EPA's Denial of the Petition To Reconsider the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles |
|---|
|
Lisa P. Jackson
August 27, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51701-51705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21032]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 600, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1065, 1066, and
1068
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162; FRL-9720-9]
EPA's Denial of the Petition To Reconsider the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Denial of petition to reconsider.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is denying
the petition of Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc. (``POP
Diesel'') to reconsider the final rules establishing emissions
standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on-road heavy-duty
vehicles.
DATES: This denial is effective August 27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA's docket for this action is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Silverman, Office of General
Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-5523; email address:
silverman.steven@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this Decision.
CAA Clean Air Act
CO2 carbon dioxide
EV electric vehicle
[[Page 51702]]
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
FCV fuel cell vehicle
GHG greenhouse gas
GVWR gross vehicle weight rating
HD heavy-duty
N2O nitrous oxide
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
POP Diesel Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc.
PHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RIN Renewable Identification Number
VMT vehicle miles travelled
I. Introduction
On September 15, 2011, the EPA issued final rules establishing
standards limiting emissions of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide
(N2O) and hydrofluorocarbons (greenhouse gases or GHGs) from
on-road heavy-duty vehicles, including combination tractors, heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. 76 FR 57106 (September
15, 2011). In this joint rulemaking the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), on behalf of the Department of Transportation,
issued rules for fuel consumption from these vehicles at the same time.
Together these rules comprise a coordinated and comprehensive Heavy-
Duty (HD) National Program designed to address the urgent and closely
intertwined challenges of reduction of dependence on oil, achievement
of energy security, and amelioration of global climate change.
POP Diesel petitioned EPA to reconsider its greenhouse standards.
Because the petition does not state grounds which satisfy the
requirements of section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, and does not provide
substantial support for the argument that the promulgated regulation
should be revised, EPA is denying the petition.
II. Standard for Reconsideration
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) states that: ``Only
an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. If the person raising an
objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within such time or if the
grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment
(but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, the
Administrator shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the
rule and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded
had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed.
If the Administrator refuses to convene such a proceeding, such person
may seek review of such refusal in the United States court of appeals
for the appropriate circuit. Such reconsideration shall not postpone
the effectiveness of the rule. The effectiveness of the rule may be
stayed pending such reconsideration, however, by the Administrator or
the court for a period not to exceed three months.''
Thus, for reconsideration to be mandated, a petition for
reconsideration must show why the objection or claim could not have
been presented during the comment period--either because it was
impracticable to raise the objection during that time or because the
grounds for raising the objection arose after the period for public
comment but within 60 days of publication of the final action (i.e.
``the time specified for judicial review''). To be of central relevance
to the outcome of a rule, an objection must provide substantial support
for the argument that the promulgated regulation should be revised. See
76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011) and other actions there cited.
Because all of the objections or claims raised in POP Diesel's
petition could have been presented to EPA during the rulemaking, EPA is
denying the request for reconsideration. EPA also finds that the
petitioner has not provided substantial support for the argument that
the promulgated regulation should be revised and is denying the request
for reconsideration for that reason as well.
III. POP Diesel's Petition for Reconsideration
POP Diesel filed a petition for reconsideration with EPA on
November 14, 2011 and supplemented this petition on February 12, 2012.
The company produces equipment intended to be installed after-market on
diesel engines to permit the engines to operate on 100 percent
untransestrified plant oil. February 12 Petition p. 12. The engine
starts and shuts down on diesel from an original fuel tank during
startup and shutoff but at all other times would run on 100 percent
plant oil coming from an auxiliary tank. Id POP Diesel states that
engines operated on vegetable oils with its systems incur ``only a
modest fuel consumption penalty'' but would have superior GHG
performance if evaluated on a full lifecycle basis. November 14,
Petition p. 13; February 12 Petition p. 22.
The objection raised in POP Diesel's petitions is that EPA failed
to adequately consider the so-called rebound effect during the
rulemaking. POP Diesel maintains that ``[t]he GHG standards will have
the effect of making diesel engines less expensive to operate on
petroleum fuel, which may, in fact, spur demand and have the result of
increasing overall energy consumption and likely, consumption of fossil
fuels.'' November 14, 2011 Petition p. 15. In its supplement to its
original petition, POP Diesel elaborated on this objection, maintaining
that the rules would increase GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles
due to aspects of the rebound effect not accounted for in EPA's
analysis. Specifically, POP Diesel maintains that EPA underestimated
the direct rebound effect and that a revised estimate of the direct
rebound effect would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions
Also, POP Diesel maintains that there are indirect, ``embedded energy''
(increased energy use as a result of additional goods and services
produced) and ``frontier'' (creation of new, energy-intense products)
rebound effects which EPA failed to examine, instead only analyzing
direct effects in the form of estimated increase in vehicle miles
travelled (and increases in GHG and criteria pollutant emissions
associated with that increase). February 12, 2012 Supplemental Petition
p. 12. These objections are accompanied by a supporting declaration of
Dr. Harry Duston Saunders (a published researcher in energy economics)
likewise dated February 12, 2012.
POP Diesel does not address why this objection could not have been
raised during the public comment period, as required by section
307(d)(7)(B). EPA discussed the rebound effect at length in the
proposed rule. See 75 FR 74152, 74316-20 (November 30, 2010). The
proposal included specific discussions of factors affecting the
magnitude of the rebound effect, options for quantifying the effect
(including aggregate estimates, sector-specific estimates, econometric
estimates, and other modeling approaches), as well as quantified
estimates of the effect which EPA thereupon applied in estimating the
proposed rules' impacts on GHG emissions, criteria pollutant emissions,
as well as overall costs and benefits of the proposed program. Id. and
75 FR at 74290, 74313; see also Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final
Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-3634, pages 9-9 through 9-18. EPA
received comments
[[Page 51703]]
on its approach to the rebound effect and responded to them as part of
the rulemaking. 76 FR at 57326-30; see also Response to Comments
Document at 14-24. It is therefore apparent that POP Diesel had the
opportunity to present all of its objections regarding the rebound
effect during the rulemaking. Indeed, POP Diesel properly acknowledges
that its objections are ``belate[d]''. February Petition p. 4.
A second reason that POP Diesel's objections do not require EPA to
reconsider the rule is that the declaration of Dr. Saunders is dated
February 12, 2012, outside of the period specified for judicial
review--i.e. November 11, 2011. Even if POP Diesel's objections could
not have been raised during the public comment period (which is not the
case), the grounds for objection did not arise ``during the time
specified for judicial review'', as required by section 307(d)(7)(B).
POP Diesel also reiterates a number of arguments it already
presented to EPA in its comments to the proposed rule. Specifically,
the petition maintains that EPA should have evaluated all emission
control technologies on a lifecycle basis (``[i]n considering only
tailpipe emissions, rather than the full lifecycle GHG emissions of a
technology and fuel that would result from a wells-to-wheels analysis,
the Regulations arbitrarily favor and disfavor some alternatives over
others'', February amended petition p. 7). EPA addressed these issues
during the rulemaking. See 75 FR at 74198, 255-56 (proposal); 76 FR at
57246-47 (final rule) and Response to Comment Document at 16-157. EPA's
proposal likewise addressed the issues of whether compliance with the
standards should be measured on a tailpipe or lifecycle basis, and what
if any incentives were appropriate for advanced technologies and
alternative fuel vehicles. See 75 FR at 74198, 255-56. Consequently,
these are not issues which EPA is compelled to reconsider under section
307(d)(7)(B), since these objections could have been and were raised
during the public comment period on the proposed rule. EPA also rejects
the substance of the arguments raised in the petitions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA may permissibly respond to a request for reconsideration
without triggering additional notice and comment opportunities for a
petitioner or other entities. Coalition for Responsible Regulation
v. EPA, No. 09-1322 (D.C. Cir. June 26, 2012) slip op. p. 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Direct Rebound Effect
POP Diesel first maintains that EPA underestimated the extent of
the direct rebound effect, and that assigning different estimates of
rebound effects to different heavy-duty vehicle classes (medium-duty
pickups and vans, vocational vehicles, and combination tractors) was
arbitrary. Saunders Affidavit paras. 35-36.\2\ EPA explained its
rationale for selecting VMT rebound values for these three categories
of vehicles in both the proposed and final rules. In short, the values
for vocational vehicles and combination tractors fall within the range
of estimates presented in two available analyses of the HD rebound
effect.\3\ See 76 FR 57326-330. For medium-duty pickups and vans, EPA
applied the light-duty VMT rebound effect estimate from the final rule
establishing GHG standards for MYs 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles. Id.
at 57329. EPA reasonably did so since there were no estimates of the
direct rebound effect for medium-duty pickup trucks and vans (class 2b
and 3) cited in the literature, and these classes of vehicles are used
for purposes more similar to large light-duty vehicles than the other
heavy-duty vehicle categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Dr. Saunders cites Knittel, Automobiles on Steroids, for the
proposition that ``in the personal transportation sector of the
United States, a rebound effect of 75% between 1980 and 2006
existing because most of the technical engine efficiency gains were
offset by consumers choosing to take improvements in engine
efficiency in the form of increased vehicle weight and substantial
increases in average horsepower.'' Saunders Affidavit para. 14. The
Knittel study does not attribute any fleet shifts to a rebound
effect, and also discusses the light-duty vehicle sector
exclusively. The study therefore has no apparent relevance to the
heavy-duty GHG rulemaking, or to a discussion of rebound effects.
\3\ The first analysis, from Cambridge Systematics, Inc., was
commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences and uses a range of
freight elasticities in the literature combined with technology cost
and fuel saving scenarios to estimate the potential magnitude of the
HD rebound effect. See 76 FR 74328. The second analysis, conducted
by NHTSA, is an econometric analysis that estimates short-run and
long-run elasticities of annual VMT with respect to fuel cost per
mile driven using data on national and state VMT and a variety of
other variables such as GDP, the volume of imports and exports, and
factors affecting the price of trucking services (e.g., driver
wages). Id. at 57329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These values are based on the best available data and econometric
methods \4\ and reflect many of the components of the VMT rebound
effect that POP Diesel alleges (mistakenly) that EPA ignored (e.g.,
shifts of freight shipments from other transportation modes to
trucking). At proposal, we explicitly requested, but did not receive,
comment on all of the rebound estimates and assumptions in our proposed
rule. 75 FR at 74320. EPA continues to believe that its estimate of
direct VMT rebound effect in the final rule is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The ``Saunders study'' discussed in the Saunders affidavit
(Saunders Affidavit para. 31-36) was not presented to EPA during the
public comment period, it reflects no expert peer review and, as Dr.
Saunders acknowledges, examines the entire transportation sector
rather than the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sector covered under
EPA's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Indirect Rebound Effects
POP Diesel also maintains that EPA should account for the energy
and GHG emissions impact associated with the so-called ``indirect''
rebound effects (distinct from the ``direct'' rebound effect). These
effects could arise from the decline in fuel costs as a result of the
rule, which could make goods and services transported by the U.S.
trucking industry less expensive. In turn, less expensive goods and
services could result in increased consumption of goods and service in
the overall economy. Producing extra goods and services requires that
more energy be used. This extra energy use can be thought of as
``embodied'' in the extra goods and services. Hence the term for this
type of indirect rebound effect is the ``embodied energy'' rebound
effect. The increased energy use from this type of indirect rebound
effect could result in increased greenhouse gas emissions. Saunders
Affidavit para. 46 Appendix A. A further indirect rebound effect
unaccounted for, according to the petition, is the ``frontier'' rebound
effect whereby energy efficiency gains enable creation of completely
new products which are themselves energy intensive. Id. para. 26.\5\
POP Diesel maintains that these assorted indirect effects are of such
magnitude as to create a ``backfire'' condition, negating all of the
emission benefits of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Saunders declaration does not provide any examples of
potential ``frontier'' rebound effects from the heavy-duty GHG rule,
besides ``the rise of internet shopping'' that allows people to buy
products from distant locations instead of purchasing products
locally. Increased internet shopping is a well established market
trend, so we do not see how it could be reasonably attributed to the
modest increase in truck fuel efficiency that our standards will
bring about. Furthermore, there are many factors that have
contributed to increased internet shopping, most notably the
widespread use of computers and advances in internet applications,
which took place and would likely continue to take place in the
absence of any improvements in truck efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is not aware of any data to indicate that the magnitude of
indirect rebound effects, if any, would be significant for this rule.
Research on indirect rebound effects is nascent. The magnitude of
effects from our rule postulated in the Saunders affidavit has no
support in the literature,\6\ reflects no
[[Page 51704]]
expert peer review, and in the end is speculative. It appears highly
improbable that all of the GHG emissions benefits of this rule would be
negated by putative indirect rebound effects. As discussed in the
proposed and final rules, all of the fuel costs savings will not
necessarily be passed through to the consumer in terms of cheaper goods
and services. First, there may be market barriers that impede trucking
companies from passing along the fuel cost savings from the rule in the
form of lower rates; see 75 FR at 74320 and 76 FR at 57329-30. Second,
there are upfront vehicle costs (and potentially transaction or
transition costs associated with the adoption of new technologies) that
would partially offset some of the fuel cost savings from our rule,
thereby limiting the magnitude of the impact on prices of final goods
and services. Furthermore, there are additional benefits to consumers
associated with increased consumption of goods and services, which
would be important to consider if we were assessing the overall costs
and benefits associated with potential indirect rebound effects from
our rule. EPA thus does not accept this speculative assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Dr. Saunders cited only one published study quantifying
indirect rebound effects (Druckman et al., 2011). Saunders affidavit
para. 16. Although this UK-based study could offer insights into how
to estimate indirect rebound effects in some contexts, the method
may not be appropriate here for many reasons. First, the U.S.
economy and consumer behavior is likely to differ from other
countries (e.g., Americans have different product and service
preferences and our products and services have different levels of
embedded energy). Similar data and models may not exist to replicate
the UK study in a U.S.-context. Second, the study is designed to
examine behavioral strategies (e.g., lowering thermostats, reducing
food waste, and biking instead of using a car) rather than improving
technology. Among other things, the study does not consider capital
expenditures associated with energy savings that could dampen any
increase in consumption of additional goods and services (e.g., our
rule increases the cost of new vehicles, which offsets the fuel cost
savings that trucking firms may pass along to shippers, which in
turn, would dampen any decrease in product prices that shippers pass
along to consumers). Third, the study does not consider the
potential for economic restructuring in response to decreased energy
consumption (i.e., it does not consider ``general equilibrium''
effects), which could lead to either lower or higher energy
consumption as a result of our rule. Fourth, the authors recognize
that there is a major limitation of the study: they have only a very
small number of expenditure categories in their model and there is
considerable disparity in GHG intensities of commodities within each
category (p. 3578). Fifth, the study does not directly explore the
market mechanism through which our rule could influence the amount
of goods and services consumed since it focuses on energy efficiency
improvements that more directly increase consumers' disposable
income rather than the more complex and indirect pathway where
greater truck fuel efficiency may result in lower-priced goods and
services. Finally, the authors do not attempt to quantify the
additional benefits to consumers associated with increased
consumption of goods and services, which would be important to
consider if we were assessing the overall costs and benefits
associated with potential indirect rebound effects from our rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Fuel-Based Rule Rather Than a Vehicle-Based Rule
POP Diesel requests EPA to re-evaluate the weight given to various
alternative technologies and fuels according to a lifecycle approach,
and to decouple fuel efficiency policy from GHG emissions policy.
February 12 Petition p. 2. In setting emissions standards for heavy-
duty vehicles, EPA reasonably chose to consider the impact on GHG
emissions of the fuels used by the different types of vehicles by
measuring the tailpipe emissions of vehicles, including alternative
fuel vehicles (which normally emit less GHG emissions than gasoline or
diesel-powered vehicles).\7\ In a separate program, the Congressionally
mandated Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) program, there are strong
incentives for use of renewable diesel fuels and other renewable fuels.
See 76 FR at 57124. This program is specifically designed to mandate
increasing volumes of renewable fuel use in transportation fuels,
including renewable fuel used in heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The
definition of renewable fuel includes thresholds for reductions in
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, compared to petroleum fuel. For
example, specified volumes of biomass-based diesel fuel must be used in
the diesel transportation sector, and biomass-based diesel is defined
in part as a diesel fuel that achieves a 50 percent reduction in
lifecycle greenhouse emissions compared to baseline petroleum diesel
fuel. POP Diesel points out that its product is not presently eligible
to receive Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits under that
program, but this is an issue which is properly considered under the
RFS program, which contains the mechanisms for determining whether a
diesel fuel qualifies as a renewable fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ POP Diesel's statement that the rules arbitrarily assign
zero emissions and zero fuel consumption to electric vehicles
(February revised petition, p. 6) is also misplaced. In fact,
compliance with the standards is measured identically for all
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines: at the tailpipe. See 76
FR at 57247. Electric vehicles have zero GHG emissions measured at
the tailpipe. POP Diesel states further that the standards are
arbitrary in the GHG-reducing weight given to some alternative
technologies and fuels. POP Diesel's complaint (February amended
petition p. 6) that the rule provides incentives for use of certain
advanced technologies such as hybrid electrification and hydrogen
fuel cells questions legitimate policy choices unrelated to the
issue of fuel use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also does not accept the major premise of POP Diesel's
reconsideration petition and rulemaking comments. The company argues
that it is arbitrary that EPA has not established greenhouse gas
emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles premised on use of their
technology and its fuel. Under such a standard, the GHG level of a
vehicle using POP Diesel would be tailpipe emissions adjusted by a
factor reflecting the claimed reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions to
produce the POP Diesel fuel. See, e.g., November 14, 2011 Petition for
Reconsideration pp. 1-2 (``If the Regulations did consider this
technology, they could mandate much steeper reductions in greenhouse
gas * * * emissions by requiring every engine and vehicle manufacturer
of medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles to comply with a
corporate average for such emissions'').
The heavy-duty vehicle and engine GHG standards are fuel neutral in
that they do not themselves require or assume that a vehicle or engine
will be operated on a particular type of fuel. If POP Diesel's
technology helps manufacturers reduce tailpipe GHG emissions, then it
will have the same opportunities as any other technology that
manufacturers will use to meet the standards. Moreover, POP Diesel has
not correctly characterized the agencies' consideration of the
interaction between the RFS program and the heavy-duty GHG standards.
As explained in the final rule, the tailpipe performance measurement of
alternative fuels provides sufficient incentives for their use. While
the agencies noted that incentives in the RFS pointed to a lack of a
need for further incentives, the rule's treatment of alternative fuels
was not premised on each alternative fuel being covered by the RFS
Standard.\8\ Indeed, other alternative fuels are similarly not covered
by the RFS standard, such as liquefied natural gas, compressed natural
gas, propane, hydrogen and electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 76 FR 57124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only where the vehicle or engine technology inherently demands a
certain type of fuel do the standards account for that fuel use, by
specifying the calculation procedure used to determine tailpipe
emissions. This is the case with electric vehicles (EV), plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEV), and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, where the
technology itself necessitates use of electricity rather than
petroleum-based fuels.\9\ Unlike EVs, PHEVs, or FCVs,
[[Page 51705]]
there is nothing inherent in a diesel engine that compels use of the
POP Diesel product. Therefore, a standard premised on that product's
use would presuppose or require a market outcome which need not occur
and would be infeasible and arbitrary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Even so, the standards for medium- and heavy-duty EVs and
PHEVs measure performance based on tailpipe emissions exclusively.
See 76 FR at 57247. The MYs 2012-2016 standards for light-duty EVs
and PHEVs do account for greenhouse gas emissions attributable to
upstream electricity generation after a designated number of EVs and
PHEVs are sold, but this upstream factor does not reflect a single
means of generating electricity and so differs from POP Diesel's
desired outcome, which is fuel specific. See 75 FR 25326, 25436-37
(May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if EPA were to assume that POP Diesel's claim of lifecycle
emissions reductions are valid, and considered setting a vehicle
emissions standard that assumed or required use of the POP Diesel
technology and fuel, POP Diesel admits this would in fact lead to an
increase in the actual GHG emissions from the vehicle. The only
decrease in emissions would come from the claimed reduction in
lifecycle GHG emissions that POP Diesel says would occur with use of
their fuel. That would amount to adopting a vehicle emissions standard
to promote a vehicle technology that does not reduce but instead
increases the GHG emissions of the vehicle. The vehicle emissions
standard would take that approach solely as a mechanism to mandate the
use of a certain diesel fuel, based on emissions impacts associated
with the fuel, not the vehicle. This would dramatically distort the
purpose and structure of the vehicle emissions standard program,
largely turning it into a de facto fuel program. There is no good
reason to consider such a result here, especially where there already
is a separate fuel based program, the RFS program, that is directly
aimed at achieving the result POP Diesel seeks--a fuel program that
achieves a reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the
diesel fuel used by motor vehicles, through a mandate to use certain
renewable diesel fuels.
A further reason this heavy-duty rule does not regulate GHG
emissions from a lifecycle perspective, or include explicit
consideration of plant-based fuels like the one utilized by POP
Diesel's technology, is that it would no longer be possible to
establish harmonized, performance-based tailpipe GHG emissions
standards (EPA) and fuel efficiency standards (NHTSA). As discussed
throughout the final rule, close coordination in this first heavy-duty
rule enabled EPA and NHTSA to promulgate complementary standards that
appropriately allow manufacturers to build one set of vehicles to
comply with both agencies' regulations. See, e.g., 76 FR at 57107-108.
This coordination was advocated by the President, id., widely supported
by stakeholders, and provides benefits for industry, government, and
taxpayers by increasing regulatory efficiency and reducing compliance
burdens.
D. Fleet-Wide Average Standards
Finally, the petition maintains that EPA should impose corporate
fleet averages for GHG emissions, asserting that EPA did so only for
medium-duty engines and vehicles. Id. p. 23. In fact, the standards are
effectively corporate averages. See EPA, Heavy-Duty Diesel Greenhouse
Gas Response to Comment Document at p. 16-149--explaining that the rule
allows averaging, banking, and trading of credits within the same
``averaging set'', which means a manufacturer can comply through
averaging across (for example) all of its vocational vehicles under
19,501 pounds GVWR; or all of its Class 6 and 7 vocational vehicles and
tractors (that is, between all vehicles above 19,500 pounds GVWR and
less than 33,001 pounds GVWR); or between all vehicles with GVWR
greater than 33,000 pounds; or within the engine averaging sets (spark
ignition engines, compression-ignition light heavy-duty engines,
compression-ignition medium heavy-duty engines, and compression-
ignition heavy heavy-duty engines). See sections 1036.740(a) and
1037.740(a). In any case, this issue again was one which was presented
at proposal and addressed in the final rule. See 75 FR at 74250-54
(proposal) and 76 FR at 57238-240 (final). Consequently, POP Diesel has
again failed to show why its objection can be raised outside the period
for public comment, and in any case is mistaken. CAA section
307(d)(7)(B).
Accordingly, because POP Diesel has not stated grounds requiring or
justifying reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) EPA is denying
its petition.
Dated: August 17, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-21032 Filed 8-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P