[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]


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

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: 
[email protected]; for legal issues, contact Hannah Fish, 
Vehicle Safety Standards & Harmonization, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
telephone: (202) 366-1099, email: [email protected] or Stephanie 
Walters, Legislation & General Law Division, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, telephone: (202) 819-3642, email: [email protected], 
at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a forthcoming notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM), the United States Department of Transportation 
(DOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends 
to propose 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


