[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11810-11811]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05322]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation: Notice of Availability
and Request for Comment on the Spaceport Camden Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), Camden County, GA

AGENCY:  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT) is the lead agency. The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration and National Park Service are cooperating
agencies.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comment; Notice of
public hearings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The FAA is announcing the availability of and requesting
comments on the Spaceport Camden Draft EIS, which is available for
public review. The Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental
impacts that may result from the FAA's Proposed Action of issuing a
Launch Site Operator License to the Camden County Board of
Commissioners (County) to operate a proposed commercial space launch
site, called Spaceport Camden. The license would allow the County to
offer Spaceport Camden to commercial launch operators to conduct
vertical launches.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2018.
    The FAA will hold two public hearings to solicit comments from the
public concerning the content of the Draft EIS. The dates of the
hearings are Wednesday, April 11, and Thursday, April 12, 2018, from
5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES:  The FAA will hold the two public hearings at the following
location: Camden County Public Service Authority Recreation Center
Community Room, 1050 Wildcat Drive, Kingsland, GA 31548<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    A paper copy of the Draft EIS is available for review during
regular business hours at the following libraries:

 Camden County Public Library, 1410 Georgia Highway 40,
Kingsland, GA 31548
 St. Marys Public Library, 100 Herb Bauer Drive, St. Marys, GA
31558
 Brunswick-Glynn County Library, 208 Gloucester Street,
Brunswick, GA 31520
 St. Simons Island Public Library, 530A Beachview Drive, St.
Simons Island, GA, 31522

    Comments regarding the Draft EIS should be mailed to Ms. Stacey M.
Zee, Environmental Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, c/o
Leidos, 2109 Air Park Road SE, Suite 200, Albuquerque, NM 87106.
Comments may also be submitted by email to
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Stacey M. Zee, Environmental
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW,
Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The FAA is announcing the availability of
and requesting comments on the Spaceport Camden Draft EIS, in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as
amended (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] Sec. Sec.  4321 et seq.),
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 1500-1508), and FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures. This Draft EIS is also submitted for
review pursuant to the following public law requirements: Section 4(f)
of the DOT Act (49 U.S.C. 303); Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.); Executive Order (E.O.)
11988, Floodplain Management; DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management
and Protection; E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands; and DOT Order
5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands. Pursuant to the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, this project is being
evaluated for consistency with the Georgia Coastal Management Program.
Section 306(d)(14) of the Act requires public participation in the
Federal consistency

review process. The FAA encourages the public to submit comments on the
compatibility of the Proposed Action and alternatives with these
special purpose laws.
    An electronic version of the Draft EIS is available on the FAA
Office of Commercial Space Transportation website at: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/camden_spaceport/.
    The FAA encourages all interested agencies, organizations, Native
American tribes, and members of the public to submit comments
concerning the analysis presented in the Draft EIS by May 16, 2018.
Comments should be as specific as possible and address the analysis of
potential environmental impacts and the adequacy of the proposed action
or merits of alternatives and any mitigations being considered.
Reviewers should organize their participation so that it is meaningful
and makes the agency aware of the viewer's interests and concerns using
quotations and other specific references to the text of the Draft EIS
and related documents. Matters that could have been raised with
specificity during the comment period on the Draft EIS may not be
considered if they are raised for the first time later in the decision
process. This commenting procedure is intended to ensure that
substantive comments and concerns are made available to the FAA in a
timely manner so that the FAA has an opportunity to address them.
    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that
your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--
may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in
your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying
information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Due to the large turnout during the public scoping meetings, the
FAA will hold two public hearings to solicit comments from the public
concerning the content of the Draft EIS on Wednesday, April 11 and
Thursday, April 12, 2018, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the following
location: Camden County Public Service Authority Recreation Center
Community Room, 1050 Wildcat Drive, Kingsland, GA 31548<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    At the public hearings, the FAA will present information about the
Draft EIS and the environmental review process. Please note the FAA
will present identical information at each public hearing. If you are
planning to provide oral comments during the hearing, we ask that you
speak at only one of the hearings, so that everyone wanting to present
comments has the opportunity to do so, as time is limited. The purpose
of the public hearings is to afford the public and other interested
parties the opportunity to comment on the analysis of the Proposed
Action and alternatives presented in the Draft EIS. Members of the
public and other interested parties will be provided the opportunity to
submit both written and oral comments. The hearings will include a
poster information session and an FAA presentation, followed by a
public statement period in which members of the public can present up
to a three-minute statement. The FAA will transcribe oral comments. All
comments received during the comment period will be given equal weight
and taken into consideration during preparation of the Final EIS.
    Under the Proposed Action, the FAA would issue a Launch Site
Operator License to the County. The license would allow the County to
offer Spaceport Camden to commercial launch operators to conduct
launches of liquid-fueled, small to medium-large lift-class, orbital
and suborbital vertical launch vehicles. The license would allow up to
12 vertical launches and up to 12 associated launch vehicle first-stage
landings per year. In support of the launches, there would be up to 12
wet dress rehearsals and up to 12 static fire engine tests per year.
All vehicles would launch to the east, from between 83 degrees
(slightly north of due east) and 115 degrees (approximately east
southeast), over the Intracoastal Waterway, Cumberland Island National
Seashore and/or Little Cumberland Island, and the Atlantic Ocean. The
Proposed Action includes possible recovery of the first stage by either
landing the stage at Spaceport Camden or landing the stage on a barge
approximately 200 to 300 miles off shore in the Atlantic Ocean and
returning it to Spaceport Camden.
    Alternatives under consideration in the Draft EIS include the
Proposed Action, an Ocean-Landing Only Alternative (similar to the
Proposed Action except first-stage landings would only occur on a barge
approximately 200 to 300 miles off shore in the Atlantic Ocean), and
the No Action Alternative.
    The Draft EIS evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed
Action, Ocean-Landing Only Alternative, and the No Action Alternative.
The FAA assessed impact categories to provide a context for
understanding and assessing the potential environmental impacts of the
construction and operation, as well as secondary (induced) impacts
associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives. The Draft EIS
focuses on the following impact categories: Air quality; biological
resources (including fish, wildlife, and plants); climate; coastal
resources; Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) (including
park and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and
historic sites in transportation project development); farmlands;
hazardous materials, solid waste, and pollution prevention; historical,
architectural, archeological, and cultural resources; land use; natural
resources and energy supply; noise and compatible land use;
socioeconomics, environmental justice, and children's environmental
health and safety risks; visual effects (including light emissions),
and water resources (including wetlands, floodplains, surface waters,
groundwater, and wild and scenic rivers). The following topics were
also analyzed and are appended to the Draft EIS: Health and safety,
soils and geology, transportation, and airspace.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 2018.
Daniel Murray,
Manager, Space Transportation Development Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-05322 Filed 3-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76267-76268]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29867]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0831; FRL-9920-82-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS37

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality
Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Change in date for public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a
change in date for the public hearing for the proposed rule titled
``Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: 2015 Revision and Confidentiality
Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems''. The original
public hearing date was December 24, 2014, and the new public hearing
date will be January 8, 2015.

DATES: The public comment period for this proposal began on December 9,
2014 (79 FR 73148) with the opportunity for a public hearing 15 days
later on December 24, 2014. This notice announces that the public
hearing date has been changed to January 8, 2015. Public comments for
this proposal are due February 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207A), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical questions or details about the
public hearing, please see the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web
site http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html. To submit a question,
select Help Center, followed by Contact Us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Worldwide Web (WWW)

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's notice will also be available through the WWW. Following
signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA's greenhouse
gas reporting rule Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html.

Background on Today's Action

    In this action, the EPA is providing notice that the public hearing
date for the proposed rule titled ``Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program:
2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems'' has changed. That proposal was published on
December 9, 2014, and the previous date for a public hearing, if
requested, was 15 days later on December 24, 2014. On December 15,
2014, the EPA received a request for a public hearing along with a
request to move the date of the public hearing to accommodate holiday
vacation schedules. The EPA is moving the date of the public hearing
from December 24, 2014 to January 8, 2015 in response to this request.
The comment period for this proposal is unchanged. Public comments for
this proposal are due February 9, 2015.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Greenhouse gases, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 16, 2014.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-29867 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33030-33032]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14629]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0165; FRL-9996-17-Region 9]

Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Yolo-Solano Air
Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on a revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
(YSAQMD or ``the District'') portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). We are proposing to approve a rule governing
issuance of permits for stationary sources, including review and
permitting of major sources and major modifications under part D of
title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act''). Specifically, the
revision pertains to YSAQMD Rule 3.25, ``Federal New Source Review for
New and Modified Major PM2.5 Sources.'' We are taking
comments on this proposal and a final action will follow.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0165 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA 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 (audio, video, etc.) 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. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Waldon, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. The EPA's Evaluation
    A. What is the background for today's proposal?
    B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    C. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date it
was adopted by YSAQMD and submitted by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB), the governor's designee for California SIP submittals.
Rule 3.25 contains the District's Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) permit requirements applicable to new and modified major sources
emitting fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and
PM2.5 precursors.

                         Table 1 Submitted Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rule #            Rule title        Adopted         Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.25.................  Federal New            05/15/19         06/04/19
                        Source Review
                        for New and
                        Modified Major
                        PM2.5 Sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 10, 2019, the EPA notified CARB that its June 4, 2019
submittal of Rule 3.25 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. The submittal
includes evidence of public notice and adoption of the regulation.

B. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    For areas designated as nonattainment for one or more National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the SIP must include
preconstruction permit requirements for new or modified major
stationary sources of such nonattainment pollutant(s), commonly
referred to as Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR). YSAQMD Rule 3.25
addresses statutory and regulatory requirements for NNSR permits for
major sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. What is the background for today's proposal?

    On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated the Sacramento Valley Air
Basin, including the eastern portions of Yolo and Solano counties, as
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (the Sacramento
PM2.5 nonattainment area).\1\ Because the Sacramento
PM2.5 nonattainment area includes areas under YSAQMD's
jurisdiction, the District was required to submit, by December 31,
2014, a SIP revision to address NNSR requirements for major sources of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. On June 8, 2016, the
EPA published in the Federal Register a finding of failure to submit
the required SIP revision.\2\ On August 16, 2017, YSAQMD submitted Rule
3.25 ``New Source Review for New and Modified Major PM2.5
Sources,'' as adopted on July 12, 2017, and on May 16, 2018, the EPA
notified the state that its August 16, 2017 submittal of Rule 3.25
addressed the EPA's finding of failure to submit.\3\ As noted in Table
1, today's action involves a newly revised version of Rule 3.25,
adopted on May 15, 2019 and submitted on June 5, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 7 FR 65346, October 26, 2012.
    \2\ 81 FR 36803, June 8, 2016.
    \3\ Letter from Elizabeth J. Adams, U.S. EPA Region 9, to
Richard Corey, CARB, dated May 16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    The EPA reviewed YSAQMD Rule 3.25 for compliance with CAA
requirements for: (1) SIPs in general as set forth in CAA section
110(a)(2); (2) SIP revisions as set forth in CAA section 110(l); \4\
(3) stationary source preconstruction permitting programs in CAA Part
D, including section 172 and 173(a) through (c) of subpart 1, and
subpart 4; and (4) requirements related to the review and modification
of major sources in 40 CFR 51.160--51.165 including requirements set
forth in the EPA's rule ``Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements'' (``2016
Implementation Rule'').\5\ The 2016 Implementation Rule requires areas
classified as nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS to comply
with CAA section 189(e) requirements for control of major stationary
sources of PM10 and PM2.5 precursors.\6\ To
implement requirements applicable to major sources of PM2.5,
the 2016 Implementation Rule also amended 40 CFR 51.165 definitions of
the terms (1) Regulated NSR Pollutant; (2) Major Stationary Source; and
(3) Significant. Rule 3.25 must be consistent with these recent
regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be subject to
reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal
by States to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision
that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
    \5\ 81 FR 58010, (August 24, 2016).
    \6\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13); 81 FR 58106-58116 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and
110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after
reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public
process documentation included in the August 16, 2017 submittal, we
find that YSAQMD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice,
opportunity for comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and
submittal of these rules to the EPA.
    With respect to substantive requirements found in CAA sections 172,
173 and 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165, we have evaluated YSAQMD Rule
3.25 in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements that apply

to NNSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act. We find
that Rule 3.25 satisfies the requirements for a PM2.5 NNSR
permit program.
    Our Technical Support Document, which can be found in the docket
for this rule, contains a more detailed discussion of our evaluation of
Rule 3.25.

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing
to approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant
requirements. We have concluded that our approval of the submitted rule
would comply with CAA sections 110(a)(2), 172, 173 and 189(e), and 40
CFR 51.160-51.165.
    In support of this proposed action, we have concluded that our
action would comply with section 110(l) of the Act because approval of
Rule 3.25 will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other CAA applicable
requirement. If we finalize this action as proposed, our action will be
codified through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220 (Identification of Plan-in
part).
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until
August 12, 2019.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the YSAQMD rule listed in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make, this document available
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at
the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 25, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-14629 Filed 7-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


NCER STANDING SUBCOMMITTEE

DRAFT AGENDA

September 11, 2007

1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Eastern Time

Participation by Teleconference Only

866-299-3188

code:<PHONE_NUMBER>#

1:00 - 1:05pm	Welcome

	-  Purpose of Teleconference Call	Dr. Martin Philbert,

		Subcommittee Chair

1:05 - 1:10 pm	Administrative Procedures	Susan Peterson

		Subcommittee DFO

1:10 - 1:40 pm	Monitoring the Impact of NCER-funded	Mr. Myles Morris	 Research:  	Office of Research and

	  Bibliometrics and Data Mining	Development

1:40 - 2:10 pm	Communication Efforts at NCER	Ms. Estella Waldman

Office of Research and Development

2:10 - 2:20 pm	Public Comment

2:20 -3:00 pm	Follow-up from Face-to-Face Meeting	Dr. Martin Philbert

	-  NCER Response to Member Questions

	-  Identify Additional Information Needs

	-  Next Steps

3:00 pm	Adjourn

            A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development


[Federal Register: May 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 24007-24012]
[DOCID:fr22my09-57]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[FRL-8909-3]
RIN 2060-ZA15

Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To Establish Vehicle GHG
Emissions and CAFE Standards

AGENCIES: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Intent to conduct a joint rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: There is a critically important need for our country to
address global climate change and to reduce oil consumption. In this
context, EPA and DOT currently intend to work in coordination to
propose standards for control of emissions of greenhouse gases and for
fuel economy, respectively. If proposed and finalized, these standards
would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles (light-duty vehicles) built in model years 2012
through 2016. Together, these vehicle categories, which include
passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks,
are responsible for almost 60 percent of all U.S. transportation-
related greenhouse gas emissions. If ultimately adopted, these
standards would represent a harmonized and consistent national policy
pursuant to the separate statutory frameworks under which EPA and DOT
operate. The approach addressed in this Notice, if ultimately adopted,
is intended to allow manufacturers to build a single light-duty
national fleet that would satisfy all requirements under both programs
and would provide significant reductions in both greenhouse gas
emissions and oil consumption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA: Christopher Lieske, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Assessment and Standards
Division Hotline; telephone number (734) 214-

4636; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>DOT/NHTSA: Julie Abraham, Office
of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    This joint Notice announces plans by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), on behalf of the Department of Transportation, to propose a
strong and coordinated Federal greenhouse gas and fuel economy program
for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles (hereafter light-duty vehicles), referred to as the National
Program.\1\ Both agencies seek to propose a coordinated program that
can achieve important reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
improvements in fuel economy from the light-duty vehicle part of the
transportation sector, based on technology that will be commercially
available and that can be incorporated at a reasonable cost. The
agencies intend to propose a program that will also provide regulatory
certainty for the automobile industry, while recognizing the serious
current economic situation faced by this industry and many members of
the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA is delegated responsibility for implementing the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) fuel economy requirements
assigned to the Secretary of Transportation. 49 CFR 1.50,
501.2(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the near future, EPA and NHTSA intend to initiate a joint
rulemaking, with EPA proposing GHG emissions standards under the Clean
Air Act (CAA), and NHTSA proposing Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards under EPCA, as amended by the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA). It is intended that this joint rulemaking
proposal will reflect a carefully coordinated and harmonized approach
to implementing these two statutes and will be in accordance with all
substantive and procedural requirements imposed by law.
    Since the 1970s, NHTSA has promulgated CAFE standards for light-
duty vehicles to address our country's need to reduce oil consumption.
In 2008 NHTSA proposed CAFE standards for model years (MY) 2011 through
2015. However, responding to a Presidential Memorandum of January 26,
2009, NHTSA issued CAFE standards limited to MY 2011,\2\ and has been
comprehensively reviewing how it sets CAFE standards in the context of
preparing to propose CAFE standards for MY 2012 and later model years.
At the same time, EPA has been working on appropriate responses that
are consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in Massachusetts
v. EPA \3\ and EPA's recent proposal to find that emissions of GHGs
from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines cause or contribute
to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health and welfare.\4\ In addition, in 2005 California adopted GHG
emissions standards for new light-duty vehicles. Thirteen States and
the District of Columbia to date, comprising approximately 40 percent
of the light-duty vehicle market, have adopted California's GHG
emissions standards. In 2008, EPA denied a request by California for a
waiver of preemption under the CAA for its GHG emissions standards.
However, consistent with another Presidential Memorandum of January 26,
2009, EPA is currently reconsidering the prior denial of California's
request.\5\ California and the States that have adopted California's
standards are planning to enforce these standards if EPA grants
California's request for a waiver of preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 74 FR 14196; March 30, 2009.
    \3\ 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
    \4\ 74 FR 18886; April 24, 2009.
    \5\ 74 FR 7040; February 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, one agency is responsible for a standard that focuses on
emissions of GHG and the other for a standard that focuses on improving
fuel economy, and there are both Federal and State administrative
agencies working on standards to address similar issues. Consistent,
harmonized, and streamlined requirements hold out the promise of
delivering environmental and energy benefits, cost savings, and
administrative efficiencies that might not be available under a less
coordinated approach. The National Program the agencies intend to
propose would seek to deliver on that promise.
    Key elements of a harmonized and coordinated National Program the
agencies intend to propose are the level and form of the standard, the
available compliance mechanisms, and general implementation elements.
These elements are outlined in the following sections. The agencies
will continue to evaluate all of the issues relevant to developing a
proposal, and will provide their evaluations for review and public
comment with the upcoming NPRM. This will include analyses on a variety
of relevant issues, such as the costs and benefits of the proposal
(both quantified and unquantified), as well as the effects the proposal
would have on the economy, manufacturers, and consumers. The notice of
proposed rulemaking the agencies intend to issue will discuss both the
analyses that will have been done for the proposal as well as any plans
for conducting additional analyses.
    It is also important to note that GHG standards expected to be
issued under section 202(a) of the CAA would become final only if EPA
makes a final finding consistent with its recent proposal to find that
emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle
engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
    The agencies also anticipate that the kind of harmonized and
consistent national policy described in this Notice should be
considered in developing standards for model years after 2016, in a
future rulemaking.

II. Key Elements of the National Program

A. Level of the Standards

    EPA and NHTSA intend to propose two separate sets of standards,
each under their respective statutory authorities. EPA expects to
propose a national CO2 vehicle emissions standard under
section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. EPA currently is considering
proposing standards that would, if made final, achieve on average 250
grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2016. The standards for
earlier years would begin with the 2012 model year, with a generally
linear phase-in from MY 2012 through to model year 2016. NHTSA expects
to propose appropriate related CAFE standards.
    In developing the proposals under consideration, EPA and NHTSA have
preliminarily evaluated the kinds of technologies that could be
utilized by the automobile industry, as well as the associated costs
for the industry and fuel savings for the consumer, the magnitude of
the GHG and energy consumption reductions that may be achieved, and
other factors relevant under their respective statutory authorities.\6\
With respect to

technological feasibility, during MYs 2012-2016 manufacturers are
expected to go through the normal automotive business cycle of
redesigning and upgrading their light-duty vehicle products (and in
some cases introducing entirely new vehicles not on the market today).
The proposal under consideration is expected to allow manufacturers the
time needed to incorporate technology to achieve GHG reductions and
improve fuel economy during the vehicle redesign process. This is an
important aspect of the proposal under consideration, as it would avoid
the much higher costs that would occur if manufacturers needed to add
or change technology at times other than these scheduled redesigns.
This time period would also provide manufacturers the opportunity to
plan for compliance using a multi-year time frame, again in accord with
normal business practice. Over these five model years there would be an
opportunity for manufacturers to evaluate almost every one of their
vehicle model platforms and add technology in a cost effective way to
control GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. This includes redesign
of the air conditioner systems in ways that will further reduce GHG
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The CAA requires EPA to establish ``standards applicable to
the emission of any air pollutant from new motor vehicles or new
motor vehicle engines which, in the Administrator's judgment, cause
or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare.'' As noted above, EPA has
proposed to find that GHGs emitted by new motor vehicles and new
motor vehicle engines contribute to air pollution that endangers
public health and welfare. Section 202(a) of the CAA further
provides that standards set pursuant to it ``shall take effect after
such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the
development and application of the requisite technology, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period.''
    The EPCA requires that the CAFE standards for each model year be
set at the maximum feasible level. In determining that level, NHTSA
must 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.
NHTSA is prohibited from considering the availability of compliance
flexibilities such as the ability to earn credits for exceeding CAFE
standards in setting CAFE standards. Further, NHTSA must set the MY
2011-2020 CAFE standards sufficiently high to ensure that the
industry-wide average of all new passenger cars and light trucks,
combined, is not less than 35 miles per gallon by MY 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Technical work conducted by each agency over the last several years
indicates that there is a wide range of technologies available for
manufacturers to consider in upgrading vehicles to reduce GHG emissions
and improve fuel economy.\7\ These include improvements to the engines
such as use of gasoline direct injection and downsized engines that use
turbochargers to provide performance similar to that of larger engines,
the use of advanced transmissions, increased use of start-stop
technology, improvements in tire performance, reductions in vehicle
weight, increased use of hybrid and other advanced technologies, and
the initial commercialization of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.
Although many of these technologies are available today, the emissions
reductions and fuel economy improvements under consideration for the
proposal would be expected to involve more widespread use of these
technologies across the fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The close relationship between emissions of CO2--
the most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted by motor vehicles--and
fuel consumption, means that the technologies to control
CO2 emissions and to improve fuel economy overlap to a
great degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initial evaluations by EPA and NHTSA indicate that utilization of
this suite of technologies provides a strong technical basis to proceed
with consideration of a proposal containing MY 2016 GHG standards that
would on average achieve 250 gram/mile CO2. If the
automotive industry were to achieve this CO2 level all
through fuel economy improvements, this would equate to achieving a
fleet average level of 35.5 mpg. However, it is expected that most
companies would also apply some air conditioning improvements to reduce
GHG emissions. This would not translate into fuel economy improvements,
so on average we expect the fuel economy improvements to be somewhat
below the 35.5 mpg value.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As discussed in this section, these mile per gallon
equivalents should not be considered levels of potential CAFE
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal under consideration would also include a harmonized
CAFE standard for MY 2016. Compatible GHG and CAFE standards for
earlier model years would increase from the MY 2011 CAFE standard to
the MY 2016 level of the National Program.
    In developing their respective proposals, EPA and NHTSA will
consider many of the same issues. Given differences in their respective
statutory authorities, however, the agencies anticipate there will be
some important differences in the development of their proposals. For
example, under a GHG standard proposed under CAA section 202(a) EPA
would expect manufacturers to take advantage of the option to generate
credits by reducing emissions of HFCs and CO2 through
upgrades to their air conditioner systems. EPA plans to take these
reductions into account in developing a proposed GHG standard. However,
EPCA does not permit NHTSA to consider air conditioning credits in
developing a proposed CAFE standard for passenger cars. CO2
emissions due to air conditioning operation are not measured by the
test procedure mandated by statute for use in establishing and
enforcing CAFE standards for passenger cars. As a result, improvements
in the efficiency of passenger car air conditioners would not be
considered as a possible control technology for purposes of CAFE.
    In addition, in developing a proposal EPA would take into
consideration all of the compliance flexibilities discussed below, such
as averaging, banking, and trading of credits, while NHTSA is
prohibited by statute from taking such flexibilities into account in
developing proposed CAFE standards. Manufacturer utilization of these
flexibilities, however, would be anticipated to provide important
savings in cost, promote more cost-effective GHG emissions control and
justify proposing more stringent GHG standards. As a result, the
agencies do not anticipate a one-to-one correspondence between the
level of EPA's proposed GHG standards and NHTSA's proposed CAFE
standards. Instead the CAFE standards under consideration for proposal
would be somewhat lower than the mile per gallon equivalent of the
corresponding GHG standard. This reflects both the specific differences
in standard setting criteria, as well as the general attempt by each
agency to harmonize its proposed standards in a way that allows them to
achieve their respective statutory and regulatory goals. The goal of
the proposal under consideration is providing regulatory compatibility
that allows auto manufacturers to build a single national light-duty
fleet that would comply with both the GHG and the CAFE standards.
    Preliminary analysis indicates that the proposal under
consideration would result in GHG reductions and oil consumption
reductions that are very significant. Preliminary analysis indicates
cumulative greenhouse gas reductions of approximately 890 million
metric tons (CO2 equivalent) and fuel savings of
approximately 1.8 billion barrels of oil, over the lifetime of the
model years covered. Consumers would be expected to see cost savings
due to the significant fuel savings. As discussed below, the agencies
will conduct additional analyses of these matters.

B. Form of the Standards

    Both EPA and NHTSA currently intend to propose attribute-based
standards for passenger cars and light-trucks. NHTSA adopted an
attribute standard based on vehicle footprint in its Reformed CAFE
program for light-trucks for model years 2008-2011,\9\ and recently
extended this approach to passenger cars in the CAFE rule for MY
2011.\10\ The agencies currently intend to propose vehicle footprint as
the attribute for the GHG and CAFE

standards, with footprint defined as a vehicle's wheelbase multiplied
by its track width--in other words, the area enclosed by the points at
which the wheels meet the ground. EPA and NHTSA believe initially that
the footprint attribute is the most appropriate attribute on which to
base the standards under consideration, as vehicle footprint correlates
reasonably well with CO2 emissions, fuel economy, and
consumer choice. In addition, the final rule issued by NHTSA for MY
2011 also discusses in some detail the relationship between mass,
weight, vehicle attributes like footprint, and safety.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 71 FR 17566; April 6, 2006.
    \10\ 74 FR 14196; March 30, 2009.
    \11\ 74 FR 14196; March 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under a footprint-based standard, each manufacturer would have a
GHG and CAFE standard unique to its fleet, with a separate standard for
passenger cars and light-trucks, depending on the footprints of the
vehicle models produced by that manufacturer. Generally, manufacturers
of larger vehicles (i.e., vehicles with larger footprints) would face
less stringent standards (i.e., higher CO2 grams/mile
standards and lower CAFE standards) than manufacturers of smaller
vehicles. While a manufacturer's fleet average standard could be
estimated throughout the model year based on projected sales volume of
its vehicle fleet, the standard of compliance would be based on the
final model year sales figures. A manufacturer's calculation of fleet
average emissions at the end of the model year would be based on the
sales-weighted average emissions of each model in its fleet.
    EPA and NHTSA currently intend to propose separate footprint-based
standards, or curves, for passenger cars and light-trucks. In designing
the footprint-based standards, EPA and NHTSA intend to work together to
build upon the footprint standard curves used in the CAFE rule for MY
2011,\12\ and to consider proposing changes to the shape of the curve
based on, among other things, concerns about the steepness of the
slope. EPA and NHTSA intend to consider, among other things, an
approach that would generally flatten the passenger car curve, more in
line with the shape of the truck curve for the MY 2011 CAFE standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 74 FR 14407-14409; March 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Program Flexibilities for Achieving Compliance

    As noted above, EPA and NHTSA expect to propose standards that are
intended to provide compliance flexibility to manufacturers, especially
in the early years of the program. This flexibility would be expected
to provide sufficient lead time to make necessary technological
improvements and additions, and reduce the overall cost of the program
without compromising overall environmental and fuel economy objectives.
The broad goal of harmonizing the two agencies' standards would include
preserving manufacturer flexibilities in meeting the standards. The
following section provides an overview of flexibility provisions the
agencies are contemplating in developing the program.
1. CO2/CAFE Credits Earned Based on Fleet Average
Performance
    EPA and NHTSA currently intend to propose that the fleet average
standards that would apply to a manufacturer's car and truck fleets
would be based on the applicable attribute-based curves. At the end of
each model year, when sales of the model year are complete, a sales-
weighted fleet average would be calculated for each averaging set (cars
and trucks). Under this approach, a manufacturer's car and/or truck
fleet that achieves a fleet average CO2/CAFE level better
than the standard would earn credits. Conversely, if the fleet average
CO2/CAFE level does not meet the standard the fleet would
generate debits (also referred to as a deficit or negative credits).
    Under the program being considered for proposal, a manufacturer
whose fleet generates credits in a given model year would have several
options for using those credits, including credit carry-back, credit
carry-forward, credit transfers, and credit trading. These provisions
exist in the MY 2011 CAFE program per EPCA, and similar provisions are
part of EPA's Tier 2 program for light duty vehicles' emissions of
criteria pollutants (as well as numerous other standards issued by EPA
under section 202 of the CAA). It is expected that, under the proposal
being considered, that the manufacturer would be able to carry-back
credits to offset any deficit that had accrued in a prior model year
and was subsequently carried over to the current model year. EPCA
restricts the carry-back of CAFE credits to three years and EPA is
currently contemplating proposing the same limitation, in keeping with
the goal of harmonizing both sets of proposed standards.
    After satisfying any needs to offset pre-existing deficits within a
vehicle category, remaining credits could be saved (banked) for use in
future years. EPA is contemplating allowing manufacturers to use these
banked credits in at least the five years after the year in which they
were generated (i.e., five or more years carry-forward).
    Another credit flexibility under consideration would be a
manufacturer's ability to transfer credits among its vehicle fleet to
achieve compliance with the standards. For example, credits earned by
over-compliance with a manufacturer's car fleet average standard could
be used to offset debits incurred due to that manufacturer's not
meeting the truck fleet average standard in a given year. EPCA provides
for this type of credit transfer with CAFE as does EPA within its Tier
2 program. EPA currently intends to propose unlimited credit transfers
across a manufacturer's car-truck fleet to meet the GHG standard. EPCA,
however, limits the amount of credits that may be transferred, and also
prohibits the use of transferred credits to meet the statutory minimum
for the domestic car fleet standard. These and other limits in EPCA
would continue to apply to the determination of compliance with the
CAFE standard.
    Finally, proposals under consideration would allow accumulated
credits to be traded (sold) to other vehicle manufacturers. These sorts
of exchanges are typically allowed under EPA's current emission credit
programs, although manufacturers have seldom made such exchanges. EPCA
also allows these types of credit trades, although, as with transferred
credits, traded credits may not be used to meet the minimum domestic
standards.
2. Air Conditioning Credits
    Air conditioning systems contribute to GHG emissions through the
leakage of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants which are powerful GHG
pollutants, and also by placing an additional load on the engine, which
causes the engine to produce additional CO2 emissions. EPA
is considering an approach that would enable manufacturers to earn
credits by reducing GHG emissions related to air conditioning systems.
Under this approach, EPA would propose a test procedure and method to
calculate CO2 equivalent reductions on a gram/mile basis
that could be used as credits in meeting the fleet average
CO2 standards. The approach under consideration could
provide manufacturers with a highly cost-effective way to achieve a
portion of GHG emissions reductions under the EPA program. EPA is also
considering the possibility of allowing early air conditioning credits
that could be earned through air conditioning system improvements in
the years leading up to the start of the program.

3. Flex-Fuel and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Credits
    EPCA authorizes an incentive under the CAFE program for production
of dual-fueled or flexible-fuel vehicles (FFV) and dedicated
alternative fuel vehicles. FFVs are vehicles that can run both on an
alternative fuel and conventional fuel. Most FFVs are E-85 vehicles,
which can run on a mixture of up to 85 percent ethanol and gasoline.
Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles are vehicles that run exclusively
on an alternative fuel. EPCA's provisions were amended by the EISA to
extend the period of availability of the FFV credits, but to begin
phasing them out by annually reducing the amount of FFV credits that
can be used to help achieve compliance with the CAFE standards.\13\
EPCA does not premise the availability of the FFV credits on actual use
of alternative fuel. Under current law, after MY 2019, no FFV credits
will be available for CAFE compliance. For dedicated alternative fuel
vehicles, there are no limits or phase-out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPCA provides a statutory incentive for production of FFVs
by specifying that their fuel economy is determined using a special
calculation procedure that results in those vehicles being assigned
a higher fuel economy level than would otherwise occur. This is
typically referred to as an FFV credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the GHG program, EPA contemplates proposing to allow FFV
credits in line with EISA limits only during the period from MYs 2012
to 2015. EPA will also consider allowing FFV credits beyond MY 2015 if
manufacturers are able to demonstrate that the alternative fuel is
actually being used in the vehicles. EPA is also considering how that
demonstration could be made.
4. Temporary Lead-Time Allowance Alternative Standards
    EPA is considering a temporary lead-time allowance for
manufacturers whose sale of vehicles in the U.S. in a specified time
period is below a specified cut-off, such as sales of 400,000 vehicles
or less during a specified year, such as MY 2009 or 2010. This would
limit the number of vehicles to which the flexibility could apply. The
manufacturers that satisfy the threshold criteria would be able to
treat a limited number of vehicles as a separate averaging fleet, which
would be subject to a less stringent GHG standard.\14\ EPA is
considering a less stringent GHG standard that would be 125 percent of
the vehicle's otherwise applicable foot-print target level. EPA
envisions that this allowance would be available only during the MY
2012-2015 phase-in years of the program. Appropriate restrictions on
credit use would be expected to apply in the proposal under
consideration. These allowance vehicles would be expected to be
averaged into the manufacturer's fleet starting no later than MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPCA does not permit such an allowance. Consequently,
manufacturers who may be able to take advantage of a lead-time
allowance under the CAA would be required to comply with the
applicable CAFE standard or be subject to penalties for non-
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Additional Potential Credit Opportunities
    EPA is considering opportunities for early credits in MYs 2009-2011
through over-compliance with a baseline standard that EPA is
considering. The baseline standard would be set to be equivalent, on a
national level, to the California standards. Potentially, credits could
be generated by over-compliance with this baseline in one of two ways--
over-compliance by the fleet of vehicles sold in California and the CAA
section 177 States, or over-compliance with the fleet of vehicles sold
in the 50 States. EPA is also considering allowing early credits based
on over-compliance with CAFE, but under the contemplated proposal only
for vehicles sold in States outside of California and the CAA section
177 States, and without use of FFV credits. Were this approach adopted,
the program would need to be designed to avoid double counting credits
between the two approaches.
    EPA is currently considering proposing additional credit
opportunities to encourage the commercialization of advanced GHG/fuel
economy control technology such as electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles. These ``super credits'' could take the form of a
multiplier that would be applied to the number of vehicles sold such
that they would count as more than one vehicle in the manufacturer's
fleet average. EPA is also considering allowing such credits to be
generated for years prior to MY 2012.
    EPA is also considering an option for generation of credits for
employing technologies that achieve GHG reductions that are not
reflected on current test procedures. Examples of technologies that EPA
could consider include technologies such as solar panels on hybrids,
adaptive cruise control, and active aerodynamics, among other things.

D. Compliance

    There are ample precedents established in previous EPA and NHTSA
regulations on which to develop an effective compliance program which
would achieve the energy and environmental benefits from CAFE and motor
vehicle GHG standards. EPA and NHTSA currently intend to propose a
program that recognizes and replicates as closely as possible the
compliance protocols associated with the existing CAA Tier 2 vehicle
emission standards, and with CAFE standards. The certification,
testing, reporting, and associated compliance activities could closely
track current practice and thus be familiar to manufacturers. EPA
already oversees testing, collects and processes test data, and
performs calculations to determine compliance with both CAFE and CAA
standards. In a coordinated approach, compliance mechanisms for both
programs could be consistent and non-duplicative.
    The general approach under consideration would allow manufacturers
to satisfy the new program requirements in the same way they comply
with existing CAA and CAFE requirements. Manufacturers would
demonstrate compliance on a fleet-average basis at the end of each
model year, allowing model-level testing to continue throughout the
year as is the current practice for CAFE determinations. Although
statutory authorities and flexibilities available to EPA and NHTSA
differ, such a compliance program design could establish a single set
of manufacturer reporting requirements and rely on a single set of
underlying data, yet allow each agency to assess compliance with its
respective program.
    Using currently available analyses, EPA and NHTSA do not anticipate
any significant noncompliance under the program being considered.
However, failure to meet the standards after credit opportunities are
exhausted would ultimately result in the potential for penalties under
EPCA, and under the CAA as well. The CAA allows considerable discretion
in assessment of penalties. Penalties under the CAA are typically
determined on a vehicle-specific basis by determining the number of a
manufacturer's highest emitting vehicles that caused the fleet average
standard violation. This is the same mechanism used for EPA's National
LEV and Tier 2 corporate average standards, and to date there have been
no instances of noncompliance. EPCA penalties are specified by statute
and would be assessed for the entire noncomplying fleet at a rate of
$5.50 times the number of vehicles in the fleet times the number of
tenths of mpg by which the fleet average falls below the standard. In
the event of a compliance action arising out of the same facts and
circumstances, EPA could consider CAFE penalties

when determining appropriate remedies for the EPA case.

III. Conclusion

    There is a critically important need for our country to address
global climate change and to reduce oil consumption. In this context,
EPA and NHTSA currently intend to work in coordination to propose
standards for control of emissions of greenhouse gases and for fuel
economy, respectively. The EPA and the NHTSA plan to propose a strong
and coordinated Federal greenhouse gas and fuel economy program for MY
2012 through 2016 passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles, as described above. Both agencies seek to propose a
coordinated program that can achieve important reductions of greenhouse
gas GHG emissions and improvements in fuel economy from the light-duty
vehicle part of the transportation sector, based on technology that
will be commercially available and that can be incorporated at a
reasonable cost.
    The agencies anticipate issuing a joint proposal in the near
future, and welcome robust public participation in the rulemaking
process.

    Dated: May 18, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.

    Dated: May 18, 2009.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
 [FR Doc. E9-12009 Filed 5-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P