[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57248-57254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20211]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0076]


Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for 
Model Years 2030 and Beyond New Medium- and Heavy-Duty 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 fuel 
efficiency (FE) standards for model years (MYs) 2030 and beyond medium- 
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and some work trucks (``HD 
vehicles'' that NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to 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 issues 
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 October 19, 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

[[Page 57249]]

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: Vinay Nagabhushana, Fuel Economy 
Division, telephone: (202) 366-1452, email: [email protected]; 
or 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 FE standards for MYs 2030 and beyond for medium- and heavy-
duty on-highway vehicles and some work trucks (referred to herein as 
``HD vehicles'') vehicles pursuant to the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (EISA).\1\ In particular, NHTSA will propose the 
next phase (``Phase 3'') of the Medium and Heavy Vehicle Fuel 
Efficiency Standards program. In the Phase 2 rulemaking, NHTSA tailored 
the standards to the following regulatory categories of HD vehicles: 
vocational vehicles, combination tractors, gasoline and diesel HD 
vehicle engines, and heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.2 3 
NHTSA set separate categories of standards based on fuel type, duty 
cycle, vehicle application, and tractor cab type. As discussed further 
below, NHTSA is seeking comment on how to tailor Phase 3 standards to 
these regulatory categories of HD vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007) (codified 
at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.).
    \2\ In accordance with the notice 87 FR 50386, NHTSA is seeking 
comment on including heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans standards in 
a separate action.
    \3\ Pursuant to Truck Trailer Manufacturers Ass'n, Inc v. Env't 
Prot. Agency, 17 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2021), NHTSA is not proposing 
trailer standards in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 reasonable alternatives for HD vehicle FE standards pursuant 
to NEPA and implementing regulations issued by the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ),\4\ DOT Order No. 5610.1C,\5\ and NHTSA 
regulations.\6\ To inform decision makers 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.\7\ As required by NEPA, the EIS will consider 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and 
alternatives.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
    \5\ 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.
    \6\ 49 CFR part 520.
    \7\ 40 CFR 1502.14.
    \8\ Id. 1508.1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Purpose and Need

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) \9\ mandated 
that NHTSA 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 set forth extensive requirements 
concerning the establishment of fuel economy standards for passenger 
cars and light trucks. Pursuant to this statutory authority, NHTSA sets 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for those vehicles.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Public Law 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975).
    \10\ See Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards 
and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Final Rule, 75 FR 
25324 (May 7, 2010); 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
Standards, 77 FR 62624 (October 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2007, Congress enacted the EISA, which significantly 
amended EPCA's program requirements, granting the DOT, and NHTSA by 
delegation,\11\ additional rulemaking authority and requirements. EISA 
provided NHTSA authority to implement, through rulemaking and 
regulations, ``a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle 
\12\ and work truck \13\ fuel efficiency improvement program designed 
to achieve the maximum feasible improvement[.]'' \14\ 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.'' \15\ This authority permits NHTSA 
to set ``separate standards for different classes of vehicles.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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).
    \12\ 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).
    \13\ 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).
    \14\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id. For background on the HD vehicle segment, issues 
related to regulating this segment, and fuel efficiency improvement 
technologies available for these vehicles, see the reports recently 
issued by the National Academy of Sciences. National Research 
Council, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel 
Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Washington, DC (The 
National Academies Press, 2010), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed April 25, 2014); National 
Research Council, Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two: First 
Report, Washington, DC (The National Academies Press, 2014), 
available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18736 (last 
accessed April 25, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EISA also establishes requirements for lead time and regulatory 
stability for these vehicle types. New fuel efficiency improvement 
program standards that NHTSA adopts pursuant to EISA for these vehicle 
types must provide not less than 4 full model years of regulatory lead-
time and 3 full model years of regulatory stability.\17\ Finally, EISA 
directs that NHTSA's HD rulemaking must be conducted in consultation 
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of 
Energy.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3).
    \18\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). As discussed later in this document, 
both agencies have been invited to serve as cooperating agencies on 
this EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 21, 2010, the President issued a memorandum to the Secretary 
of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of EPA, 
and the

[[Page 57250]]

Administrator of NHTSA that called for coordinated regulation of the 
heavy-duty vehicle market segment under EISA and under the Clean Air 
Act.\19\ NHTSA and EPA met that directive in August 2011 by finalizing 
first-of-a-kind standards for new HD engines and vehicles in MYs 2014 
through 2018 (``Phase 1'').\20\ The performance-based standards created 
a national program requiring manufacturers to meet targets for FE and 
GHG 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 GHG pollution by 
approximately 270 million metric tons.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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).
    \20\ See Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency 
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 76 FR 
57106 (September 15, 2011).
    \21\ 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 FE and GHG standards by 
March 31, 2016.\22\ 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 emissions (GHG) and increase FE for on-road heavy-
duty vehicles. NHTSA's fuel consumption standards and EPA's carbon 
dioxide (CO2) emissions standards were tailored to three 
regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles: (1) combination tractors; 
\23\ (2) heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans; \24\ and (3) vocational 
vehicles,\25\ as well as gasoline and diesel heavy-duty engines.\26\ 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 
applied to vocational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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).
    \23\ Combination tractors, which may be equipped with sleeper 
cabs, including Class 7 and 8 truck tractors, are used for freight 
transportation. Tractors sometimes run without a trailer in between 
loads, but most of the time they run with one or more trailers that 
can carry up to 50,000 pounds or more of payload. Pursuant to the 
decision in Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, Inc. v. 
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 16-1430 (D.C. Cir. 2021), NHTSA 
is not considering trailer standards in this action.
    \24\ Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are defined in 49 CFR 
523.7.
    \25\ Vocational vehicles, which may span Classes 2b through 8, 
include smaller and larger van trucks; delivery, utility, tank, 
flat-bed, and refuse trucks; transit, shuttle, and school buses; 
fire trucks and other emergency vehicles; motor homes; and tow 
trucks, among others.
    \26\ Phase 1 required that engines used in heavy-duty vehicles 
be separately certified by their manufacturer to meet GHG emissions 
and fuel efficiency standards using the same test procedures used to 
certify engines for criteria pollutants, unless the vehicle is 
allowed to be chassis-certified (typically, Class 2b and 3 heavy-
duty pick-up trucks and vans) whereby the separate engine 
certification is not required. Phase 1 engine standards vary 
depending on engine size linked to intended vehicle service class 
and use. In particular, the agencies created separate standards for 
spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 to 
set standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles.\27\ 
Specifically, the E.O. directed NHTSA to consider beginning work on 
rulemakings to ``establish new fuel efficiency standards for medium- 
and heavy-duty engines and vehicles to begin as soon as model year 
2030.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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 fuel efficiency standards for MYs 2030 and Beyond HD vehicles 
in an upcoming NPRM by July 2024. However, in accordance with EISA's 
lead time requirements, NHTSA is statutorily required to issue a final 
rule for MY 2030 the Phase 3 standards no later than January 2025.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like past FE rules described above, NHTSA will use full vehicle 
computer models for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Compliance and other 
analysis tools to determine the impacts of different levels of HD 
vehicles FE stringency. Pursuant to NEPA, NHTSA will prepare an EIS to 
analyze 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,\29\ and under NHTSA's NEPA 
regulations.\30\ 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 FE standards for HD vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
    \30\ 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 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 those 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 range of 
reasonable alternatives to be considered in its NEPA analysis.\31\ In 
developing alternatives for analysis in the EIS, NHTSA must consider 
EISA's requirements for setting FE standards under the MD/HD fuel 
efficiency improvement program noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 40 CFR 1502.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regards to the FE standards, EISA requires that: (1) The 
program

[[Page 57251]]

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.\32\ In considering these various requirements, NHTSA will 
also account for relevant environmental and safety considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For setting FE standards, NHTSA will 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 FE 
of HD vehicles. 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.
    Similarly, 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 FE 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 the FE standard would impose greater costs 
and achieve greater energy conservation.
    The range of alternatives would provide a broad range of 
information for NHTSA to use in evaluating and weighing the statutory 
factors in the EISA. It 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 
greenhouse gas emissions) 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, consistent with EISA's 
regulatory stability requirements. 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 efficiency 
standards for some or all model years that decrease or remain the same 
as compared to prior model year(s), consistent with EISA's regulatory 
stability requirements.
    NHTSA (in consultation with EPA) is still evaluating the costs and 
effectiveness of the various technologies available, the potential 
structure of the program, the stringencies of potential alternatives 
covering regulatory categories of the HD sector), and the range of 
reasonable alternatives for consideration in this rulemaking and EIS. 
NHTSA will evaluate several factors in developing alternatives for 
consideration and analysis, including costs for technology development 
and manufacture, costs that will be paid by heavy-duty vehicle owners 
and operators, FE (and corresponding GHG reduction) benefits, industry 
structure, and more.
    For different regulatory vehicle classes within HD vehicles, NHTSA 
may consider setting standards at different rates, or that change over 
different rates during the timeframe of the rule. NHTSA may also 
consider setting different levels of standards for vehicles 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, there is no limitation on the number of model years 
of standards that NHTSA can set for HD vehicles.

d. Considerations on Standard Attributes and Form

    In the previous MD/HD rulemaking, NHTSA used different metrics for 
setting HD vehicle standards. For HD pickups trucks and vans, work 
factor \33\ was the metric for setting vehicle standards. NHTSA set 
standards separately for vocational and truck tractors to account for 
differences in vehicle applications and fuel type. As discussed further 
below, NHTSA seeks comment on the attribute used to set FE standards, 
possible other attributes that could be used to set FE standards, the 
shape of the standards curves, and other programmatic aspects that 
could help fulfill the goals outlined herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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 FE rulemaking, NHTSA will also consider programmatic 
aspects other than stringency (e.g., flexibilities) that may affect 
model years including those for which NHTSA would set 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.\34\ In this EIS, NHTSA will consider a ``no action'' 
alternative, which assumes, for purposes of NEPA analysis, that NHTSA 
would not issue a new rule regarding HD FE standards. Under these 
circumstances, the existing FE standards established for the end of 
Phase 2 would persist until NHTSA takes additional action.\35\ 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 (including Class 2b and Class 3 heavy-duty 
pickup trucks and vans) in order to continue selling heavy-duty 
vehicles in California and other states that have formally adopted the 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 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).
    \35\ The ``no action'' alternative will also assume that EPA 
would not issue a rule regarding HD GHG emissions standards. The 
existing GHG standards established for the end of Phase 1 would also 
persist indefinitely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA will refer to this alternative that includes the conditions 
described

[[Page 57252]]

for 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 FE standards for the 
HD vehicles and various levels of stringency for the regulatory 
categories. 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 improvement'' required under EISA. 
The Preferred Alternative may include improvements that are constant 
throughout the regulatory period or that vary in accordance with EISA's 
regulatory stability requirements, 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 FE 
standards.\36\ NHTSA's NEPA analysis will consider direct, indirect, 
and cumulative effects of the proposed action and those of reasonable 
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 40 CFR 1500.5(f), 1501.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the main focus of NHTSA's prior CAFE and FE EISs (i.e., the 
HD Phase 1 \37\ and Phase 2 \38\ EISs) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, Model Years 2014-2018, 
Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079-0151 (June 2011).
    \38\ 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,\39\ air quality,\40\ 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 FE standards, as well 
as the cumulative effects \41\ of the proposed FE standards together 
with any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 
Overall, NHTSA plans to analyze impacts in much the same manner as it 
did in its prior EISs, while incorporating by reference any of the 
relevant discussions from those documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 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.
    \40\ 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.
    \41\ 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 FE 
standards. It is difficult to quantify how the specific impacts due to 
the potential temperature changes attributable to new 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. NHTSA invites 
public comments on the scope of its analysis on climate change impacts, 
including citations to peer-reviewed scientific articles to frame and 
analyze the relevant issues.
    Because of the models NHTSA will use for this rulemaking and EIS, 
the agency anticipates analyzing impacts on fuel/energy use and 
pollutant emissions through 2050 and impacts on GHG emissions, global 
temperature, and climate change through 2100. Because HD vehicles 
generally accumulate the vast majority of their VMT in early years, and 
because more distant projections contain far more uncertainty, NHTSA 
believes the analysis year of 2050 for fuel/energy use and air quality 
will provide sufficient information for the decision-maker to assess 
the totality of the impacts related to the regulated vehicles. Because 
climate impacts are more long-term, NHTSA anticipates that the EIS will 
assess these impacts to 2100.
    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.\42\ 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

[[Page 57253]]

CO2 concentrations, temperature, sea-level rise, and 
precipitation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 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.'' \43\ 
Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA analysis and documentation will incorporate 
by reference relevant materials, including portions of the agency's 
prior NEPA documents, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 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 \44\ 
by submitting written comments concerning the appropriate scope of the 
NEPA analysis for the proposed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 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 
1501.8, 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 HD vehicle FE 
improvement standards. 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 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 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'' \45\ 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.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
    \46\ 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 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).

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.\47\ In light of these purposes, written comments should include an 
internet citation (with a date last visited) to each study or report 
cited in the comments, if one is available. If a document cited is not 
available to the public online, the commenter should either provide 
sufficient bibliographical information to allow NHTSA to locate and 
obtain a copy of the study, or attach a copy to the comments.\48\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1502.2(b).
    \48\ 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.'' \49\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 40 CFR 1502.15.

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

[[Page 57254]]

    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 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2022-20211 Filed 9-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


