48894 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0368; FRL–8950–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Clean Air Interstate Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), based on 

submittals dated July 15, 2009, and 

August 13, 2009, that would address the 

requirements of EPA’s Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA previously 

approved an ‘‘abbreviated SIP’’ for Ohio, 

primarily consisting of rules governing 

allocation of allowances to electric 

generating units (EGUs) for use in the 

trading programs established pursuant 

to CAIR and providing for voluntary 

opt-in to these programs. The 

abbreviated SIP was implemented in 

conjunction with a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) that specified 

requirements for emissions monitoring, 

permit provisions, and other elements of 

the CAIR programs. EPA is now 

proposing to approve the addition of 

non-EGUs to the CAIR nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) Ozone Season Trading Program, 

and EPA is proposing to issue a ‘‘full 

SIP’’ approval under which the various 

CAIR implementation provisions would 

be governed by State rules rather than 

FIP rules. Final action would also cause 

the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans 

(CAIR FIPs) concerning sulfur dioxides 

(SO2), NOX annual, and NOX ozone 

season emissions by Ohio sources to be 

automatically withdrawn. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 26, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R05–OAR–2009–0368 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Summerhays, (312) 886–6067, or by 

e-mail at summerhays.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: August 19, 2009. 

Walter W. Kovalick Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E9–23256 Filed 9–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 534, 536 

and 537 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0059] 

Notice of Availability of a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) for New Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards; Notice of Public 

Hearing 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); 

notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: NHTSA has prepared a DEIS 

to disclose and analyze the potential 

environmental impacts of proposed 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE) standards for model year (MY) 

2012–2016 passenger cars and light 

trucks, which NHTSA recently 

proposed pursuant to the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

and a reasonable range of alternative 

standards. To inform decisionmakers 

and the public, the DEIS compares the 

potential environmental impacts of the 

proposed standards and alternative 

standards reflecting a full range of 

stringencies, and it analyzes direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The 

DEIS provides a detailed analysis of 

potential impacts on energy resources, 

air quality, and climate. The DEIS uses 

climate modeling and NHTSA’s own 

computer model (known as the ‘‘Volpe 

model’’) to provide quantitative 

estimates of potential impacts on air 

quality, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, 

global mean surface temperature, 

precipitation, and sea level rise. The 

DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of 

resources that may be impacted by 

changes in climate, such as freshwater 

resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal 

ecosystems, land use, human health, 

and environmental justice. It examines 

these impacts on the U.S. and on a 

global scale. In addition, the DEIS 

analyzes potential environmental 

impacts unrelated to climate change. 

DATES: Public Hearing: The public 

hearing will be held on Friday, October 

30, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the 

National Transportation Safety Board 

Conference Center, 429 L’Enfant Plaza, 

SW., Washington, DC 20594. NHTSA 

recommends that all persons attending 

the hearing arrive at least 45 minutes 

early in order to facilitate entry into the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 48895 

1See National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

42 U.S.C. 4321–4347, and implementing regulations 

issued by the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), 40 CFR 1500–1508, and NHTSA, 49 CFR 

part 520. 

2The DEIS is available at http:// 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/. 

3EISA is Public Law 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492 

(Dec. 19, 2007). EPCA is codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 

et seq. 

4NHTSA is delegated responsibility for 

implementing the EPCA fuel economy requirements 

assigned to the Secretary of Transportation. 49 CFR 

1.50, 501.2(a)(8). 

5 49 U.S.C. 32902(a), 32902(f). 

6See, 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)). 

7 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(1), 32902(b)(2)(A). 

Conference Center. If you wish to attend 

or speak at the hearing, you must 

register in advance no later than 

Monday, October 19, 2009, by following 

the instructions in the Procedural 

Matters section of this notice. NHTSA 

will consider late registrants to the 

extent time and space allows, but 

NHTSA cannot ensure that late 

registrants will be able to speak at the 

hearing. 

Comments: To ensure that NHTSA 

has an opportunity to consider 

comments on the DEIS, NHTSA must 

receive written comments within 45 

days of the date the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a 

Notice of Availability of the DEIS in the 

Federal Register. NHTSA anticipates 

that EPA will publish that Notice on 

Friday, September 25, 2009, in which 

case NHTSA must receive written 

comments on the DEIS by Monday, 

November 9, 2009. NHTSA will try to 

consider comments received after that 

date to the extent the NEPA and 

rulemaking schedules allow, but 

NHTSA cannot ensure that it will be 

able to do so. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Peter Prout or Ms. Angel Jackson, 

Telephone: 1–202–366–0846, Fuel 

Economy Division, Office of 

International Vehicle, Fuel Economy 

and Consumer Standards, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. E-mail: 

nhtsa.nepa@dot.gov. Information about 

the CAFE rulemaking and the NEPA 

process is also available at http:// 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. Eastern time, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket at 1–800– 

647–5527. 

Note that all comments received, 

including any personal information, 

will be posted without change to 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA 

has prepared a DEIS to disclose and 

analyze the potential environmental 

impacts of proposed CAFE standards for 

MY 2012–2016 passenger cars and light 

trucks and a reasonable range of 

alternative standards.1 NHTSA invites 

Federal, State, and local agencies, 

Indian tribes, and the public to submit 

written comments and participate in a 

public hearing on the DEIS using the 

instructions set forth in this notice. As 

described in the Procedural Matters 

section of this notice, each speaker 

should anticipate speaking for 

approximately ten minutes, although we 

may need to adjust the time for each 

speaker if there is a large turnout. To 

facilitate review of the DEIS, NHTSA 

has posted the DEIS on its Web site, and 

it will be available in the Docket 

identified by the docket number at the 

beginning of this notice.2 Copies in hard 

copy or electronic (CD–ROM) form have 

been sent to all stakeholders on 

NHTSA’s National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) mailing list for the 

proposed CAFE standards, and NHTSA 

will mail a CD–ROM containing the 

DEIS and its Appendices to any other 

interested party who requests one. 

NHTSA will consider the public 

comments received on the DEIS in 

preparing final NEPA documents to 

support final CAFE standards for MY 

2012–2016 passenger cars and light 

trucks, which NHTSA plans to issue 

early next year. The agency’s NEPA 

analysis is informing NHTSA’s 

development of those standards. 

NHTSA is proposing standards 

pursuant to amendments made by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA) to the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA).3 To 

inform decisionmakers and the public, 

the DEIS analyzes the potential 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

standards and alternative standards 

reflecting a range of stringencies, and it 

analyzes direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts in proportion to 

their significance. The DEIS provides a 

detailed analysis of potential impacts on 

energy resources, air quality, and 

climate. The DEIS uses climate 

modeling and NHTSA’s Volpe model to 

provide quantitative estimates of 

potential impacts on air quality, CO2

emissions, global mean surface 

temperature, precipitation, and sea level 

rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative 

analysis of resources that may be 

impacted by changes in climate, such as 

freshwater resources, terrestrial 

ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land 

use, human health, and environmental 

justice. It examines impacts on the U.S. 

and on a global scale. In addition, the 

DEIS analyzes potential environmental 

impacts unrelated to climate change. 

Background. EPCA sets forth 

extensive requirements concerning the 

rulemaking to establish MY 2012–2016 

CAFE standards. It requires the 

Secretary of Transportation 4 to establish 

average fuel economy standards at least 

18 months before the beginning of each 

model year and to set them at ‘‘the 

maximum feasible average fuel economy 

level that the Secretary decides the 

manufacturers can achieve in that 

model year.’’ When setting ‘‘maximum 

feasible’’ fuel economy standards, the 

Secretary is required to ‘‘consider 

technological feasibility, economic 

practicability, the effect of other motor 

vehicle standards of the Government on 

fuel economy, and the need of the 

United States to conserve energy.’’ 5

NHTSA construes the statutory factors 

as including environmental and safety 

considerations.6 NHTSA also considers 

environmental impacts under NEPA 

when setting CAFE standards. 

As recently amended, EPCA further 

directs the Secretary, after consultation 

with the Secretary of Energy (DOE) and 

the EPA Administrator, to establish 

separate average fuel economy 

standards for passenger cars and for 

light trucks manufactured in each model 

year beginning with model year 2011 

‘‘to achieve a combined fuel economy 

average for model year 2020 of at least 

35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of 

passenger and non-passenger 

automobiles manufactured for sale in 

the United States for that model year.’’ 7

In doing so, the Secretary of 

Transportation is required to increase 

average fuel economy standards for MY 

2011–2020 vehicles through ‘‘annual 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
48896 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

8 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(2)(C). 

9 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(3)(A), 32902(b)(3)(B). 

10 49 U.S.C.A.32902(b)(4). 

11Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Average 

Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks—Model Years 2011–2015, 73 FR 24352 

(May 2, 2008). At the same time, NHTSA requested 

updated product plan information from the 

automobile manufacturers. See Request for Product 

Plan Information, Passenger Car Average Fuel 

Economy Standards—Model Years 2008–2020 and 

Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards— 

Model Years 2008–2020, 73 FR 21490 (May 2, 

2008). 

12 73 FR 16615 (Mar. 28, 2008). 

13 73 FR 38204 (Jul. 3, 2008). 

14The January 7, 2008 statement from the U.S. 

Department of Transportation can be found at: 

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot0109.htm (last 

accessed Jun. 9, 2009). 

15Memorandum for the Secretary of 

Transportation and the Administrator of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 74 

FR 4907 (Jan. 26, 2009). 

16Scoping, as defined under NEPA, is an early 

and open process for determining the scope of 

issues to be addressed in an EIS and for identifying 

the significant issues related to a proposed action. 

See 40 CFR 1501.7. 

17See Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards, 74 FR 14857 

(Apr. 1, 2009). 

18President Obama Announces National Fuel 

Efficiency Policy, The White House, May 19, 2009. 

Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

the_press_office/President-Obama-AnnouncesNational-Fuel-Efficiency-Policy/ (last accessed 

August 18, 2009). Remarks by the President on 

National Fuel Efficiency Standards, The White 

House, May 19, 2009. Available at: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-bythe-President-on-national-fuel-efficiency-standards/ 

(Last accessed August 18, 2009). 

19 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009). 

20Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

the_press_office/ 

Presidential_Memorandum_Fuel_Economy/ (last 

accessed on August 18, 2009) 

21A vehicle’s ‘‘footprint’’ is generally defined as 

‘‘the product of track width [the lateral distance 

between the centerlines of the base tires at ground, 

including the camber angle] * * * times wheelbase 

[the longitudinal distance between front and rear 

wheel centerlines] * * * divided by 144 * * *.’’ 49 

CFR 523.2. 

fuel economy standard increases.’’ 8 The 

standards for passenger cars and light 

trucks must be ‘‘based on 1 or more 

vehicle attributes related to fuel 

economy.’’ In any single rulemaking, 

standards may be established for not 

more than five model years.9 EPCA also 

mandates a minimum standard for 

domestically manufactured passenger 

cars.10

Pursuant to EISA, on April 22, 2008, 

NHTSA proposed CAFE standards for 

MY 2011–2015 passenger cars and light 

trucks in a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM).11 On March 21, 

2008, NHTSA issued a Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare an EIS for the MY 

2011–2015 CAFE standards.12 On 

October 10, 2008, NHTSA submitted to 

the EPA its Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and 

Light Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015. 

EPA published a Notice of Availability 

of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) in the Federal Register 

on October 17, 2008.13 On January 7, 

2009, the DOT announced that the Bush 

Administration would not issue the 

final rule.14

In the context of calls for the 

development of new national policies to 

prompt sustained domestic and 

international actions to address the 

closely intertwined issues of energy 

independence, energy security, and 

climate change, President Obama issued 

a memorandum on January 26, 2009 to 

the Secretary of Transportation and the 

NHTSA Administrator.15 The 

memorandum requested that NHTSA 

divide the MY 2011–2015 rulemaking 

into two parts: (1) MY 2011 standards, 

and (2) standards for MY 2012 and 

beyond. 

The request that the final rule 

establishing CAFE standards for MY 

2011 passenger cars and light trucks be 

prescribed by March 30, 2009 was based 

on two factors. One was the requirement 

that the final rule regarding fuel 

economy standards for a given model 

year must be adopted at least 18 months 

before the beginning of that model year 

(49 U.S.C. 32902(g)(2)). The other was 

that the beginning of MY 2011 is 

considered for the purposes of CAFE 

standard setting to be October 1, 2010. 

For MYs 2012 and beyond, the 

President requested that, before 

promulgating a final rule concerning the 

model years after model year 2011, 

NHTSA 

[C]onsider the appropriate legal factors 

under the EISA, the comments filed in 

response to the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the relevant technological and 

scientific considerations, and to the extent 

feasible, the forthcoming report by the 

National Academy of Sciences mandated 

under section 107 of EISA. 

In addition, the President requested 

that NHTSA consider whether any 

provisions regarding preemption are 

appropriate under applicable law and 

policy. 

On April 1, 2009, NHTSA published 

a NOI to prepare an EIS for the MY 

2012–2016 CAFE standards. The NOI 

described the statutory requirements for 

the standards, provided initial 

information about the NEPA process, 

and initiated scoping 16 by requesting 

public input on the scope of the 

environmental analysis to be 

conducted.17

The Proposed Action and Possible 

Alternatives: Concurrent with this DEIS, 

NHTSA and EPA are each announcing 

joint proposed rules whose benefits 

would address the urgent and closely 

intertwined challenges of energy 

independence and security and global 

warming. These proposed rules call for 

a strong and coordinated federal 

greenhouse gas and fuel economy 

program for passenger cars, light-dutytrucks, and medium-duty passenger 

vehicles (hereafter light-duty vehicles), 

referred to as the National Program. The 

proposed rules can achieve substantial 

improvements in fuel economy and 

reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions from the light-duty vehicle 

part of the transportation sector, based 

on technology that is already being 

commercially applied in most cases and 

that can be incorporated at a reasonable 

cost. 

The joint proposed standards are 

consistent with the President’s 

announcement on May 19, 2009 of a 

National Fuel Efficiency Policy of 

establishing consistent, harmonized, 

and streamlined requirements that 

would improve fuel economy and 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions for all 

new passenger cars and light trucks sold 

in the United States.18 The National 

Program holds out the promise of 

delivering additional environmental and 

energy benefits, cost savings, and 

administrative efficiencies on a 

nationwide basis that might not be 

available under a less coordinated 

approach. The proposed National 

Program also offers the prospect of 

regulatory convergence by making it 

possible for the standards of two 

different federal agencies and the 

standards of California and other states 

to act in a unified fashion in providing 

these benefits. This would allow 

automakers to produce and sell a single 

fleet nationally. Thus, it may also help 

to mitigate the additional costs that 

manufacturers would otherwise face in 

having to comply with multiple sets of 

federal and state standards. This joint 

notice is also consistent with the Notice 

of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking signed 

by DOT and EPA on May 19 19 and 

responds to the President’s January 26, 

2009 memorandum on CAFE standards 

for model years 2011 and beyond.20

Under the proposed standards, each 

vehicle manufacturer’s required level of 

CAFE would be based on target levels of 

average fuel economy set for vehicles of 

different sizes and on the distribution of 

that manufacturer’s vehicles among 

those sizes. Size would be defined by 

vehicle footprint.21 The level of the 

performance target for each footprint is 

intended to reflect the technological and 

economic capabilities of the industry. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 48897 

22 40 CFR 1501.6. 

23NHTSA notes that it cannot set out the precise 

level of CAFE that each manufacturer would be 

required to meet for each model year under the 

proposed standards, because the level for each 

manufacturer would depend on that manufacturer’s 

final production figures and fleet mix for a 

particular model year. That information will not be 

available until the end of each model year. 

24Exec. Order 12,866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993, as amended. 

25CEQ has explained that ‘‘[T]he regulations 

require the analysis of the no action alternative even 

if the agency is under a court order or legislative 

command to act. This analysis provides a 

benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to compare 

the magnitude of environmental effects of the action 

alternatives. It is also an example of a reasonable 

alternative outside the jurisdiction of the agency 

which must be analyzed. [See 40 CFR 1502.14(c).] 

* * * Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is 

necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the 

President as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 

1500.1(a).]’’ Forty Most Asked Questions 

Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy 

Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis 

added). 

The specific target for each footprint is 

the same for all manufacturers, 

regardless of differences in their overall 

fleet mix. Compliance would be 

determined by comparing a 

manufacturer’s harmonically averaged 

fleet fuel economy levels in a model 

year with a required fuel economy level 

calculated using the manufacturer’s 

actual production levels and the targets 

for each footprint of the vehicles that it 

produces. 

NEPA requires an agency to compare 

the potential environmental impacts of 

its proposed action and a reasonable 

range of alternatives. In developing the 

proposed standards and the alternatives, 

NHTSA considered the four EPCA 

factors underlying maximum feasibility 

(technological feasibility, economic 

practicability, the effect of other 

standards of the Government on fuel 

economy, and the need of the nation to 

conserve energy) as well as relevant 

environmental and safety 

considerations. NHTSA is also guided 

by President Obama’s memorandum to 

DOT on January 26, 2009, as described 

in Background. 

Section 1501.6 of the CEQ regulations 

emphasize agency cooperation early in 

the NEPA process and allow a lead 

agency (in this case, NHTSA) to request 

the assistance of other agencies that 

either have jurisdiction by law or have 

special expertise regarding issues 

considered in an EIS. NHTSA invited 

EPA to be a cooperating agency, 

pursuant to the CEQ regulations, 

because of its special expertise in the 

areas of climate change and air 

quality.22 On May 12, 2009, the EPA 

accepted NHTSA’s invitation and 

agreed to become a cooperating agency. 

NHTSA also consulted with DOE. 

The Preferred Alternative requires 

approximately a 4.3-percent average 

annual increase in mpg, resulting in an 

estimated required MY 2016 fleetwide 

38.0 mpg for passenger cars and 28.3 

mpg for light trucks.23 The Preferred 

Alternative also results in a combined 

estimated required fleetwide 34.1 mpg 

in MY 2016. The agency’s Preferred 

Alternative represents the required fuel 

economy level that we have tentatively 

determined to be the maximum feasible 

under EPCA, based on our balancing of 

statutory considerations. A full 

discussion regarding the agency’s 

tentative conclusion that Alternative 4 

represents the ‘‘maximum feasible’’ 

average fuel economy level that the 

Secretary has decided the manufacturers 

can achieve, considering the statutory 

and other relevant factors, and is 

therefore the agency’s Preferred 

Alternative, can be found in Section 

IV.F of the joint preamble of the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking. 

This alternative, along with EPA’s 

proposed standards, form the National 

Program and together are consistent 

with the National Fuel Efficiency Policy 

announced by President Obama on May 

19, 2009. Under the National Program, 

the overall light-duty vehicle fleet 

would reach 35.5 mpg in MY 2016, if all 

reductions were made through fuel 

economy improvements. In considering 

further action on the proposed 

standards and reasonable alternatives, 

NHTSA also will consider its NEPA 

analysis. 

In addition to the proposed standards, 

NHTSA has considered several 

regulatory alternatives for purposes of 

both Executive Order 12866 24 and its 

NEPA analysis, which includes a ‘‘no 

action’’ alternative as required by NEPA. 

The alternatives, in order of increasing 

stringency, are: 

(1) A ‘‘no action’’ alternative, which 

assumes, strictly for purposes of NEPA 

analysis, that no action would occur 

under CAFE (or under the National 

Program). Under that alternative, 

NHTSA would not issue a rule 

regarding CAFE standards for MY 2012– 

2016. The No Action Alternative 

assumes that average fuel economy 

levels in the absence of CAFE standards 

beyond MY 2011 would equal the 

higher of the agencies’ collective market 

forecast or the manufacturers’ required 

level of average fuel economy for MY 

2011. The MY 2011 fuel economy level 

represents the standard NHTSA believes 

manufacturers would continue to abide 

by, assuming NHTSA does not issue a 

rule. NEPA requires agencies to 

consider a ‘‘no action’’ alternative in 

their NEPA analyses and to compare the 

effects of not taking action with the 

effects of the reasonable action 

alternatives to demonstrate the different 

environmental effects of the action 

alternatives. The recent amendments to 

EPCA direct NHTSA to set new CAFE 

standards and do not permit the agency 

to take no action on fuel economy.25

NHTSA refers to this as the ‘‘No Action 

Alternative’’ or as a ‘‘no increase’’ or 

‘‘baseline’’ alternative. 

(2) A 3-percent average annual 

increase in mpg, resulting in a required 

MY 2016 fleetwide 35.6 mpg for 

passenger cars and 26.6 mpg for light 

trucks. The 3-Percent Alternative results 

in a combined required fleetwide 32.0 

mpg in MY 2016. 

(3) A 4-percent average annual 

increase in mpg, resulting in a required 

MY 2016 fleetwide 37.4 mpg for 

passenger cars and 27.9 mpg for light 

trucks. The 4-Percent Alternative results 

in a combined required fleetwide 33.6 

mpg in MY 2016. 

(4) An approximately 4.3-percent 

average annual increase in mpg, 

resulting in an estimated required MY 

2016 fleetwide 38.0 mpg for passenger 

cars and 28.3 mpg for light trucks. The 

Preferred Alternative results in a 

combined estimated required fleetwide 

34.1 mpg in MY 2016. 

(5) A 5-percent average annual 

increase in mpg, resulting in a required 

MY 2016 fleetwide 39.3 mpg for 

passenger cars and 29.3 mpg for light 

trucks. The 5-Percent Alternative results 

in a required achieved fleetwide 35.2 

mpg in MY 2016. 

(6) The ‘‘MNB Alternative,’’ in which 

the Volpe model applies technologies to 

the vehicle market forecast until 

marginal benefits are estimated to equal 

marginal costs and net benefits are 

maximized. In this case, the model 

continues to include technologies until 

the marginal cost of adding the next 

technology exceeds the marginal 

benefit. This alternative requires 

approximately a 5.9-percent average 

annual increase in mpg, resulting in a 

required MY 2016 fleetwide 40.9 mpg 

for passenger cars and 30.6 mpg for light 

trucks. The MNB Alternative results in 

a combined required fleetwide 36.8 mpg 

in MY 2016. 

(7) A 6-percent average annual 

increase in mpg, resulting in a required 

MY 2016 fleetwide 41.1 mpg for 

passenger cars and 30.7 mpg for light 

trucks. The 6-Percent Alternative results 

in a combined required fleetwide 36.9 

mpg in MY 2016. 

(8) A 7-percent average annual 

increase, resulting in a required MY 

2016 fleetwide 43.1 mpg for passenger 

cars and 32.2 mpg for light trucks. The 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
48898 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

26 Given EPCA’s mandate that NHTSA consider 

specific factors in setting CAFE standards and 

NEPA’s instruction that agencies give effect to 

NEPA’s policies ‘‘to the fullest extent possible,’’ 

NHTSA recognizes that a large number of 

alternative CAFE levels are potentially conceivable 

and that the alternatives described above essentially 

represent several of many points on a continuum 

of alternatives. Along the continuum, each 

alternative represents a different way in which 

NHTSA conceivably could assign weight to each of 

the four EPCA factors and NEPA’s policies. CEQ 

guidance instructs that ‘‘[w]hen there are 

potentially a very large number of alternatives, only 

a reasonable number of examples, covering the full 

spectrum of alternatives, must be analyzed and 

compared in the EIS.’’ CEQ, Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ’s National 

Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026, 

18027, Mar. 23, 1981 (emphasis original). 

27NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347. CEQ 

NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 40 

CFR Parts 1500–1508, and NHTSA’s NEPA 

implementing regulations are codified at 49 CFR 

Part 520. 

28See Notice of Intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards, 74 FR 14857 

(Apr. 1, 2009). 

29See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25. 

7-Percent Alternative results in a 

combined required fleetwide 38.7 mpg 

in MY 2016. 

(9) The ‘‘TCTB Alternative,’’ in which 

the Volpe model applies technologies to 

the vehicle market forecast until total 

cost equals total benefit. In this case, the 

model increases the standard to a point 

where essentially total costs of the 

technologies added together over the 

baseline equals total benefits added over 

the baseline. This alternative requires 

approximately a 6.7-percent average 

annual increase in mpg, resulting in a 

required MY 2016 fleetwide 42.7 mpg 

for passenger cars and 31.5 mpg for light 

trucks. The TCTB Alternative results in 

a combined required fleetwide 38.1 mpg 

in MY 2016. 

Of the eight action alternatives that 

NHTSA is proposing, Alternative 2 (3- 

Percent Alternative), Alternative 3 (4- 

Percent Alternative), Alternative 5 (5- 

Percent Alternative), Alternative 7 (6- 

Percent Alternative), and Alternative 8 

(7-Percent Alternative), require the 

average fuel economy for the industrywide combined passenger car and light 

truck fleet to increase, on average, by a 

specified percentage for each model 

year from 2012–2016. Because the 

percentage increases in stringency are 

‘‘average’’ increases, they may either be 

constant throughout the period or may 

vary from year to year. 

Three of the alternatives were added 

to the list of alternatives first proposed 

in the NOI to prepare an EIS for MY 

2012–2016—the agency’s Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative 4), an 

alternative that maximizes net benefits 

(MNB) (Alternative 6), and an 

alternative under which total costs 

equal total benefits (TCTB) (Alternative 

9). The agency’s Preferred Alternative 

represents the required fuel economy 

level that we have tentatively 

determined to be maximum feasible 

under EPCA, based on our balancing of 

statutory and other considerations. See 

Background. The other two alternatives, 

MNB and TCTB, represent fuel economy 

levels that are dependent on the 

agency’s best estimate of relevant 

economic variables (e.g., gasoline prices, 

social cost of carbon, the discount rate, 

and rebound effect). The MNB 

Alternative and TCTB Alternative 

provide the decisionmaker and the 

public with useful information about 

where the standards would be set if 

costs and benefits were balanced in two 

different ways. All three alternatives 

(Preferred Alternative, MNB Alternative, 

and TCTB Alternative) are placed in 

context by identifying the approximate, 

on average annual percentage fuel 

economy increase, so that the public is 

able to see where they fall on the 

continuum of alternatives. See Section 

Three of NHTSA’s Preliminary 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for a more 

detailed description of the MNB and 

TCTB Alternatives. 

NHTSA’s decision process must 

balance the four EPCA factors and be 

informed by the environmental 

considerations of NEPA. In developing 

its reasonable range of alternatives, 

NHTSA identified alternative 

stringencies that represent the full 

spectrum of potential environmental 

impacts and safety considerations.26

The NEPA Process and the DEIS. 

Under NEPA, a federal agency must 

analyze environmental impacts if the 

agency implements a proposed action, 

provides funding for an action, or issues 

a permit for that action. Specifically, 

NEPA directs that ‘‘to the fullest extent 

possible,’’ federal agencies proposing 

‘‘major federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment’’ must prepare ‘‘a detailed 

statement’’ on the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action 

(including alternatives to the proposed 

action). To inform its development of 

the new MY 2012–2016 CAFE standards 

required under EPCA, as amended by 

EISA, NHTSA prepared this draft EIS to 

analyze and disclose the potential 

environmental impacts of a proposed 

preferred alternative and other proposed 

alternative standards. To inform its 

development of the new MY 2012–2016 

CAFE standards required under EPCA, 

as amended by EISA, NHTSA prepared 

the DEIS to analyze and disclose the 

potential environmental impacts of a 

proposed preferred alternative and other 

proposed alternative standards pursuant 

to CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, 

DOT Order 5610.1C, and NHTSA 

regulations.27 The DEIS compares the 

potential environmental impacts among 

alternatives, including a no action 

alternative. It also analyzes direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts and 

discusses impacts in proportion to their 

significance. 

In April 2009, NHTSA issued a NOI 

to prepare an EIS for the MY 2012–2016 

CAFE standards and opened the NEPA 

‘‘scoping’’ process.28 The purpose of 

this notice was to request from the 

public its views and comments on the 

scope of the NEPA analysis, including 

the impacts and alternatives the DEIS 

should address, and to inform NHTSA 

of any available studies that would 

assist in the impact analysis for global 

climate-change issues. NHTSA mailed 

both Federal Register notices to 

hundreds of stakeholders and developed 

a mailing list of interested parties, 

including Federal agencies with 

environmental expertise, the Governors 

of every U.S. territory and State (or State 

NEPA contacts they identified), Indian 

tribes, organizations representing state 

and local governments and tribes, the 

automobile industry, environmental 

organizations, and other stakeholders 

interested in the CAFE program. 

NHTSA received seven responses to its 

scoping notice. Comments were 

provided by federal and state agencies, 

one automobile trade association, one 

environmental advocacy group, and 

three individuals. NHTSA reviewed and 

considered the public scoping 

comments and the studies commenters 

suggested. The predominant request by 

commenters during the scoping process 

was that NHTSA focus the DEIS on the 

standards’ possible impacts on both air 

quality and global climate change. 

NHTSA consulted with various 

federal agencies in the development of 

this DEIS, including the EPA, Bureau of 

Land Management, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, Minerals 

Management Service, National Park 

Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

U.S. Forest Service, Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation. NHTSA is also 

currently exploring its Section 7 

obligations under the Endangered 

Species Act with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Fisheries Service. 

NHTSA used the scoping process to 

help determine ‘‘the range of actions, 

alternatives, and impacts to be 

considered’’ in the DEIS and to identify 

the most important issues for analysis.29

The DEIS consists of a Summary and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 48899 

30See generally http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ 

assessments-reports.htm (last visited June 25, 2008) 

and http://www.climatescience.gov (last visited 

June 25, 2008). 31 40 CFR 1502.22; see 40 CFR 1502.21. 

nine chapters: (1) Purpose and Need for 

the Proposed Action; (2) The Proposed 

Action and Alternatives; (3) Affected 

Environment and Consequences; (4) 

Cumulative Impacts; (5) Mitigation; (6) 

Preparers; (7) References; (8) 

Distribution List; and (9) Index. Five 

appendices include: sources identified 

in scoping comments (Appendix A); 

agency consultation letters (Appendix 

B); modeling data for air emissions and 

climate modeling (Appendix C); 

NHTSA’s Preliminary Regulatory 

Impact Assessment (Appendix D); and 

EPA’s Draft Regulatory Impact 

Assessment (Appendix E). 

The DEIS devotes the most detailed 

analysis to direct, indirect and 

cumulative impacts of the proposed 

standards and the alternatives on 

energy, air quality, and climate. Key 

findings concerning estimated potential 

impacts on CO2 emissions, global mean 

surface temperature, rainfall, and sea 

level rise include the following: 

• Global CO2 Emissions Reductions. 

Over the 2012 to 2100 timeframe, the 

range of alternatives NHTSA analyzed 

would reduce global CO2 emissions 

(from all sources) by about 19 to 42 

billion metric tons of CO2 (based on 

global emissions of 5.29 trillion metric 

tons of CO2) from the emissions 

projected under the No Action 

Alternative. The alternatives would 

slow the expected increase in GHG 

emissions from the transportation sector 

over this period. Under all of the 

alternatives analyzed, growth in the 

number of passenger cars and light 

trucks in use throughout the United 

States, combined with assumed 

increases in their average use (annual 

vehicle miles traveled per vehicle), is 

projected to result in growth in total 

passenger car and light truck travel. 

This growth in travel overwhelms 

improvements in fuel economy such 

that, despite increases in fuel economy, 

total fuel consumption by U.S. 

passenger cars and light trucks is 

projected to increase under each of the 

action alternatives. Because CO2

emissions are a direct consequence of 

total fuel consumption, the same result 

is projected for total CO2 emissions from 

passenger cars and light trucks. 

• CO2 Concentration and Global 

Mean Surface Temperature: Estimates 

for CO2 atmospheric concentrations and 

global mean surface temperature vary 

considerably, depending on which 

global emissions scenario is used as a 

reference case. Temperature increases 

are sensitive to climate sensitivity. Yet, 

projected differences among the CAFE 

alternatives are small—i.e., CO2

concentrations as of 2100 range from 

779.0 ppm under the most stringent 

alternative (TCTB) to 783.0 ppm under 

the No Action Alternative. For 2030 and 

2050, the range is even smaller. 

Temperatures are within 0.007 °C to 

0.015 °C across alternatives—regardless 

of reference scenario and climate 

sensitivity. 

• Precipitation: The CAFE 

alternatives reduce temperature 

increases slightly and thus reduce 

increases in precipitation slightly, 

compared to the No Action Alternative. 

• Impact on Sea Level Rise: The 

impacts on sea level rise across the 

alternatives in 2100 range from 38.00 

centimeters under the No Action 

Alternative to 37.86 centimeters under 

the TCTB Alternative, for a maximum 

reduction of 0.14 centimeters by 2100 

from the No Action Alternative. 

These conclusions are not meant to be 

interpreted as expressing NHTSA’s 

views that CO2 impacts on global mean 

surface temperature, precipitation, or 

sea-level rise are not areas of concern for 

policymakers. Under NEPA, the agency 

is obligated to discuss ‘‘the 

environmental impact[s] of the 

proposed action.’’ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 

4332(2)(C)(i) (emphasis added). The EIS 

analysis is intended to fulfill NHTSA’s 

obligations in this regard. The DEIS 

provides a qualitative analysis of 

resources that may be impacted by 

changes in climate, such as freshwater 

resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal 

ecosystems, land use, human health, 

socioeconomics and environmental 

justice. It examines impacts on the U.S. 

and on a global scale. In addition, the 

DEIS qualitatively examines the 

alternatives’ non-climate-change-related 

direct, indirect and cumulative impacts 

on potentially affected resources. Such 

resources include water resources, 

biological resources, land use, 

hazardous materials, safety, noise, 

historic and cultural resources, and 

environmental justice. 

Throughout the DEIS, NHTSA’s 

analysis relies extensively on findings of 

the United Nations Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

(USCCSP), including those presented in 

the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report: 

Climate Change 2007 and the USCCSP’s 

Scientific Assessments of the Effects of 

Global Change on the United States and 

Synthesis and Assessment Products.30

The DEIS also uses applicable CEQ 

regulations to acknowledge uncertainty 

and incomplete or unavailable 

information relevant to NHTSA’s NEPA 

analysis.31

Procedural Matters: The hearing will 

be open to the public with advanced 

registration for seating on a spaceavailable basis. Individuals wishing to 

register to assure a seat in the public 

seating area should provide their name, 

affiliation, phone number, and e-mail 

address to Mr. Peter Prout or Ms. Angel 

Jackson using the contact information in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section at the beginning of this notice no 

later than Monday October 19, 2009. 

Should it be necessary to cancel the 

hearing due to an emergency or some 

other reason, NHTSA will take all 

available means to notify registered 

participants by e-mail or telephone. 

The hearing will be held at a site 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. Individuals who require 

accommodations such as sign language 

interpreters should contact Mr. Peter 

Prout or Ms. Angel Jackson using the 

contact information in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above no 

later than Monday October 19, 2009. 

Any written materials NHTSA presents 

at the hearing will be available 

electronically on the day of the hearing 

to accommodate the needs of the 

visually impaired. A transcript of the 

hearing and information received by 

NHTSA at the hearing will be placed in 

the docket for this notice at a later date. 

How long will I have to speak at the 

public hearing? 

Once NHTSA learns how many 

people have registered to speak at the 

public hearing, NHTSA will allocate an 

appropriate amount of time to each 

participant, allowing time for lunch and 

necessary breaks throughout the day. 

For planning purposes, each speaker 

should anticipate speaking for 

approximately ten minutes, although we 

may need to adjust the time for each 

speaker if there is a large turnout. To 

accommodate as many speakers as 

possible, NHTSA prefers that speakers 

not use technological aids (e.g., audiovisuals, computer slideshows). 

However, if you plan to do so, you must 

let Mr. Peter Prout or Ms. Angel Jackson 

know by Monday October 19, 2009, 

using the contact information in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above. You also must make 

arrangements to provide your 

presentation or any other aids to 

NHTSA in advance of the hearing in 

order to facilitate set-up. During the 

week of October 19th, NHTSA will post 

information on its Web site (http:// 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov) indicating the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
48900 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

32 49 CFR 553.21. 33See 49 CFR 553.23. 

amount of time allocated for each 

speaker and each speaker’s approximate 

order on the agenda for the hearing. 

How can I get a copy of the DEIS? 

The DEIS is available on NHTSA’s 

Web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/, 

and it will be available in the Docket 

identified by the docket number at the 

beginning of this notice. To request a 

CD–ROM containing the DEIS and its 

Appendices, please contact Mr. Peter 

Prout or Ms. Angel Jackson using the 

contact information in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above. 

How do I prepare and submit written 

comments? 

It is not necessary to attend or to 

speak at the public hearing to be able to 

comment on the issues. NHTSA invites 

the submission of written comments on 

the DEIS, which the agency will 

consider in preparing the final NEPA 

documents to support the new CAFE 

standards for MY 2012–2016 passenger 

cars and light trucks. Your comments 

must be written and in English. To 

ensure that your comments are correctly 

filed in the Docket, please include the 

docket number at the beginning of this 

notice in your comments. 

Your primary comments may not 

exceed 15 pages.32 However, you may 

attach supporting documents to your 

primary comments. There is no limit to 

the length of the attachments. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register at 65 

FR 19477, April 11, 2000, or you may 

visit http://www.regulations.gov. 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, send 

three copies of your complete 

submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business 

information, to the Chief Counsel, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Include a cover letter supplying the 

information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation (49 CFR part 512). 

In addition, send two copies from 

which you have deleted the claimed 

confidential business information to 

Docket Management, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, Room 

W12–140, Washington, DC 20590, or 

submit them electronically, in the 

manner described at the beginning of 

this notice. 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

NHTSA will consider all comments 

that Docket Management receives before 

the close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent the NEPA and 

rulemaking schedules allow, NHTSA 

will try to consider comments that 

Docket Management receives after that 

date, but we cannot ensure that we will 

be able to do so.33

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the docket 

as it becomes available. Further, some 

commenters may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the docket for new 

material. 

Issued: September 22, 2009. 

Ronald Medford, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–23199 Filed 9–22–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS