37922 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

category; that size standard is 500 or 

fewer employees. According to Census 

Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,362 

firms in this category that operated for 

the entire year. Of these, 1,351 had 

employment of 499 or fewer employees, 

and six firms had employment of 

between 500 and 999. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of these firms small entities that may be 

affected by its action. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

72. In the Further Notice, the 

Commission proposes four additional or 

modified information collections that 

would impose further reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements on current 

Form 477 filers, including small 

entities. Specifically, the Further Notice 

invites comment on whether and how 

Form 477 filers should (1) report the 

number of voice telephone service 

connections, and the percentage of these 

that are residential, at the 5-digit ZIP 

Code or Census Tract, (2) report 

information to build a map of 

broadband service availability, (3) report 

information on broadband service 

pricing, and (4) report information on 

actual, delivered speeds of broadband 

services. The Commission invites 

comments on the merits and 

methodologies of such information 

collections to include suggestions and 

discussions of other alternatives not 

specifically discussed in the Further 

Notice that would meet the objectives of 

the Further Notice but would impose 

lesser burdens on smaller entities. 

73. Based on these questions, the 

Commission anticipates that a record 

will be developed concerning actual 

burden and alternative ways in which 

the Commission could lessen the 

burden on small entities of obtaining 

improved data about broadband 

deployment and availability throughout 

the nation. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

74. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

(among others) the following four 

alternatives: (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

75. As noted above, the Further 

Notice invites comment on whether and 

how current Form 477 filers should (1) 

report subscriber counts for voice-grade 

lines and channels at the 5–Digit Zip 

Code or Census Tract level, (2) report 

information to build a map of 

broadband service availability, (3) report 

information on broadband service 

pricing, and (4) report information on 

actual, delivered speeds of broadband 

services. The Further Notice seeks 

comment on possible methods for 

reporting the proposed information 

collections, as well as suggestions of 

methods to maintain and report the 

information that achieve the purposes of 

the Further Notice while minimizing the 

burden on reporting entities, including 

small entities. This information will 

assist the Commission in determining 

whether these various proposed 

information collections would impose a 

significant economic impact on small 

entities. 

76. Based on these questions, and the 

alternatives discussed, the Commission 

anticipates that the record will be 

developed concerning alternative ways 

in which it could lessen the burden on 

small entities of obtaining improved 

data about broadband availability 

throughout the nation. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

77. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

78. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to sections 1 through 5, 11, 

201 through 205, 211, 215, 218 through 

220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 

502, and 503 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 

through 155, 161, 201 through 205, 211, 

215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 

303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503, and 

Section 706 of the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, this 

Further Notice, with all attachments, is 

adopted. 

79. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

80. It is further ordered that pursuant 

to applicable procedures set forth in 

sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on the Broadband 

Availability Mapping portion of this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

on or before July 17, 2008, and reply 

comments on or before August 1, 2008, 

and interested parties may file 

comments on the other portions of this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

on or before August 1, 2008, and reply 

comments on or before September 2, 

2008. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–14875 Filed 7–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

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

and 537 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0060] 

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 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

to disclose and analyze the potential 

environmental impacts of proposed 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE) standards for model year (MY) 

2011–2015 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 to provide quantitative 

estimates of potential impacts on air 

quality, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, 

global mean surface temperature, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 37923 

1The DEIS is available at: http:// 

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

menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/ 

(last visited June 26, 2008). 

2See National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

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

issued by the Council on Environmental Quality 

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

Pt. 520. 

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

(December 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)). 

rainfall, 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. 

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.1

Copies in hard copy or electronic (CD–

ROM) form have been mailed to all 

stakeholders on NHTSA’s National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

mailing list for the proposed CAFE 

standards, and NHTSA will mail a copy 

of the DEIS or a CD–ROM containing the 

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 2011–2015 passenger 

cars and light trucks, which NHTSA 

plans to issue later this year. The 

agency’s NEPA analysis is informing 

NHTSA’s development of those 

standards. 

DATES: Public Hearing: The public 

hearing will be held on Monday, August 

4, 2008, 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 

Conference Center. If you wish to attend 

or speak at the hearing, you must 

register in advance no later than Friday, 

July 25, 2008, by following the 

instructions in the PROCEDURAL 

MATTERS section of this notice. 

NHTSA will consider late registrants to 

the extent time and space allow, but 

NHTSA cannot ensure that late 

registrants will be able to attend or 

speak at the hearing. 

Comments: NHTSA must receive 

written comments on the DEIS by 

Monday, August 18, 2008. 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: Ms. 

Carol Hammel-Smith, Telephone: 202–

366–5206, or Mr. Michael Johnsen, 

Telephone: 202–366–0258, 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 202–366–

9324. 

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 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) to disclose and 

analyze the potential environmental 

impacts of proposed Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for 

model year (MY) 2011–2015 passenger 

cars and light trucks and a reasonable 

range of alternative standards.2 NHTSA 

recently proposed the standards 

pursuant to amendments made by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA) to the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (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 own 

computer model to provide quantitative 

estimates of potential impacts on air 

quality, CO2 emissions, global mean 

surface temperature, rainfall, 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 2011–2015 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
37924 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

11See Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light 

Trucks Model Years 2008–2011; Final Rule, April 

6, 2006. 

12Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger 

Cars and Light Trucks; Model Years 2011–2015; 

Proposed Rule, 73 FR 24352, May 2, 2008. 

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 and the DEIS discuss 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. 

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 a 2006 final rule establishing 

CAFE standards for MY 2008–2011 light 

trucks (namely, MY 2011).11 We did so 

because a standard for MY 2011 must be 

issued by the end of March 2009 and 

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 the 

automobile manufacturers with as much 

lead time as possible to make the 

extensive necessary changes to their 

automobiles. 

The Proposed Action and Possible 

Alternatives: In its recent Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA 

proposed 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 alternatives, 

which the NPRM and the DEIS discuss 

in more detail. 

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 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 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 also will consider 

its NEPA analysis. 

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 

both Executive Order 12,866 16 and its 

NEPA analysis, which includes a ‘‘no 

action’’ alternative as required by NEPA. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 37925 

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

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 Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR 16615, 

March 28, 2008. 

21Supplemental Notice of Public Scoping for an 

Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR 22913, 

April 28, 2008. 22 Id. at 22916. 23See 40 CFR §§ 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25. 

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 

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 without regard to the 

costs to society. 

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 and in the DEIS, 

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). 

The NEPA Process and the DEIS. 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.20 In April 

2008, NHTSA published a supplemental 

scoping notice providing additional 

guidance for participating in the scoping 

process and additional information 

about the proposed standards and the 

alternatives NHTSA expected to 

consider in its NEPA analysis.21 NHTSA 

also outlined its plans for its NEPA 

analysis.22 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 State 

and U.S. territory 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 1,748 comment letters 

in response to its scoping notices. 

NHTSA received 11 individual letters 

commenting on the scope of its NEPA 

analysis from federal and state agencies, 

automobile trade associations, 

environmental organizations, and 

individuals. The remaining comment 

letters are form letters from individuals. 

In developing the DEIS, NHTSA also 

consulted with Federal agencies 

including: CEQ; EPA and the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of 

the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, both of which 

submitted scoping comments to 

NHTSA; the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

within the U.S. Department of 

Commerce; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Park Service 

within the U.S. Department of the 

Interior; and the U.S. Forest Service 

within the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

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.23

The DEIS consists of a Summary and ten 

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) 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts; ShortTerm Uses and Long-term Productivity; 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources; (7) 

Preparers; (8) References; (9) 

Distribution List; and (10) Index. Three 

appendices include sources identified 

in scoping comments (Appendix A), 

modeling data for air emissions and 

climate modeling (Appendix B); and a 

cost-benefit analysis excerpt from 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
37926 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

24See generally http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/

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

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

June 25, 2008). 

25 40 CFR 1502.22; see 40 CFR 1502.21. 26 49 CFR 553.21. 

NHTSA’s Preliminary Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (Appendix C). 

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 2010 to 2100 timeframe, the 

range of alternatives NHTSA analyzed 

would reduce global CO2 emissions 

(from all sources) by about 18 to 35 

billion metric tons of CO2 (based on 

global emissions of 4.85 trillion metric 

tons of CO2). The alternatives would 

slow the expected increase in 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 

the transportation sector over this 

period. 

• 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 are within 1.7 

to 3.2 parts per million across 

alternatives, and temperatures are 

within 0.0006 to 0.012 °C across 

alternatives—regardless of reference 

scenario and climate sensitivity. 

• Rainfall: 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 

impact on sea level rise from the 

alternatives is at the threshold of the 

climate model’s reporting: The 

alternatives reduce sea level rise by 0.1 

cm. Although the model does not report 

enough significant figures to distinguish 

between the effects of the alternatives, it 

is clear that the more stringent the 

alternative (i.e., the lower the 

emissions), the lower the temperature 

(as shown above), and the lower the sea 

level. 

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 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 National 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.24

The DEIS also uses applicable CEQ 

regulations to acknowledge uncertainty 

and incomplete or unavailable 

information relevant to NHTSA’s NEPA 

analysis.25

Procedural Matters: The public 

hearing will be open to the public with 

advanced registration for seating on a 

space-available 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 Ms. Carol HammelSmith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the 

contact information in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section at the 

beginning of this notice no later than 

Friday, July 25, 2008. 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 Ms. Carol 

Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen 

using the contact information in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above no later than Friday, July 25, 

2008. 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 Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. 

Michael Johnsen know by Friday, July 

25, 2008, 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 July 28, NHTSA will post 

information on its Web site (http:// 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov) indicating the 

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/

portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa

80569eea57529cdba046a0/ (last visited 

June 26, 2008), and it will be available 

in the Docket identified by the docket 

number at the beginning of this notice. 

To request a hard copy or a CD–ROM of 

the DEIS, or to request a CD–ROM 

containing the Appendices, please 

contact Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. 

Michael Johnsen 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 2011–2015 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 cannot 

exceed 15 pages.26 However, you may 

attach additional 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 37927 

27See 49 CFR 553.23. 

28Passenger Car Average Fuel Economy 

Standards—Model Years 2008—2020 and Light 

Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards—Model 

Years 2008–2020; Request for Product Plan 

Information, 73 FR 24190, May 2, 2008. 

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.27

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. In addition, you may wish to 

check two separate dockets relating to 

the proposed CAFE standards: (1) 

Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0089, which 

accompanies NHTSA’s NPRM; and (2) 

Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0069, which 

accompanies NHTSA’s request for 

manufacturers’ product plan 

information.28

Comments and information submitted 

to these dockets may be relevant to 

NHTSA’s NEPA analysis for the 

proposed CAFE standards. 

Issued: June 27, 2008. 

Ronald Medford, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. 08–1406 Filed 6–30–08; 11:21 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS