[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30097-30099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13576]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
[Docket No. CEQ-2019-0002]
RIN 0331-ZA03
Draft National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
AGENCY: Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
ACTION: Draft guidance; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is publishing draft
guidance on how National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and
documentation should address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This Draft
National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, if finalized, would replace the final
guidance CEQ issued on August 1, 2016, titled ``Final Guidance for
Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental
Policy Act Reviews,'' which was withdrawn effective April 5, 2017 for
further consideration pursuant to Executive Order 13783 of March 28,
2017, ``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.''
DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before July 26, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number CEQ-2019-0002 through the Federal eRulemaking portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from https://www.regulations.gov. CEQ may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (e.g., audio, video) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.
Comments may also be submitted by mail. Send your comments to:
Council on Environmental Quality, 730 Jackson Place, NW, Washington, DC
20503, Attn: Docket No. CEQ-2019-0002.
The draft guidance is also available on the CEQ websites at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/initiatives/ and www.nepa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward A. Boling, Associate Director
for the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental
Quality, 730 Jackson Place, NW, Washington, DC 20503. Telephone: (202)
395-5750.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Draft National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
I. Introduction
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides this draft
guidance memorandum \1\ to assist Federal agencies in their
consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions \2\ when evaluating
proposed major Federal actions in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and the CEQ
Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR
parts 1500-1508 (``CEQ Regulations''). The purpose of this draft
guidance is to facilitate compliance with NEPA by Federal agencies
conducting reviews of proposed major Federal actions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This draft guidance is not a rule or regulation, and the
recommendations it contains may not apply to a particular situation
based upon the individual facts and circumstances. This guidance
does not change or substitute for any statutes, regulations, or any
other legally binding requirement and is not legally enforceable.
CEQ's regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA are
available on www.nepa.gov. This guidance does not, and cannot,
expand the range of Federal agency actions that are subject to NEPA.
\2\ For purposes of this draft guidance, CEQ defines GHGs as
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen
trifluoride (NF3).
\3\ This draft guidance is intended to replace CEQ's August 2016
``Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on
Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate
Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews'' (81 FR 51866,
Aug. 5, 2016), which was withdrawn pursuant to Executive Order 13783
on April 5, 2017 (82 FR 16576).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Draft Guidance
NEPA requires that Federal agencies study the environmental impacts
of major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). NEPA is a procedural statute
that serves the twin purposes of ensuring that agencies consider the
environmental consequences of their proposed actions and inform the
public about their decision-making process. Agencies
[[Page 30098]]
should analyze reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences of
major Federal actions, but should not consider those that are remote or
speculative. 40 CFR 1508.8.
A. Consideration of GHG Emissions in NEPA Analyses
Under CEQ regulations and the ``rule of reason'' that bounds all
NEPA analysis, impacts of a proposed action should be discussed in
proportion to their significance, and there should only be brief
discussion of issues that are not significant.\4\ As with all NEPA
analyses, the rule of reason permits agencies to use their expertise
and experience to decide how and to what degree to analyze particular
effects. Agencies preparing NEPA analyses need not give greater
consideration to potential effects from GHG emissions than to other
potential effects on the human environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 40 CFR 1500.1(b) (``Most important, NEPA documents must
concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action
in question, rather than amassing needless detail.''); 40 CFR
1502.2(b) (``Impacts shall be discussed in proportion to their
significance.''); 40 CFR 1502.15 (``Data and analyses in a statement
shall be commensurate with the importance of the impact . . .''); 40
CFR 1508.27 (defining ``significantly'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A projection of a proposed action's direct and reasonably
foreseeable indirect GHG emissions may be used as a proxy for assessing
potential climate effects. Direct effects are caused by the action and
occur at the same time or place. 40 CFR 1508.8(a). Indirect effects are
caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in
distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 40 CFR 1508.8(b).
Following the rule of reason, agencies should assess effects when a
sufficiently close causal relationship exists between the proposed
action and the effect. A ``but for'' causal relationship is not
sufficient.
Agencies should attempt to quantify a proposed action's projected
direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect GHG emissions when the
amount of those emissions is substantial enough to warrant
quantification, and when it is practicable to quantify them using
available data and GHG quantification tools.\5\ Agencies should
consider whether quantifying a proposed action's projected reasonably
foreseeable GHG emissions would be practicable and whether
quantification would be overly speculative. If an agency concludes that
quantification would not be practicable or would be overly speculative,
it should explain its decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For a listing of available GHG accounting methods and tools
that agencies may consider using in their NEPA reviews see CEQ's
Greenhouse Gas Accounting Tools web page (https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/ghg-accounting-tools.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where GHG inventory information is available, an agency may also
reference local, regional, national, or sector-wide emission estimates
to provide context for understanding the relative magnitude of a
proposed action's GHG emissions. This approach, together with a
qualitative summary discussion of the effects of GHG emissions based on
an appropriate literature review, allows an agency to present the
environmental impacts of a proposed action in clear terms and with
sufficient information to make a reasoned choice among the
alternatives. Such a discussion satisfies NEPA's requirement that
agencies analyze the cumulative effects of a proposed action because
the potential effects of GHG emissions are inherently a global
cumulative effect. Therefore, a separate cumulative effects analysis is
not required.
When an agency determines that the tools, methods, or data inputs
necessary to quantify a proposed action's GHG emissions are not
reasonably available, or it otherwise would not be practicable, the
agency should include a qualitative analysis and explain its basis for
determining that quantification is not warranted. Agencies are not
required to quantify effects where information necessary for
quantification is unavailable, not of high quality, or the complexity
of identifying emissions would make quantification overly speculative.
40 CFR 1502.22. A qualitative analysis may rely on sector-specific
descriptions of the GHG emissions for the category of Federal action
that is the subject of the NEPA analysis. Agencies need not undertake
new research or analysis of potential climate effects and may rely on
available information and relevant scientific literature.
In their NEPA analyses, agencies should consider reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action and discuss the short- and long-
term effects and benefits of those alternatives. 40 CFR 1502.14 and
1508.9(b). NEPA does not require agencies to adopt mitigation measures.
However, comparing alternatives based on potential effects due to GHG
emissions, along with other potential effects and economic and
technical considerations, can help agencies differentiate among
alternatives. 40 CFR 1502.14 and 1502.16(e).
Consideration of effects on the quality of the human environment
due to GHG emissions does not require agencies to expand the range of
Federal agency actions subject to NEPA or develop new NEPA implementing
procedures. As required by CEQ regulations, agencies shall conduct NEPA
analyses based on current scientific information and methods to the
extent reasonably available and practicable. 40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1502.22,
and 1502.24. In preparing their NEPA analyses, agencies can incorporate
by reference pre-existing plans, inventories, reviews, assessments, and
research whenever appropriate. Agencies may also use programmatic
analyses, programmatic approaches, and tiering to address emission
considerations (including GHG emissions) that are relevant to the stage
of decisionmaking for the proposed action.
B. Considerations Relating to the Affected Environment
Analyses under NEPA should include a description of the affected
environment to provide a basis for comparing the current and the
reasonably foreseeable future state of the environment as affected by
the proposed action and its reasonable alternatives. When relevant,
agencies should consider whether the proposed action would be affected
by foreseeable changes to the affected environment under a reasonable
scenario. In accordance with NEPA's rule of reason and standards for
obtaining information regarding reasonably foreseeable effects on the
human environment, agencies need not undertake new research or analysis
of potential changes to the affected environment in the proposed action
area and may summarize and incorporate by reference appropriate
scientific literature. 40 CFR 1502.21 and 1502.24.
C. Use of Cost-Benefit Analyses
NEPA and CEQ's implementing regulations do not require agencies to
monetize costs and benefits of a proposed action. CEQ regulations
provide that agencies need not weigh the merits and drawbacks of
particular alternatives in a monetary cost-benefit analysis. 40 CFR
1502.23.\6\ For this reason, an agency need not weigh the effects of
the various alternatives in NEPA in a monetary cost-benefit analysis
using any monetized Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates and related
documents (collectively referred
[[Page 30099]]
to as ``SCC estimates''),\7\ or other similar cost metrics.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 1502.23 of the CEQ regulations also provides that
monetary cost-benefit analysis ``should not be [used] when there are
important qualitative considerations.''
\7\ In February of 2010, the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG) published a ``Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis--Under Executive Order 12866.'' These documents were
updated a number of times. See ``Technical Update of the Social Cost
of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (May 2013);'' ``Technical
Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis
(November 2013);'' ``Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon
for Regulatory Impact Analysis (July 2015);'' ``Addendum to the
Technical Support Document for Social Cost of Carbon: Application of
the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the
Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide (August 2016);'' and ``Technical Update
of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (August
2016).''
\8\ Pursuant to Executive Order 13783 of March 28, 2017, titled
``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,'' the IWG was
disbanded, and the estimates were directed to be withdrawn as no
longer representing government policy. 82 FR 16093, Mar. 31, 2017.
Agencies were directed to ensure, to the extent permitted by law,
that any such estimates are consistent with the guidance contained
in the OMB Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003, which was issued
following peer review and public comment and has been widely
accepted as reflecting the best practices for conducting cost-
benefit analyses for rulemakings. Any such analysis should focus on
the impacts that accrue to citizens and residents of the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the SCC estimates were developed for rulemaking purposes
to assist agencies in evaluating the costs and benefits of regulatory
actions, and were not intended for socio-economic analysis under NEPA
or decision-making on individual actions, including project-level
decisions. If an agency does consider costs and benefits that are
relevant to the choice among environmentally different alternatives for
a proposed action, such as in a rulemaking, the agency should
incorporate by reference or append such analyses to the environmental
impact statement as an aid in evaluating the environmental
consequences. 40 CFR 1502.21 and 1502.23. When using a monetary cost-
benefit analysis, just as with tools to quantify emissions, the agency
should disclose the assumptions and levels of uncertainty associated
with such analysis.
Finally, CEQ's regulations require consideration of ``effects,''
including ``ecological . . ., aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic,
social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.'' 40 CFR
1508.8(b). There may be some effects that are more capable of
monetization or quantification, such as employment or other socio-
economic impacts, and that the agency may determine are useful to
include in its NEPA review. Monetization or quantification of some
aspects of an agency's analysis does not require that all effects,
including potential effects of GHG emissions, be monetized or
quantified. Where an agency decides to quantify some effects but not
others, the agency should explain the choices it has made in its
analysis.
III. OMB Review
Consistent with OMB's ``Agency Good Guidance Practices'' (72 FR
3432, Jan. 25, 2007), the draft guidance document was submitted to OMB
for review.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4332, 4342, 4344 and 40 CFR parts 1500, 1501,
1502, 1503, 1505, 1506, 1507, and 1508)
Mary B. Neumayr,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2019-13576 Filed 6-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3225-F9-P