[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ACTION: Draft guidance; request for comment.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SUMMARY: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is publishing draft 
guidance on how National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and 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Policy Act Reviews,'' which was withdrawn effective April 5, 2017 for 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    The draft guidance is also available on the CEQ websites at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/initiatives/ and www.nepa.gov.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