Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 14857 

practices for walking to and from 

school. For those children who 

routinely walk to school, training 

should include pre-selected routes and 

the importance of adhering to those 

routes. 

• Children riding bicycles to and 

from school should receive bicycle 

safety education, be required to wear 

bicycle safety helmets, and not deviate 

from pre-selected routes. 

• Local school officials and law 

enforcement personnel should work 

together to establish crossing guard 

programs. 

• Local school officials should 

investigate programs that incorporate 

the practice of escorting students across 

streets and highways when they leave 

school buses. These programs may 

include the use of school safety patrols 

or adult monitors. 

• Local school officials should 

establish passenger vehicle loading and 

unloading points at schools that are 

separate from the school bus loading 

zones. 

• Before chartering any vehicle or 

motor coach for school activity 

purposes, schools should check the 

safety record of charter bus companies 

through the FMCSA Safety and Fitness 

Electronic Records System. Schools 

should also consider using a multifunction school activity bus in place of 

charter buses where feasible. A multifunction school activity bus is not 

required to be equipped with traffic 

control devices (i.e., flashing lights and 

stop arm). These buses are not intended 

for the roadside picking up and 

dropping off of children during service 

between home and school. They are 

intended for use by schools and other 

institutions that need transportation 

services for school activity trips or for 

other coordinated transportation 

activities. 

IV. Program Evaluation 

The pupil transportation safety 

program should be evaluated at least 

annually by the State agency having 

primary administrative responsibility 

for pupil transportation. 

V. Definitions 

• A ‘‘bus’’ is a motor vehicle designed 

for carrying more than 10 persons 

(including the driver). 

• A ‘‘school bus’’ is a ‘‘bus’’ that is 

used for purposes that include carrying 

students to and from school or related 

events on a regular basis, but does not 

include a transit bus or a schoolchartered bus. 

• A ‘‘school-chartered bus’’ is a bus 

that is operated under a short-term 

contract with State or school authorities 

who have acquired the exclusive use of 

the vehicle at a fixed charge to provide 

transportation for a group of students to 

a special school-related event. 

• A ‘‘multi-function school activity 

bus’’ is a school bus whose purposes do 

not include transporting student to and 

from home or school bus stops. 

• ‘‘Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (FMCSR)’’ are the 

regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) for 

commercial motor vehicles in interstate 

commerce, including buses with a gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or gross 

vehicle weight greater than 10,000 

pounds; designed or used to transport 

more than 8 passengers (including the 

driver) for compensation; or designed or 

used to transport more than 15 

passengers (including the driver), and 

not used to transport passengers for 

compensation. (The FMCSR are set forth 

in 49 CFR Parts 390–399.) 

• A ‘‘child safety restraint system’’ is 

any device (except a passenger system 

lap seat belt or lap/shoulder seat belt), 

designed for use in a motor vehicle to 

restrain, seat, or position a child who 

weighs less than 65 pounds. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–7241 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0059] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

New Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for 

scoping comments. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

NHTSA plans to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

to analyze the potential environmental 

impacts of the agency’s Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy program for 

passenger automobiles (referred to 

herein as ‘‘passenger cars’’) and 

nonpassenger automobiles (referred to 

herein as ‘‘light trucks’’). The EIS will 

consider the potential environmental 

impacts of new fuel economy standards 

for model year 2012–2016 passenger 

cars and light trucks that NHTSA will 

be proposing pursuant to the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

This notice initiates the NEPA 

scoping process by inviting comments 

from Federal, State, and local agencies, 

Indian Tribes, and the public to help 

identify the environmental issues and 

reasonable alternatives to be examined 

in the EIS. This notice also provides 

guidance for participating in the scoping 

process and additional information 

about the alternatives NHTSA expects to 

consider in its NEPA analysis. 

DATES: The scoping process will 

culminate in the preparation and 

issuance of a Draft EIS, which will be 

made available for public comment. To 

ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity 

to fully consider scoping comments and 

to facilitate NHTSA’s prompt 

preparation of the Draft EIS, scoping 

comments should be received on or 

before May 1, 2009. NHTSA will try to 

consider comments received after that 

date to the extent the rulemaking 

schedule allows. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

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

p.m. Eastern time, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket at 202–366– 

9324. 

Note that all comments received, 

including any personal information 

provided, will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, contact Carol HammelSmith, 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. Telephone: 

202–366–5206. For legal issues, contact 

Jessica Wilson, Legislation & General 

Law Division, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

14858 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

1EISA is Public Law 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492 

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

32901 et seq. 2NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347. CEQ’s 

NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 40 

CFR Pts. 1500–1508, and NHTSA’s NEPA 

implementing regulations are codified at 49 CFR 

Part 520. 

3NHTSA is delegated responsibility for 

implementing the EPCA fuel economy requirements 

assigned to the Secretary of Transportation. 49 CFR 

1.50, 501.2(a)(8). 

4 49 U.S.C. 32902(a), 32902(f). 

5For environmental considerations, see Center for 

Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 793 F.2d 1322, 1325 n. 12 

(D.C. Cir. 1986); Public Citizen v. NHTSA, 848 F.2d 

256, 262–3 n. 27 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting that 

‘‘NHTSA itself has interpreted the factors it must 

consider in setting CAFE standards as including 

environmental effects’’); and Center for Biological 

Diversity v. NHTSA, 508 F.3d 508, 529 (9th Cir. 

2007); for safety considerations, see, e.g., 

Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 956 F.2d 

321, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing Competitive 

Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 901 F.2d 107, 120 n. 11 

(D.C. Cir. 1990)). 

6 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(1), 32902(b)(2)(A). 

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

8 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(3)(A), 32902(b)(3)(B). 

9 49 U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(4) (‘‘each manufacturer 

shall also meet the minimum standard for 

domestically manufactured passenger automobiles, 

which shall be the greater of (A) 27.5 miles per 

gallon; or (B) 92 percent of the average fuel 

economy projected by the Secretary for the 

combined domestic and non-domestic passenger 

automobile fleets manufactured for sale in the 

United States by all manufacturers in the model 

year. * * *’’). 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: 202–366–1834. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

forthcoming notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA intends to 

propose Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy (CAFE) standards for model 

year (MY) 2012–2016 passenger cars 

and light trucks pursuant to the 

amendments made by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA) to the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA).1 In 

connection with this action, NHTSA 

intends to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the 

potential environmental impacts of the 

proposed CAFE standards and 

reasonable alternative standards 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing 

regulations issued by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 

NHTSA.2 NEPA instructs Federal 

agencies to consider the potential 

environmental impacts of their 

proposed actions and possible 

alternatives in their decisionmaking. To 

inform decisionmakers and the public, 

the EIS will compare the potential 

environmental impacts of the agency’s 

preferred alternative and reasonable 

alternatives, including a ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative. As required by NEPA, the 

EIS will consider direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts and discuss impacts 

in proportion to their significance. 

Background 

EPCA, as amended by EISA, sets forth 

extensive requirements concerning the 

establishment of CAFE standards. It 

requires the Secretary of 

Transportation 3 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.’’ 4

NHTSA construes the statutory factors 

as including environmental and safety 

considerations.5 NHTSA considers the 

environmental NEPA analysis when 

setting CAFE standards. 

As amended by EISA in December 

2007, EPCA further directs the 

Secretary, after consultation with the 

Secretary of Energy and the 

Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), 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.’’ 6

In doing so, the Secretary of 

Transportation is required to ‘‘prescribe 

annual fuel economy increases that 

increase the applicable average fuel 

economy standard ratably beginning 

with model year 2011 and ending with 

model year 2020.’’ 7 Additionally, the 

standards for passenger cars and light 

trucks must be ‘‘based on 1 or more 

vehicle attributes related to fuel 

economy’’ and expressed ‘‘in the form of 

a mathematical function.’’ In any single 

final rule, standards may be established 

for not more than five model years.8

EPCA also mandates a minimum 

standard for domestically manufactured 

passenger cars.9

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 published on May 2, 2008. 

See 73 FR 24352. In March 2008, 

NHTSA issued a Notice of Intent to 

prepare an EIS for the MY 2011–2015 

CAFE standards. See 73 FR 16615; 40 

CFR 1501.7. On July 3, 2008, EPA 

issued its Notice of Availability for the 

DEIS, triggering the 45-day public 

comment period. The public was 

invited to submit written comments on 

the DEIS until August 18, 2008. NHTSA 

also held a public hearing on the DEIS 

in Washington, DC, on August 4, 2008. 

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, Docket No. NHTSA–2008– 

0060–0605 (FEIS). On October 17, 2008, 

the EPA published a Notice of 

Availability of the FEIS in the Federal 

Register. See 73 FR 61859. On January 

7, 2009, the Department of 

Transportation announced that the Bush 

Administration would not issue the 

final rule. See Statement from the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, available 

at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/ 

dot0109.htm (last accessed Feb. 9, 

2009). 

On January 26, 2009, President Barack 

Obama issued a memorandum to the 

Secretary of Transportation and the 

Administrator of NHTSA, requesting 

NHTSA ‘‘to publish in the Federal 

Register by March 30, 2009, a final rule 

prescribing increased fuel economy for 

model year 2011.’’ See 74 FR 4907. 

President Obama also requested that 

‘‘before promulgating a final rule 

concerning model years after model year 

2011, [the agency] consider the 

appropriate legal factors under EISA, 

the comments filed in response to the 

[NPRM], 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 

* * *.’’ Id. 

In accordance with President Obama’s 

request, on March 30, 2009, NHTSA 

published a Final Rule promulgating the 

fuel economy standards for MY 2011 

only. The Final Rule also constituted 

the Record of Decision (ROD) for 

NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE standards, 

pursuant to NEPA and CEQ’s 

implementing regulations. See 40 CFR 

1505.2. The agency postponed a 

decision and the issuance of a final rule 

and ROD for MY 2012 and beyond, 

pursuant to the President’s January 26th 

memorandum. The deferral of action on 

standards for the later model years 

provides the agency with an 

opportunity to review its approach to 

CAFE standard setting, including its 

methodologies, economic and 

technological inputs and decisionVerDate Nov<24>2008 17:46 Mar 31, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM 01APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 14859 

10 49 U.S.C. 32902(a) requires standards to be 

prescribed at least 18 months before the beginning 

of each model year; for CAFE purposes, NHTSA 

and manufacturers have historically considered 

April 1 of the prior calendar year to mark 18 

months before the beginning of a model year. 

11 Vehicle models made by different 

manufacturers would have the same fuel economy 

target if they both possessed the exact same 

quantity of the attribute upon which the standards 

are based. 

12While manufacturers may use a variety of 

flexibility mechanisms to comply with CAFE, 

including credits earned for over-compliance and 

production of flexible-fuel vehicles, NHTSA is 

statutorily prohibited from considering 

manufacturers’ ability to use flexibility mechanisms 

in determining what level of CAFE standards would 

be maximum feasible. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(h). 

13See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d). 

14CEQ has explained that ‘‘[T]he regulations 

require the analysis of the no action alternative 

even if the agency is under a court order or 

legislative command to act. This analysis provides 

a benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare 

the magnitude of environmental effects of the action 

alternatives. It is also an example of a reasonable 

alternative outside the jurisdiction of the agency 

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

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

necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the 

President as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 

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

Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy 

Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis 

added). 

making criteria, so as to ensure that it 

will produce standards that contribute, 

to the maximum extent feasible within 

the limits of EPCA/EISA, to meeting the 

energy and environmental challenges 

and goals outlined by the President. 

NHTSA intends to propose CAFE 

standards for MY 2012–2016, a five-year 

period, for various important reasons. 

As a preliminary matter, a standard for 

MY 2012 must be issued by the end of 

March 2010.10 Moreover, achieving an 

industry-wide combined fleet average of 

at least 35 miles per gallon for MY 2020 

depends, in substantial part, upon 

setting standards well in advance so as 

to provide automobile manufacturers 

with as much lead time as possible to 

make the necessary changes to their 

automobiles. Setting fuel economy 

standards for the full five-year 

increment permitted by EISA, would 

provide manufacturers with the 

maximum lead time possible under 

EPCA and EISA and promote regulatory 

stability and the efficient use of 

government resources. 

This Notice of Intent initiates the 

scoping process for the EIS under 

NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347, and 

implementing regulations issued by 

CEQ, 40 CFR parts 1500–1508, and 

NHTSA, 49 CFR part 520. See 40 CFR 

1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g). 

Specifically, this Notice of Intent 

requests public input on the scope of 

NHTSA’s NEPA analysis relating to the 

CAFE standards for MY 2012–2016 

automobiles. As part of the NEPA 

scoping process, this notice briefly 

describes the alternatives NHTSA is 

currently considering for setting MY 

2012–2016 CAFE standards. 

The Alternatives: NHTSA’s upcoming 

NPRM will propose separate attributebased standards for MY 2012–2016 

passenger cars and for MY 2012–2016 

light trucks. This notice briefly 

describes a variety of possible 

alternatives that are currently under 

consideration by the agency, and seeks 

input from the public about these 

alternatives and about whether other 

alternatives should be considered as we 

proceed with the rulemaking and the 

EIS. 

As noted above, NHTSA is statutorily 

required to promulgate attribute-based 

fuel economy standards. See 49 

U.S.C.A. 32902(b)(3)(A). Under the 

upcoming proposed standards, each 

individual vehicle model would have a 

specific fuel economy target based on 

the quantitative value of the attribute 

(for example, footprint) possessed by 

that vehicle model.11 Fuel economy 

targets would reflect, in part, NHTSA’s 

analysis of the technological and 

economic capabilities of the industry 

within the rulemaking time frame. A 

manufacturer’s CAFE standard, in turn, 

would be based on the target levels set 

for its particular mix of vehicles in that 

model year. 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 vehicle it produces.12

In developing alternatives, NHTSA 

must consider EPCA’s requirements for 

setting CAFE standards. 49 U.S.C. 

32902(b)(2)(A) and (C) contain the 

following three requirements specific to 

CAFE standards for MYs 2011–2020: (1) 

The standards must be sufficiently high 

to result in a combined (passenger car 

and light truck) fleet fuel economy of at 

least 35 mpg by MY 2020; (2) the 

standards must increase annually; and 

(3) the standards must increase ratably. 

EPCA also requires the agency to 

determine what level of CAFE 

stringency would be the ‘‘maximum 

feasible’’ for each model year. In 

determining the maximum feasible 

levels, EPCA directs NHTSA to consider 

four factors: Technological feasibility, 

economic practicability, the effect of 

other standards of the Government on 

fuel economy, and the need of the 

nation to conserve energy. See 49 U.S.C. 

32902(f). In balancing these four factors, 

NHTSA also accounts for relevant 

environmental and safety 

considerations, as discussed above. 

The alternatives that NHTSA 

currently has under consideration, in 

order of increasing stringency, are: 

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

assumes, strictly for purposes of NEPA 

analysis, that NHTSA would not issue a 

rule regarding CAFE standards.13 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.14 NHTSA refers 

to this as the ‘‘No Action Alternative’’ 

or as a ‘‘no increase’’ or ‘‘baseline’’ 

alternative. 

NHTSA is also proposing to consider 

five action alternatives, each of which 

would cause the average fuel economy 

for the industry-wide combined 

passenger car and light truck fleet to 

increase, on average, by a specified 

percentage for each model year during 

the rulemaking period. Because the 

percentage increases in stringency are 

‘‘average’’ increases, they may either be 

constant throughout the period or may 

vary from year to year, so long as the 

average yearly increase over that period 

equals the percentage increase specified 

in the alternative. 

The alternatives below represent the 

percentage increases in fuel economy 

that the agency is considering: 

(2) A 3% average annual increase, 

resulting in 31.7 mpg in MY 2016 (and 

35.6 mpg in MY 2020, if the increase 

were continued through that model 

year). NHTSA refers to this as the ‘‘3% 

Alternative.’’ 

(3) A 4% average annual increase, 

resulting in 33.2 mpg in MY 2016 (38.9 

mpg in MY 2020). NHTSA refers to this 

as the ‘‘4% Alternative.’’ 

(4) A 5% average annual increase, 

resulting in 34.8 mpg in MY 2016. (42.4 

mpg in MY 2020). NHTSA refers to this 

as the ‘‘5% Alternative.’’ 

(5) A 6% average annual increase, 

resulting in 36.5 mpg in MY 2016 (46.1 

mpg in MY 2020). NHTSA refers to this 

as the ‘‘6% Alternative.’’ 

(6) A 7% average annual increase, 

resulting in 38.3 mpg in MY 2016 (50.2 

mpg in MY 2020). NHTSA refers to this 

as the ‘‘7% Alternative.’’ 

Each of the alternatives proposed by 

NHTSA represents, in part, a different 

way in which NHTSA conceivably 

could weigh EPCA’s statutory 

requirements and account for NEPA’s 

14860 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

15 40 CFR 1502.13. 

16See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25. 

17See 40 CFR 1502.22. 

18 40 CFR 1502.22(b)(3); see 40 CFR 1502.21. The 

report and the IPCC’s earlier reports are available 

at http://www.ipcc.ch/ (last visited March 11, 2008). 

19See Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 

2011–2015, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0060–0605. 

20 40 CFR 1502.21. 

21Consistent 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 

policies. For example, the 7% 

Alternative, the most stringent 

alternative, weighs energy conservation 

and climate change considerations more 

heavily and technological feasibility and 

economic practicability less heavily. In 

contrast, the 3% Alternative, the least 

stringent alternative, places more weight 

on technological feasibility and 

economic practicability. The 

‘‘feasibility’’ of the alternatives also may 

reflect differences and uncertainties in 

the way in which key economic (e.g., 

the price of fuel and the social cost of 

carbon) and technological inputs could 

be assessed and estimated or valued. 

The agency may select one of the aboveidentified alternatives as its Preferred 

Alternative or it may select a level of 

stringency that falls between the levels 

of stringency reflected in the 

alternatives proposed in this Scoping 

Notice. 

Under NEPA, the purpose of and need 

for an agency’s action inform the range 

of reasonable alternatives to be 

considered in its NEPA analysis.15 The 

above alternatives represent a broad 

range of approaches under 

consideration for setting proposed CAFE 

standards and whose environmental 

impacts we propose to evaluate under 

NEPA. These alternatives take into 

account the comments NHTSA received 

during the prior rulemaking and EIS 

process. 

As detailed below, NHTSA invites 

comments to ensure that the agency 

considers a full range of reasonable 

alternatives in setting CAFE standards 

and 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 used in developing the above 

alternatives and in identifying the 

potentially significant environmental 

effects. The agency may modify the 

proposed alternatives and 

environmental effects that will be 

analyzed in depth based upon the 

comments received during the scoping 

process and upon further agency 

analysis. 

Scoping and Public Participation: The 

scoping process initiated by this notice 

seeks to determine ‘‘the range of actions, 

alternatives, and impacts to be 

considered’’ in the EIS and to identify 

the most important issues for analysis 

involving the potential environmental 

impacts of NHTSA’s CAFE standards.16

NHTSA’s NEPA analysis for the MY 

2012–2016 CAFE standards will 

consider the direct, indirect and 

cumulative environmental impacts of 

the proposed standards and those of 

reasonable alternatives. 

While the main focus of NHTSA’s 

prior EIS (i.e., EIS for Model Years 

2011–2015) was the quantification of 

impacts to energy, air quality, and 

climate, and qualitative analysis of 

cumulative impacts resulting from 

climate change, it also addressed other 

potentially affected resources. NHTSA 

conducted a qualitative review of the 

related direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts, positive or negative, of the 

alternatives on other potentially affected 

resources (water resources, biological 

resources, land use, hazardous 

materials, safety, noise, historic and 

cultural resources, and environmental 

justice). 

For the current EIS, NHTSA intends 

to focus on the impacts in the same 

manner as it did in the prior EIS. 

NHTSA is currently considering 

analyzing environmental impacts 

related to fuel and energy use, emissions 

including GHGs and their effects on 

temperature and climate change, air 

quality, natural resources, and the 

human environment. NHTSA also will 

consider the cumulative impacts of the 

proposed standards for MY 2012–2016 

automobiles together with estimated 

impacts of NHTSA’s implementation of 

the CAFE program through MY 2011 

and NHTSA’s future CAFE rulemakings 

for MY 2017 and beyond. To that end, 

NHTSA will project the effects of CAFE 

standards for MY 2012–2016 and 

beyond on fuel use and emissions over 

the lifetimes of the vehicles produced 

during those model years (or ‘‘the 

vehicles subject to those standards’’), as 

well as on future fuel use and emissions 

by the entire U.S. automobile and light 

truck fleets. 

NHTSA anticipates considerable 

uncertainty in estimating and 

comparing the potential environmental 

impacts related to climate change in 

particular. For instance, it may be 

difficult to predict with a reasonable 

degree of certainty or accuracy the range 

of potential global temperature changes 

that may result from changes in fuel and 

energy consumption and GHG 

emissions due to new CAFE standards. 

It also may be difficult to predict and 

compare the ways in which potential 

temperature changes attributable to new 

CAFE standards may affect many 

aspects of the environment. NHTSA will 

do its best to gather all relevant and 

credible information. If, however, the 

agency discovers incomplete or 

unavailable information, the agency will 

acknowledge the uncertainties in its 

NEPA analysis, and will apply the 

provisions in the CEQ regulations 

addressing ‘‘[i]ncomplete or unavailable 

information.’’ 17

Currently, NHTSA intends to rely 

upon the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Fourth 

Assessment Report, and subsequent 

updates, and Reports of the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP) as 

sources for recent ‘‘summar[ies] of 

existing credible scientific evidence 

which is relevant to evaluating the 

reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse impacts on the human 

environment.’’ 18 NHTSA believes that 

the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and 

the CCSP Reports are the most recent, 

most comprehensive summaries 

available, but recognizes that 

subsequent research may provide 

additional relevant and credible 

evidence not accounted for in these 

Reports. NHTSA expects to rely on such 

subsequent information as well, to the 

extent that it provides relevant and 

credible evidence. 

NHTSA also expects to rely on the 

FEIS it published on October 10, 2008,19

incorporating material by reference 

‘‘when the effect will be to cut down on 

bulk without impeding agency and 

public review of the action.’’ 20

Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA analysis 

and documentation will incorporate by 

reference relevant materials, including 

portions of the agency’s prior FEIS, 

where applicable. 

In preparing this notice of public 

scoping to identify the range of actions, 

alternatives, and impacts to be analyzed 

in depth in the EIS, NHTSA has 

consulted with agencies, including CEQ, 

DOE, EPA, the Office of Management 

and Budget, and the Office of Energy 

and Climate Change Policy. Through 

this notice, NHTSA invites all Federal 

agencies, Indian Tribes, State and local 

agencies with jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise with respect to 

potential environmental impacts of 

proposed CAFE standards, and the 

public to participate in the scoping 

process.21

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 14861 

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 2012–2016 CAFE standards. See 42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7, 

1506.6. 

22Again, NHTSA notes that it is statutorily 

prohibited from considering flexibility mechanisms 

in determining what standards would be maximum 

feasible. 49 U.S.C. 32902(h). 

23 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a). 

24 40 CFR 1500.1(b). 

25 If you prefer to receive NHTSA’s NEPA 

correspondence by U.S. mail, NHTSA intends to 

provide its NEPA publications via a CD readable on 

a personal computer. 

26 40 CFR 1506.10. 

Specifically, NHTSA invites all 

stakeholders to participate in the 

scoping process by submitting written 

comments concerning the appropriate 

scope of NHTSA’s NEPA analysis for 

the proposed CAFE standards to the 

docket number identified in the heading 

of this notice, using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section of 

this notice. NHTSA does not plan to 

hold a public scoping meeting, because 

written comments will be effective in 

identifying and narrowing the issues for 

analysis. 

NHTSA is especially interested in 

comments concerning the evaluation of 

climate change impacts. Specifically, 

NHTSA requests: 

• Peer-reviewed scientific studies that 

have been issued since the IPCC’s 

Fourth Assessment Report (and are not 

reflected in the IPCC’s work through 

November 17, 2007) and that address: 

(a) The impacts of CO2 and other 

greenhouse gas emissions on 

temperature, and specifically, the 

temperature changes that may be 

associated with any of the alternatives 

under consideration; (b) the impacts of 

changes in temperature on the 

environment, including water resources 

and biological resources, and human 

health and welfare; or (c) the time 

periods over which such impacts may 

occur. 

• Comments on how NHTSA should 

estimate the potential changes in 

temperature that may result from the 

changes in CO2 emissions projected 

from setting MY 2012–2016 CAFE 

standards, and comments on how 

NHTSA should estimate the potential 

impacts of temperature changes on the 

environment. 

• Comments on what time frame 

NHTSA should use to evaluate the 

environmental impacts that may result 

from setting MY 2012–2016 CAFE 

standards, both incrementally and 

cumulatively. For example, some 

commenters during the last CAFE 

rulemaking suggested using a 50-year 

time frame to evaluate environmental 

impacts, while others suggested using a 

time frame that spanned more than 100 

years. See FEIS sections 10.2.1, 10.3.1.2. 

• Reports analyzing the potential 

impacts of climate change within the 

United States or in particular geographic 

areas of the United States. Such reports 

could be prepared by or on behalf of 

States, local governments, Indian Tribes, 

regional organizations, academic 

researchers, or other interested parties. 

• NHTSA understands that there are 

a variety of potential alternatives that 

could be considered that fit within the 

purpose and need for the proposed 

rulemaking, as set forth in EPCA, as 

amended by EISA. NHTSA, therefore, 

seeks comments on how best to 

structure a reasonable alternative for 

purposes of evaluating it under NEPA. 

Specifically, NHTSA seeks comments 

on what criteria should be used to 

structure such alternative, given the 

attribute-based system that EISA 

requires, while being consistent with 

NHTSA’s statutory requirement of 

setting ‘‘maximum feasible’’ fuel 

economy standards that increase 

ratably. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(f). When 

suggesting a possible alternative, please 

explain how it would satisfy EPCA’s 

factors (in particular, technological 

feasibility, economic practicability, the 

effect of other motor vehicle standards 

of the Government on fuel economy, 

and the need of the nation to conserve 

energy) and requirements (such as 

achieving a combined fleet average fuel 

economy of at least 35 miles per gallon 

for MY 2020) and give effect to NEPA’s 

policies.22

In addition, NHTSA requests 

comments on how the agency should 

assess cumulative impacts, including 

those from various emissions source 

categories and from a range of 

geographic locations. Also in regard to 

cumulative impacts, the agency requests 

comments on how to consider the 

incremental impacts from foreseeable 

future actions of other agencies or 

persons, especially those relating to 

greenhouse gas regulation or climate 

change initiatives and how they might 

interact with the CAFE program’s 

incremental cumulative impacts. 

Two important purposes of scoping 

are identifying the significant issues that 

merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and 

identifying and eliminating from 

detailed analysis the issues that are not 

significant and therefore require only a 

brief discussion in the EIS.23 In light of 

these purposes, written comments 

should include an Internet citation 

(with a date last visited) to each study 

or report you cite in your comments if 

one is available. If a document you cite 

is not available to the public on-line, 

you should attach a copy to your 

comments. Your comments should 

indicate how each document you cite or 

attach to your comments is relevant to 

the NEPA analysis and indicate the 

specific pages and passages in the 

attachment that are most informative. 

The more specific your comments are, 

and the more support you can provide 

by directing the agency to peer-reviewed 

scientific studies and reports as 

requested above, the more useful your 

comments will be to the agency. For 

example, if you identify an additional 

area of impact or environmental concern 

you believe NHTSA should analyze, or 

an analytical tool or model that you 

believe NHTSA should use to evaluate 

these environmental impacts, you 

should clearly describe it and support 

your comments with a reference to a 

specific peer-reviewed scientific study, 

report, tool or model. Specific, wellsupported comments will help the 

agency prepare an EIS that is focused 

and relevant, and will serve NEPA’s 

overarching aims of making high quality 

information available to decisionmakers 

and the public by ‘‘concentrat[ing] on 

the issues that are truly significant to 

the action in question, rather than 

amassing needless detail.’’ 24 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. 

Please be sure to reference the docket 

number identified in the heading of this 

notice in your comments. NHTSA 

intends to correspond directly to 

interested parties by e-mail. Thus, 

please also provide an e-mail address 

(or a mailing address if you decline email communications).25 These steps 

will help NHTSA to manage a large 

volume of material during the NEPA 

process. All comments and materials 

received, including the names and 

addresses of the commenters who 

submit them, will become part of the 

administrative record and will be posted 

on the Web at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov. 

Based on comments received during 

scoping, NHTSA expects to prepare a 

draft EIS for public comment later this 

summer and a final EIS to support a 

final rule early next year.26 In regard to 

NHTSA’s decisionmaking schedule, the 

agency expects to issue a final rule next 

year. 

Separate Federal Register notices will 

announce the availability of the draft 

EIS, which will be available for public 

comment, and the final EIS, which will 

be available for public inspection. 

14862 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

1CMRY states that, except for the northern 

connection of segment A to the rail line of MMR, 

the line does not possess milepost markers. For that 

reason CMRY has supplied valuation map markers 

where available, and other geographic points of 

reference to better identify the terminal points of 

each segment of the line. 

NHTSA also plans to continue to post 

information about the NEPA process 

and this CAFE rulemaking on its Web 

site (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov). 

Issued: March 27, 2009 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E9–7289 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–1022 (Sub-No. 1X)] 

Arizona & California Railroad 

Company—Abandonment Exemption— 

in San Bernardino and Riverside 

Counties, CA 

On March 12, 2009, Arizona & 

California Railroad Company (ARZC) 

filed with the Surface Transportation 

Board a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 

for exemption from the provisions of 49 

U.S.C. 10903 to abandon a 49.40-mile 

rail line between milepost 0.0 at Rice 

and milepost 49.4 at Ripley, in San 

Bernardino and Riverside Counties, CA. 

The line traverses U.S. Postal Service 

Zip Codes 92225, 92226, and 92280, and 

includes the stations of Rice, Styx, 

Midland, Cox, Inca, Mesaville, Blythe, 

Miller Farms, and Ripley. 

The line does contain Federally 

granted rights-of-way. Any 

documentation in ARZC’s possession 

will be made available promptly to 

those requesting it. 

The interest of railroad employees 

will be protected by the conditions set 

forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.— 

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 

(1979). 

By issuance of this notice, the Board 

is instituting an exemption proceeding 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final 

decision will be issued by June 30, 

2009. 

Any offer of financial assistance 

(OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will 

be due no later than 10 days after 

service of a decision granting the 

petition for exemption. Each OFA must 

be accompanied by a $1,500 filing fee. 

See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). 

All interested persons should be 

aware that, following abandonment of 

rail service and salvage of the line, the 

line may be suitable for other public 

use, including interim trail use. Any 

request for a public use condition under 

49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail 

banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be 

due no later than April 21, 2009. Each 

trail use request must be accompanied 

by a $200 filing fee. See 49 CFR 

1002.2(f)(27). 

All filings in response to this notice 

must refer to STB Docket No. AB–1022 

(Sub-No. 1X), and must be sent to: (1) 

Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423– 

0001; and (2) Louis E. Gitomer, 600 

Baltimore Ave., Suite 301, Towson, MD 

21204, and Scott G. Williams, 7411 

Fullerton St., Suite 300, Jackson, FL 

32256. Replies to ARZC’s petition are 

due on or before April 21, 2009. 

Persons seeking further information 

concerning abandonment procedures 

may contact the Board’s Office of Public 

Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and 

Compliance at (202) 245–0238 or refer 

to the full abandonment or 

discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR 

part 1152. Questions concerning 

environmental issues may be directed to 

the Board’s Section of Environmental 

Analysis (SEA) at (202) 245–0305. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339.] 

An environmental assessment (EA) (or 

environmental impact statement (EIS), if 

necessary) prepared by SEA will be 

served upon all parties of record and 

upon any agencies or other persons who 

commented during its preparation. 

Other interested persons may contact 

SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). 

EAs in these abandonment proceedings 

normally will be made available within 

60 days of the filing of the petition. The 

deadline for submission of comments on 

the EA will generally be within 30 days 

of its service. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at ‘‘http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov.’’ 

Decided: March 23, 2009. 

By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. E9–6846 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–308 (Sub-No. 4X)] 

Central Michigan Railway Company— 

Abandonment Exemption—in Kent 

County, MI 

Central Michigan Railway Company 

(CMRY) has filed a verified notice of 

exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart 

F–Exempt Abandonments to abandon 

an approximately 1.75-mile line of 

railroad, consisting of the following 

three interconnected segments: (1) A 

line (segment A) extending from 

milepost 157.96 (at the switch 

connection with the east-west aligned 

tracks of the Mid-Michigan Railroad, 

Inc. (MMR) near the intersection of 

Taylor Avenue and Quimby Street) 

through valuation map marker 9+87.2 

(the location of the south wye, or Press 

Track, switch adjacent to Monroe 

Avenue) and continuing to the end of 

the track at a point immediately north 

of Michigan Street/Bridge Street; (2) a 

line (segment B) extending from 

valuation map marker 3+00 (at a switch 

connection with a line of MMR 

immediately at the east end of the MMR 

bridge spanning the Grand River) to a 

connection with segment A at valuation 

map marker 9+87.2 (at the south wye 

switch); and (3) a line (segment C) 

extending from valuation map marker 

0+00 (at a point of connection with the 

east-west aligned MMR line 

immediately to the east of the MMR 

line’s bridge spanning the Grand River) 

due northward to valuation map marker 

11+15.0 (approximately 250 feet south 

of Ann Street),1 in Grand Rapids, Kent 

County, MI. The line traverses United 

States Postal Service Zip Codes 49503 

and 49505. 

CMRY has certified that: (1) No local 

traffic has moved over the line for at 

least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead 

traffic that would need to be rerouted; 

(3) no formal complaint filed by a user 

of rail service on the line (or by a state 

or local government entity acting on 

behalf of such user) regarding cessation 

of service over the line either is pending 

with the Surface Transportation Board 

(Board) or with any U.S. District Court 

or has been decided in favor of a 

complainant within the 2-year period; 

and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 

1105.7 (environmental report), 49 CFR 

1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 

(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 

(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 

1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental 

agencies) have been met. 

As a condition to this exemption, any 

employee adversely affected by the 

abandonment shall be protected under 

Oregon Short Line R. Co.— 

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 

(1979). To address whether this 

condition adequately protects affected 

employees, a petition for partial 

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

must be filed.