenters
who submit them, will become part of the administrative record and will
be posted on the web at http://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 (http://www.nhtsa.gov).

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
parts 1.95, 501.5 and 501.8.
Milton E. Cooper,
Director, Rulemaking Operations.
[FR Doc. 2022-17558 Filed 8-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-51-P