^tDsrx
* g% \
\ Si
%pR0^°
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
21-E-0125
April 20, 2021
Why We Did This Evaluation
We conducted this evaluation
to determine whether the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's actions on the final
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
Vehicles Rule for Model Years
2021-2026 Passenger Cars
and Light Trucks were
consistent with requirements
pertaining to transparency,
record keeping, and docketing
and followed the EPA's process
for developing final regulatory
actions.
The EPA and the National
Highway Traffic Safety
Administration finalized the
SAFE Vehicles Rule on
April 30, 2020. The agencies
have different statutory
authorities for vehicle rules
related to greenhouse gas
emissions and fuel-economy
standards.
This evaluation addresses the
following:
•	Operating efficiently and
effectively.
This evaluation addresses these
top EPA management challenges
•	Complying with key internal
control requirements (data
quality; policies and
procedures).
•	Integrating and leading
environmental justice.
Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov.
List of OIG reports.
Concerns About the Process Used for the SAFE
Vehicles Rule Demonstrate the Need for a Policy on
EPA's Role in Joint Rulemakings
What We Found
The EPA's actions in
the final SAFE Vehicles
Rule undercut the
rule's quality.
Although the EPA and NHTSA jointly issued the
SAFE Vehicles Rule, the agencies' technical
personnel did not collaborate during final rule
development, undercutting the joint character of the
rulemaking. Furthermore, the EPA did not follow its
established process for developing regulatory actions, did not complete major
Action Development Process milestones, or did not document who decided to
skip these milestones and why. In addition, NHTSA performed all major technical
assessments for the rule, while the role of EPA technical personnel was limited to
providing advisory input to NHTSA for some aspects of the analysis. The EPA did
not conduct a separate analysis related to executive orders on the impacts of
modified standards on vulnerable populations.
Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided that the SAFE Vehicles Rule
would be based solely on NHTSA modeling and analysis and that NHTSA would
draft the majority of the preamble text. One senior EPA official cited NHTSA's
statutory deadline for establishing its standards as the impetus for its lead role in
developing the rulemaking. This approach bypassed aspects of the EPA's normal
rulemaking process. It also diverged from the more collaborative precedent set
by the agencies' prior joint rulemakings, as well as circumvented Office of Air and
Radiation technical personnel feedback prior to the final rule being circulated for
interagency review. Furthermore, technical personnel were confused about the
proper contents of the docket, and congressional and tribal stakeholders raised
transparency concerns after the final rule was published. While joint rulemaking
is infrequent, the process should be improved by clearly defining the EPA's
responsibilities when working with a partner agency.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Office of Air and Radiation docket its interpretation of
whether the EPA docket for Clean Air Act joint rulemaking actions reflects that
the partner agency is an "other agency" for purposes of the Act's docketing
requirements. We recommend that the Office of Air and Radiation and the
general counsel docket any comments generated by the EPA and NHTSA during
interagency review from January 14, 2020, to March 30, 2020. We recommend
that the Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of Policy document decisions
regarding Action Development Process milestones and determine the EPA's role
in joint rulemakings, including addressing executive orders on children's health,
tribal consultation, and environmental justice. One recommendation is resolved
with corrective actions pending, while three recommendations are unresolved.

-------