Federal Register, Volume 75 Issue 113 (Monday, June 14, 2010)

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 113 (Monday, June 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33565-33570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14167]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 535

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program

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

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for scoping comments.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
NHTSA plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
analyze the potential environmental impacts of the agency's new fuel
efficiency improvement program for commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks (referred to hereinafter as MD/HD
vehicles). The EIS will consider the potential environmental impacts of
new standards starting with model year (MY) 2016 MD/HD vehicles, and
voluntary compliance standards for MY 2014-2015 MD/HD vehicles, that
NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007.
This notice initiates the NEPA scoping process by inviting comments
from Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public
to help identify the environmental issues and reasonable alternatives
to be examined in the EIS. This notice also provides guidance for
participating in the scoping process and additional information about
the alternatives NHTSA expects to consider in its NEPA analysis.

DATES: The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and
issuance of a Draft EIS, which will be made available for public
comment. To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to fully consider
scoping comments and to facilitate NHTSA's prompt preparation of the
Draft EIS, scoping comments should be received on or before July 14,
2010. NHTSA will try to consider comments received after that date to
the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQs.''
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 202-366-9826.
Note that all comments received, including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Angel
Jackson, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel
Economy and Consumer Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: 202-366-5206. For legal issues, contact Carrie Gage,
Legislation & General Law Division, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a forthcoming notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA intends to propose fuel efficiency standards
starting with model year (MY) 2016 commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks (hereinafter referred to
collectively as MD/HD vehicles), and voluntary compliance standards for
MYs 2014-2015 MD/HD vehicles, pursuant to the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA).\1\ In connection with this action, NHTSA
intends to prepare an EIS to analyze the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards and
reasonable alternative standards pursuant to the NEPA and implementing
regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
NHTSA.\2\ NEPA instructs Federal agencies to consider the potential
environmental impacts of their proposed actions and possible
alternatives in their decisionmaking. To inform decisionmakers and the
public, the EIS will compare the potential environmental impacts of the
agency's preferred alternative and reasonable alternatives, including a
``no action'' alternative. As required by NEPA, the EIS will consider
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and discuss impacts in
proportion to their significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Public Law No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007)
(codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.).
\2\ NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. CEQ's NEPA
implementing regulations are codified at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and
NHTSA's NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 49 CFR part
520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA)
mandated that NHTSA establish and implement a regulatory program for
motor vehicle fuel economy to meet the various facets of the need to
conserve energy. As codified in Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the U.S.
Code, and as amended by EISA, EPCA sets forth extensive requirements
concerning the establishment of fuel economy standards for passenger
automobiles (hereinafter referred to as ``passenger cars'') and non-
passenger automobiles (hereinafter referred to as ``light trucks'').
Pursuant to this statutory authority, NHTSA sets Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards for

[[Page 33566]]

passenger cars and light trucks.\3\ NHTSA considers the environmental
NEPA analysis when setting CAFE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Final Rule, 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In December 2007, EISA provided DOT (and by delegation, NHTSA)\4\
new authority to implement, via rulemaking and regulations, ``a
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle \5\ and work truck
\6\ fuel efficiency improvement program.'' \7\ 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.'' \8\ This new authority permits
NHTSA to set ``separate standards for different classes of vehicles.''
\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The Secretary delegated responsibility for implementing EPCA
fuel economy requirements to NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(a)(8).
\5\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the United States Code: ``commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicle'' means an on-highway vehicle with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(7).
\6\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the United States Code: ``work truck'' means a
vehicle that--(A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight; and (B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle (as
defined in section 86.1803-01 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, as in effect on the date of the enactment of [EISA]).
49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(19).
\7\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id. For background on the MD/HD vehicle segment, and fuel
efficiency improvement technologies available for these vehicles,
see the report recently issued by the National Academy of Sciences.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Committee
to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel
Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (March 2010), pre-
publication copy available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed May 19, 2010)
(hereinafter ``MD/HD NAS Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EISA also provides for lead time and regulatory stability. The new
MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program NHTSA adopts pursuant
to EISA must provide not less than 4 full years of regulatory lead-time
and 3 full model years of regulatory stability.\10\ Consistent with
these requirements, we tentatively plan to propose mandatory standards
to begin no sooner than MY 2016, and to remain stable for 3 years.
Although EISA prevents NHTSA from enacting mandatory standards before
MY 2016, NHTSA intends to propose an optional voluntary compliance
standard for MYs 2014-2015 prior to mandatory regulation in MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EISA further directs that NHTSA's MD/HD rulemaking must be
conducted in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Department of Energy.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 32902(k)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 21, 2010, the President issued a memorandum to the Secretary
of Transportation, the Administrator of NHTSA, the Administrator of the
EPA, and the Secretary of Energy, that calls for coordinated regulation
of the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle market segment under EISA and
under the Clean Air Act.\12\ NHTSA's forthcoming proposal and EIS will
be consistent with this directive.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 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 May 24, 2010); 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 May 24, 2010).
\13\ See http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy (last accessed June
4, 2010); see also http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f10038.htm (last accessed June 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process for the EIS
under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4321-4347, and implementing
regulations issued by CEQ, 40 CFR Pt. 1500-1508, and NHTSA, 49 CFR Pt.
520. See 40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g). Specifically, this
Notice of Intent requests public input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA
analysis and the significant issues relating to the fuel efficiency
standards for MD/HD vehicles beginning in MY 2016, and the optional
voluntary compliance standards for MYs 2014-2015. As part of the NEPA
scoping process, this notice briefly describes the alternatives NHTSA
is currently considering for the MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
improvement program.
The Alternatives: NHTSA's upcoming NPRM will propose standards for
MD/HD vehicles beginning in MY 2016, and voluntary compliance standards
for MYs 2014-2015 MD/HD vehicles. 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 we proceed
with the rulemaking and the EIS.
The medium- and heavy-duty truck segment is very complex. The
sector consists of many stakeholders, including engine manufacturers,
truck manufacturers, trailer manufacturers, and truck fleet owners.
Unlike the light-duty sector, there is a very large number of heavy-
duty truck manufacturers which vary in size and level of build process
integration. Some trucks are assembled by a body builder using
components from an engine manufacturer, powertrain manufacturer,
component suppliers, and chassis builder. Each of these stakeholders
has an impact on the fuel efficiency of the truck. NHTSA is therefore
developing alternatives which recognize the complex industry structure
and provide increasing coverage of the opportunities for fuel
consumption reduction.
In developing alternatives, NHTSA must consider EISA's requirement
for the MD/HD fuel efficiency program noted above. 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2) and (3) contain the following three requirements specific
to the MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program: (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. In considering these various requirements, NHTSA
will also account for relevant environmental and safety considerations.
The alternatives that NHTSA currently has under consideration, in
order of increasing fuel efficiency improvement, or fuel use
reductions, are:
(1) Alternative 1: No Action. A ``no action'' alternative assumes
that NHTSA would not issue a rule regarding a MD/HD fuel efficiency
improvement program, and is considered to comply with NEPA and to
provide an analytical baseline against which to compare environmental
impacts of the other regulatory alternatives.\14\ 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.\15\ NHTSA refers to

[[Page 33567]]

this as the ``No Action Alternative'' or as a ``no increase'' or
``baseline'' alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).
\15\ 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. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA is also proposing to consider four action alternatives, each
of which would regulate the MD/HD vehicle fleet in a different way.
These action alternatives would each cause the average fuel efficiency
for the industry-wide MD/HD vehicle fleet to increase, on average,
during the rulemaking period. The alternatives below represent the
different regulatory approaches the agency is considering, in order of
increasing fuel savings:
(2) Alternative 2: Engine Only. The EPA currently regulates heavy-
duty engines, i.e., engine manufacturers, rather than the vehicle as a
whole, in order to control criteria emissions.\16\ Under Alternative 2,
NHTSA would similarly set engine performance standards for each vehicle
class, Class 2b through Class 8, and would specify an engine cell test
procedure, as EPA currently does for criteria pollutants. MD/HD vehicle
engine manufacturers would be responsible for ensuring that each engine
could meet the applicable vehicle class engine performance standard
when tested in accordance with the specified engine cell test
procedure. Engine manufacturers could improve MD/HD vehicle engines by
applying the combinations of fuel efficiency improvement technologies
to the engine that they deem best achieve that result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ There are several reasons for this approach. In many cases
the engine and chassis are produced by different manufacturers and
it is more efficient to hold a single entity responsible. Also,
testing an engine cell is more accurate and repeatable than testing
a whole vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Alternative 3: Class 8 Combination Tractors. Combination
tractors \17\ consume the largest fraction of fuel within the medium-
and heavy-duty truck segment.\18\ Tractors also offer significant
potential for fuel savings due to the high annual mileage and high
vehicle speed of typical trucks within this segment, as compared to
annual mileage and average speeds/duty cycles of other vehicle classes.
This alternative would set performance standards for both the engine of
Class 8 vehicles and the overall vehicle efficiency performance for the
Class 8 combination tractor segment. Under Alternative 3, NHTSA would
set an engine performance standard, as discussed under Alternative 2,
for Class 8 vehicles. In addition, Class 8 combination tractor
manufacturers would be required to meet an overall vehicle performance
standard by making various non-engine fuel saving technology
improvements. These non-engine fuel efficiency improvements could be
accomplished, for example, by a combination of improvements to
aerodynamics, lowering tire rolling resistance, decreasing vehicle mass
(weight), reducing fuel use at idle, or by adding intelligent vehicle
technologies.\19\ Compliance with the overall vehicle standard could be
determined using a computer model that would simulate overall vehicle
fuel efficiency given a set of vehicle component inputs. Using this
compliance approach, the Class 8 vehicle manufacturer would supply
certain vehicle characteristics (relating to the categories of
technologies noted immediately above) that would serve as model inputs.
The agency would supply a standard Class 8 vehicle engine's
contribution to overall vehicle efficiency, making the engine component
a constant for purposes of compliance with the overall vehicle
performance standard, such that compliance with the overall vehicle
standard could only be achieved via efficiency improvements to non-
engine vehicle components. Thus, vehicle manufacturers could make any
combination of improvements of the non-engine technologies that they
believe would best achieve the Class 8 overall vehicle performance
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Class 8 combination trucks have a tractor and one or more
trailers and a gross combined weight, i.e., a maximum weight rating,
of up to 80,000 pounds, with higher weights allowed in specific
circumstances. MD/HD NAS Report, supra note 9, at 1-7.
\18\ Id. at 8-2.
\19\ See the MD/HD NAS Report for discussions of the potential
fuel efficiency improvement technologies that can be applied to each
of these vehicle components. MD/HD NAS Report, supra note 9, Chapter
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Alternative 4: Engines, Tractors, and Class 2b through 8
Trucks. This alternative would set engine fuel efficiency performance
standards and overall vehicle fuel efficiency performance standards for
Class 2b and 3 work trucks and Class 3 through Class 8 vocational
trucks. This alternative essentially sets fuel efficiency performance
standards for both the engines and the overall vehicles in the entire
medium- and heavy-duty truck sector. Compliance with each vehicle
class's engine performance standard would be determined as discussed in
the description of Alternative 2. Compliance with the tractor and
vocational truck classes' overall vehicle performance standard (Class 3
through 8 trucks) would be determined as discussed in the description
of Alternative 3. Compliance for the Class 2b and 3 work trucks would
be determined through a fleet averaging process similar to determining
passenger car and light truck compliance with CAFE standards.
(5) Alternative 5: Engines, Tractors, Trucks, and Trailers. This
alternative adds a performance standard for fuel efficiency of
commercial trailers to the fuel efficiency performance standards for
Class 2b and 3 work truck and Class 3 through Class 8 vocational truck
engines and the performance standard for the overall fuel efficiency of
those vehicles, as described above.
Each of the alternatives proposed by NHTSA represents, in part, a
different way NHTSA could establish a MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
improvement program pursuant to EISA, considering each of the
requirements above and NEPA's policies. The agency may select one of
the above-identified alternatives as its Preferred Alternative or it
may structure a MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program in
such a way that average fuel efficiency, or fuel savings, falls between
the levels reflected in the alternatives proposed in this Scoping
Notice. For example, as noted above, EISA requires that NHTSA provide a
four-year regulatory lead-time to manufacturers. For each of the action
alternatives, NHTSA will consider a voluntary early compliance program,
which would provide for an early start date with a two year lead-time.
This version of each alternative would allow the program to achieve
greater and earlier reductions in fuel consumption than a rule with a
four year lead-time.
Under NEPA, the purpose of and need for an agency's action inform
the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered in its NEPA
analysis.\20\ The above alternatives represent a broad range of
approaches under consideration for setting proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel
efficiency standards and whose environmental impacts we propose to
evaluate under NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 40 CFR 1502.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As detailed below, NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency
considers a full range of reasonable alternatives in establishing a MD/
HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program and that the agency
identifies the environmental impacts and focuses its analyses on all
the potentially

[[Page 33568]]

significant impacts related to each alternative. Comments may go beyond
the approaches and information that NHTSA used in developing the above
alternatives and in identifying the potentially significant
environmental effects. The agency may modify the proposed alternatives
and environmental effects that will be analyzed in depth based upon the
comments received during the scoping process and upon further agency
analysis.
Scoping and Public Participation: 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 MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement
program.\21\ NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the MD/HD vehicle fuel
efficiency standards beginning in MY 2016, and the voluntary MYs 2014-
2015 standards, will consider the direct, indirect and cumulative
environmental impacts of the proposed standards and those of reasonable
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the main focus of NHTSA's prior CAFE EISs (i.e., the EIS for
Model Years 2012-2016 Passenger Car and Light Truck CAFE Standards \22\
and the EIS for Model Years 2011-2015 Passenger Car and Light Truck
CAFE Standards \23\) was the quantitative and qualitative analysis of
impacts to energy, air quality, and climate, it also addressed other
potentially affected resources. NHTSA discussed the related direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts, positive or negative, of the
alternatives on other potentially affected resources (water resources,
biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise,
historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ See Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2012-2016, Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059-0140 (February 2010).
\23\ See Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2011-2015, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060-0605 (October 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the current EIS, NHTSA intends to focus on the impacts in much
the same manner as it did in the prior EIS, and will incorporate by
reference any of the discussions from the February 2010 Final EIS that
are relevant. NHTSA is currently considering analyzing environmental
impacts related to fuel and energy use, emissions including GHGs and
their effects on temperature and climate change, air quality, natural
resources, and the human environment. NHTSA also will factor into its
impact analysis the cumulative impacts of the proposed MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards starting in MY 2016, and the voluntary MYs
2014-2015 standards. In accordance with CEQ regulations, cumulative
effects are ``the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such action.'' \24\ NHTSA
specifically requests comment on how the agency should assess
cumulative impacts, including those from various emissions source
categories and across a range of geographic locations. For example,
should we consider the incremental impact of MD/HD efficiency standards
when considered with the impacts of other reasonably foreseeable
actions that affect emissions in any portion of the motor vehicle
sector? Or should NHTSA expand the incremental impact examination to
all transportation sector emissions? Or should the agency limit the
incremental impact analysis to environmental effects caused by
emissions only from the MD/HD vehicle segment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ 40 CFR 1508.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA anticipates considerable uncertainty in estimating and
comparing the potential environmental impacts among alternatives
related to climate change in particular. For instance, NHTSA expects
that there will be considerable uncertainty associated with its
estimates of the range of potential global mean temperature changes
that may result from changes in fuel and energy consumption and GHG
emissions due to a range of new MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards. It also may be difficult to predict and compare the ways in
which potential temperature changes attributable to new MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards may, in turn, affect many aspects of the
environment. NHTSA will work expeditiously to gather all relevant and
credible information. Where information is incomplete or unavailable,
the agency will acknowledge the uncertainties in its NEPA analysis, and
will apply the provisions in the CEQ regulations addressing
``[i]ncomplete or unavailable information.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ See 40 CFR 1502.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, NHTSA intends to rely primarily upon the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Fourth Assessment
Report, and subsequent updates, reports of the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) and the current U.S. Global Change Research
Program (U.S. GCRP), and the EPA Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
and the accompanying Technical Support Document (referred to
collectively hereinafter as the EPA Endangerment Finding), as sources
for recent ``summar[ies] of existing credible scientific evidence which
is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant
adverse impacts on the human environment.'' \26\ NHTSA believes that
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the CCSP and U.S. GCRP Reports, and
the EPA Endangerment Finding are the most recent, most comprehensive
summaries available, but recognizes that subsequent peer-reviewed
research may provide additional relevant and credible evidence not
accounted for in these Reports. NHTSA expects to consider such
subsequent information as well, to the extent that it provides relevant
and credible evidence. NHTSA also expects to rely on the Final EIS it
published in February 2010,\27\ incorporating material by reference
``when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency
and public review of the action.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ 40 CFR 1502.22(b)(3); see 40 CFR 1502.21. The report and
the IPCC's earlier reports are available at http://www.ipcc.ch/
(last visited March 11, 2008).
\27\ See Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2012-2016, Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059-0140 (February 2010).
\28\ 40 CFR 1502.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In preparing this notice of public scoping to identify the range of
actions, alternatives, and impacts to be analyzed in depth in the EIS,
NHTSA has consulted with CEQ and EPA. Through this notice, NHTSA
invites all Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, State and local agencies
with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to potential
environmental impacts of proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards, and the public to participate in the scoping process.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ 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 MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR
520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6.

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

[[Page 33569]]

Specifically, NHTSA invites all stakeholders to participate in the
scoping process by submitting written comments concerning the
appropriate scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis and the significant issues
for the proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency 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 written comments
will be effective in identifying and narrowing the issues for analysis.
NHTSA is especially interested in comments concerning the
evaluation of climate change impacts, and the relative impact of an
increased share of any emissions reduction resulting from the proposed
MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards coming from diesel fuel
savings, as opposed to emissions reductions resulting from conventional
gasoline savings analyzed in prior CAFE NEPA analyses. Specifically,
NHTSA requests:
Peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been issued
since the EPA Endangerment Finding and that address or may inform: (a)
The impacts on CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions that
may be associated with any of the alternatives under consideration; (b)
the impacts on climate change that may be associated with these
emission changes; or (c) the time periods over which such impacts on
climate may occur.
Comments on how NHTSA should discuss or estimate the
potential localized or regional impacts of decreased diesel fuel use,
including potential upstream impacts (changes in fuel use and emissions
levels resulting from the extraction, production, storage, and
distribution of fuel), and comments on how NHTSA should estimate the
potential impacts of these localized or regional changes on the
environment.
Comments on what time frame NHTSA should use to evaluate
the environmental impacts that may result from setting MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards, both indirect and cumulative.
Peer-reviewed reports analyzing the potential impacts of
climate change within the United States or in particular geographic
areas of the United States. Such reports could be prepared by or on
behalf of States, local governments, Indian tribes, regional
organizations, academic researchers, or other interested parties.
NHTSA understands that there are a variety of potential
alternatives that could be considered that fit within the purpose and
need for the proposed rulemaking, as set forth in EISA. NHTSA,
therefore, seeks comments on how best to structure or describe a
reasonable alternative for purposes of evaluating it under NEPA.
Specifically, NHTSA seeks comments on what criteria should be used to
structure such alternative, given the requirements for the new
regulatory program under EISA, while being consistent with the
statutory requirement of designing the program ``to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement.'' See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). When suggesting a
possible alternative, please explain how it would satisfy the EISA
requirements (in particular, how and why it would be appropriate, cost-
effective, and technologically feasible) and give effect to NEPA's
policies.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ See 40 CFR 1502.14, Alternatives Including the Proposed
Action (explaining what agencies should include in the alternatives
section of an EIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, as noted above, NHTSA requests comments on how the
agency should assess cumulative impacts, including those from various
emissions source categories and from a range of geographic locations.
Also in regard to cumulative impacts, the agency requests comments on
how to consider the incremental impacts from foreseeable future actions
of other agencies or persons, and how they might interact with the MD/
HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program's incremental cumulative
impacts.
Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant
issues that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying and
eliminating from detailed analysis the issues that are not significant
and therefore require only a brief discussion in the EIS.\31\ In light
of these purposes, written comments should include an Internet citation
(with a date last visited) to each study or report you cite in your
comments if one is available. If a document you cite is not available
to the public online, you should attach a copy to your comments. Your
comments should indicate how each document you cite or attach to your
comments is relevant to the NEPA analysis and indicate the specific
pages and passages in the attachment that are most informative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The more specific your comments are, and the more support you can
provide by directing the agency to peer-reviewed scientific studies and
reports as requested above, the more useful your comments will be to
the agency. For example, if you identify an additional area of impact
or environmental concern you believe NHTSA should analyze, or an
analytical tool or model that you believe NHTSA should use to evaluate
these environmental impacts, you should clearly describe it and support
your comments with a reference to a specific peer-reviewed scientific
study, report, tool or model. Specific, well-supported comments will
help the agency prepare an EIS that is focused and relevant, and will
serve NEPA's overarching aims of making high quality information
available to decisionmakers and the public by ``concentrat[ing] on the
issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather
than amassing needless detail.'' \32\ By contrast, mere assertions that
the agency should evaluate broad lists or categories of concerns,
without support, will likely not assist the scoping process for the
proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ 40 CFR 1500.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the
heading of this notice in your comments. NHTSA intends to correspond
directly to interested parties by e-mail. Thus, please also provide an
e-mail address (or a mailing address if you decline e-mail
communications).\33\ These steps will help NHTSA to manage a large
volume of material during the NEPA process. 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 site at http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ If you prefer to receive NHTSA's NEPA correspondence by
U.S. mail, NHTSA intends to provide its NEPA publications via a CD
readable on a personal computer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on comments received during scoping, NHTSA expects to prepare
a draft EIS for public comment later this year and a final EIS to
support a final rule in 2011.\34\ In regard to NHTSA's decisionmaking
schedule, the agency expects to issue a final rule in 2011 as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ 40 CFR 1506.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Federal Register notices will announce the availability of
the draft EIS, which will be available for public comment, and the
final EIS, which will be available for public inspection. NHTSA also
plans to continue to post information about the NEPA process and this
MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program rulemaking on its Web
site (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov).

[[Page 33570]]

Issued: June 9, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-14167 Filed 6-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P