[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48894-48900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23199]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 534, 536 and 537
[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059]
Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Notice of
Public Hearing
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS); notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA has prepared a DEIS to disclose and analyze the
potential environmental impacts of proposed Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards for model year (MY) 2012-2016 passenger cars
and light trucks, which NHTSA recently proposed pursuant to the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, and a reasonable range of
alternative standards. To inform decisionmakers and the public, the
DEIS compares the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
standards and alternative standards reflecting a full range of
stringencies, and it analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
in proportion to their significance. The DEIS provides a detailed
analysis of potential impacts on energy resources, air quality, and
climate. The DEIS uses climate modeling and NHTSA's own computer model
(known as the ``Volpe model'') to provide quantitative estimates of
potential impacts on air quality, carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions, global mean surface temperature, precipitation, and sea
level rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of resources that
may be impacted by changes in climate, such as freshwater resources,
terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land use, human health, and
environmental justice. It examines these impacts on the U.S. and on a
global scale. In addition, the DEIS analyzes potential environmental
impacts unrelated to climate change.
DATES: Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held on Friday,
October 30, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the National Transportation
Safety Board Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
20594. NHTSA recommends that all persons attending the hearing arrive
at least 45 minutes early in order to facilitate entry into the
[[Page 48895]]
Conference Center. If you wish to attend or speak at the hearing, you
must register in advance no later than Monday, October 19, 2009, by
following the instructions in the Procedural Matters section of this
notice. NHTSA will consider late registrants to the extent time and
space allows, but NHTSA cannot ensure that late registrants will be
able to speak at the hearing.
Comments: To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to consider
comments on the DEIS, NHTSA must receive written comments within 45
days of the date the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
publishes a Notice of Availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register.
NHTSA anticipates that EPA will publish that Notice on Friday,
September 25, 2009, in which case NHTSA must receive written comments
on the DEIS by Monday, November 9, 2009. NHTSA will try to consider
comments received after that date to the extent the NEPA and rulemaking
schedules allow, but NHTSA cannot ensure that it will be able to do so.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter Prout or Ms. Angel Jackson,
Telephone: 1-202-366-0846, Fuel Economy Division, Office of
International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. E-mail: [email protected]. Information about the
CAFE rulemaking and the NEPA process is also available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
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 should mention the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket at 1-800-647-5527.
Note that all comments received, including any personal
information, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA has prepared a DEIS to disclose and
analyze the potential environmental impacts of proposed CAFE standards
for MY 2012-2016 passenger cars and light trucks and a reasonable range
of alternative standards.\1\ NHTSA invites Federal, State, and local
agencies, Indian tribes, and the public to submit written comments and
participate in a public hearing on the DEIS using the instructions set
forth in this notice. As described in the Procedural Matters section of
this notice, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately
ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the time for each speaker
if there is a large turnout. To facilitate review of the DEIS, NHTSA
has posted the DEIS on its Web site, and it will be available in the
Docket identified by the docket number at the beginning of this
notice.\2\ Copies in hard copy or electronic (CD-ROM) form have been
sent to all stakeholders on NHTSA's National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) mailing list for the proposed CAFE standards, and NHTSA will
mail a CD-ROM containing the DEIS and its Appendices to any other
interested party who requests one. NHTSA will consider the public
comments received on the DEIS in preparing final NEPA documents to
support final CAFE standards for MY 2012-2016 passenger cars and light
trucks, which NHTSA plans to issue early next year. The agency's NEPA
analysis is informing NHTSA's development of those standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
4321-4347, and implementing regulations issued by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR 1500-1508, and NHTSA, 49 CFR
part 520.
\2\ The DEIS is available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is proposing standards pursuant to amendments made by the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) to the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA).\3\ To inform decisionmakers
and the public, the DEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts
of the proposed standards and alternative standards reflecting a range
of stringencies, and it analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts in proportion to their significance. The DEIS provides a
detailed analysis of potential impacts on energy resources, air
quality, and climate. The DEIS uses climate modeling and NHTSA's Volpe
model to provide quantitative estimates of potential impacts on air
quality, CO2 emissions, global mean surface temperature,
precipitation, and sea level rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative
analysis of resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such
as freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems,
land use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines impacts
on the U.S. and on a global scale. In addition, the DEIS analyzes
potential environmental impacts unrelated to climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EISA is Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007).
EPCA is codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background. EPCA sets forth extensive requirements concerning the
rulemaking to establish MY 2012-2016 CAFE standards. It requires the
Secretary of Transportation \4\ 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 Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model
year.'' When setting ``maximum feasible'' fuel economy standards, the
Secretary is required to ``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.'' \5\ NHTSA construes the statutory factors as
including environmental and safety considerations.\6\ NHTSA also
considers environmental impacts under NEPA when setting CAFE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NHTSA is delegated responsibility for implementing the EPCA
fuel economy requirements assigned to the Secretary of
Transportation. 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(a)(8).
\5\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(a), 32902(f).
\6\ 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As recently amended, EPCA further directs the Secretary, after
consultation with the Secretary of Energy (DOE) and the EPA
Administrator, to establish separate average fuel economy standards for
passenger cars and for light trucks manufactured in each model year
beginning with model year 2011 ``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.'' \7\ In doing so, the
Secretary of Transportation is required to increase average fuel
economy standards for MY 2011-2020 vehicles through ``annual
[[Page 48896]]
fuel economy standard increases.'' \8\ The standards for passenger cars
and light trucks must be ``based on 1 or more vehicle attributes
related to fuel economy.'' In any single rulemaking, standards may be
established for not more than five model years.\9\ EPCA also mandates a
minimum standard for domestically manufactured passenger cars.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(1), 32902(b)(2)(A).
\8\ 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(2)(C).
\9\ 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(3)(A), 32902(b)(3)(B).
\10\ 49 U.S.C.A.32902(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EISA, on April 22, 2008, NHTSA proposed CAFE standards
for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).\11\ On March 21, 2008, NHTSA issued a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the MY 2011-2015 CAFE
standards.\12\ On October 10, 2008, NHTSA submitted to the EPA its
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015. EPA
published a Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) in the Federal Register on October 17, 2008.\13\ On
January 7, 2009, the DOT announced that the Bush Administration would
not issue the final rule.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Average Fuel Economy
Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks--Model Years 2011-2015,
73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008). At the same time, NHTSA requested updated
product plan information from the automobile manufacturers. See
Request for Product Plan Information, Passenger Car Average Fuel
Economy Standards--Model Years 2008-2020 and Light Truck Average
Fuel Economy Standards--Model Years 2008-2020, 73 FR 21490 (May 2,
2008).
\12\ 73 FR 16615 (Mar. 28, 2008).
\13\ 73 FR 38204 (Jul. 3, 2008).
\14\ The January 7, 2008 statement from the U.S. Department of
Transportation can be found at: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot0109.htm (last accessed Jun. 9, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of calls for the development of new national
policies to prompt sustained domestic and international actions to
address the closely intertwined issues of energy independence, energy
security, and climate change, President Obama issued a memorandum on
January 26, 2009 to the Secretary of Transportation and the NHTSA
Administrator.\15\ The memorandum requested that NHTSA divide the MY
2011-2015 rulemaking into two parts: (1) MY 2011 standards, and (2)
standards for MY 2012 and beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Memorandum for the Secretary of Transportation and the
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
74 FR 4907 (Jan. 26, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The request that the final rule establishing CAFE standards for MY
2011 passenger cars and light trucks be prescribed by March 30, 2009
was based on two factors. One was the requirement that the final rule
regarding fuel economy standards for a given model year must be adopted
at least 18 months before the beginning of that model year (49 U.S.C.
32902(g)(2)). The other was that the beginning of MY 2011 is considered
for the purposes of CAFE standard setting to be October 1, 2010.
For MYs 2012 and beyond, the President requested that, before
promulgating a final rule concerning the model years after model year
2011, NHTSA
[C]onsider the appropriate legal factors under the EISA, the
comments filed in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
relevant technological and scientific considerations, and to the
extent feasible, the forthcoming report by the National Academy of
Sciences mandated under section 107 of EISA.
In addition, the President requested that NHTSA consider whether
any provisions regarding preemption are appropriate under applicable
law and policy.
On April 1, 2009, NHTSA published a NOI to prepare an EIS for the
MY 2012-2016 CAFE standards. The NOI described the statutory
requirements for the standards, provided initial information about the
NEPA process, and initiated scoping \16\ by requesting public input on
the scope of the environmental analysis to be conducted.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Scoping, as defined under NEPA, is an early and open
process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in an
EIS and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed
action. See 40 CFR 1501.7.
\17\ See Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 74 FR
14857 (Apr. 1, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposed Action and Possible Alternatives: Concurrent with this
DEIS, NHTSA and EPA are each announcing joint proposed rules whose
benefits would address the urgent and closely intertwined challenges of
energy independence and security and global warming. These proposed
rules call for a strong and coordinated federal greenhouse gas and fuel
economy program for passenger cars, light-duty-trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles (hereafter light-duty vehicles), referred to as the
National Program. The proposed rules can achieve substantial
improvements in fuel economy and reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from the light-duty vehicle part of the transportation
sector, based on technology that is already being commercially applied
in most cases and that can be incorporated at a reasonable cost.
The joint proposed standards are consistent with the President's
announcement on May 19, 2009 of a National Fuel Efficiency Policy of
establishing consistent, harmonized, and streamlined requirements that
would improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions for all
new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States.\18\ The
National Program holds out the promise of delivering additional
environmental and energy benefits, cost savings, and administrative
efficiencies on a nationwide basis that might not be available under a
less coordinated approach. The proposed National Program also offers
the prospect of regulatory convergence by making it possible for the
standards of two different federal agencies and the standards of
California and other states to act in a unified fashion in providing
these benefits. This would allow automakers to produce and sell a
single fleet nationally. Thus, it may also help to mitigate the
additional costs that manufacturers would otherwise face in having to
comply with multiple sets of federal and state standards. This joint
notice is also consistent with the Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking
signed by DOT and EPA on May 19 \19\ and responds to the President's
January 26, 2009 memorandum on CAFE standards for model years 2011 and
beyond.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ President Obama Announces National Fuel Efficiency Policy,
The White House, May 19, 2009. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-National-Fuel-Efficiency-Policy/ (last accessed August 18, 2009).
Remarks by the President on National Fuel Efficiency Standards, The
White House, May 19, 2009. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-national-fuel-efficiency-standards/ (Last accessed August 18, 2009).
\19\ 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009).
\20\ Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential_Memorandum_Fuel_Economy/ (last accessed on August
18, 2009)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed standards, each vehicle manufacturer's required
level of CAFE would be based on target levels of average fuel economy
set for vehicles of different sizes and on the distribution of that
manufacturer's vehicles among those sizes. Size would be defined by
vehicle footprint.\21\ The level of the performance target for each
footprint is intended to reflect the technological and economic
capabilities of the industry.
[[Page 48897]]
The specific target for each footprint is the same for all
manufacturers, regardless of differences in their overall fleet mix.
Compliance would be determined by comparing a manufacturer's
harmonically averaged fleet fuel economy levels in a model year with a
required fuel economy level calculated using the manufacturer's actual
production levels and the targets for each footprint of the vehicles
that it produces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ A vehicle's ``footprint'' is generally defined as ``the
product of track width [the lateral distance between the centerlines
of the base tires at ground, including the camber angle] * * * times
wheelbase [the longitudinal distance between front and rear wheel
centerlines] * * * divided by 144 * * *.'' 49 CFR 523.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEPA requires an agency to compare the potential environmental
impacts of its proposed action and a reasonable range of alternatives.
In developing the proposed standards and the alternatives, NHTSA
considered the four EPCA factors underlying maximum feasibility
(technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of
other standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the
nation to conserve energy) as well as relevant environmental and safety
considerations. NHTSA is also guided by President Obama's memorandum to
DOT on January 26, 2009, as described in Background.
Section 1501.6 of the CEQ regulations emphasize agency cooperation
early in the NEPA process and allow a lead agency (in this case, NHTSA)
to request the assistance of other agencies that either have
jurisdiction by law or have special expertise regarding issues
considered in an EIS. NHTSA invited EPA to be a cooperating agency,
pursuant to the CEQ regulations, because of its special expertise in
the areas of climate change and air quality.\22\ On May 12, 2009, the
EPA accepted NHTSA's invitation and agreed to become a cooperating
agency. NHTSA also consulted with DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 40 CFR 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Preferred Alternative requires approximately a 4.3-percent
average annual increase in mpg, resulting in an estimated required MY
2016 fleetwide 38.0 mpg for passenger cars and 28.3 mpg for light
trucks.\23\ The Preferred Alternative also results in a combined
estimated required fleetwide 34.1 mpg in MY 2016. The agency's
Preferred Alternative represents the required fuel economy level that
we have tentatively determined to be the maximum feasible under EPCA,
based on our balancing of statutory considerations. A full discussion
regarding the agency's tentative conclusion that Alternative 4
represents the ``maximum feasible'' average fuel economy level that the
Secretary has decided the manufacturers can achieve, considering the
statutory and other relevant factors, and is therefore the agency's
Preferred Alternative, can be found in Section IV.F of the joint
preamble of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NHTSA notes that it cannot set out the precise level of
CAFE that each manufacturer would be required to meet for each model
year under the proposed standards, because the level for each
manufacturer would depend on that manufacturer's final production
figures and fleet mix for a particular model year. That information
will not be available until the end of each model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This alternative, along with EPA's proposed standards, form the
National Program and together are consistent with the National Fuel
Efficiency Policy announced by President Obama on May 19, 2009. Under
the National Program, the overall light-duty vehicle fleet would reach
35.5 mpg in MY 2016, if all reductions were made through fuel economy
improvements. In considering further action on the proposed standards
and reasonable alternatives, NHTSA also will consider its NEPA
analysis.
In addition to the proposed standards, NHTSA has considered several
regulatory alternatives for purposes of both Executive Order 12866 \24\
and its NEPA analysis, which includes a ``no action'' alternative as
required by NEPA. The alternatives, in order of increasing stringency,
are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Exec. Order 12,866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58
FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A ``no action'' alternative, which assumes, strictly for
purposes of NEPA analysis, that no action would occur under CAFE (or
under the National Program). Under that alternative, NHTSA would not
issue a rule regarding CAFE standards for MY 2012-2016. The No Action
Alternative assumes that average fuel economy levels in the absence of
CAFE standards beyond MY 2011 would equal the higher of the agencies'
collective market forecast or the manufacturers' required level of
average fuel economy for MY 2011. The MY 2011 fuel economy level
represents the standard NHTSA believes manufacturers would continue to
abide by, assuming NHTSA does not issue a rule. NEPA requires agencies
to consider a ``no action'' alternative in their NEPA analyses and to
compare the effects of not taking action with the effects of the
reasonable action alternatives to demonstrate the different
environmental effects of the action alternatives. The recent amendments
to EPCA direct NHTSA to set new CAFE standards and do not permit the
agency to take no action on fuel economy.\25\ NHTSA refers to this as
the ``No Action Alternative'' or as a ``no increase'' or ``baseline''
alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 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. It is also an
example of a reasonable alternative outside the jurisdiction of the
agency which must be analyzed. [See 40 CFR 1502.14(c).] * * *
Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform
Congress, the public, and the President as intended by NEPA. [See 40
CFR 1500.1(a).]'' Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's
National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981)
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A 3-percent average annual increase in mpg, resulting in a
required MY 2016 fleetwide 35.6 mpg for passenger cars and 26.6 mpg for
light trucks. The 3-Percent Alternative results in a combined required
fleetwide 32.0 mpg in MY 2016.
(3) A 4-percent average annual increase in mpg, resulting in a
required MY 2016 fleetwide 37.4 mpg for passenger cars and 27.9 mpg for
light trucks. The 4-Percent Alternative results in a combined required
fleetwide 33.6 mpg in MY 2016.
(4) An approximately 4.3-percent average annual increase in mpg,
resulting in an estimated required MY 2016 fleetwide 38.0 mpg for
passenger cars and 28.3 mpg for light trucks. The Preferred Alternative
results in a combined estimated required fleetwide 34.1 mpg in MY 2016.
(5) A 5-percent average annual increase in mpg, resulting in a
required MY 2016 fleetwide 39.3 mpg for passenger cars and 29.3 mpg for
light trucks. The 5-Percent Alternative results in a required achieved
fleetwide 35.2 mpg in MY 2016.
(6) The ``MNB Alternative,'' in which the Volpe model applies
technologies to the vehicle market forecast until marginal benefits are
estimated to equal marginal costs and net benefits are maximized. In
this case, the model continues to include technologies until the
marginal cost of adding the next technology exceeds the marginal
benefit. This alternative requires approximately a 5.9-percent average
annual increase in mpg, resulting in a required MY 2016 fleetwide 40.9
mpg for passenger cars and 30.6 mpg for light trucks. The MNB
Alternative results in a combined required fleetwide 36.8 mpg in MY
2016.
(7) A 6-percent average annual increase in mpg, resulting in a
required MY 2016 fleetwide 41.1 mpg for passenger cars and 30.7 mpg for
light trucks. The 6-Percent Alternative results in a combined required
fleetwide 36.9 mpg in MY 2016.
(8) A 7-percent average annual increase, resulting in a required MY
2016 fleetwide 43.1 mpg for passenger cars and 32.2 mpg for light
trucks. The
[[Page 48898]]
7-Percent Alternative results in a combined required fleetwide 38.7 mpg
in MY 2016.
(9) The ``TCTB Alternative,'' in which the Volpe model applies
technologies to the vehicle market forecast until total cost equals
total benefit. In this case, the model increases the standard to a
point where essentially total costs of the technologies added together
over the baseline equals total benefits added over the baseline. This
alternative requires approximately a 6.7-percent average annual
increase in mpg, resulting in a required MY 2016 fleetwide 42.7 mpg for
passenger cars and 31.5 mpg for light trucks. The TCTB Alternative
results in a combined required fleetwide 38.1 mpg in MY 2016.
Of the eight action alternatives that NHTSA is proposing,
Alternative 2 (3-Percent Alternative), Alternative 3 (4-Percent
Alternative), Alternative 5 (5-Percent Alternative), Alternative 7 (6-
Percent Alternative), and Alternative 8 (7-Percent Alternative),
require the average fuel economy for the industry-wide combined
passenger car and light truck fleet to increase, on average, by a
specified percentage for each model year from 2012-2016. Because the
percentage increases in stringency are ``average'' increases, they may
either be constant throughout the period or may vary from year to year.
Three of the alternatives were added to the list of alternatives
first proposed in the NOI to prepare an EIS for MY 2012-2016--the
agency's Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4), an alternative that
maximizes net benefits (MNB) (Alternative 6), and an alternative under
which total costs equal total benefits (TCTB) (Alternative 9). The
agency's Preferred Alternative represents the required fuel economy
level that we have tentatively determined to be maximum feasible under
EPCA, based on our balancing of statutory and other considerations. See
Background. The other two alternatives, MNB and TCTB, represent fuel
economy levels that are dependent on the agency's best estimate of
relevant economic variables (e.g., gasoline prices, social cost of
carbon, the discount rate, and rebound effect). The MNB Alternative and
TCTB Alternative provide the decisionmaker and the public with useful
information about where the standards would be set if costs and
benefits were balanced in two different ways. All three alternatives
(Preferred Alternative, MNB Alternative, and TCTB Alternative) are
placed in context by identifying the approximate, on average annual
percentage fuel economy increase, so that the public is able to see
where they fall on the continuum of alternatives. See Section Three of
NHTSA's Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis for a more detailed
description of the MNB and TCTB Alternatives.
NHTSA's decision process must balance the four EPCA factors and be
informed by the environmental considerations of NEPA. In developing its
reasonable range of alternatives, NHTSA identified alternative
stringencies that represent the full spectrum of potential
environmental impacts and safety considerations.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Given EPCA's mandate that NHTSA consider specific factors
in setting CAFE standards and NEPA's instruction that agencies give
effect to NEPA's policies ``to the fullest extent possible,'' NHTSA
recognizes that a large number of alternative CAFE levels are
potentially conceivable and that the alternatives described above
essentially represent several of many points on a continuum of
alternatives. Along the continuum, each alternative represents a
different way in which NHTSA conceivably could assign weight to each
of the four EPCA factors and NEPA's policies. CEQ guidance instructs
that ``[w]hen there are potentially a very large number of
alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the
full spectrum of alternatives, must be analyzed and compared in the
EIS.'' CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026, 18027, Mar. 23,
1981 (emphasis original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEPA Process and the DEIS. Under NEPA, a federal agency must
analyze environmental impacts if the agency implements a proposed
action, provides funding for an action, or issues a permit for that
action. Specifically, NEPA directs that ``to the fullest extent
possible,'' federal agencies proposing ``major federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment'' must
prepare ``a detailed statement'' on the environmental impacts of the
proposed action (including alternatives to the proposed action). To
inform its development of the new MY 2012-2016 CAFE standards required
under EPCA, as amended by EISA, NHTSA prepared this draft EIS to
analyze and disclose the potential environmental impacts of a proposed
preferred alternative and other proposed alternative standards. To
inform its development of the new MY 2012-2016 CAFE standards required
under EPCA, as amended by EISA, NHTSA prepared the DEIS to analyze and
disclose the potential environmental impacts of a proposed preferred
alternative and other proposed alternative standards pursuant to CEQ
NEPA implementing regulations, DOT Order 5610.1C, and NHTSA
regulations.\27\ The DEIS compares the potential environmental impacts
among alternatives, including a no action alternative. It also analyzes
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and discusses impacts in
proportion to their significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. CEQ NEPA
implementing regulations are codified at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and
NHTSA's NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 49 CFR Part
520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2009, NHTSA issued a NOI to prepare an EIS for the MY
2012-2016 CAFE standards and opened the NEPA ``scoping'' process.\28\
The purpose of this notice was to request from the public its views and
comments on the scope of the NEPA analysis, including the impacts and
alternatives the DEIS should address, and to inform NHTSA of any
available studies that would assist in the impact analysis for global
climate-change issues. NHTSA mailed both Federal Register notices to
hundreds of stakeholders and developed a mailing list of interested
parties, including Federal agencies with environmental expertise, the
Governors of every U.S. territory and State (or State NEPA contacts
they identified), Indian tribes, organizations representing state and
local governments and tribes, the automobile industry, environmental
organizations, and other stakeholders interested in the CAFE program.
NHTSA received seven responses to its scoping notice. Comments were
provided by federal and state agencies, one automobile trade
association, one environmental advocacy group, and three individuals.
NHTSA reviewed and considered the public scoping comments and the
studies commenters suggested. The predominant request by commenters
during the scoping process was that NHTSA focus the DEIS on the
standards' possible impacts on both air quality and global climate
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 74 FR
14857 (Apr. 1, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA consulted with various federal agencies in the development of
this DEIS, including the EPA, Bureau of Land Management, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Minerals Management Service, National
Park Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service,
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. NHTSA is also currently
exploring its Section 7 obligations under the Endangered Species Act
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service.
NHTSA used the scoping process to help determine ``the range of
actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered'' in the DEIS and
to identify the most important issues for analysis.\29\ The DEIS
consists of a Summary and
[[Page 48899]]
nine chapters: (1) Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action; (2) The
Proposed Action and Alternatives; (3) Affected Environment and
Consequences; (4) Cumulative Impacts; (5) Mitigation; (6) Preparers;
(7) References; (8) Distribution List; and (9) Index. Five appendices
include: sources identified in scoping comments (Appendix A); agency
consultation letters (Appendix B); modeling data for air emissions and
climate modeling (Appendix C); NHTSA's Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Assessment (Appendix D); and EPA's Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment
(Appendix E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DEIS devotes the most detailed analysis to direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts of the proposed standards and the alternatives on
energy, air quality, and climate. Key findings concerning estimated
potential impacts on CO2 emissions, global mean surface
temperature, rainfall, and sea level rise include the following:
Global CO2 Emissions Reductions. Over the 2012 to 2100
timeframe, the range of alternatives NHTSA analyzed would reduce global
CO2 emissions (from all sources) by about 19 to 42 billion
metric tons of CO2 (based on global emissions of 5.29
trillion metric tons of CO2) from the emissions projected
under the No Action Alternative. The alternatives would slow the
expected increase in GHG emissions from the transportation sector over
this period. Under all of the alternatives analyzed, growth in the
number of passenger cars and light trucks in use throughout the United
States, combined with assumed increases in their average use (annual
vehicle miles traveled per vehicle), is projected to result in growth
in total passenger car and light truck travel. This growth in travel
overwhelms improvements in fuel economy such that, despite increases in
fuel economy, total fuel consumption by U.S. passenger cars and light
trucks is projected to increase under each of the action alternatives.
Because CO2 emissions are a direct consequence of total fuel
consumption, the same result is projected for total CO2
emissions from passenger cars and light trucks.
CO2 Concentration and Global Mean Surface Temperature:
Estimates for CO2 atmospheric concentrations and global mean
surface temperature vary considerably, depending on which global
emissions scenario is used as a reference case. Temperature increases
are sensitive to climate sensitivity. Yet, projected differences among
the CAFE alternatives are small--i.e., CO2 concentrations as
of 2100 range from 779.0 ppm under the most stringent alternative
(TCTB) to 783.0 ppm under the No Action Alternative. For 2030 and 2050,
the range is even smaller. Temperatures are within 0.007 [deg]C to
0.015 [deg]C across alternatives--regardless of reference scenario and
climate sensitivity.
Precipitation: The CAFE alternatives reduce temperature
increases slightly and thus reduce increases in precipitation slightly,
compared to the No Action Alternative.
Impact on Sea Level Rise: The impacts on sea level rise
across the alternatives in 2100 range from 38.00 centimeters under the
No Action Alternative to 37.86 centimeters under the TCTB Alternative,
for a maximum reduction of 0.14 centimeters by 2100 from the No Action
Alternative.
These conclusions are not meant to be interpreted as expressing
NHTSA's views that CO2 impacts on global mean surface
temperature, precipitation, or sea-level rise are not areas of concern
for policymakers. Under NEPA, the agency is obligated to discuss ``the
environmental impact[s] of the proposed action.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec.
4332(2)(C)(i) (emphasis added). The EIS analysis is intended to fulfill
NHTSA's obligations in this regard. The DEIS provides a qualitative
analysis of resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such
as freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems,
land use, human health, socioeconomics and environmental justice. It
examines impacts on the U.S. and on a global scale. In addition, the
DEIS qualitatively examines the alternatives' non-climate-change-
related direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on potentially affected
resources. Such resources include water resources, biological
resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and
cultural resources, and environmental justice.
Throughout the DEIS, NHTSA's analysis relies extensively on
findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP),
including those presented in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report:
Climate Change 2007 and the USCCSP's Scientific Assessments of the
Effects of Global Change on the United States and Synthesis and
Assessment Products.\30\ The DEIS also uses applicable CEQ regulations
to acknowledge uncertainty and incomplete or unavailable information
relevant to NHTSA's NEPA analysis.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See generally http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm (last visited June 25, 2008) and http://www.climatescience.gov (last visited June 25, 2008).
\31\ 40 CFR 1502.22; see 40 CFR 1502.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedural Matters: The hearing will be open to the public with
advanced registration for seating on a space-available basis.
Individuals wishing to register to assure a seat in the public seating
area should provide their name, affiliation, phone number, and e-mail
address to Mr. Peter Prout or Ms. Angel Jackson using the contact
information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at the
beginning of this notice no later than Monday October 19, 2009. Should
it be necessary to cancel the hearing due to an emergency or some other
reason, NHTSA will take all available means to notify registered
participants by e-mail or telephone.
The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign
language interpreters should contact Mr. Peter Prout or Ms. Angel
Jackson using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above no later than Monday October 19, 2009. Any
written materials NHTSA presents at the hearing will be available
electronically on the day of the hearing to accommodate the needs of
the visually impaired. A transcript of the hearing and information
received by NHTSA at the hearing will be placed in the docket for this
notice at a later date.
How long will I have to speak at the public hearing?
Once NHTSA learns how many people have registered to speak at the
public hearing, NHTSA will allocate an appropriate amount of time to
each participant, allowing time for lunch and necessary breaks
throughout the day. For planning purposes, each speaker should
anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need
to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. To
accommodate as many speakers as possible, NHTSA prefers that speakers
not use technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows).
However, if you plan to do so, you must let Mr. Peter Prout or Ms.
Angel Jackson know by Monday October 19, 2009, using the contact
information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. You
also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other
aids to NHTSA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up.
During the week of October 19th, NHTSA will post information on its Web
site (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov) indicating the
[[Page 48900]]
amount of time allocated for each speaker and each speaker's
approximate order on the agenda for the hearing.
How can I get a copy of the DEIS?
The DEIS is available on NHTSA's Web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/, and it will be available in the Docket identified
by the docket number at the beginning of this notice. To request a CD-
ROM containing the DEIS and its Appendices, please contact Mr. Peter
Prout or Ms. Angel Jackson using the contact information in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
How do I prepare and submit written comments?
It is not necessary to attend or to speak at the public hearing to
be able to comment on the issues. NHTSA invites the submission of
written comments on the DEIS, which the agency will consider in
preparing the final NEPA documents to support the new CAFE standards
for MY 2012-2016 passenger cars and light trucks. Your comments must be
written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly
filed in the Docket, please include the docket number at the beginning
of this notice in your comments.
Your primary comments may not exceed 15 pages.\32\ However, you may
attach supporting documents to your primary comments. There is no limit
to the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register at 65 FR 19477,
April 11, 2000, or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590, or submit them electronically, in the manner described at the
beginning of this notice.
Will the agency consider late comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules
allow, NHTSA will try to consider comments that Docket Management
receives after that date, but we cannot ensure that we will be able to
do so.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See 49 CFR 553.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some commenters may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for
new material.
Issued: September 22, 2009.
Ronald Medford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-23199 Filed 9-22-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P