Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 82 / Monday, April 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 22913 

be used to determine opacity from all 

affected facilities except those that do 

not vent PM emissions through a stack. 

(3) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of this 

part, the procedures in § 60.11, and the 

additional procedures in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section shall 

be used to determine opacity from 

affected facilities that do not vent PM 

emissions through a stack. 

(i) The minimum distance between 

the observer and the emission source 

shall be 5.0 meters (16 feet), and the sun 

shall be oriented in the 140-degree 

sector of the back. 

(ii) The observer shall select a 

position that minimizes interference 

from other emission sources and make 

observations such that the line of vision 

is approximately perpendicular to the 

plume and wind direction. 

(iii) Make opacity observations at the 

point of greatest opacity in that portion 

of the plume where condensed water 

vapor is not present. Water vapor is not 

considered a visible emission. 

(c) For each affected facility subject to 

a particulate matter emission limit in 

§ 60.252 that is constructed, 

reconstructed, or modified after April 

28, 2008 the owner or operator must 

conduct each performance test 

according to § 60.8 using the test 

methods and procedures in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) Method 1 or 1A (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1) to select sampling port 

locations and the number of traverse 

points in each stack or duct. Sampling 

sites must be located at the outlet of the 

control device (or at the outlet of the 

emissions source if no control device is 

present) prior to any releases to the 

atmosphere. 

(2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1), or 2G (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–2) to determine the 

volumetric flow rate of the stack gas. 

(3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B (40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–2) to determine the dry 

molecular weight of the stack gas. You 

may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses’’

(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) 

as an alternative to Method 3B (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–2). 

(4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3) to determine the 

moisture content of the stack gas. 

(5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3) to determine the PM 

concentration or Method 5D (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–3) for positive 

pressure fabric filter. A minimum of 

three valid test runs comprise a 

particulate matter performance test. 

(d) For each affected facility subject to 

an opacity limit in § 60.252 that is 

constructed, reconstructed, or modified 

after April 28, 2008, the owner or 

operator must conduct the performance 

test as follows: 

(1) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of this 

part and the procedures in § 60.11 shall 

be used to determine opacity from all 

affected facilities except those that do 

not vent PM emissions through a stack. 

(2) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of this 

part, the procedures in § 60.11, and the 

additional procedures in paragraphs 

(d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section shall 

be used to determine opacity from 

affected facilities that do not vent PM 

emissions through a stack. 

(i) The minimum distance between 

the observer and the emission source 

shall be 5.0 meters (16 feet), and the sun 

shall be oriented in the 140-degree 

sector of the back. 

(ii) The observer shall select a 

position that minimizes interference 

from other emission sources and make 

observations such that the line of vision 

is approximately perpendicular to the 

plume and wind direction. 

(iii) Make opacity observations at the 

point of greatest opacity in that portion 

of the plume where condensed water 

vapor is not present. Water vapor is not 

considered a visible emission. 

§ 60.255 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

(a) An owner or operator of a coal 

preparation plant that commenced 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after April 28, 2008 shall 

maintain in a logbook (written or 

electronic) on-site and made available 

upon request. The logbook shall record 

the following: 

(1) The date and time of periodic coal 

preparation plant facility opacity 

observations noting those sources with 

emissions above the action level along 

with the results of the corresponding 

opacity performance test. 

(2) The amount and type of coal 

processed each calendar month. 

(3) The amount of chemical stabilizer 

or water purchased for use in the coal 

preparation plant. 

(4) Monthly certification that the dust 

suppressant systems were operational 

when any coal was processed and that 

manufacturer recommendations were 

followed for all control systems. 

(b) [RESERVED] 

[FR Doc. E8–9104 Filed 4–25–08; 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–2008–0060] 

Supplemental Notice of Public Scoping 

for an Environmental Impact Statement 

for New Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of public 

scoping; further request for scoping 

comments. 

SUMMARY: On March 28, 2008, NHTSA 

announced plans to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) to address the 

potential environmental impacts of the 

agency’s Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy program for passenger 

automobiles (referred to herein as 

‘‘passenger cars’’) and non-passenger 

automobiles (referred to herein as ‘‘light 

trucks’’). Specifically, NHTSA 

announced its intent to prepare an EIS 

to consider the potential environmental 

impacts of new fuel economy standards 

for model year 2011–2015 passenger 

cars and light trucks that NHTSA is 

proposing pursuant to the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

At the same time, NHTSA initiated the 

NEPA scoping process by inviting 

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 by providing public 

comments related to the scope of 

NHTSA’s NEPA analysis. This 

supplemental notice provides additional 

guidance for participating in the scoping 

process and additional information 

about the proposed standards and 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. 

Interested persons are requested to 

submit their scoping comments as soon 

as possible. To ensure that NHTSA has 

an opportunity to consider scoping 

comments and to facilitate NHTSA’s 

prompt preparation of the Draft EIS, 

scoping comments should be received 

on or before May 28, 2008, although 

NHTSA will try to consider comments 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
22914 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 82 / Monday, April 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 1500–1508, and NHTSA’s NEPA implementing 

regulations are codified at 49 CFR Part 520. 

3See Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR 16615, 

March 28, 2008, available at http:// 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/ 

menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/ 

(last visited March 26, 2008). 

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). 

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). 

11 In preparing an EIS for the MY 2011–2015 

CAFE standards, NHTSA intends to consider issues 

raised in litigation concerning a 2006 final rule, 

‘‘Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks, 

Model Years 2008–2011,’’ 71 FR 17,566, April 6, 

2006 (2006 Rule). See Center for Biological Diversity 

v. NHTSA, 508 F.3d 508, 514, 545–58 (9th Cir. 

2007) (holding, among other things, that NHTSA 

did not prepare an adequate environmental 

assessment under NEPA and ordering the agency to 

prepare an EIS). The Government is presently 

seeking rehearing in the Ninth Circuit on the 

appropriateness of the Court’s remedy. 

received after this date to the extent the 

NEPA and rulemaking schedules allow. 

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 

Kerry E. Rodgers, Vehicle Safety 

Standards & Harmonization Division, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

202–366–9511. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

companion notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA is 

proposing Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy (CAFE) standards for model 

year (MY) 2011–2015 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 has 

begun preparing an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) to address the 

potential environmental impacts of the 

proposed standards and reasonable 

alternative standards in the context of 

NHTSA’s CAFE program 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 environmental 

impacts of the agency’s proposal and 

reasonable alternatives, including a ‘‘no 

action’’ alternative. The EIS will 

consider direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts and should discuss 

impacts ‘‘in proportion to their 

significance.’’

In March 2008, NHTSA issued a 

notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the 

MY 2011–2015 CAFE standards and 

opened the NEPA ‘‘scoping’’ process. In 

that notice, NHTSA described the 

statutory requirements for the proposed 

standards, provided initial information 

about the NEPA process, and initiated 

scoping by requesting public input on 

the scope of NHTSA’s NEPA analysis 

for the proposed standards.3 NHTSA 

also stated that it would describe the 

proposed standards and the possible 

alternatives NHTSA expects to consider 

for purposes of its NEPA analysis in its 

NPRM and in a separate scoping notice 

that would provide further guidance 

about the scoping process. This 

document constitutes that supplemental 

scoping notice. 

Background. EPCA sets forth 

extensive requirements concerning the 

rulemaking to establish MY 2011–2015 

CAFE standards. It requires the 

Secretary of Transportation4 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 will 

consider 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 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.’’7

In doing so, the Secretary of 

Transportation is required to increase 

average fuel economy standards for MY 

2011–2020 vehicles through ‘‘annual 

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

Earlier this year, NHTSA initiated the 

EIS process for MY 2011–2015 CAFE 

standards, which include light truck 

standards for one model year previously 

covered by the 2006 Rule (MY 2011).11

We did so because a standard for MY 

2011 must be issued by the end of 

March 2009 and achieving an industrywide 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 the automobile 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 82 / Monday, April 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 22915 

12See 71 FR 17,566, 17,587–17,625, April 6, 2006 

(describing that approach). 

13A 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. 

14NHTSA 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. 

15With the proposed standards, the combined 

industry-wide average fuel economy would have to 

increase by an average of 2.1 percent per year from 

MY 2016 –MY 2020 in order to reach EISA’s goal 

of at least 35 mpg by MY 2020. In addition, the 

NPRM discusses flexibility mechanisms available to 

manufacturers to meet their obligations. 

16Exec. Order 12,866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51,735, October 4, 1993, as 

amended. 

17See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d). 

manufacturers with as much lead time 

as possible to make the extensive 

necessary changes to their automobiles. 

The Proposed Action and Possible 

Alternatives: NHTSA’s companion 

NPRM proposes attribute-based (vehicle 

size) fuel economy standards for 

passenger cars and light trucks 

consistent with the ‘‘Reformed CAFE’’

approach NHTSA used to establish 

standards for MY 2008–2011 light 

trucks.12 The NPRM proposes separate 

standards for MY 2011–2015 passenger 

cars and separate standards for MY 

2011–2015 light trucks. This notice 

briefly describes the proposed standards 

and the possible alternatives discussed 

in the NPRM. For more detailed 

discussion of those alternatives, please 

see the NPRM. 

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.13 The level of the 

performance target for each footprint 

would reflect the technological and 

economic capabilities of the industry. 

The target for each footprint would be 

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. 

In developing the proposed standards 

and possible 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 used a 

computer model (known as the ‘‘Volpe 

model’’) that, for any given model year, 

applies technologies to a manufacturer’s 

fleet until the manufacturer achieves 

compliance with the standard under 

consideration. In light of the EPCA 

factors, the agency placed monetary 

values on relevant externalities (both 

energy security and environmental 

externalities, including the benefits of 

reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions). As discussed in the NPRM, 

NHTSA also consulted with EPA and 

DOE regarding a wide variety of matters. 

After assessing what fuel saving 

technologies would be available, how 

effective they are, and how quickly they 

could be introduced, NHTSA balanced 

the EPCA factors relevant to standardsetting. The agency used a marginal 

benefit-cost analysis to set the proposed 

standards at levels such that, 

considering the seven largest 

manufacturers, the cost of the last 

technology application equaled the 

benefits of the improvement in fuel 

economy resulting from that 

application. That is the level at which 

net benefits are maximized. 

Accordingly, NHTSA refers to the 

proposed standards as ‘‘optimized’’

standards or the ‘‘optimized scenario’’. 

In considering further action on the 

proposed standards and reasonable 

alternatives, NHTSA will consider the 

NEPA analysis that results from the 

scoping process described in this notice. 

NHTSA projects what the industrywide average fuel economy level would 

be for passenger cars and for light trucks 

if each manufacturer produced its 

expected mix of automobiles and 

exactly met its obligations under the 

proposed ‘‘optimized’’ standards for 

each model year. For passenger cars, the 

average fuel economy (in miles per 

gallon, or mpg) would range from 31.2 

mpg in MY 2011 to 35.7 mpg in MY 

2015. For light trucks, the average fuel 

economy would range from 25.0 mpg in 

MY 2011 to 28.6 mpg in MY 2015. The 

combined industry-wide average fuel 

economy for all passenger cars and light 

trucks would range from 27.8 mpg in 

MY 2011 to 31.6 mpg in MY 2015, if 

each manufacturer exactly met its 

obligations under the standards 

proposed in the NPRM.14

Under the proposed standards, the 

annual average increase during the fiveyear period from MY 2011-MY 2015 

would be approximately 4.5 percent. 

The annual percentage increases would 

be greater in the early years due to the 

uneven distribution of new model 

introductions during this period and to 

the fact that significant technological 

changes can be most readily made in 

conjunction with those introductions.15

Pursuant to EISA’s mandate, 

domestically manufactured passenger 

car fleets also must meet an alternative 

minimum standard for each model year. 

The alternative minimum standard 

would range from 28.7 mpg in MY 2011 

to 32.9 mpg in MY 2015 under NHTSA’s 

proposal. 

In addition to the proposed standards, 

NHTSA has considered several 

regulatory alternatives for purposes of 

Executive Order 12,866.16 NHTSA 

anticipates that those alternatives, plus 

a ‘‘no action’’ alternative as required by 

NEPA, will form the framework of the 

agency’s alternatives analysis under 

NEPA. The alternatives, in order of 

increasing stringency, are: 

(1) A ‘‘no action’’ alternative of 

maintaining CAFE standards at the MY 

2010 levels of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg 

for passenger cars and light trucks, 

respectively.17 NEPA requires agencies 

to consider a ‘‘no action’’ alternative in 

their NEPA analyses, although 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. (NHTSA also 

refers to this ‘‘no action’’ alternative as 

a ‘‘no increase’’ or ‘‘baseline’’

alternative.) 

(2) An alternative reflecting standards 

that fall below the optimized scenario 

by the same absolute amount by which 

the ‘‘25 percent above optimized 

alternative’’ (described below) exceeds 

the optimized scenario. NHTSA refers to 

this as the ‘‘25 percent below optimized 

alternative’’. 

(3) An alternative reflecting the 

‘‘optimized scenario,’’ the proposed 

standards based on applying 

technologies until net benefits are 

maximized. 

(4) An alternative reflecting standards 

that exceed the optimized scenario by 

25 percent of the interval between the 

optimized scenario and an alternative 

(described below) based on applying 

technologies until total costs equal total 

benefits. NHTSA refers to this 

alternative as the ‘‘25 percent above 

optimized alternative.’’

(5) An alternative reflecting standards 

that exceed the optimized scenario by 

50 percent of the interval between the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
22916 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 82 / Monday, April 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

18 40 CFR 1502.13. 

19 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 very 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, March 23, 1981 (emphasis original). 20See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25. 

21See 40 CFR 1502.22. 22 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). 

23 40 CFR 1502.21. 

24Consistent with NEPA and implementing 

regulations, NHTSA is sending this notice directly 

to: (1) Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law 

or special expertise with respect to the 

environmental impacts involved or authorized to 

develop and enforce environmental standards; (2) 

the Governors of every State, to share with the 

appropriate agencies and offices within their 

administrations and with the local jurisdictions 

within their States; (3) organizations representing 

state and local governments and Indian tribes; and 

(4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably 

expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for 

the MY 2011–2015 CAFE standards. NHTSA also 

mailed the notice of intent to these stakeholders on 

April 10 and 11, 2008. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 

CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6. 

optimized scenario and the alternative 

based on applying technologies until 

total costs equal total benefits. This 

alternative is known as the ‘‘50 percent 

above optimized alternative’’. 

(6) An alternative reflecting standards 

based on applying technologies until 

total costs equal total benefits (zero net 

benefits). This is known as the ‘‘TC=TB 

alternative’’. 

(7) A ‘‘technology exhaustion 

alternative’’ in which NHTSA applied 

all feasible technologies without regard 

to cost by determining the stringency at 

which a reformed CAFE standard would 

require every manufacturer to apply 

every technology estimated to be 

potentially available for its MY 2011–

2015 fleet. Accordingly, the penetration 

rates for particular technologies would 

vary on an individual manufacturer 

basis. NHTSA has presented this 

alternative in order to explore how the 

stringency of standards would vary 

based solely on the potential availability 

of technologies at the individual 

manufacturer level. 

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.18

NHTSA believes that these alternatives 

represent a reasonable range of 

stringencies to consider for purposes of 

evaluating the potential environmental 

impacts of proposed CAFE standards 

under NEPA, because these alternatives 

represent a wide spectrum of potential 

impacts ranging from the current 

standards to standards based on the 

maximum technology expected to be 

available over the period necessary to 

meet the statutory goals of EPCA, as 

amended by EISA.19 However, as 

discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA’s 

provisional analysis of these alternatives 

suggests that some of them may not 

satisfy the four EPCA factors that 

NHTSA must apply in setting 

‘‘maximum feasible’’ CAFE standards 

(i.e., 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). Please see 

the companion NPRM for further 

discussion of these alternatives and for 

background on why NHTSA has 

identified these alternatives. As 

indicated below, NHTSA invites 

comments to ensure that the agency’s 

NEPA analysis for the proposed 

standards addresses a full range of 

reasonable alternatives and identifies all 

potentially significant impacts related to 

each. Comments may go beyond the 

approaches and information that 

NHTSA used in developing the 

proposed standards and the above 

alternatives. 

Scoping and Public Participation: As 

NHTSA indicated in its notice of intent 

and request for scoping comments, 

NHTSA plans to use the scoping process 

to determine ‘‘the range of actions, 

alternatives, and impacts to be 

considered’’ in the EIS and to identify 

the most important issues for analysis.20

NHTSA’s NEPA analysis for the MY 

2011–2015 CAFE standards will 

consider the direct, indirect and 

cumulative environmental impacts of 

the proposed standards and those of 

reasonable alternatives. Among other 

potential impacts, NHTSA will consider 

direct and indirect impacts related to 

fuel and energy use, emissions 

including CO2 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 2011–2015 

automobiles together with estimated 

impacts of NHTSA’s implementation of 

the CAFE program through MY 2010 

and NHTSA’s future CAFE rulemaking 

for MY 2016–2020, as prescribed by 

EPCA, as amended by EISA. To this 

end, NHTSA will project the future 

effects of the fuel use and emissions of 

the vehicle fleets analyzed over their 

lifetimes. 

NHTSA anticipates considerable 

uncertainty in estimating and 

comparing the potential environmental 

impacts of the proposed standards and 

the alternatives relating 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 CO2 emissions due to 

new CAFE standards. In turn, for 

example, it may be difficult to predict 

and compare the ways in which 

potential temperature changes 

attributable to new CAFE standards may 

impact many aspects of the 

environment. Accordingly, NHTSA 

expects to apply the provisions in the 

CEQ regulations addressing 

‘‘[i]ncomplete or unavailable 

information,’’ where NHTSA would 

acknowledge these and other 

uncertainties in its NEPA analysis for 

the proposed standards.21 NHTSA will 

rely on the 2007 Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) as a recent 

‘‘summary of existing credible scientific 

evidence which is relevant to evaluating 

the reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse impacts on the human 

environment.’’ 22 The NHTSA NEPA 

analysis and documentation will 

incorporate material by reference ‘‘when 

the effect will be to cut down on bulk 

without impeding agency and public 

review of the action.’’ 23

In preparing this supplemental notice 

of public scoping, NHTSA has 

consulted with CEQ, EPA, and the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Through this notice, NHTSA again 

invites other Federal agencies and State, 

local, and tribal agencies with 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise 

with respect to potential environmental 

impacts of the proposed CAFE 

standards and the public to participate 

in the scoping process.24

Specifically, NHTSA invites all 

stakeholders to submit written 

comments concerning the appropriate 

scope of NHTSA’s NEPA analysis for 

the proposed CAFE standards for MY 

2011–2015 passenger cars and light 

trucks 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 82 / Monday, April 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules 22917 

25 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a). 26 40 CFR 1500.1(b). 

analysis and because the rulemaking 

schedule necessary to meet the new 

statutory requirements is tight. 

However, NHTSA is especially 

interested in comments that address the 

potential impacts of NHTSA’s proposed 

CAFE standards and reasonable 

alternatives relating to climate change. 

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 likely to result 

from the proposed standards or the 

alternatives; (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 the proposed standards and 

reasonable alternatives, and comments 

on how NHTSA should estimate the 

potential impacts of temperature 

changes on the environment. 

• Reports prepared by or on behalf of 

States, local governments, Indian tribes, 

regional organizations, or academic 

researchers analyzing the potential 

impacts of climate change in particular 

geographic areas of the United States. 

• Comments on other reasonable 

alternatives that NHTSA might consider 

in its NEPA analysis that fit within the 

purpose and need for the proposed 

rulemaking, as set forth in EPCA, as 

amended by EISA. When suggesting a 

possible alternative, please explain how 

it would satisfy each of the EPCA factors 

(namely, 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. 

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. 

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.25 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 in 

or attach to your comments is relevant 

to NHTSA’s 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, you 

should clearly describe it and support 

your comments with a reference to a 

specific peer-reviewed scientific study 

or report. Specific, well-supported 

comments will facilitate the purposes of 

scoping identified above and will serve 

NEPA’s overarching aims of making 

high quality information available to 

decisionmakers and the public and 

generating NEPA documents that 

‘‘concentrate on the issues that are truly 

significant to the action in question, 

rather than amassing needless detail.’’ 26

By contrast, mere assertions that the 

agency should evaluate broad lists or 

categories of concerns, without support, 

will not help NHTSA focus its NEPA 

analysis for the proposed standards 

through scoping. 

Please be sure to reference the docket 

number identified in the heading of this 

notice in your comments. In addition, 

please provide a mailing address and 

indicate whether you want to receive 

notice of the publication of the NEPA 

documents with a copy of the executive 

summary and one of the following: (a) 

A url to access the document on the 

Internet; (b) a CD readable on a personal 

computer; or (c) a printed copy of the 

entire document. 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 

spring and a final EIS to support a final 

rule later this 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. 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: April 23, 2008. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 08–1191 Filed 4–23–08; 1:55 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS