Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare, 54421-54475 [2016-18399]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 81
Monday,
No. 157
August 15, 2016
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
40 CFR Parts 87 and 1068
Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or
Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To
Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54422
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 87 and 1068
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0828; FRL–9950–15–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AS31
Finding That Greenhouse Gas
Emissions From Aircraft Cause or
Contribute to Air Pollution That May
Reasonably Be Anticipated To
Endanger Public Health and Welfare
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this action, the
Administrator finds that elevated
concentrations of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere endanger the public
health and welfare of current and future
generations within the meaning of
section 231(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA, or Act). She makes this finding
specifically with respect to the same six
well-mixed greenhouse gases—carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,
and sulfur hexafluoride—that together
were defined as the air pollution in the
2009 Endangerment Finding under
section 202(a) of the CAA and that
together constitute the primary cause of
the climate change problem. The
Administrator also finds that emissions
of those six well-mixed greenhouse
gases from certain classes of engines
used in certain aircraft are contributing
to the air pollution—the aggregate group
of the same six greenhouse gases—that
endangers public health and welfare
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
DATES: These findings are effective on
September 14, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this rulemaking under Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0828. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the 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 in the EPA’s
docket. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, EPA/
DC, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
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:
Lesley Jantarasami, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Mail Code 6207–A, Washington, DC
20460; Telephone number: (202) 343–
9990; Email address:
ghgendangerment@epa.gov. For
additional information regarding these
final findings, please go to the Web site
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regsaviation.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Judicial Review
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial
review of this final action is available
only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit by October 14,
2016. This final action is a nationally
applicable action because it triggers the
EPA’s statutory duty to promulgate
aircraft engine emission standards
under CAA section 231, which are
nationally applicable regulations and for
which judicial review will be available
only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. In the
alternative, even if this action were
considered to be only locally or
regionally applicable, the Administrator
determines that it has nationwide scope
and effect within the meaning of CAA
section 307(b)(1) both because of the
obligation to establish standards under
CAA section 231 that it triggers and
because it concerns risks from GHG
pollution and contributions to such
pollution that occur across the nation.
Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only
an objection to this final action that was
raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review.
This section also provides a mechanism
for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to [EPA]
that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public
comment] 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 this rule.’’ Any person
seeking to make such a demonstration to
us should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, Environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Protection Agency, Room 3000, William
Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460, with a copy to the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the
Associate General Counsel for the Air
and Radiation Law Office, Office of
General Counsel (Mail Code 2344–A)
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
II. Introduction: Overview and Context for
This Final Action
A. Summary
B. Background Information Helpful To
Understanding This Final Action
C. The EPA’s Responsibilities Under the
Clean Air Act
D. U.S. Aircraft Regulations and the
International Community
III. Legal Framework for This Action
A. Section 231(a)(2)(A)—Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute
B. Air Pollutant, Public Health and Welfare
IV. The Administrator’s Finding Under CAA
Section 231 That Greenhouse Gases
Endanger Public Health and Welfare
A. The Science Upon Which the Agency
Relied
B. The Air Pollution Consists of Six Key
Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gases
C. The Air Pollution Is Reasonably
Anticipated To Endanger Both Public
Health and Welfare
D. Summary of the Administrator’s
Endangerment Finding Under CAA
Section 231
V. The Administrator’s Cause or Contribute
Finding for Greenhouse Gases Emitted
by Certain Classes of Engines Used by
Covered Aircraft Under CAA Section 231
A. The Air Pollutant
B. The Administrator’s Finding Under
CAA Section 231(a)(2)(A) That
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Certain
Classes of Aircraft Engines Used in
Certain Aircraft Cause or Contribute to
Air Pollution That May Be Reasonably
Anticipated To Endanger Public Health
and Welfare
C. Response to Key Comments on the
Administrator’s Cause or Contribute
Finding
VI. Statutory Authority and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
L. Determination Under Section 307(d)
VII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
These final findings trigger new
duties that apply to the EPA but do not
NAICS a Code
Category
Industry ............................................
Industry ............................................
a North
themselves apply new requirements to
other entities outside the federal
government. Specifically, in issuing
these final findings that emissions of the
six well-mixed GHGs from certain
classes of engines used in certain
aircraft cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare, the EPA becomes subject to a
duty under CAA section 231 to propose
and promulgate aircraft engine emission
standards applicable to emissions of
that air pollutant from those classes of
engines. We are anticipating indicating
an expected timeline for proposed GHG
SIC b Code
3364412
336411
3724
3721
54423
emission standards for the classes of
aircraft engines included in the
contribution finding in EPA’s Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions. Only those future
standards will apply to and have an
effect on other entities outside the
federal government. Entities potentially
interested in this final action include
those that manufacture and sell aircraft
engines and aircraft in the United
States. Categories that may be regulated
in a future regulatory action include:
Examples of Potentially Affected Entities 1
Manufacturers of new aircraft engines.
Manufacturers of new aircraft.
American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Industrial Classification (SIC) code.
b Standard
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
interested in this final action. This table
lists the types of entities that the EPA
is now aware could potentially have an
interest in this final action. By issuing
these final findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) regarding emissions of
greenhouse gases from aircraft engines,
the EPA is now required to undertake a
separate notice and comment
rulemaking to propose and issue
emission standards applicable to
greenhouse gas emissions from the
classes of aircraft engines subject to the
findings, and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is to prescribe
regulations to ensure compliance with
EPA’s future emissions standards
pursuant to CAA section 232. Other
types of entities not listed in the table
could also be interested and potentially
affected by subsequent actions at some
future time. If you have any questions
regarding the scope of this final action,
consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
II. Introduction: Overview and Context
for This Final Action
Pursuant to CAA section 231(a)(2)(A),
the Administrator finds that emissions
of the six well-mixed 2 greenhouse gases
(GHGs) from certain classes of aircraft
engines used in certain types of aircraft
(referred to interchangeably as ‘‘covered
aircraft’’ or ‘‘US covered aircraft’’
throughout this document) contribute to
air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger the public
health and welfare of current and future
generations. This final action follows
the Administrator’s proposed findings,3
and responds to public comments
submitted to the EPA following that
proposal. It is based on careful
consideration of the scientific evidence,
as well as a thorough review of the
public comments. In light of the large
number of comments received and
overlap between many comments, EPA
has not responded to each comment
individually. Instead, EPA has
summarized and provided responses to
each significant argument, assertion and
question contained within the totality of
these comments. Covered aircraft are
those aircraft to which the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has
agreed the recently recommended
international CO2 standard will apply 4:
Subsonic jet aircraft with a maximum
takeoff mass (MTOM) greater than 5,700
kilograms and subsonic propeller-driven
(e.g., turboprop) aircraft with a MTOM
greater than 8,618 kilograms. Examples
of covered aircraft include smaller jet
aircraft such as the Cessna Citation CJ3+
and the Embraer E170, up to and
including the largest commercial jet
aircraft—the Airbus A380 and the
Boeing 747. Other examples of covered
aircraft include larger turboprop aircraft,
such as the ATR 72 and the Bombardier
Q400.
In this final action, the EPA is
informed by and places considerable
weight on the extensive scientific and
technical evidence in the record
supporting the 2009 Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Findings under
CAA section 202(a) (hereafter,
collectively referred to as the 2009
Endangerment Finding).5 This includes
the major, peer-reviewed scientific
assessments that were used to address
the question of whether elevated
concentrations of GHGs in the
1 Manufacturers of new aircraft engines refers to
manufacturers of new type engines and inproduction engines, and manufacturers of new
aircraft refers to manufacturers of new type aircraft
and in-production aircraft.
2 The term ‘‘well-mixed GHGs’’—used both in the
definition of ‘‘air pollution’’ in the endangerment
finding and in the definition of ‘‘air pollutant’’ in
the cause or contribute finding—is based on the fact
that these gases are sufficiently long lived in the
atmosphere such that, once emitted, concentrations
of each gas become well mixed throughout the
entire global atmosphere. These shared attributes
are one of five primary reasons that the EPA
considers the six gases as an aggregate group rather
than as individual gases. See section IV.B for more
information on the definition of ‘‘air pollution’’ and
section V.A for more information on the definition
of the ‘‘air pollutant.’’
3 U.S. EPA, 2015: Proposed Finding That
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or
Contribute To Air Pollution That May Reasonably
Be Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and
Welfare and Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; Proposed Rule, 80 Federal Register
(FR) 37758 (July 1, 2015).
4 ICAO, 2013: CAEP/9 Agreed Certification
Requirement for the Aeroplane CO2 Emissions
Standards, Circular (Cir) 337, 40 pp, AN/192,
Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/
catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed May 9,
2016). The ICAO Circular 337 is found on page 87
of the catalog and is copyright protected; Order No.
CIR337.
5 U.S. EPA, 2009: Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule, 74
FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
A. Summary
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
54424
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
atmosphere endanger public health and
welfare under CAA section 202(a), as
well as the analytical framework and
conclusions upon which the EPA relied
in making that finding. The
Administrator’s view is that the body of
scientific evidence amassed in the
record for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding also compellingly supports an
endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). Furthermore, this
finding under section 231(a)(2)(A)
reflects the EPA’s careful consideration
not only of the scientific and technical
record for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding, but also of science assessments
released since 2009, which, as
illustrated below, strengthen and further
support the judgment that GHGs in the
atmosphere may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger the public
health and welfare of current and future
generations. No information or
assessments published since late 2009
suggest that it would be reasonable for
the EPA to now reach a different or
contrary conclusion for purposes of
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) than the
Agency reached for purposes of section
202(a).
The Administrator defines the ‘‘air
pollution’’ referred to in section
231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA to be the
combined mix of CO2, methane, nitrous
oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride (henceforth the six ‘‘wellmixed GHGs’’). This is the same
definition that was used for the finding
for purposes of section 202(a). It is the
Administrator’s judgment that the total
body of scientific evidence compellingly
supports a positive endangerment
finding that elevated concentrations of
the six well-mixed GHGs constitute air
pollution that endangers both the public
health and welfare of current and future
generations within the meaning of CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). The Administrator
is not at this time making a finding
regarding whether other substances
emitted from aircraft engines cause or
contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.
Under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the
Administrator must also determine
whether emissions of any air pollutant
from a class or classes of aircraft engines
cause or contribute to the air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.
Following the rationale outlined in the
2009 Endangerment Finding, the
Administrator in this action is using the
same definition of the air pollutant as
was used for purposes of section 202(a)
for purposes of making the cause or
contribute determination under section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
231(a)(2)(A)—that is, the aggregate
group of the same six well-mixed GHGs.
With respect to this pollutant, based on
the data summarized in section V.B, the
Administrator finds that emissions of
the six well-mixed GHGs from aircraft
engines used in covered aircraft
contribute to the air pollution that
endangers public health and welfare
under section 231(a)(2)(A). The
Administrator is not at this time making
a cause or contribute finding regarding
GHG emissions, or emissions of other
substances, from engines used in noncovered aircraft.
The Administrator’s final findings
come in response to a citizen petition
submitted by Friends of the Earth,
Oceana, the Center for Biological
Diversity, and Earthjustice (Petitioners)
requesting that the EPA issue an
endangerment finding and standards
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) for the
GHG emissions from aircraft. Further,
the EPA anticipates that the 39th ICAO
Assembly will approve a final CO2
emissions standard in October 2016,
and that subsequently, ICAO will
formally adopt the final CO2 emissions
standard in March 2017. These final
endangerment and cause or contribute
findings for aircraft engine GHG
emissions are also part of preparing for
a subsequent domestic rulemaking
process under CAA section 231. If an
international standard is approved and
finalized by ICAO, member states that
wish to use aircraft in international
transportation will then be required
under the Chicago Convention 6 to adopt
standards that are of at least equivalent
stringency to those set by ICAO. Section
II.D provides additional discussion of
the international aircraft standardsetting process. This document does not
take action or respond to comments on
the 2015 U.S. EPA Aircraft Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (henceforth the
‘‘2015 ANPR’’),7 which discussed such
standards. Technical issues and
comments for the 2015 ANPR would be
addressed in a future notice of proposed
rulemaking related to such standards.
B. Background Information Helpful to
Understanding This Final Action
1. Greenhouse Gases and Their Effects
GHGs in the atmosphere have the
effect of trapping some of the Earth’s
heat that would otherwise escape to
space. GHGs are both naturally
6 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil
Aviation, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp.
Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/
Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last accessed May 9,
2016).
7 80 FR 37758 (July 1, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
occurring and anthropogenic. The
primary GHGs directly emitted by
human activities include CO2, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride. Of these six gases, two
(CO2 and nitrous oxide) are emitted by
aircraft engines.
These six gases, once emitted, remain
in the atmosphere for decades to
centuries. Thus, they become well
mixed globally in the atmosphere, and
their concentrations accumulate when
emissions exceed the rate at which
natural processes remove them from the
atmosphere. Observations of the Earth’s
globally averaged combined land and
ocean surface temperature over the
period 1880 to 2012 show a warming of
0.85 degrees Celsius or 1.53 degrees
Fahrenheit.8 The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013–
2014 Fifth Assessment Report
concluded that heating effect caused by
the human-induced buildup of these
and other GHGs in the atmosphere, plus
other human activities (e.g., land use
change and aerosol emissions), is
extremely likely (>95 percent
likelihood) to be the cause of most of the
observed global warming since the mid20th century.9 Further information
about climate change and its impact on
health, society, and the environment is
included in the record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding. The relevant
scientific information from that record
has also been included in the docket for
this determination under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) (EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–
0828). Section IV of this preamble
discusses this information, as well as
information from the most recent
scientific assessments, in the context of
the Administrator’s endangerment
finding under CAA section 231.
The U.S. transportation sector
constitutes a meaningful part of total
U.S. and global anthropogenic GHG
emissions. In 2014, aircraft remained
the single largest GHG-emitting
transportation source not yet subject to
any GHG standards. Aircraft clearly
contribute to U.S. transportation
emissions, accounting for 12 percent of
all U.S. transportation GHG emissions
and representing more than 3 percent of
total U.S. GHG emissions in 2014.10
8 IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K.
Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, 29 pp.
9 Ibid.
10 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp.,
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R–
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Globally, U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
represent 29 percent of all global aircraft
GHG emissions and 0.5 percent of total
global GHG emissions. Section V of this
preamble provides detailed information
on aircraft GHG emissions in the context
of the Administrator’s cause or
contribute finding under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
2. Statutory Basis for This Final Action
Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA states
that ‘‘The Administrator shall, from
time to time, issue proposed emission
standards applicable to the emission of
any air pollutant from any class or
classes of aircraft engines which in [her]
judgment causes, or contributes to, air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.’’
Before the Administrator may propose
and issue final standards addressing
emissions of an air pollutant under
section 231, the Administrator must
satisfy a two-step test. First, the
Administrator must decide whether, in
her judgment, the air pollution under
consideration may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. Second, the Administrator must
decide whether, in her judgment,
emissions of an air pollutant from
certain classes of aircraft engines cause
or contribute to this air pollution.11 If
the Administrator answers both
questions in the affirmative, she must
propose and issue final standards under
section 231. See Massachusetts v. EPA,
549 U.S. 497, 533 (2007) (interpreting
analogous provision in CAA section
202). Section III of this document
summarizes the legal framework for this
final action under CAA section 231.
Typically, past endangerment and cause
or contribute findings have been
proposed and promulgated concurrently
with proposed and promulgated
standards under various sections of the
CAA, including section 231. In those
actions, public comment was taken on
the proposed findings as part of the
notice and comment process for the
proposed emission standards. See, e.g.,
Rulemaking for non-road compressionignition engines under section 213(a)(4)
of the CAA, Proposed Rule at 58 FR
28809, 28813–14 (May 17, 1993), Final
16–002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14,
2016).
11 To clarify the distinction between air pollution
and air pollutant, in the context of GHGs, the air
pollution is the atmospheric concentrations and can
be thought of as the total, cumulative stock of GHGs
in the atmosphere. The air pollutant, on the other
hand, is the emissions of GHGs and can be thought
of as the flow that changes the size of the total
stock.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
Rule at 59 FR 31306, 31318 (June 17,
1994); Rulemaking for highway heavyduty diesel engines and diesel sulfur
fuel under sections 202(a) and 211(c) of
the CAA, Proposed Rule at 65 FR 35430
(June 2, 2000), and Final Rule at 66 FR
5002 (January 18, 2001). However, there
is no requirement that the Administrator
propose or finalize the endangerment
and cause or contribute findings
concurrently with the related standards.
See 74 FR 66502 (December 15, 2009).
As explained in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding, nothing in section 202(a)
requires the EPA to propose or issue
endangerment and cause or contribute
findings in the same rulemaking, and
Congress left the EPA discretion to
choose an approach that satisfied the
requirements of section 202(a). See id.
The same analysis applies to section
231, which is analogous to section
202(a). The EPA is choosing to finalize
these findings at this time for a number
of reasons, including its previous
commitment to issue such findings in
response to a 2007 citizens’ petition.12
The Administrator has applied the
rulemaking provisions of CAA section
307(d) to this action, pursuant to CAA
section 307(d)(1)(V), which provides
that the provisions of 307(d) apply to
‘‘such other actions as the Administrator
may determine.’’ 13 CAA section 307(d)
provides specific procedural
requirements for the EPA to follow in
taking certain rulemaking actions under
the CAA, that apply in lieu of the
otherwise applicable provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553–557, and 706. See, CAA section
307(d)(1). Any standard-setting
rulemaking under section 231 will also
be subject to the notice and comment
rulemaking procedures under 307(d), as
provided in CAA section 307(d)(1)(F)
(applying the provisions of 307(d) to the
promulgation or revision of any aircraft
emission standard under section 231).
Thus, these findings were subject to the
same rulemaking procedures and
requirements, as applicable, as would
12 Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food
Safety, Friends of the Earth, International Center for
Technology Assessment, and Oceana, 2007: Petition
for Rulemaking Under the Clean Air Act to Reduce
the Emissions of Air Pollutants from Aircraft the
Contribute to Global Climate Change, December 31,
2007. Available at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/
aviation.htm (last accessed April 8, 2016). EPA,
2012: Response to the Petition for Rulemaking
Under the Clean Air Act to Reduce the Emission of
Air Pollutants from Aircraft that Contribute to
Global Climate Change, June 14, 2012. Available at
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
13 As the Administrator is applying the provisions
of section 307(d) to this rulemaking under section
307(d)(1)(V), we need not determine whether those
provisions would apply to this action under section
307(d)(1)(F).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54425
have applied if they had been part of a
standard-setting rulemaking.
C. The EPA’s Responsibilities Under the
Clean Air Act
The CAA provides broad authority to
combat air pollution to protect public
health and welfare and the
environment. Cars, trucks, construction
equipment, airplanes, and ships, as well
as a broad range of electricity
generation, industrial, commercial and
other facilities, are subject to various
CAA programs. Many of these programs
are targeted at ensuring protection of
public health and welfare with a margin
of safety, others are directed at
encouraging improved industrial
emissions performance and use of lesser
polluting technologies and processes,
and some address the prevention of
adverse environmental effects.
Implementation of the Act over the past
four decades has resulted in significant
reductions in air pollution that have
benefited human health and the
environment. The EPA’s duties
regarding aircraft air pollution
emissions under CAA section 231
reflect a combination of the CAA’s goals
to protect public health and welfare and
encourage improved emissions
performance. This is shown by section
231(a)(2)(A)’s directive that EPA first
identify whether emissions of aircraft
engine air pollutants cause or contribute
to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare (which is broadly defined in
section 302(h) of the CAA).14 This is
also shown by section 231(b)’s
subsequent requirement that EPA’s
standards, which may require improved
emissions performance over the status
quo, provide sufficient time for the
development and application of
requisite technology to meet emission
standards, after consideration of costs.
1. The EPA’s Regulation of Greenhouse
Gases
In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497
(2007), the Supreme Court found that
GHGs are air pollutants that can be
regulated under the CAA. The Court
held that the Administrator must
determine whether emissions of GHGs
from new motor vehicles cause or
contribute to air pollution which may
14 Previously the EPA has made the prerequisite
endangerment and cause or contribute findings
under CAA section 231(A) that formed the basis to
begin addressing the issue of various aircraft
pollutants including NOX aircraft pollution. U.S.
EPA, ‘‘Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and
Aircraft Engines, Emission Standards and Test
Procedures for Aircraft.’’ Final Rule, 38 FR 19088
(July 17, 1973). See also section IV.B.7.d of this
preamble for a discussion of previous NOX section
231(A) findings.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54426
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health and/or welfare, or whether
the science is too uncertain to make a
reasoned decision. In making these
decisions, the Administrator was bound
by the provisions of section 202(a) of the
CAA. The Supreme Court decision
resulted from a petition for rulemaking
under section 202(a) filed by more than
a dozen environmental, renewable
energy, and other organizations.
Following the Supreme Court
decision, the EPA proposed (74 FR
18886, April 24, 2009) and then
finalized (74 FR 66496, December 15,
2009) the 2009 Endangerment Finding,
which can be summarized as follows:
• Endangerment Finding: The
Administrator found that the thencurrent and projected concentrations of
the combined mix in the atmosphere of
the six well-mixed GHGs—CO2,
methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,
and sulfur hexafluoride—endanger the
public health and welfare of current and
future generations.
• Cause or Contribute Finding: The
Administrator found that the combined
emissions of the six well-mixed GHGs
from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines contribute to the GHG
pollution which threatens public health
and welfare.
The Administrator made both of these
findings with respect to the six wellmixed GHGs, recognizing that CAA
section 202(a) sources emit only four of
the six substances. The findings did not
themselves impose any requirements on
industry or other entities. However,
these findings compelled the EPA to
promulgate GHG emission standards for
new motor vehicles under section
202(a). Subsequently, in May 2010 the
EPA, in collaboration with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), finalized Phase 1 GHG
emission standards for light-duty
vehicles (2012–2016 model years).15
This was followed in August 2011 by
adoption of the first-ever GHG emission
standards for heavy-duty engines and
vehicles (2014–2018 model years).16 On
August 29, 2012, the EPA finalized the
second phase of the GHG emission
standards for light-duty vehicles (2017–
2025 model years), further reducing
GHG emissions from light-duty
vehicles.17 In 2014, the President
15 U.S. EPA, 2010: Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule, 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
16 U.S. EPA, 2011: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles;
Final Rule, 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
17 U.S. EPA, 2012: 2017 and Later Model Year
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
directed the EPA and the Department of
Transportation to set standards in 2016
that further increase fuel efficiency and
reduce GHG emissions from mediumand heavy-duty vehicles.18
The GHG rules for cars and trucks
have been supported by a broad range
of stakeholders, including states, major
automobile and truck manufacturers,
and environmental and labor
organizations. Together these new
standards for cars and trucks are
resulting in significant reductions in
GHG emissions, and over the lifetime of
these vehicles GHG emissions will have
been reduced more than 6.25 billion
metric tons.19 20
On June 25, 2013, President Obama
announced a Climate Action Plan that
set forth a series of executive actions to
further reduce GHGs, prepare the U.S.
for the impacts of climate change, and
lead international efforts to address
global climate change.21 As part of the
Climate Action Plan, the President
issued a Presidential Memorandum
directing the EPA to work expeditiously
to complete carbon pollution standards
for the power sector.22 In August 2015,
after notice and comment rulemaking,
the EPA finalized two carbon pollution
rulemakings: One for new, modified,
and reconstructed electric utility
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final
Rule, 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
18 Executive Office of the President, 2014:
Remarks by the President on Fuel Efficiency
Standards of Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,
Office of the Press Secretary, February 18. Available
at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
2014/02/18/remarks-president-fuel-efficiencystandards-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicl (last
accessed April 27, 2016).
19 U.S. EPA, 2012: EPA and NHTSA Set
Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and
Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017–2025
Cars and Light Trucks. Document No. EPA–420–F–
12–051, 10 pp. Available at http://www.epa.gov/
otaq/climate/documents/420f12051.pdf (last
accessed April 27, 2016). See also Table 7.4–2 in
U.S. EPA, 2012: Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final
Rulemaking for 2017–2025 Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and
Corporation Average Fuel Economy Standards,
EPA–420–R–12–016, 555 pp. Available at: https://
www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/
420r12016.pdf (last accessed April 27, 2016).
20 U.S. EPA, 2011: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium-and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles;
Final Rule, 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
21 Executive Office of the President, 2013: The
President’s Climate Action Plan, June 25, 21 pp.
Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/image/
president27sclimateactionplan.pdf (last accessed
April 8, 2016).
22 Executive Office of the President, 2013:
Presidential Memorandum—Power Sector Carbon
Pollution Standards, Office of the Press Secretary,
June 25. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the-press-office/2013/06/25/presidentialmemorandum-power-sector-carbon-pollutionstandards (last accessed April 8, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
generating units 23 and another for
existing power plants.24
In the Climate Action Plan, the
President also indicated that the United
States was working internationally to
make progress in a variety of areas and
specifically noted the progress being
made by ICAO to develop global CO2
emission standards for aircraft.25 The
final endangerment and cause or
contribute findings for aircraft GHG
emissions under section 231(a)(2)(A) of
the CAA are a preliminary but necessary
first step to begin to address GHG
emissions from the aviation sector, the
highest-emitting category of
transportation sources that the EPA has
not yet addressed. As presented in more
detail in Section V of this document,
total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions in
2014 represented 12 percent of GHG
emissions from the U.S. transportation
sector,26 and in 2010, the latest year
with complete global emissions data,
U.S. aircraft GHG emissions represented
29 percent of global aircraft GHG
emissions.27 28 U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions are projected to increase by
43 percent over the next two decades.29
23 U.S. EPA, 2015: Standards of Performance for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified,
and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric
Utility Generating Units; Final Rule, 80 FR 64510
(October 23, 2015).
24 U.S. EPA, 2014: Carbon Pollution Emission
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric
Utility Generating Units; Final Rule, 80 FR 64661
(October 23, 2015). On February 9, 2016 the
Supreme Court stayed this rule pending judicial
review. The Court’s stay order does not articulate
a basis for the stay and does not address the merits
of the rule.
25 Executive Office of the President, 2013: The
President’s Climate Action Plan, June 25, 21 pp.
Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/image/
president27sclimateactionplan.pdf (last accessed
April 8, 2016).
26 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp.,
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R–
16–002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14,
2016).
27 Ibid.
28 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum,
S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
¨
Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, pp. 599–670.
29 As discussed in section V.B.4.c, fuel burn
growth rates for air carriers and general aviation
aircraft operating on jet fuel are projected to grow
by 43 percent from 2010 to 2036, and this provides
a scaling factor for growth in GHG emissions which
would increase at a similar rate as the fuel burn by
2030, 2036, and 2040. FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace
Forecast Fiscal Years 2016–2036, 94 pp. Available
at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/
aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
See section V of this preamble for more
information about the data sources that
comprise the aircraft GHG emissions
inventory.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
2. Background on the Aircraft Petition,
the 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and the D.C. District Court
Decision
Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
directs the Administrator of the EPA to,
from time to time, propose aircraft
engine emissions standards applicable
to the emission of any air pollutant from
any classes of aircraft engines which in
her judgment causes or contributes to
air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.
On December 5, 2007, Friends of the
Earth, Oceana, the Center for Biological
Diversity, Earthjustice, and others
(Petitioners) sent a letter to the EPA
petitioning the Agency to undertake
rulemaking regarding GHG emissions
from aircraft.30 Specifically, Petitioners
requested that the EPA make a finding
that GHG emissions from aircraft
engines ‘‘may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health and welfare’’
and that the EPA promulgate standards
for GHG emissions from aircraft.
Following the Supreme Court’s
decision in Massachusetts v. EPA in
2007, the EPA issued an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in 2008
presenting information relevant to
potentially regulating GHGs under the
Act and soliciting public comment on
how to respond to the Court’s ruling and
the potential ramifications of the
Agency’s decision to regulate GHGs
under the CAA. This ANPR described
and solicited comment on numerous
petitions the Agency had received to
regulate GHG emissions from both
stationary and mobile sources,
including aircraft. 73 FR 44354, 44468–
73 (July 30, 2008). With regard to
aircraft, the Agency sought comment on
the impact of aircraft operations on GHG
emissions and the potential for
reductions in GHG emissions from these
operations.
On July 31, 2008, Earthjustice, on
behalf of Petitioners, notified the EPA of
its intent to file suit under CAA section
304(a) against the EPA for the Agency’s
alleged unreasonable delay in
Aerospace_Forecast.pdf (last accessed April 8,
2016).
30 Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food
Safety, Friends of the Earth, International Center for
Technology Assessment, and Oceana, 2007: Petition
for Rulemaking Under the Clean Air Act to Reduce
the Emissions of Air Pollutants from Aircraft the
Contribute to Global Climate Change, December 5,
26 pp. Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
aviation.htm (last accessed April 8, 2016) and
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0828.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
responding to its aircraft petition and in
making an endangerment finding under
section 231. On June 11, 2010,
Petitioners filed a complaint against the
EPA in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia claiming that,
among other things, the EPA had
unreasonably delayed because it had
failed to answer the 2007 Petition and
to determine whether GHG emissions
from aircraft cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health
and/or welfare.
The District Court found that while
CAA section 231 generally confers
broad discretion to the EPA in
determining what standards to
promulgate, section 231(a)(2)(A)
imposed a nondiscretionary duty on the
EPA to make a finding with respect to
endangerment from aircraft GHG
emissions. Center for Biological
Diversity, et al. v. EPA, 794 F. Supp. 2d
151 (D.D.C. 2011). This ruling was
issued in response to the EPA’s motion
to dismiss the case on jurisdictional
grounds and did not address the merits
of the Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the
Agency’s alleged unreasonable delay.
Therefore, it did not include an order
for the EPA to make such a finding by
a certain date. In a subsequent ruling on
the merits, the Court found that the
Plaintiffs had not shown that the EPA
had unreasonably delayed in making an
endangerment determination regarding
GHG emissions from aircraft. Center for
Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA, No.
1:10–985 (D.D.C. March, 20, 2012).
Thus, the Court did not find the EPA to
be liable based on the Plaintiffs’ claims
and did not place the Agency under a
remedial order to make an
endangerment finding or to issue
standards. The Plaintiffs did not appeal
this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (also
called the ‘‘D.C. Circuit’’ in this
document).
The EPA issued a Response to the
Aircraft Petition 31 on June 27, 2012,
stating our intention to move forward
with a proposed endangerment finding
for aircraft GHG emissions under
section 231, while explaining that it
would take the Agency significant time
to complete this action. The EPA
explained that the Agency would not
begin this effort until after the U.S.
Court of Appeals completed its thenpending review of the previous section
202 Endangerment Finding, since the
then-awaited ruling might provide
31 U.S. EPA, 2012: Memorandum in Response to
Petition Regarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Aircraft, June 14, 11 pp. Available at http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm (last accessed April
8, 2016) and Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0828.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54427
important guidance for the EPA in
conducting future GHG endangerment
findings. The EPA further explained
that after receiving the Court of Appeal’s
ruling, it would take at least 22 months
from that point for the Agency to
conduct an additional finding regarding
aircraft GHG emissions.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals
upheld the EPA’s section 202 findings
in a decision of a three-judge panel on
June 26, 2012, and denied petitions for
rehearing of that decision on December
20, 2012. Coalition for Responsible
Regulation, Inc., v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102
(D.C. Cir. 2012), reh’g denied 2012 U.S.
App. LEXIS 26315, 25997 (D.C. Cir
2012).32 Given these rulings, we are
proceeding with these findings
regarding aircraft engine GHG emissions
as a further step toward responding to
the 2007 Petition for Rulemaking.
D. U.S. Aircraft Regulations and the
International Community
The EPA and the FAA traditionally
work within the standard-setting
process of ICAO’s Committee on
Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP or the Committee) to establish
international emission standards and
related requirements, which individual
nations later adopt into domestic law in
fulfillment of their obligations under the
Convention on International Civil
Aviation (Chicago Convention).
Historically, under this approach,
international emission standards have
first been adopted by ICAO, and
subsequently the EPA has initiated
rulemakings under CAA section 231 to
establish domestic standards that are at
least as stringent as ICAO’s standards.
This approach has been affirmed as a
reasonable way to implement the
Agency’s duties under CAA section 231
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit. Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Air
Agencies (NACAA) v. EPA, 489 F.3d
1221, 1230–32 (D.C. Cir. 2007). After
EPA promulgates aircraft engine
emissions standards, CAA section 232
requires the FAA to issue regulations to
ensure compliance with these standards
when issuing certificates under its
authority under Title 49 of the United
32 Petitions for certiorari were filed in the
Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted six
of those petitions but ‘‘agreed to decide only one
question: ‘Whether EPA permissibly determined
that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from
new motor vehicles triggered permitting
requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary
sources that emit greenhouse gases.’ ’’ Utility Air
Reg. Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2438 (2014);
see also Virginia v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 418 (2013), Pac.
Legal Found. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 418 (2013), and
CRR, 134 S. Ct. 468 (2013) (all denying cert.). Thus,
the Supreme Court did not disturb the D.C. Circuit’s
holding that affirmed the 2009 Endangerment
Finding.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54428
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
States Code. These final endangerment
and cause or contribute findings for
aircraft GHG emissions are in
preparation for this domestic emissions
standards rulemaking process.
1. International Regulations and U.S.
Obligations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
The EPA has worked with the FAA
since 1973, and later with ICAO, to
develop domestic and international
standards and other recommended
practices pertaining to aircraft engine
emissions. ICAO is a United Nations
(UN) specialized agency, established in
1944 by the Chicago Convention, ‘‘in
order that international civil aviation
may be developed in a safe and orderly
manner and that international air
transport services may be established on
the basis of equality of opportunity and
operated soundly and economically.’’ 33
ICAO sets international standards and
regulations for aviation safety, security,
efficiency, capacity, and environmental
protection and serves as the forum for
cooperation in all fields of international
civil aviation. ICAO works with the
Chicago Convention’s member states
and global aviation organizations to
develop international Standards and
Recommended Practices (SARPs),
which member states reference when
developing their legally enforceable
national civil aviation regulations. The
United States is currently one of 191
participating ICAO member states.34 35
In the interest of global harmonization
and international air commerce, the
Chicago Convention urges its member
states to collaborate in securing the
highest practicable degree of uniformity
in regulations, standards, procedures
and organization. The Chicago
Convention also recognizes that member
states may adopt standards that are
more stringent than those agreed upon
by ICAO. Any member state which finds
it impracticable to comply in all
respects with any international standard
or procedure, or that deems it necessary
to adopt regulations or practices
differing in any particular respect from
those established by an international
standard, is required to give immediate
notification to ICAO of the differences
between its own practice and that
33 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil
Aviation, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp.
Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/
Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last accessed April 20,
2016).
34 Members of ICAO’s Assembly are generally
termed member states or contracting states. These
terms are used interchangeably throughout this
preamble.
35 There are currently 191 contracting states
according to ICAO’s Web site: www.icao.int (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
established by the international
standard.36
ICAO’s work on the environment
focuses primarily on those problems
that benefit most from a common and
coordinated approach on a worldwide
basis, namely aircraft noise and engine
emissions. SARPs for the certification of
aircraft noise and aircraft engine
emissions are covered by Annex 16 of
the Chicago Convention. To continue to
address aviation environmental issues,
in 2004, ICAO established three
environmental goals: (1) Limit or reduce
the number of people affected by
significant aircraft noise; (2) limit or
reduce the impact of aviation emissions
on local air quality; and (3) limit or
reduce the impact of aviation GHG
emissions on the global climate.
The Chicago Convention has a
number of other features that govern
international commerce. First, member
states that wish to use aircraft in
international transportation must adopt
emissions standards and other
recommended practices that are at least
as stringent as ICAO’s standards.
Member states may ban the use of any
aircraft within their airspace that does
not meet ICAO standards.37 Second, the
Chicago Convention indicates that
member states are required to recognize
the airworthiness certificates of any
state whose standards are at least as
stringent as ICAO’s standards.38 Third,
to ensure that international commerce is
not unreasonably constrained, a member
state which elects to adopt more
stringent domestic emission standards is
obligated to notify ICAO of the
differences between its standards and
ICAO standards.39
ICAO’s CAEP, which consists of
members and observers from states,
intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations
representing aviation industry and
environmental interests, undertakes
ICAO’s technical work in the
environmental field. The Committee is
36 ICAO, 2006: Doc 7300-Convention on
International Civil Aviation, Ninth Edition,
Document 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at http://
www.icao.int/publications/Documents/
7300_9ed.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016).
37 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil
Aviation, Article 87, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/
9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/
publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
38 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil
Aviation, Article 33, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/
9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/
publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
39 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil
Aviation, Article 38, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/
9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/
publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
responsible for evaluating, researching,
and recommending measures to the
ICAO Council that address the
environmental impacts of international
civil aviation. CAEP’s terms of reference
indicate that ‘‘CAEP’s assessments and
proposals are pursued taking into
account: Technical feasibility;
environmental benefit; economic
reasonableness; interdependencies of
measures (for example, among others,
measures taken to minimize noise and
emissions); developments in other
fields; and international and national
programs.’’ 40 The ICAO Council
reviews and adopts the
recommendations made by CAEP. It
then reports to the ICAO Assembly, the
highest body of the Organization, where
the main policies on aviation
environmental protection are adopted
and translated into Assembly
Resolutions. If ICAO adopts a CAEP
proposal for a new environmental
standard, it then becomes part of ICAO
standards and recommended practices
(Annex 16 to the Chicago
Convention).41 42
At CAEP meetings, the United States
is represented by the FAA and plays an
active role.43 The EPA has historically
been a principal participant in various
ICAO/CAEP working groups and other
international venues, assisting and
advising FAA on aviation emissions,
technology, and environmental policy
matters. In turn, the FAA assists and
advises the EPA on aviation
environmental issues, technology and
certification matters.
The first international standards and
recommended practices for aircraft
engine emissions were recommended by
CAEP’s predecessor, the Committee on
Aircraft Engine Emissions (CAEE), and
40 ICAO: CAEP Terms of Reference. Available at
http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/
Pages/Caep.aspx#ToR (last accessed April 27,
2016).
41 ICAO, 2008: Aircraft Engine Emissions,
International Standards and Recommended
Practices, Environmental Protection, Annex 16,
Volume II, Third Edition, July, 110 pp. Available at
http://www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/
cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016). The
ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is found on page 19 of
the ICAO Products & Services 2016 catalog and is
copyright protected; Order No. AN16–2.
42 CAEP develops new emission standards based
on an assessment of the technical feasibility, cost,
and environmental benefit of potential
requirements.
43 Pursuant to the President’s memorandum of
August 11, 1960 (and related Executive Order No.
10883 from 1960), the Interagency Group on
International Aviation (IGIA) was established to
facilitate coordinated recommendations to the
Secretary of State on issues pertaining to
international aviation. The DOT/FAA is the chair of
IGIA, and as such, the FAA represents the U.S. on
environmental matters at CAEP.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
adopted by ICAO in 1981.44 These
standards limited aircraft engine
emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon
monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX). The 1981 standards applied to
newly manufactured engines, which are
those engines built after the effective
date of the regulations—also referred to
as in-production engines. In 1993, ICAO
adopted a CAEP/2 proposal to tighten
the original NOX standard by 20 percent
and amend the test procedures.45 These
1993 standards applied both to newly
certified turbofan engines, which are
those engine models that received their
initial type certificate after the effective
date of the regulations—also referred to
as newly certified engines or new
engine designs—and to in-production
engines, but with different effective
dates for newly certified engines and inproduction engines. In 1995, CAEP/3
recommended a further tightening of the
NOX standards by 16 percent and
additional test procedure amendments,
but in 1997 the ICAO Council rejected
this stringency proposal and approved
only the test procedure amendments. At
the CAEP/4 meeting in 1998, the
Committee adopted a similar 16 percent
NOX reduction proposal, which ICAO
approved in 1998. The CAEP/4
standards applied only to new engine
designs certified (or newly certified
engines) after December 31, 2003 (i.e.,
unlike the CAEP/2 standards, the CAEP/
4 requirements did not apply to inproduction engines). In 2004, CAEP/6
recommended a 12 percent NOX
reduction, which ICAO approved in
2005.46 47 The CAEP/6 standards applied
to new engine designs certified after
December 31, 2007. In 2010, CAEP/8
recommended a further tightening of the
NOX standards by 15 percent for new
44 ICAO, 2008: Aircraft Engine Emissions:
Foreword, International Standards and
Recommended Practices, Environmental Protection,
Annex 16, Volume II, Third Edition, July, 110 pp.
Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/
catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 8,
2016). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is found on
page 19 of the ICAO Products & Services 2016
catalog and is copyright protected; Order No.
AN16–2.
45 CAEP conducts its work over a period of years.
Each work cycle is numbered sequentially and that
identifier is used to differentiate the results from
one CAEP to another by convention. The first
technical meeting on aircraft emission standards
was CAEP’s successor, i.e., CAEE. The first meeting
of CAEP, therefore, is referred to as CAEP/2.
46 CAEP/5 did not address new aircraft engine
emission standards.
47 ICAO, 2008: Aircraft Engine Emissions, Annex
16, Volume II, Third Edition, July 2008,
Amendment 5 effective on July 11, 2005, 110 pp.
Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/
catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 8,
2016). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is found on
page 19 of the ICAO Products & Services 2016
catalog and is copyright protected; Order No.
AN16–2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
54429
engine designs certified after December
31, 2013.48 49 The Committee also
recommended that the CAEP/6
standards be applied to in-production
engines (eliminating the production of
CAEP/4 compliant engines with the
exception of spare engines), and ICAO
approved these recommendations in
2011.50
emissions standard is an important part
of ICAO’s comprehensive set of
measures.
2. The International Civil Aviation
Organization’s Reasons for Addressing
Aircraft GHG Emissions
In October 2010, the 37th Assembly
(Resolution A37–19) of ICAO requested
the development of an ICAO CO2
emissions standard.51 The Resolution
provided a framework towards the
achievement of an environmentally
sustainable future for international
aviation. With this Resolution, the ICAO
Assembly agreed to a global aspirational
goal for international aviation of
improving annual fuel efficiency by two
percent up to the year 2050, and
stabilizing CO2 emissions at 2020
levels.52 Reducing climate impacts of
international aviation is a critical
element of ICAO’s strategic objective of
achieving environmental protection and
sustainable development of air
transport. ICAO is currently pursuing a
comprehensive set of measures to
reduce aviation’s climate impact,
including lower-carbon alternative
fuels, CO2 emissions technology-based
standards, operational improvements,
and market based measures. The
development and adoption of a CO2
As required by the CAA, the EPA has
been engaged in reducing harmful air
pollution from aircraft engines for over
40 years, regulating gaseous exhaust
emissions, smoke, and fuel venting from
aircraft engines.53 We have periodically
revised these regulations. In a 1997
rulemaking, for example, we made our
emission standards and test procedures
more consistent with those of ICAO’s
CAEP for turbofan engines used in
commercial aviation with rated thrusts
greater than 26.7 kilonewtons.54 These
ICAO requirements are generally
referred to as CAEP/2 standards.55 The
1997 rulemaking included new NOX
emission standards for newly
manufactured commercial turbofan
engines (as described earlier, those
engines built after the effective date of
the regulations that were already
certified to pre-existing standards—also
referred to as in-production engines) 56
and for newly certified commercial
turbofan engines (as described earlier,
those engine models that received their
initial type certificate after the effective
date of the regulations—also referred to
as new engine designs).57 It also
included a CO emission standard for inproduction commercial turbofan
engines.58 In 2005, we promulgated
more stringent NOX emission standards
for newly certified commercial turbofan
48 CAEP/7 did not address new aircraft engine
emission standards.
49 ICAO, 2010: Committee on Aviation
Environmental Protection (CAEP), Report of the
Eighth Meeting, Montreal, February 1–12, 2010,
CAEP/8–WP/80 Available in Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0687.
50 ICAO, 2014: Aircraft Engine Emissions, Annex
16, Volume II, Third Edition, July 2008,
Amendment 8, 108 pp. CAEP/8 corresponds to
Amendment 7 effective on July 18, 2011. Available
at http://www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/
cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016). The
ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is found on page 19 of
the ICAO Products & Services 2016 catalog and is
copyright protected; Order No. AN16–2/E/11.
51 A consolidated statement of continuing
policies and practices related to environmental
protection (known as Assembly Resolutions) is
revised and updated by the Council every three
years for adoption by the ICAO Assembly. ICAO,
2010: Resolutions Adopted by the Assembly, 37th
Session, Montreal, September 29–October 8, 2010,
Provisional Edition, November 2010.
52 The global aspirational goal for international
aviation of improving annual fuel efficiency by 2
percent is for the annual international civil aviation
in-service fleet. Fuel efficiency is measured on the
basis of the volume of fuel used per revenue tonne
kilometer performed. ICAO CAEP, 2009:
Aspirational Goals and Implementation Options,
Working Paper HLM–ENV/09–WP/5, 5 pp.
Available at http://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/
MA/High%20Level%202009/hlmenv_wp005_en.pdf
(last accessed April 8, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3. EPA’s Regulation of Aircraft
Emissions and the Relationship of the
Final Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings to International
Aircraft Standards
53 U.S. EPA, 1973: Emission Standards and Test
Procedures for Aircraft; Final Rule, 38 FR 19088
(July 17, 1973).
54 U.S. EPA, 1997: Control of Air Pollution from
Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards
and Test rocedures; Final Rule, 62 FR 25355 (May
8, 1997).
55 The full CAEP membership meets every three
years and each session is denoted by a numerical
identifier. For example, the second meeting of
CAEP is referred to as CAEP/2, and CAEP/2
occurred in 1994.
56 This does not mean that in 1997 we
promulgated requirements for the re-certification or
retrofit of existing in-use engines.
57 In the existing EPA regulations, 40 CFR part 87,
newly certified aircraft engines are described as
engines of a type or model of which the date of
manufacture of the first individual production
model was after the implementation date. Newly
manufactured aircraft engines are characterized as
engines of a type or model for which the date of
manufacturer of the individual engine was after the
implementation date.
58 U.S. EPA, 1997: Control of Air Pollution from
Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards
and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 62 FR 25355 (May
8, 1997).
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54430
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
engines.59 That final rule brought the
U.S. standards closer to alignment with
ICAO CAEP/4 requirements that became
effective in 2004. In 2012, we issued
more stringent two-tiered NOX emission
standards for newly certified and inproduction commercial and noncommercial turbofan aircraft engines,
and these NOX standards align with
ICAO’s CAEP/6 and CAEP/8
requirements that became effective in
2013 and 2014, respectively.60 61 The
EPA’s actions to regulate certain
pollutants emitted from aircraft engines
come directly from the authority in
section 231 of the CAA, and we have
aligned the U.S. emissions requirements
with those promulgated by ICAO. All of
these previous emission standards have
generally been considered antibacksliding standards (most aircraft
engines meet the standards), which are
technology-following.
In addressing CO2 emissions, ICAO
has moved to regulating a whole
aircraft. ICAO explained its decision to
regulate pollutant emissions from the
whole aircraft in a 2013 ICAO circular.62
Several factors are considered when
addressing whole-aircraft CO2
emissions, as CO2 emissions are
influenced by aerodynamics, weight,
and engine technology. Since the
aircraft-specific characteristics of
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
59 U.S. EPA, 2005: Control of Air Pollution from
Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards
and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 70 FR 69664
(November 17, 2005).
60 U.S. EPA, 2012: Control of Air Pollution from
Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards
and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 77 FR 36342 (June
18, 2012).
61 While ICAO’s standards were not limited to
‘‘commercial’’ aircraft engines, our 1997 standards
were explicitly limited to commercial engines, as
our finding that NOX and carbon monoxide
emissions from aircraft engines cause or contribute
to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare
was so limited. See 62 FR 25358 (May 8, 1997). In
the 2012 rulemaking, we expanded the scope of that
finding and of our standards pursuant to CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) to include such emissions from
both commercial and non-commercial aircraft
engines based on the physical and operational
similarities between commercial and
noncommercial civilian aircraft and to bring our
standards into full alignment with ICAO’s.
62 ICAO, 2013: CAEP/9 Agreed Certification
Requirement for the Aeroplane CO2 Emissions
Standard, Circular (Cir) 337, 40 pp, AN/192.
Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/
catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 8,
2016). The ICAO Circular 337 is found on page 87
of the ICAO Products & Services 2016 catalog and
is copyright protected; Order No. CIR337.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
aerodynamics and weight affect fuel
consumption, they ultimately affect CO2
engine exhaust emissions. Rather than
viewing CO2 as a measurable emission
from the engine alone, ICAO addresses
CO2 emissions as an aircraft-specific
characteristic based on fuel
consumption.
The EPA has worked diligently over
the past six years within the ICAO/
CAEP process on a range of technical
issues regarding aircraft CO2 emission
standards. The 2015 ANPR discussed
the issues arising from those
international proceedings and requested
public comment on a variety of issues
to assist the Agency in developing its
position with regard to these issues, to
help ensure transparency and obtain
views on aircraft engine GHG emission
standards that it might potentially adopt
under the CAA.
As described in the 2015 ANPR, in
2013 CAEP agreed on a metric 63 to
compare CO2 emissions from aircraft.
The CO2 metric value is a comparative
metric meant to differentiate between
generations of aircraft and to equitably
capture improvements in aerospace
technology that contribute to a
reduction in the airplane CO2 emissions.
The CO2 metric is not intended for use
as a direct measure of CO2 emissions
rates or operational fuel burn, rather it
is a comparative measure of technology
on different aircraft.
Using this metric, CAEP considered
and analyzed 10 different stringency
levels for both in-production and new
type standards, comparing aircraft with
a similar level of technology on the
same stringency level. These levels were
generically referred to numerically from
‘‘1’’ as the least stringent to ‘‘10’’ as the
most stringent, which correspond to the
upper and lower lines of constant
63 The CO metric is the average of three cruise
2
test points normalized by a dimensionless
parameter representing aircraft fuselage size. The
units of the metric value are kilograms of fuel
burned per kilometer flown. However, because the
metric is a normalized value it cannot be used to
estimate operational fuel burn or emission rates of
aircraft. The metric value is described in detail in
both ICAO Circular 337 and in section D of the 2015
ANPR. ICAO, 2013: CAEP/9 Agreed Certification
Requirement for the Aeroplane CO2 Emissions
Standard, Circular (Cir) 337, 40 pp., AN/192,
Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/
catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 27,
2016). The ICAO Circular 337 is found on page 87
of the catalog and is copyright protected; Order No.
CIR337.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
technology, respectively, from the 2015
ANPR. The 2015 ANPR described the
range of stringency levels under
consideration at CAEP as falling into
three categories as follows: (1) CO2
stringency levels that could impact 64
only the oldest, least efficient aircraft inproduction around the world, (2)
middle range CO2 stringency levels that
could impact many aircraft currently inproduction and comprising much of the
current operational fleet, and (3) CO2
stringency levels that could impact
aircraft that have either just entered
production or are in final design phase
but will be in-production by the time
the international CO2 standards
becomes effective.65
At its meeting in February of 2016,
CAEP agreed on an initial set of
international standards to regulate CO2
emissions from aircraft.66 It was agreed
that these international standards
should apply to both new type and inproduction aircraft. The applicability
date for the in-production standard was
agreed to be later than for the new type
standard. CAEP explained that this will
allow manufacturers and certification
authorities additional preparation time
to accommodate the standards. The new
type and in-production stringency levels
for smaller and larger aircraft were
agreed to be set at different levels to
reflect the range of technology being
used and the availability of new fuel
burn reduction technologies that vary
across aircraft of differing size and
weight. Table II.1 provides a brief
overview of the applicability dates and
stringency levels of the standards agreed
to at ICAO/CAEP. As described earlier,
CAEP considered and analyzed 10
different stringency levels for both inproduction and new type standards
(from 1 as the least stringent to 10 as the
most stringent).
64 As described in the 2015 ANPR, the aircraft
shown in [Figure II.1 and II.2] are in-production
and current in-development. These aircraft could be
impacted by an in-production standard in that, if
they were above the standard, they would need to
either implement a technology response or go out
of production. For a new type only standard there
will be no regulatory requirement for these aircraft
to respond.
65 80 FR at 37797.
66 Further, the EPA anticipates that the 39th ICAO
Assembly will approve these CO2 emissions
standards in October 2016, and that subsequently,
ICAO will formally adopt these CO2 emissions
standards in March 2017.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54431
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE II.1—STRINGENCY LEVELS AND APPLICABILITY DATES FOR ICAO/CAEP CO2 EMISSION STANDARDS
New type aircraft 67 maximum permitted
CO2 metric value
Aircraft MTOM thresholds (kg)
Stringency Level ......................................
Applicability Date .....................................
>5,700 to <60,000 ...................................
Horizontal Transition 68 ............................
60,000 to ∼70,000 ...................................
> ∼70,000 ................................................
Application for a new type certificate or a
change to an existing type certificate.
Production Cut Off ...................................
A5
In-production
aircraft
maximum
permitted
CO2 metric
value
............................................................
...............................................................
B3
E 8.5 .........................................................
2020 .........................................................
(2023 for planes with less than 19 seats)
n/a ............................................................
F7
2023
C
D
2028
10¥2.73780∂(0.681310*log 10(MTOM))∂(¥0.0277861*(log 10(MTOM))2)
A Equation
of ICAO Stringency Option #5: MV =
of ICAO Stringency Option #3: MV = 10¥2.57535∂(0.609766*log 10(MTOM))∂(¥0.0191302*(log 10(MTOM))2)
of New Type transition—60,000 to 70,395 kg: MV = 0.764
D Equation of In-production transition—60,000 to 70,107 kg: MV = 0.797
E Equation of ICAO Stringency Option #8.5: MV = 10¥2.57535∂(0.609766*log 10(MTOM))∂(¥0.0191302*(log 10(MTOM))2)
F Equation of ICAO Stringency Option #7: MV = 10¥1.39353∂(¥0.020517*log 10(MTOM))∂(0.0593831*(log 10(MTOM))2)
B Equation
C Equation
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
Figures II.1 and II.2 show a graphical
depiction of both the new type and inproduction standards compared against
the lines of constant technology
described in the 2015 ANPR and CO2
metric value levels of current (as of
February 2016) in-production and in-
development 69 aircraft. The aircraft
data shown were generated by the EPA
using a commercially available aircraft
modeling tool called PIANO.70 It should
be noted that a number of the aircraft
currently shown as in-production are
expected to go out of production and be
replaced by known in-development
aircraft prior to both the new type and
the in-production CO2 standards going
into effect internationally.
67 ‘‘In Development’’ aircraft shown in Figures II.1
and II.2 are the aircraft that were in development
by manufacturers at the time the 2015 ANPR was
published.
68 Stringency lines above and below 60,000
kilograms (MTOM) are connected by a horizontal
transition starting at 60,000 kilograms (MTOM) and
continuing right (increasing mass) until it intersects
with the next level.
69 Aircraft that are currently in-development but
will be in production by the applicability dates.
These could be new types or significant partial
redesigned aircraft.
70 PIANO (Project Interactive Analysis and
Optimization), Aircraft Design and Analysis
Software by Dr. Dimitri Simos, Lissys Limited, UK,
1990–present; Available at www.piano.aero (last
accessed April 8, 2016). This is a commercially
available aircraft design and performance software
suite used across the industry and academia. This
model contains non-manufacturer provided
estimates of performance of various aircraft.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54432
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
FIGURE 11.1
ICAO C02 EMISSION STANDARDS (MTOM IN KILOGRAMS)
4.0
~--------------------------------------------------------------
3.5
Upper bound for
Stringency (least
stringent option I
Levell)
,,
3.0
~,,
,,
, ,,' /
2.5
,,'
/
,
/
/
Cll
::J
111
>
u
..
·;:
Cll
~
2.0
Lower bound for
Stringency (Most
stringent option I
LevellO)
~
...
u
...
:.;:
111
1.5
--Lines of Constant Technology
+
•
0.5
In-Production Aircraft
In Development Aircraft
----ICAO In-Production Standard
-
-ICAO New Type Standard
0.0 +--------.---------.--------.--------.---------.--------.---100000
200000
400000
0
300000
500000
600000
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
ER15AU16.000</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
MTOM (Kilograms)
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
54433
FIGURE 11.2
ICAO C02 EMISSION STANDARDS (Zoomed to show <100,000 MTOM IN
KILOGRAMS)
1.2
Upper bound for
Stringency (least
1.0 + - - - - - - - - - - - 1
stringent option I
Levell)
•
•
0.8
•
Cll
::J
~
u
·;:
~ 0.6
Lower bound for
Stringency (Most
stringent option I
LevellO)
~
E
..
:.;:
u
- - Lines of Constant Technology
0.2
•
In-Production Aircraft
•
In Development Aircraft
----ICAO In-Production Standard
-
0.0
-ICAO New Type Standard
+-----~-----r----~-----,------r-----~----~----~-----r-----,
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
In this final action, the EPA is
promulgating findings under section
231(a)(2) that emissions of the six wellmixed GHGs from certain classes of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
engines used in covered aircraft cause or
contribute to endangering air pollution.
The EPA is not yet issuing proposed or
final emission standards, nor is the EPA
taking final action that prejudges what
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
future standards will be. Instead, the
EPA’s final endangerment and cause or
contribute findings for aircraft GHG
emissions are in preparation for a
subsequent, expected domestic
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
ER15AU16.001</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
MTOM (Kilograms)
54434
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
rulemaking process to adopt future GHG
emissions standards. If the ICAO
Assembly, in October 2016, approves
the final CO2 standards and
subsequently ICAO formally adopts the
final CO2 standards in March 2017, the
EPA’s standards will need to be at least
as stringent as the ICAO CO2 aircraft
standards for the United States to meet
its treaty obligations under the Chicago
Convention. As a result of these positive
findings, the EPA is obligated under
section 231 of the CAA to set emission
standards applicable to GHG emissions
from the classes of aircraft engines
included in the contribution finding, no
matter the outcome of ICAO’s future
actions in October 2016 and March
2017.
III. Legal Framework for This Action
The EPA has previously made an
endangerment finding for GHGs under
Title II of the CAA, in the 2009
Endangerment Finding for section
202(a) source categories. In the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the EPA
explained its legal framework for
making an endangerment finding under
section 202(a) of the CAA (74 FR 18886,
18890–94 (April 24, 2009), and 74 FR
66496, 66505–10 (December 15, 2009)).
The text in section 202(a) that was the
basis for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding addresses ‘‘the emission of any
air pollutant from any class or classes of
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.’’ Similarly,
section 231(a)(2)(A) concerns ‘‘the
emission of any air pollutant from any
class or classes of aircraft engines which
in [the Administrator’s] judgment
causes, or contributes to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.’’
Thus, the text of the CAA section
concerning aircraft emissions in section
231(a)(2)(A) mirrors the text of CAA
section 202(a) that was the basis for the
2009 Endangerment Finding.
The EPA’s approach in the 2009
Endangerment Finding (described below
in sections III.A and III.B) was affirmed
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in Coalition for Responsible
Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102
(D.C. Cir. 2012), reh’g denied 2012 U.S.
App. LEXIS 26313, 26315, 25997 (D.C.
Cir. 2012) (CRR). In particular, the D.C.
Circuit ruled that the 2009
Endangerment Finding (including the
Agency’s denial of petitions for
reconsideration of that Finding) was not
arbitrary or capricious, was consistent
with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
in Massachusetts v. EPA and the text
and structure of the CAA, and was
adequately supported by the
administrative record. CRR, 684 F.3d at
116–128. The D.C. Circuit found that the
EPA had based its decision on
‘‘substantial scientific evidence’’ and
noted that the EPA’s reliance on major
scientific assessments was consistent
with the methods that decision-makers
often use to make a science-based
judgment. Id. at 120–121. Petitions for
certiorari were filed in the Supreme
Court, and the Supreme Court granted
six of those petitions but ‘‘agreed to
decide only one question: ‘Whether EPA
permissibly determined that its
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions
from new motor vehicles triggered
permitting requirements under the
Clean Air Act for stationary sources that
emit greenhouse gases.’ ’’ Utility Air Reg.
Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2438
(2014); see also Virginia v. EPA, 134 S.
Ct. 418 (2013), Pac. Legal Found. v.
EPA, 134 S. Ct. 418 (2013), and CRR,
134 S. Ct. 468 (2013) (all denying cert.).
Thus, the Supreme Court did not
disturb the D.C. Circuit’s holding that
affirmed the 2009 Endangerment
Finding. Accordingly, the Agency finds
that it is reasonable to use that same
approach under section 231(a)(2)(A)’s
similar endangerment text, and as
explained in the following discussion, is
acting consistently with that judicially
sanctioned framework for purposes of
this final section 231 finding.
Two provisions of the CAA govern
this final action. Section 231(a)(2)(A)
sets forth a two-part predicate for
regulatory action under that provision:
Endangerment and cause or contribute.
Section 302 of the Act contains
definitions of the terms ‘‘air pollutant’’
and ‘‘welfare’’ used in section
231(a)(2)(A). These statutory provisions
are discussed below.
A. Section 231(a)(2)(A)—Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute
As noted above, section 231(a)(2)(A)
of the CAA (like section 202(a)) calls for
the Administrator to exercise her
judgment and make two separate
determinations: first, whether the
relevant kind of air pollution—here, the
six well-mixed GHGs—may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare, and second, whether
emissions of any air pollutant from
classes of the sources in question
(aircraft engines under section 231 and
new motor vehicles or engines under
section 202) cause or contribute to this
air pollution.71
71 See CRR, 684 F.3d at 117 (explaining two-part
analysis under section 202(a)).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The Administrator interprets the twopart test required under section
231(a)(2)(A) as being the same as that
explained in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding. See 74 FR 66505–06. As in the
section 202(a) context, this analysis
entails a scientific judgment by the
Administrator about the potential risks
posed by GHG emissions to public
health and welfare. See CRR, 684 F.3d
at 117–118.72
In making this scientific judgment,
the Administrator is guided by five
principles. First, the Administrator is
required to protect public health and
welfare. She is not asked to wait until
harm has occurred but instead must be
ready to take regulatory action to
prevent harm before it occurs.73 The
Administrator is thus to consider both
current and future risks.
Second, the Administrator is to
exercise judgment by weighing risks,
assessing potential harms, and making
reasonable projections of future trends
and possibilities. It follows that when
exercising her judgment the
Administrator balances the likelihood
and severity of effects. This balance
involves a sliding scale: on one end the
severity of the effects may be significant,
but the likelihood low, while on the
other end the severity may be less
significant, but the likelihood high.74 At
different points along this scale, the
Administrator is permitted to find
endangerment. Accordingly, the
Administrator need not set a precise or
minimum threshold of risk or harm as
part of making an endangerment
finding, but rather may base her
determination on ‘‘ ‘a lesser risk of
greater harm . . . or a greater risk of
lesser harm’ or any combination in
between.’’ CRR, 684 F.3d at 123 (quoting
Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d, 1, 18 (D.C.
Cir. 1976)).
Third, because scientific knowledge is
constantly evolving, the Administrator
may be called upon to make decisions
while recognizing the uncertainties and
limitations of the data or information
available, as risks to public health or
72 When agencies such as the EPA make
determinations based on review of scientific data
within their technical expertise, those decisions are
given an ‘‘extreme degree of deference’’ by the
courts. As the D.C. Circuit noted in reviewing the
2009 Endangerment Finding, ‘‘although we perform
a searching and careful inquiry into the facts
underlying the agency’s decisions, we will presume
the validity of the agency action as long as a
rational basis for it is presented.’’ CRR, 684 F.3d at
120 (internal citations and marks omitted).
73 See id. at 121–122.
74 See id. at 122–123 (noting that the § 202(a)(1)
inquiry ‘‘necessarily entails a case-by-case, sliding
scale approach’’ because endangerment is
‘‘ ‘composed of reciprocal elements of risk and
harm, or probability and severity’ ’’ (quoting Ethyl
Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d, 1, 18 (D.C. Cir. 1976)).
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
welfare may involve the frontiers of
scientific or medical knowledge.75 At
the same time, the Administrator must
exercise reasoned decision making, and
avoid speculative inquiries.
Fourth, the Administrator is to
consider the cumulative impact of
sources of a pollutant in assessing the
risks from air pollution, and is not to
look only at the risks attributable to a
single source or class of sources. We
additionally note that in making an
endangerment finding, the
Administrator is not limited to
considering only those impacts that can
be traced to the amount of air pollution
directly attributable to the subject
source classes. Such an approach would
collapse the two prongs of the test by
requiring that any climate change
impacts upon which an endangerment
determination is made result solely from
the GHG emissions of aircraft. See 74 FR
at 66542 (explaining the same point in
the context of analogous language in
section 202(a)). Similarly, the
Administrator is not, in making the
endangerment and cause or contribute
findings, to consider the effect of
emissions reductions from the resulting
standards.76 The threshold
endangerment and cause or contribute
criteria are separate and distinct from
the standard setting criteria that apply if
the threshold findings are met, and they
serve a different purpose. Indeed, the
more serious the endangerment to
public health and welfare, the more
important it may be that action be taken
to address the actual or potential harm
even if no one action alone can solve the
problem, and a series of actions is called
for.
Fifth, the Administrator is to consider
the risks to all parts of our population,
including those who are at greater risk
for reasons such as increased
susceptibility to adverse health and
welfare effects. If vulnerable
subpopulations are especially at risk,
the Administrator is entitled to take that
point into account in deciding the
question of endangerment. Here too,
both likelihood and severity of adverse
effects are relevant. As explained
previously in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding and as reiterated below for this
section 231 finding, vulnerable
subpopulations face serious health and
75 See
id. at 121–122.
the D.C. Circuit explained in reviewing the
2009 Endangerment Finding under analogous
language in section 202(a): ‘‘At bottom, § 202(a)(1)
requires EPA to answer only two questions:
whether particular ‘air pollution’—here, greenhouse
gases—‘may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare,’ and whether motorvehicle emissions ‘cause, or contribute to’ that
endangerment.’’ CRR, 648 F.3d at 117.
76 As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
welfare risks as a result of climate
change.
As the Supreme Court recognized in
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 534,
the EPA may make an endangerment
finding despite the existence of ‘‘some
residual uncertainty’’ in the scientific
record. See also CRR, 684 F. 2d at 122.
Thus, this framework recognizes that
regulatory agencies such as the EPA
must be able to deal with the reality that
‘‘[m]an’s ability to alter his environment
has developed far more rapidly than his
ability to foresee with certainty the
effects of his alterations.’’ Ethyl Corp v.
EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir.), cert.
denied 426 U.S. 941 (1976). Both ‘‘the
Clean Air Act ‘and common sense . . .
demand regulatory action to prevent
harm, even if the regulator is less than
certain that harm is otherwise
inevitable.’ ’’ Massachusetts v. EPA, 549
U.S. at 506, n.7 (citing Ethyl Corp.); see
also CRR, 684 F.3d at 121–122.
In the 2009 Endangerment Finding,
the Administrator recognized that the
scientific context for an action
addressing climate change was unique
at that time because there was a very
large and comprehensive base of
scientific information that had been
developed over many years through a
global consensus process involving
numerous scientists from many
countries and representing many
disciplines. 74 FR at 66506. That
informational base has since grown. The
Administrator also previously
recognized that there are varying
degrees of uncertainty across many of
these scientific issues, which remains
true. It is in this context that she is
exercising her judgment and applying
the statutory framework in this final
section 231 finding. Further discussion
of the language in section 231(a)(2)(A),
and parallel language in 202(a), is
provided below to explain more fully
the basis for this interpretation, which
the D.C. Circuit upheld in the 202(a)
context.
1. The Statutory Language
The interpretation described above
flows from the statutory language itself.
The phrase ‘‘may reasonably be
anticipated’’ and the term ‘‘endanger’’ in
section 231(a)(2)(A) (as in section
202(a)) authorize, if not require, the
Administrator to act to prevent harm
and to act in conditions of uncertainty.
They do not limit her to merely reacting
to harm or to acting only when certainty
has been achieved; indeed, the
references to anticipation and to
endangerment imply that to fail to look
to the future or to less than certain risks
would be to abjure the Administrator’s
statutory responsibilities. As the D.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54435
Circuit explained, the language ‘‘may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare’’ in CAA
section 202(a) requires a ‘‘precautionary,
forward-looking scientific judgment
about the risks of a particular air
pollutant, consistent with the CAA’s
precautionary and preventive
orientation.’’ CRR, 684 F.3d at 122
(internal citations omitted). The court
determined that ‘‘[r]equiring that EPA
find ‘certain’ endangerment of public
health or welfare before regulating
GHGs would effectively prevent EPA
from doing the job that Congress gave it
in [section] 202(a)—utilizing emission
standards to prevent reasonably
anticipated endangerment from
maturing into concrete harm.’’ Id. The
same language appears in section
231(a)(2)(A), and the same
interpretation applies in that context.
Moreover, by instructing the
Administrator to consider whether
emissions of an air pollutant cause or
contribute to air pollution in the second
part of the two-part test, the Act makes
clear that she need not find that
emissions from any one sector or class
of sources are the sole or even the major
part of an air pollution problem. The
use of the term ‘‘contribute’’ clearly
indicates that such emissions need not
be the sole or major cause of the
pollution. In addition, the absence of
the term ‘‘significantly’’ or any other
word that modifies ‘‘contribute’’ shows
that the EPA need not find that
contributing emissions cross a
minimum percentage- or mass-based
threshold to be cognizable. The phrase
‘‘in [her] judgment’’ authorizes the
Administrator to weigh risks and to
consider projections of future
possibilities, while also recognizing
uncertainties and extrapolating from
existing data. Finally, when exercising
her judgment in making both the
endangerment and cause or contribute
findings, the Administrator balances the
likelihood and severity of effects.
Notably, the phrase ‘‘in [her] judgment’’
modifies both ‘‘may reasonably be
anticipated’’ and ‘‘cause or contribute.’’
2. How the Origin of the Current
Statutory Language Informs the EPA’s
Interpretation of Section 231(a)(2)(A)
In the proposed and final 2009
Endangerment Finding, the EPA
explained that when Congress revised
the section 202(a) language that
governed that finding, along with other
provisions, as part of the 1977
amendments to the CAA, it was
responding to decisions issued by the
D.C. Circuit in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA
regarding the pre-1977 version of
section 211(c) of the Act. 74 FR at
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54436
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
18891; see also 74 FR at 66506. The
legislative history of those amendments,
particularly the report by the House
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, demonstrates that the EPA’s
interpretation of the section 231(a)(2)(A)
language as set forth here in support of
the Agency’s section 231 finding is fully
consistent with Congress’ intention in
crafting these provisions. See H.R. Rep.
95–294 (1977), as reprinted in 4 A
Legislative History of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 (1978) at 2465
(hereinafter LH). The committee
explained that its action addressed not
only section 211(c)(1)(A) but rather the
entirety of the proposed legislative
amendments, and stated that the
committee’s bill would thus apply the
interpretation of section 211(c)(1)(A) in
the en banc decision in Ethyl Corp. to
all other sections of the Act relating to
public health protection. 4 LH at 2516.
It also noted that it had used the same
basic formulation in section 202 and
section 231, as well as in other sections.
Id. at 2517. As both CAA sections 231
and 202 were included in the 1977
amendments, the Agency’s discussion
for the 2009 Endangerment Finding
regarding the history of section 202 and
how it supports the EPA’s approach is
also relevant for section 231. EPA’s
interpretation of section 231 is the same
as its interpretation of the parallel
language in section 202(a), which is
explained in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding. See 74 FR at 18891; see also 74
FR at 66506.
The legislative history clearly
indicates that the House Committee
believed the Ethyl Corp. decisions posed
several ‘‘crucial policy questions’’
regarding the protection of public health
and welfare. H.R. Rep. 95–294 at 48, 4
LH at 2515.77 The following paragraphs
summarize the en banc decision in
Ethyl Corp. v. EPA and describe how the
House Committee revised the
endangerment language in the 1977
amendments to the CAA to serve several
purposes consistent with that decision.
In particular, the language: (1)
Emphasizes the preventive or
precautionary nature of the CAA;78 (2)
authorizes the Administrator to
reasonably project into the future and
weigh risks; (3) assures the
consideration of the cumulative impact
77 The Supreme Court recognized that the current
language in section 202(a)(1), which uses the same
formulation as that in section 231(a)(2)(A), is ‘‘more
protective’’ than the 1970 version that was similar
to the section 211 language before the D.C. Circuit
in Ethyl Corp. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at
506, fn 7.
78 See H.R. Rep. 95–294 at 49, 4 LH at 2516 (‘‘To
emphasize the preventive or precautionary nature
of the Act, i.e. to assure that regulatory action can
effectively prevent harm before it occurs’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
of all sources; (4) instructs that the
health of susceptible individuals, as
well as healthy adults, should be part of
the analysis; and (5) indicates an
awareness of the uncertainties and
limitations in information available to
the Administrator. H.R. rep. 95–294 at
49–50, 4 LH 2516–17.79
In revising the statutory language,
Congress relied heavily on the en banc
decision in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, which
reversed a three-judge panel opinion
regarding an EPA rule restricting the
content of lead in leaded gasoline.80
After reviewing the relevant facts and
law, the full court evaluated the
statutory language at issue to see what
level of ‘‘certainty [was] required by the
Clean Air Act before EPA may act.’’ 541
F.2d at 7.
The petitioners argued that the
statutory language ‘‘will endanger’’
required proof of actual harm, and that
the actual harm had to come from
emissions from the fuels in and of
themselves. Id. at 12, 29. The en banc
court rejected this approach, finding
that the term ‘‘endanger’’ allowed the
Administrator to act when harm is
threatened, and did not require proof of
actual harm. Id. at 13. ‘‘A statute
allowing for regulation in the face of
danger is, necessarily, a precautionary
statute.’’ Id. Optimally, the court found,
regulatory action would not only
precede, but prevent, a perceived threat.
Id.
The court also rejected petitioners’
argument that any threatened harm
must be ‘‘probable’’ before regulation
was authorized. Specifically, the court
recognized that danger ‘‘is set not by a
fixed probability of harm, but rather is
composed of reciprocal elements of risk
and harm, or probability and severity.’’
Id. at 18. Next, the court held that the
EPA’s evaluation of risk is necessarily
an exercise of judgment, and that the
statute did not require a factual finding.
Id. at 24. Thus, ultimately, the
Administrator must ‘‘act, in part on
‘factual issues,’ but largely ‘on choices
of policy, on an assessment of risks,
[and] on predictions dealing with
matters on the frontiers of scientific
79 Congress also standardized this language across
the various sections of the CAA which address
emissions from both stationary and mobile sources.
H.R. Rep. 95–294 at 50, 4 LH at 2517; section 401
of the CAA Amendments of 1977.
80 At the time of the 1973 rules requiring the
reduction of lead in leaded gasoline, section
211(c)(1)(A) of the CAA stated that the
Administrator may promulgate regulations that:
‘‘control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction
into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of any fuel
or fuel additive for use in a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine (A) if any emissions product of such
fuel or fuel additive will endanger the public health
or welfare . . .’’ CAA section 211(c)(1)(A) (1970).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
knowledge . . .’’ Id. at 29 (citations
omitted). Finally, the en banc court
agreed with the EPA that even without
the language in section 202(a) (which is
also in section 231(a)(2)(A)) regarding
‘‘cause or contribute to,’’ it was
appropriate for the EPA to consider the
cumulative impact of lead from
numerous sources, not just the fuels
being regulated under section 211(c). Id.
at 29–31.
The dissent in the original Ethyl Corp.
decision and the en banc opinion were
of ‘‘critical importance’’ to the House
Committee which proposed the
revisions to the endangerment language
in the 1977 amendments to the CAA.
H.R. Rep. 95–294 at 48, 4 LH at 2515.
The Committee addressed those
questions with the language that now
appears in section 231(a)(2)(A) and
several other CAA provisions—
‘‘emission of any air pollutant . . .
which in [the Administrator’s] judgment
causes, or contributes to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.’’
As noted above in section III.A.1, the
phrase ‘‘in [her] judgment’’ calls for the
Administrator to make a comparative
assessment of risks and projections of
future possibilities, consider
uncertainties, and extrapolate from
limited data. Thus, the Administrator
must balance the likelihood of effects
with the severity of the effects in
reaching her judgment. The Committee
emphasized that the Administrator’s
exercise of ‘‘judgment’’ 81 may include
making projections, assessments and
estimates that are reasonable, as
opposed to a speculative or ‘‘ ‘crystal
ball’ inquiry.’’ Moreover, procedural
safeguards apply to the exercise of
judgment, and final decisions are
subject to judicial review. Also, the
phrase ‘‘in [her] judgment’’ modifies
both the phrases ‘‘cause and contribute’’
and ‘‘may reasonably be anticipated,’’ as
discussed above. H.R. Rep. 95–294 at
50–51, 4 LH at 2517–18.
As the Committee further explained,
the phrase ‘‘may reasonably be
anticipated’’ points the Administrator in
the direction of assessing current and
future risks rather than waiting for proof
of actual harm. This phrase is also
intended to instruct the Administrator
to consider the limitations and
81 Throughout this document under CAA section
231, as throughout the previous notices concerning
the 2009 Endangerment Finding under section 202,
the judgments on endangerment and cause or
contribute are described as a finding or findings.
This is for ease of reference only, and is not
intended to imply that the Administrator’s
judgment is solely a fact finding exercise; rather, the
Administrator’s exercise of judgment is to consider
and weigh multiple factors when applying the
scientific information to the statutory criteria.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
difficulties inherent in information on
public health and welfare. H.R. Rep. 95–
294 at 51, 4 LH at 2518.82
Finally, the phrase ‘‘cause or
contribute’’ ensures that all sources of
the contaminant which contribute to air
pollution are considered in the
endangerment analysis (e.g., not a single
source or category of sources). It is also
intended to require the Administrator to
consider all sources of exposure to a
pollutant (for example, food, water, and
air) when determining risk. Id.
3. Additional Considerations for the
Cause or Contribute Analysis
By instructing the Administrator to
consider whether emissions of an air
pollutant cause or contribute to air
pollution, the statute is clear that she
need not find that emissions from any
one sector or class of sources are the
sole or even the major part of an air
pollution problem. The use of the term
‘‘contribute’’ clearly indicates a lower
threshold than the sole or major cause.
Moreover, like the section 202(a)
language that governed the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the statutory
language in section 231(a)(2)(A) does
not contain a modifier on its use of the
term ‘‘contribute.’’ This contrasts with
other CAA provisions that expressly
require ‘‘significant’’ contribution.
Compare, e.g., CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); 111(b); 213(a)(2), (4).
In the absence of specific language
regarding the degree of contribution, the
Administrator is to exercise her
judgment in determining contribution.
Congress clearly authorized regulatory
controls to address air pollution even if
the air pollution problem results from a
wide variety of sources. While the
endangerment test looks at the entire air
pollution problem and the risks it poses,
the cause or contribute test is designed
to authorize the EPA to identify and
then address what may well be many
different sectors, classes, or groups of
sources that are each part of the
problem.
As explained for the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the D.C. Circuit
has discussed the concept of
contribution in the CAA, and its case
law supports the EPA’s interpretation
that the level of contribution in this
context need not be significant. 74 FR at
66542. In Catawba County v. EPA, 571
F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009), the court
upheld EPA’s PM2.5 attainment and
82 Thus, the statutory language does not require
that the EPA prove the effects of climate change
‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ Indeed, such an
approach is inconsistent with the concepts of
reasonable anticipation and endangerment
embedded in the statute. See also CRR, 684 F.3d at
121–122.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
nonattainment designation decisions,
analyzing CAA section 107(d), which
requires EPA to designate an area as
nonattainment if it ‘‘contributes to
ambient air quality in a nearby area’’
that does not meet the national ambient
air quality standards. Id. at 35. The
court noted that it had previously held
that the term ‘‘contributes’’ is
ambiguous in the context of CAA
language. See EDF v. EPA, 82 F.3d 451,
459 (D.C. Cir. 1996). ‘‘[A]mbiguities in
statutes within an agency’s jurisdiction
to administer are delegations of
authority to the agency to fill the
statutory gap in reasonable fashion.’’
571 F.3d at 35 (citing Nat’l Cable &
Telecomms. Ass’c v. Brand X Internet
Servs, 545 U.S. 967, 980 (2005)). The
court then proceeded to consider and
reject petitioners’ argument that the verb
‘‘contributes’’ in CAA section 107(d)
necessarily connotes a significant causal
relationship. Specifically, the D.C.
Circuit again noted that the term is
ambiguous, leaving it to EPA to
interpret in a reasonable manner. In the
context of this discussion, the court
noted that ‘‘a contribution may simply
exacerbate a problem rather than cause
it . . .’’ 571 F.3d at 39.
This is consistent with the D.C.
Circuit’s discussion of the concept of
contribution in the context of CAA
section 213 and rules for nonroad
vehicles in Bluewater Network v. EPA,
370 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In that case,
industry argued that section 213(a)(3)
requires a finding of a significant
contribution from classes of new
nonroad engines or vehicles to ozone or
carbon monoxide concentrations before
the EPA can regulate those engines or
vehicles, while the EPA’s view was that
the CAA requires a finding only of
contribution. Id. at 13. Section
213(a)(3)’s regulatory authority for
specific classes of nonroad engines or
vehicles, like that of section 231(a)(2)(A)
for classes of aircraft engines, is
triggered by a finding that certain
sources ‘‘cause, or contribute to,’’ air
pollution, whereas an adjacent
provision, section 213(a)(2), is triggered
by a finding of a ‘‘significant’’
contribution from all new and existing
nonroad engines and vehicles. The court
looked at the ‘‘ordinary meaning of
‘contribute’ ’’ when upholding the EPA’s
reading of section 213(a)(3). After
referencing dictionary definitions of
‘‘contribute,’’ the court also noted that
‘‘[s]tanding alone, the term has no
inherent connotation as to the
magnitude or importance of the relevant
‘share’ in the effect; certainly it does not
incorporate any ‘significance’
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54437
requirement.’’ 370 F.3d at 13.83 The
court found that the bare ‘‘contribute’’
language in section 213(a)(3) invests the
Administrator with discretion to
exercise judgment regarding what
constitutes a sufficient contribution for
the purpose of making a cause or
contribute finding. Id. at 14.84
Like the statutory language
considered in Catawba County and
Bluewater Network, as well as the
section 202(a) language that governed
the Agency’s previous findings for
GHGs emitted by other types of mobile
sources, section 231(a)(2)(A) refers to
contribution and does not specify that
the contribution must be significant
before an affirmative finding can be
made. To be sure, any finding of a
‘‘contribution’’ requires some
measureable amount of pollutant
emissions to be resulting from the
analyzed source category; a truly trivial
or de minimis ‘‘contribution’’ might not
count as such (although such a small
level is not presented by the facts of
today’s findings). The Administrator
therefore has ample discretion in
exercising her reasonable judgment and
determining whether, under the
circumstances presented, the cause or
contribute criterion has been met.85 As
noted above, in addressing provisions in
section 202(a), the D.C. Circuit has
explained that the Act at the
endangerment finding step did not
require the EPA to identify a precise
numerical value or ‘‘a minimum
threshold of risk or harm before
determining whether an air pollutant
endangers.’’ CRR, 684 F.3d at 122–123.
Accordingly, EPA ‘‘may base an
endangerment finding on ‘a lesser risk
of greater harm . . . or a greater risk of
lesser harm’ or any combination in
between.’’ Id. (quoting Ethyl Corp., 541
F.2d at 18). Recognizing the substantial
record of empirical data and scientific
evidence that the EPA relied upon in
the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the
court determined that its ‘‘failure to
83 Specifically, the decision noted that
‘‘ ‘contribute’ means simply ‘to have a share in any
act or effect,’ Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary 496 (1993), or ‘to have a part or share
in producing,’ 3 Oxford English Dictionary 849 (2d
ed. 1989).’’ Id. at 13.
84 The court explained, ‘‘[t]he repeated use of the
term ‘significant’ to modify the contribution
required for all nonroad vehicles, coupled with the
omission of this modifier from the ‘cause, or
contribute to’ finding required for individual
categories of new nonroad vehicles, indicates that
Congress did not intend to require a finding of
‘significant contribution’ for individual vehicle
categories.’’ Id. at 13.
85 Section V discusses the evidence in this case
that supports the finding of contribution. The EPA
need not determine at this time the circumstances
in which emissions would be trivial or de minimis
and would not warrant a finding of contribution.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54438
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
distill this ocean of evidence into a
specific number at which greenhouse
gases cause ‘dangerous’ climate change
is a function of the precautionary thrust
of the CAA and the multivariate and
sometimes uncertain nature of climate
science, not a sign of arbitrary or
capricious decision-making.’’ Id. at 123.
As the language in section 231(a)(2)(A)
is analogous to that in section 202(a), it
is clearly reasonable to apply this
interpretation to the endangerment
determination under section
231(a)(2)(A). Moreover, the logic
underlying this interpretation supports
the general principle that under CAA
section 231 the EPA is not required to
identify a specific minimum threshold
of contribution from potentially subject
source categories in determining
whether their emissions ‘‘cause or
contribute’’ to the endangering air
pollution. The reasonableness of this
principle is further supported by the
fact that section 231 does not impose on
the EPA a requirement to find that such
contribution is ‘‘significant,’’ let alone
the sole or major cause of the
endangering air pollution. This context
further supports the EPA’s
interpretation that section 231(a)(2)(A)
does not require some level of
contribution that rises to a predetermined numerical level or
percentage- or mass-based portion of the
overall endangering air pollution.
In addition, when exercising her
judgment in making a cause or
contribute determination, the
Administrator not only considers the
cumulative impact, but also looks at the
totality of the circumstances and weight
of evidence (e.g., the air pollutant, the
air pollution, the nature of the
endangerment, the type or classes of
sources at issue, the number of sources
in the source sector or class, and the
number and type of other source sectors
or categories that may emit the air
pollutant) when determining whether
the emissions ‘‘justify regulation’’ under
the CAA. See Catawba County, 571 F.3d
at 39 (discussing EPA’s interpretation of
the term ‘‘contribute’’ under CAA
section 107(d) and finding it reasonable
for the agency to apply a totality of the
circumstances approach); see also 74 FR
at 66542. Further discussion of this
issue can be found in sections IV and V
of this preamble.
4. Summary of Responses to Key Legal
Comments on the Interpretation of the
CAA Section 231(a) Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Test
Here we summarize key public
comments regarding the legal
interpretation of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) that supports this finding
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
and the Agency’s response. The
Response to Comments document
contains the Agency’s full response to
comments on this topic.
Some commenters strongly supported
the proposed findings. These comments
stated, for example, that the proposed
findings were clearly authorized under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) and further
noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had
upheld EPA’s authority under section
202(a) of the CAA to make an
endangerment finding with regard to
GHG emissions from motor vehicles and
that the findings required under section
202(a)(1) are the same as the findings
required under section 231(a)(2)(A).
Another commenter, however,
questioned the EPA’s authority to make
endangerment and cause or contribute
findings for GHGs, stating that the EPA
had not sufficiently explained its
authority to address pollutants other
than NAAQS under CAA section 231.
This commenter made the following
points in support of this view. First, the
comment pointed to the use of the term
‘‘air quality control regions’’ in CAA
sections 231(a)(1)(A) and 231(a)(3) as
suggesting that Congress intended to
authorize EPA to issue standards only
for pollutants for which a NAAQS has
been established. Second, the comment
stated that the EPA should address this
issue in light of a recent Supreme Court
case, Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA,
134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014).
After consideration of these
comments, we disagree with the
argument that Congress intended to only
authorize the EPA to address NAAQS
pollutants under section 231(a)(2)(A).
That provision of the Act requires the
EPA to issue standards ‘‘applicable to
the emission of any air pollutant from
any class or classes of aircraft engines
which in [her] judgment causes, or
contributes to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.’’ CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Looking
to that plain language, there is nothing
that limits the scope of the air pollutants
that can be found to contribute to
possible endangerment, and therefore
which the EPA may be required to
regulate, under that section to NAAQS
pollutants. To the contrary, the language
is clear that the EPA would be required
to regulate aircraft engine emissions of
‘‘any air pollutant’’ as long the prerequisite endangerment and cause or
contribute findings are made. ‘‘Air
pollutant’’ is not defined in section 231;
instead, the definition under CAA
section 302(g) applies, which states in
relevant part that ‘‘ ‘air pollutant’ means
any air pollutant agent or combination
of such agents, including any physical,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
chemical . . . substance or matter
which is emitted into or otherwise
enters ambient air.’’ CAA section 302(g)
(emphasis added). Interpreting this
provision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the
U.S. Supreme Court observed that ‘‘[o]n
its face, the definition embraces all
airborne compounds of whatever stripe,
and underscores that intent through the
repeated use of the word ‘any.’ ’’ 549
U.S. 497, 529 (2007). It further stated
that ‘‘[b]ecause greenhouse gases fit well
within’’ this ‘‘capacious definition of
‘air pollutant’ ’’ the EPA has the
statutory authority to regulate the
emission of such gases from new motor
vehicles under CAA section 202(a)(2).
Id. at 532. As noted above, sections
231(a)(2)(A) and 202(a)(1) have parallel
structures, use substantially the same
language, and use the same definition of
air pollutant. As that definition is
‘‘unambiguous’’ in its inclusion of
GHGs, Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 529,
the Act clearly authorizes the EPA to
make these findings for GHGs under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Moreover,
one U.S. District Court has also ruled
that the EPA has a duty to determine
whether aircraft engine emissions of
GHGs cause or contribute to
endangerment, and that ruling was not
appealed to the D.C. Circuit. Center for
Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA, 794 F.
Supp. 2d 151 (D.D.C. 2011).
Consequently, the statutory language
imposing the EPA’s duties under section
231(a)(2)(A), and relevant case law in
the GHG context, do not support the
commenter’s limited reading of the
EPA’s authority under that language.
The commenter points to the use of
the term ‘‘air quality control regions’’ in
nearby paragraphs of CAA sections
231(a)(1)(A) and (a)(3) to support its
suggestion that Congress intended to
limit the EPA’s analysis and regulatory
authority to NAAQS pollutants in
section 231(a)(2)(A). That argument is
flawed for several reasons. The
commenter points to section 231(a)(1),
which relates to a study the EPA was to
conduct of emissions of air pollutants
from aircraft, and to section 231(a)(3),
which requires the EPA to hold public
hearings with respect to proposed
standards under section 231(a)(2) in ‘‘air
quality control regions . . . most
seriously affected by aircraft emissions’’
to the extent practicable. These
obligations are imposed in addition to
those imposed by section 231(a)(2)(A),
and their separate establishment does
not by that fact narrow the EPA’s scope
of authority regarding its obligations
imposed under section 231(a)(2)(A).
They are additive, not subtractive,
duties. Moreover, one of those added
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
duties, to investigate the extent to which
aircraft emissions affect air quality in air
quality control regions under section
231(a)(1)(A), was a one-time duty that
corresponded to NAAQS that have longsince been revised, whereas the EPA’s
duty to propose and promulgate aircraft
emission standards is a continuing one
to be conducted ‘‘from time to time’’
under section 231(a)(2)(A). The
commenter provides no reasoning to
explain why these provisions imposing
additional duties should be read to limit
the scope of section 231(a)(2) beyond
their proximity. Sections 231(a)(1) and
(a)(3) do not speak to what pollutants
may be addressed under section
231(a)(2). Further, there is no
incompatibility between the use of the
term ‘‘air quality control regions’’ in
those provisions to identify geographic
areas where certain activities are to
occur and making the endangerment
and cause or contribute findings for
GHGs that are finalized in this action. In
fact, the EPA long ago discharged its
one-time duty under CAA section
231(a)(1)(A) 86 and, after proposing new
aircraft engine emission standards,
could also meet its obligations to hold
public hearings in the air quality control
regions most seriously affected by
aircraft emissions, to the extent
practicable, all while meeting its
obligations under section 231(a)(2)(A).
Accordingly, the EPA does not interpret
sections 231(a)(1) and (a)(3) to limit the
scope of the duties and authority
established by section 231(a)(2) to
NAAQS pollutants. Further, the EPA
has previously implemented section
231(a)(2) to reach air pollutants for
which no NAAQS exists and has
applied that provision to establish
standards for non-NAAQS pollutants,
such as smoke. See, e.g., 40 CFR
87.21(a)–(c), (e), 87.23(a)–(c), and
87.31(a)–(c) emission standards for
smoke. The EPA’s regulation of nonNAAQS smoke emissions from aircraft
engines has never been judicially
challenged. Finally, even if the Act were
ambiguous, which it is not, the EPA’s
interpretation of section 231(a)(2) to
include authority to address GHGs, is
reasonable for the reasons described
above.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in
UARG cited by the commenter does not
change this analysis. The commenter
misinterprets the UARG decision to
mean that for purposes of determining
applicability of the CAA’s Prevention of
86 USEPA, 1973: Aircraft Emissions: Impact On
Air Quality And Feasibility Of Control. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 102 pp.
Available at http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000T6Z0.txt (last accessed
April 26, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
Significant Deterioration (PSD)
preconstruction permitting program,
‘‘air pollutant’’ meant only pollutants
for which NAAQS had been established.
The UARG decision, however, does not
limit PSD applicability to only NAAQS
pollutants. In fact, the Court recognized
that such theories had been advanced
during the course of that litigation but
expressly declined to consider them in
its decision. See 134 S.Ct. 2427, 2442
n.6 (2014). Rather, in UARG, the Court’s
holding pertained only to GHGs. More
specifically, the Court held that the EPA
may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant
for the specific purpose of determining
whether a source is a major source (or
a modification thereof) and thus
required to obtain a PSD permit or an
operating permit under title V of the
CAA. Id. at 2449.
Further, the regulatory context that
was addressed in UARG is
distinguishable from that of this action.
In UARG, the Court explained that
Massachusetts does not prevent an
Agency from using statutory context to
infer that in some provisions ‘‘air
pollutant’’ refers only to those airborne
substances that ‘‘may sensibly be
encompassed within the particular
regulatory program.’’ 134 S.Ct. at 2441.
However, the commenter offers no
reason why GHG emissions from U.S.
covered aircraft could not ‘‘sensibly be
encompassed’’ under CAA section 231;
nor is the EPA aware of any such
reasons. In fact, UARG itself recognizes
a distinction between the statutory
scheme of the CAA permitting programs
at issue in that case and the mobile
source programs under Title II of the
Act which were at issue in
Massachusetts. Namely, the UARG
opinion notes that part of the Court’s
reasoning in Massachusetts was based
on its understanding that ‘‘nothing in
the Act suggested that regulating
greenhouse gases under [Title II] would
conflict with the statutory design. Title
II would not compel EPA to regulate in
any way that would be ‘extreme,’
‘counterintuitive,’ or contrary to
‘common sense.’ . . . At most, it would
require EPA to take the modest step of
adding greenhouse-gas standards to the
roster of new-motor-vehicle emission
regulations.’’ 134 S.Ct. at 2441 (quoting
Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 531). Like
Massachusetts, the statutory provisions
for this action are found in Title II, and
closely parallel the structure and
language of the statutory program at
issue in Massachusetts.87 Compare CAA
87 Although
this comment asserts that section
202(a) does not include mention of ‘‘air quality
control region’’ as other provisions of section 231(a)
do, that distinction is immaterial. As described
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54439
section 231(a)(2)(A) with 202(a)(1). Nor
will reading the Title II provision
section 231(a)(2)(A) to extend to GHGs
result in a regulatory outcome that
would be extreme, counterintuitive or
contrary to common sense. Instead, as
the D.C. Circuit has previously ruled,
the EPA’s discretion when establishing
reasonable standards under section 231
is exceptionally broad. See NACAA, 489
F.3d at 1230–32. In short, the UARG
opinion in no way precludes the EPA’s
interpretation that ‘‘air pollutant’’ as
used in CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
includes GHGs, but rather supports that
interpretation.
To the extent that the commenter is
suggesting that the EPA should exercise
its discretion to interpret CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) to exclude GHGs, the EPA
declines to do so. The commenter has
provided no persuasive reason for such
an exclusion. Moreover, to make the
threshold findings in this action, the
EPA must, fundamentally, answer only
two questions: Whether the particular
‘‘air pollution’’—here, the six wellmixed GHGs—‘‘may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare,’’ and whether emissions of
those six well-mixed GHGs from U.S.
covered aircraft engines ‘‘cause, or
contribute to’’ that endangerment. See
CRR, 648 F.3d at 117 (interpreting
analogous provisions in CAA section
202(a)). Because the EPA answers both
of these questions in the affirmative for
emissions of the six well-mixed GHGs
from U.S. covered aircraft engines—
based on extensive scientific evidence
and emissions information, as explained
in detail in sections IV and V below—
it is appropriate and reasonable to make
both endangerment and cause or
contribute findings under section
231(a)(2)(A) in this action.
In sum, after considering all of the
relevant information, including that in
public comments, the EPA interprets
section 231(a)(2)(A) to include authority
to address GHGs from U.S. covered
aircraft engines. This interpretation is
consistent with both its own and with
judicial interpretations that the EPA’s
authority under the analogous section
202(a) unambiguously extends to GHGs.
B. Air Pollutant, Public Health and
Welfare
The CAA defines both ‘‘air pollutant’’
and ‘‘welfare.’’ Air pollutant is defined
as: ‘‘any air pollution agent or
combination of such agents, including
any physical, chemical, biological,
above, the use of that term in other paragraphs
imposing additional duties beyond those
established by section 231(a)(2)(A) does not affect
what pollutants may be addressed under section
231(a)(2)(A).
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
54440
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
radioactive (including source material,
special nuclear material, and byproduct
material) substance or matter which is
emitted into or otherwise enters the
ambient air. Such term includes any
precursors to the formation of any air
pollutant, to the extent the
Administrator has identified such
precursor or precursors for the
particular purpose for which the term
‘air pollutant’ is used.’’ CAA section
302(g). GHGs fit well within this
capacious definition. See Massachusetts
v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 532. They are
‘‘without a doubt’’ physical chemical
substances emitted into the ambient air.
Id. at 529. Section V below contains
further discussion of the term ‘‘air
pollutant’’ for purposes of this section
231(a)(2)(A) contribution finding, which
uses the same definition of air pollutant
as the one the EPA adopted for purposes
of the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
Regarding ‘‘welfare,’’ the CAA states
that ‘‘[a]ll language referring to effects
on welfare includes, but is not limited
to, effects on soils, water, crops,
vegetation, manmade materials,
animals, wildlife, weather, visibility,
and climate, damage to and
deterioration of property, and hazards to
transportation, as well as effects on
economic values and on personal
comfort and well-being, whether caused
by transformation, conversion, or
combination with other air pollutants.’’
CAA section 302(h). This definition is
quite broad. Importantly, it is not an
exclusive list due to the use of the term
‘‘includes, but is not limited to . . .’’
Effects other than those listed here may
also be considered effects on welfare.
Moreover, the terms contained within
the definition are themselves expansive.
For example, deterioration to property
could include damage caused by
extreme weather events. Effects on
vegetation could include impacts from
changes in temperature and
precipitation as well as from the
spreading of invasive species or insects.
Prior welfare effects evaluated by the
EPA in other contexts include impacts
on vegetation, as well as reduced
visibility, changes in nutrient balance
and acidity of the environment, soiling
of buildings and statues, and erosion of
building materials. See, e.g., Final
Secondary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Oxides of
Nitrogen and Sulfur, 77 FR 20218 (April
3, 2012); Control of Emissions from
Nonroad Large Spark Ignition Engines
and Recreational Engines (Marine and
Land-Based), 67 FR 68242 (November 8,
2002); Final Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel
Sulfur Control Requirements, 66 FR
5002 (January 18, 2001).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
Although the CAA defines ‘‘effects on
welfare’’ as discussed above, there is no
definition of ‘‘public health’’ in the
Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court has
discussed the concept of ‘‘public
health’’ in the context of whether costs
can be considered when setting
NAAQS. Whitman v. American
Trucking Ass’n, 531 U.S. 457 (2001). In
Whitman, the Court imbued the term
with its most natural meaning: ‘‘the
health of the public.’’ Id. at 466. When
considering public health, the EPA has
looked at morbidity, such as impairment
of lung function, aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease,
and other acute and chronic health
effects, as well as mortality. See, e.g.,
Final National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Ozone, 73 FR 16436
(March 27, 2008).
endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A), including a
discussion of other substances with
climate effects that were addressed but
not included in the definition of air
pollution. Section IV.C summarizes the
scientific evidence that the air pollution
is reasonably anticipated to endanger
both public health and welfare. Section
IV.D summarizes the Administrator’s
conclusion for purposes of section
231(a)(2)(A), in light of the evidence,
analysis, and conclusions that led to the
2009 Endangerment Finding as well as
more recent evidence and consideration
of public comments, that emissions of
the six well-mixed GHGs in the
atmosphere may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health
and welfare.
IV. The Administrator’s Finding Under
CAA Section 231 That Greenhouse
Gases Endanger Public Health and
Welfare
The Administrator finds, for purposes
of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), that
elevated concentrations of the six wellmixed GHGs constitute air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger both the public health and
welfare of current and future
generations. The Administrator is
making this finding specifically with
regard to the same definition of the ‘‘air
pollution’’ under CAA section 231(a)(2)
as that used under CAA section
202(a)(1), namely the combined mix of
CO2, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,
and sulfur hexafluoride, which together
are the root cause and best understood
drivers of human-induced climate
change and the resulting impacts on
public health and welfare. The EPA
received public comments on this
definition of air pollution from the
proposed findings, and summarizes
responses to some of those key
comments below; fuller responses to
public comments can be found in EPA’s
Response to Comments document
included in the docket. The
Administrator addresses other climateforcing agents both in the 2009
Endangerment Finding 88 and in this
action; however, these substances are
not included in the air pollution
definition used in this action for the
reasons discussed below in section
IV.B.7.
Section IV.A below discusses the
EPA’s approach to evaluating the
scientific evidence before it. Section
IV.B discusses the scope and nature of
the relevant air pollution for the
This finding under section
231(a)(2)(A) reflects the EPA’s careful
consideration not only of the scientific
and technical record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding, but also of
science assessments released since
2009, which, as illustrated below,
strengthen and further support the
judgment that the six well-mixed GHGs
in the atmosphere may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health
and welfare. The Administrator’s view
is that the body of scientific evidence
amassed in the record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding compellingly
supports an endangerment finding for
the six well-mixed GHGs under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). While the EPA is
providing a summary of newer scientific
assessments below, the EPA is also
relying on the same scientific and
technical evidence discussed in the
notices for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding in these final findings for
purposes of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).89
The EPA is following the same
approach toward technical and
scientific information in this finding
under section 231(a)(2)(A) as it used in
the 2009 Endangerment Finding. More
specifically, in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding the EPA’s approach to
providing the technical and scientific
information to inform the
Administrator’s judgment regarding the
question of whether GHGs endanger
public health and welfare was to
consider the recent, major assessments
by the U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP), the IPCC, and the
National Research Council of the
88 74
PO 00000
FR at 66519–21.
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
A. The Science Upon Which the Agency
Relied
89 See sections III of the 2009 Proposed
Endangerment Finding and sections III and IV of
the 2009 Endangerment Finding. 74 FR at 18894–
18904 and 74 FR at 66510–36.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (referred to
interchangeably as NRC or NAS) as the
primary scientific and technical basis
informing the endangerment finding.
These assessments draw synthesis
conclusions across thousands of
individual peer-reviewed studies that
appear in scientific journals, and the
reports themselves undergo additional
peer review. The EPA has considered
the processes and procedures employed
by the USGCRP, IPCC, and the NRC in
terms of factors such as their objectivity,
integrity, utility, and transparency,
including how they have employed
rigorous peer review processes. The
EPA considers these assessments to
represent the best available science that
maintains the highest level of adherence
to Agency guidelines for information
quality.90 These assessments have been
adequately peer reviewed in a manner
commensurate with the EPA’s Peer
Review Policy 91 and guidance in the
EPA’s Peer Review Handbook.92
The EPA is giving careful
consideration to all of the scientific and
technical information in the record.
However, the Administrator considers
the major scientific assessments as the
primary scientific and technical basis of
her endangerment decision. This
provides assurance that the
Administrator is basing her judgment on
the best available, well-vetted science
that reflects the consensus of the climate
science research community. These
assessments addressed the scientific
issues that the EPA was required to
examine, were comprehensive in their
coverage of the GHG and climate change
issues, and underwent rigorous and
90 Applicable guidance includes U.S. EPA 2012:
Addendum to A Summary of General Assessment
Factors for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific and
Technical Information, 9 pp. Available at https://
www.epa.gov/risk/guidance-evaluating-anddocumenting-quality-existing-scientific-andtechnical-information (last accessed July 11, 2016)
and U.S. EPA, 2002: Guidelines for Ensuring and
Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and
Integrity of Information Disseminated by the EPA,
61 pp. Available at https://www.epa.gov/quality/
guidelines-ensuring-and-maximizing-qualityobjectivity-utility-and-integrity-information (last
accessed July 11, 2016).
91 U.S. EPA, 2006: Memorandum on Peer Review
and Peer Involvement at the U.S. EPA, 4 pp.
Available at https://www.epa.gov/osa/
memorandum-peer-review-and-peer-involvementepa (last accessed April 12, 2016).
92 U.S. EPA, 2015: EPA Peer Review Handbook,
Fourth Edition, 248 pp. Available at https://
www.epa.gov/osa/peer-review-handbook-4thedition-2015-0 (last accessed April 12, 2016). Also,
the EPA Science Advisory Board reviewed this
approach to the underlying technical and scientific
information supporting this action, and concluded
that the approach had precedent and the action will
be based on well-reviewed information. A copy of
this letter and all other relevant EPA peer review
documentation is located in the docket for today’s
final action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0828).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
exacting peer review by the expert
community, as well as rigorous levels of
U.S. government review, in which the
EPA took part. The major findings of the
USGCRP, IPCC, and NRC assessments
support the Administrator’s
determination that elevated
concentrations of GHGs in the
atmosphere may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger the public
health and welfare of current and future
generations. The EPA presented this
scientific support at length in the
comprehensive record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding.
The EPA reviewed ten administrative
petitions for reconsideration of the 2009
Endangerment Finding in 2010.93 In the
Reconsideration Denial, the
Administrator denied those petitions on
the basis of the Petitioners’ failure to
provide substantial support for their
argument that the EPA should revise the
2009 Endangerment Finding and their
objections’ lack of ‘‘central relevance’’ to
the Finding.94 The EPA prepared an
accompanying three-volume Response
to Petitions document to provide
additional information, often more
technical in nature, in response to the
arguments, claims, and assertions by the
Petitioners to reconsider the
Endangerment Finding.95
The 2009 Endangerment Finding and
the 2010 Reconsideration Denial were
challenged in a lawsuit before the D.C.
Circuit.96 On June 26, 2012, the D.C.
Circuit upheld the Endangerment
Finding and the Reconsideration Denial,
ruling that the Finding (including the
Reconsideration Denial) was not
arbitrary or capricious, was consistent
with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision
in Massachusetts v. EPA (which
affirmed the EPA’s authority to regulate
93 Administrative petitions are available from
www3.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/
petitions.html (last accessed June 21, 2016), and in
the docket for the 2009 Endangerment Finding:
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0171.
94 U.S. EPA, 2010: Denial of the Petitions to
Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under
section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 75 FR 49557
(August 13, 2010) (‘‘Reconsideration Denial’’). In
that notice, the EPA thoroughly considered the
scientific and technical information relevant to the
petitions. In addition to the other information
discussed in the present notice, the EPA is also
relying on the scientific and technical evidence
discussed in that prior notice for purposes of its
proposed determination under CAA section 231.
See section III of the Reconsideration Denial.
95 The Response to Petitions document is
available from www3.epa.gov/climatechange/
endangerment/petitions.html (last accessed June 21,
2016), and in the docket for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding: EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0171.
96 Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 684 F.3d 102
(D.C. Cir. 2012), reh’g en banc denied, 2012 U.S.
App. LEXIS 25997, 26313, 26315 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
(CRR).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54441
GHGs) 97 and the text and structure of
the CAA, and was adequately supported
by the administrative record.98 The D.C.
Circuit also agreed with the EPA that
the Petitioners had ‘‘not provided
substantial support for their argument
that the Endangerment Finding should
be revised.’’ 99 It found that the EPA had
based its decision on ‘‘substantial
scientific evidence,’’ observing that
‘‘EPA’s scientific evidence of record
included support for the proposition
that greenhouse gases trap heat on earth
that would otherwise dissipate into
space; that this ‘greenhouse effect’
warms the climate; that human activity
is contributing to increased atmospheric
levels of greenhouse gases; and that the
climate system is warming,’’ as well as
providing extensive scientific evidence
for EPA’s determination that
anthropogenically induced climate
change threatens both public health and
welfare.100 The D.C. Circuit further
noted that the EPA’s reliance on
assessments was consistent with the
methods decision-makers often use to
make a science-based judgment.101
Moreover, it supported the EPA’s
reliance on the major scientific
assessment reports conducted by
USGCRP, IPCC, and NRC and found:
The EPA evaluated the processes used to
develop the various assessment reports,
reviewed their contents, and considered the
depth of the scientific consensus the reports
represented. Based on these evaluations, the
EPA determined the assessments represented
the best source material to use in deciding
whether GHG emissions may be reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare . . . It makes no difference that much
of the scientific evidence in large part
consisted of ‘‘syntheses’’ of individual
studies and research. Even individual studies
and research papers often synthesize past
work in an area and then build upon it. This
is how science works. The EPA is not
required to re-prove the existence of the atom
every time it approaches a scientific
question.102
In addition, the EPA’s consideration
of the major assessments to inform the
Administrator’s judgment allowed for
full and explicit recognition of scientific
uncertainty regarding the endangerment
posed by the atmospheric buildup of
GHGs. The Administrator considered
the fact that ‘‘some aspects of climate
change science and the projected
impacts are more certain than
others.’’ 103 The D.C. Circuit
97 549
U.S. 497 (2007).
684 F.3d at 117–27.
99 Id. at 125.
100 Id. at 120–121.
101 Id. at 121.
102 Id. at 120.
103 74 FR at 66524.
98 CRR,
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54442
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
subsequently noted that ‘‘the existence
of some uncertainty does not, without
more, warrant invalidation of an
endangerment finding.’’ 104
As noted above, the Supreme Court
granted some of the petitions for
certiorari that were filed, while denying
others, but agreed to decide only the
question: ‘‘Whether EPA permissibly
determined that its regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions from new
motor vehicles triggered permitting
requirements under the Clean Air Act
for stationary sources that emit
greenhouse gases.’’ 105 Thus, the
Supreme Court did not disturb the D.C.
Circuit’s holding that affirmed the 2009
Endangerment Finding.
Since the closure of the
administrative record concerning the
2009 Endangerment Finding (including
the denial of petitions for
reconsideration), a number of new
major, peer-reviewed scientific
assessments have been released. The
EPA carefully reviewed the updated
scientific conclusions in these
assessments, largely to evaluate whether
they would lead the EPA in this CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) finding to use a
different interpretation of, or place more
or less weight on, the major findings
reflected in the previous assessment
reports that underpinned the
Administrator’s judgment that the six
well-mixed GHGs endanger public
health and welfare. The EPA reviewed
the following new major peer-reviewed
scientific assessments:
• IPCC’s 2013–2014 Fifth Assessment
Report (AR5) 106
104 CRR,
684 F.3d at 121.
Air Reg. Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427,
2438 (2014) (internal marks and citations omitted).
See also Virginia v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 418 (2013), Pac.
Legal Found. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 418 (2013), and
CRR, 134 S. Ct. 468 (2013) (all denying cert.).
106 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor,
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex
and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].Cambridge University
Press, 1535 pp, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324;
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field,
C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D.
Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.
Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.
White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 1132 pp;
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field,
D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E.
Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C.
Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
105 Utility
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
• IPCC’s 2012 ‘‘Special Report on
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events
and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation’’ (SREX) 107
• USGCRP’s 2014 ‘‘Climate Change
Impacts in the United States: the
Third National Climate Assessment’’
(NCA3) 108
• NRC’s 2010 ‘‘Ocean Acidification: A
National Strategy to Meet the
Challenges of a Changing Ocean’’
(Ocean Acidification) 109
• NRC’s 2011 ‘‘Climate Change, the
Indoor Environment, and Health’’
(Indoor Environment) 110
• NRC’s 2011 ‘‘Report on Climate
Stabilization Targets: Emissions,
Concentrations, and Impacts over
Decades to Millennia’’ (Climate
Stabilization Targets) 111
• NRC’s 2011 ‘‘National Security
Implications for U.S. Naval Forces’’
(National Security Implications) 112
• NRC’s 2011 ‘‘Understanding Earth’s
Deep Past: Lessons for Our Climate
Future’’ (Understanding Earth’s Deep
Past) 113
• NRC’s 2012 ‘‘Sea-Level Rise for the
Coasts of California, Oregon, and
Washington: Past, Present, and
Future’’ (Sea Level Rise) 114
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 688 pp; and
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum,
S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
¨
Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, 1435 pp.
107 IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme
Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I
and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin,
D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach,
G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M.
Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 582
pp.
108 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
841 pp.
109 NRC, 2010: Ocean Acidification: A National
Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing
Ocean. The National Academies Press, 188 pp.
110 NRC Institute of Medicine, 2011: Climate
Change, the Indoor Environment, and Health.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,
272 pp.
111 NRC 2011: Climate Stabilization Targets:
Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over
Decades to Millennia. The National Academies
Press, 298 pp.
112 NRC, 2011: National Security Implications of
Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces. The National
Academies Press, 226 pp.
113 NRC, 2011: Understanding Earth’s Deep Past:
Lessons for Our Climate Future. The National
Academies Press, 212 pp.
114 NRC, 2012: Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of
California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present,
and Future. The National Academies Press, 201 pp.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• NRC’s 2013 ‘‘Climate and Social
Stress: Implications for Security
Analysis’’ (Climate and Social
Stress) 115
• NRC’s 2013 ‘‘Abrupt Impacts of
Climate Change’’ (Abrupt Impacts) 116
• NRC’s 2014 ‘‘The Arctic in the
Anthropocene: Emerging Research
Questions’’ (Arctic) 117.
From its review, the EPA finds that
these new assessments are largely
consistent with, and in many cases
strengthen and add to, the already
compelling and comprehensive
scientific evidence detailing the role of
the six well-mixed GHGs in driving
climate change, explained in the 2009
Endangerment Finding.
1. Response to Key Comments on the
EPA’s Approach to the Science
Here we summarize key public
comments regarding the approach to the
science—see the Response to Comments
document for the Agency’s full
responses to comments. Several
commenters agreed and no commenters
disagreed with the EPA’s approach to
the science for making an endangerment
decision specifically with respect to the
six well-mixed GHGs (see section IV.B.7
for a summary of key public comments
and our responses to commenters who
argued that the science supports
expanding the scope of the
endangerment finding to include other
climate forcers beyond the six wellmixed GHGs). They specifically
mentioned their support for the EPA’s
approach to considering the scientific
and technical information in the record
of the 2009 Endangerment Finding—
primarily the recent, major assessments
by the USGCRP, the IPCC, and the
NRC—as well as the most recent
scientific assessments for additional
support and justification. For the
reasons stated in section IV.A above, the
EPA agrees with the commenters that
this approach ensures that the
Administrator considers the best
available scientific and technical
information.
B. The Air Pollution Consists of Six Key
Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gases
The Administrator must define the
scope and nature of the relevant air
pollution for the endangerment finding
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). In this
115 NRC, 2013: Climate and Social Stress:
Implications for Security Analysis. The National
Academies Press, 280 pp.
116 NRC, 2013: Abrupt Impacts of Climate
Change: Anticipating Surprises. The National
Academies Press, 250 pp.
117 NRC, 2014: The Arctic in the Anthropocene:
Emerging Research Questions. The National
Academies Press, 220 pp.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
final action, the Administrator finds that
the air pollution is the combined mix of
six well-mixed GHGs, which together
are the root cause and best understood
drivers of human-induced climate
change and the resulting impacts on
public health and welfare. These six
GHGs—CO2, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,
and sulfur hexafluoride—are considered
an aggregate group for purposes of this
finding. The Administrator’s definition
of air pollution for purposes of section
231(a)(2)(A) is made in light of (1) the
evidence, analysis, and conclusions that
led to the 2009 Endangerment Finding;
(2) more recent evidence from scientific
assessments published since 2009; and
(3) consideration of public comments,
for which key comments and responses
are summarized in sections IV.B.6 and
7 below. The Administrator considered
five primary reasons in the 2009
Endangerment Finding for focusing on
this aggregate group as the air pollution:
(1) They share common physical
properties that influence their climate
effects; (2) on the basis of these common
physical properties, they have been
determined to be the root cause of
human-induced climate change, are the
best-understood driver of climate
change, and are expected to remain the
primary driver of future climate change;
(3) they are the common focus of
climate change science research and
policy analyses and discussions; (4)
using the combined mix of these gases
as the definition (versus an individual
gas-by-gas approach) is consistent with
the science, because risks and impacts
associated with GHG-induced climate
change are not assessed on an
individual gas-by-gas basis; and (5)
using the combined mix of these gases
is consistent with past EPA practice,
where separate substances from
different sources, but with common
properties, may be treated as a class
(e.g., oxides of nitrogen, particulate
matter, volatile organic compounds).118
After consideration of all information
before her, including public comments,
as explained below, the Administrator
maintains her view that these five
reasons for defining the scope and
nature of the air pollution to be these six
well-mixed GHGs remain valid and well
supported by the current science and
are therefore reasonable bases for
adopting the same definition of ‘‘air
pollution’’ in this section 231(a)(2)(A)
finding as that under section 202(a)(1).
The following subsections summarize
the five reasons detailed in the 2009
Endangerment Finding and as
appropriate, summarize additional
118 74
FR at 66517–19.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
supporting information from the recent
scientific assessments published since
2009.
1. Common Physical Properties of the
Six Greenhouse Gases
The six GHGs share common physical
properties that are relevant to the
climate change problem. They all are
sufficiently long lived in the atmosphere
such that, once emitted, concentrations
of each gas become globally well mixed
in the atmosphere.119 A well-mixed gas
has relatively uniform concentrations in
the atmosphere anywhere around the
globe, with little local or regional
variation except immediately next to
sources or sinks. A given amount of a
well-mixed gas emitted anywhere will
have similar impacts on global
concentrations regardless of the
geographic location of emission. All six
GHGs trap outgoing heat that would
otherwise escape to space, and all are
directly emitted from a source as a GHG
rather than becoming a GHG in the
atmosphere after emission of a precursor
gas. This fundamental scientific
understanding of the intrinsic physical,
chemical, and atmospheric properties of
the six GHGs has not changed and
remains supported by the more recent
climate change assessments.
119 The properties ‘‘long lived’’ and ‘‘well mixed’’
used in this document mean that the gas has a
lifetime in the atmosphere sufficient to become
globally well mixed throughout the entire
atmosphere, which requires a minimum
atmospheric lifetime of about one year.
Atmospheric lifetime is a measure of how long a
type of molecule is likely to remain in the
atmosphere before it breaks down, reacts with other
gases, or is absorbed by Earth’s surface. The IPCC
often refers interchangeably to the six well-mixed
GHGs as long-lived GHGs; however, the IPCC and
others in the international climate change
community, such as the United Nations
Environment Programme, also refer to methane and
some HFCs as ‘‘near-term climate forcers,’’ ‘‘shortlived climate forcers,’’ or ‘‘short-lived climate
pollutants.’’ These terms refer to those compounds
whose impacts on Earth’s climate occurs primarily
with the first decade after their emission. According
to the IPCC AR5 (2014), methane has an
atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years. One of the
most commonly used hydrofluorocarbons (HFC–
134a) has a lifetime of about 13 years. Thus,
methane and some HFCs are both short- and longlived GHGs—i.e., they have lifetimes long enough
to become globally well mixed in the atmosphere,
but short enough to primarily affect Earth’s climate
within a decade after their emission. For
comparison, nitrous oxide has a lifetime of around
130 years; sulfur hexafluoride over 3,000 years; and
some perfluorocarbons up to 10,000 to 50,000 years.
CO2 is sometimes approximated as having a lifetime
of roughly 100 years, but for a given amount of CO2
emitted, a better description is that some fraction
of the atmospheric increase in concentration is
quickly absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial
vegetation, some fraction of the atmospheric
increase will only slowly decrease over a number
of years, and a small portion of the increase will
remain for many centuries or more.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54443
2. The Six Well-Mixed Greenhouse
Gases Are the Primary and Best
Understood Driver of Current and
Projected Climate Change
The Administrator judges that the
scientific evidence is compelling that
together the six well-mixed GHGs
constitute the largest anthropogenic
driver of climate change. In addition,
the six well-mixed GHGs are the bestunderstood driver of climate change
because they have well-understood
physical properties as described above
that govern their climate effect (e.g.,
their radiative forcing, a measure of
their total net effect on the global energy
balance). As explained in more detail in
the 2009 Endangerment Finding,120 the
Administrator made the judgment that
the scientific evidence is compelling
that elevated concentrations of heattrapping GHGs are the root cause of
recently observed climate change and
that the scientific record showed that
most of the observed increase in global
average temperatures since the mid-20th
century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic
GHG concentrations. The attribution of
observed climate change to
anthropogenic activities was based on
multiple lines of evidence. The first line
of evidence arises from our basic
physical understanding of the effects of
changing concentrations of GHGs,
natural factors, and other human
impacts on the climate system. The
second line of evidence arises from
indirect, historical estimates of past
climate changes that suggest that the
changes in global surface temperature
over the last several decades are
unusual. The third line of evidence
arises from the use of computer-based
climate models to simulate the likely
patterns of response of the climate
system to different forcing mechanisms
(both natural and anthropogenic).
Observed increases in global average air
temperatures are driving observed
climate impacts like widespread melting
of snow and ice and rising global
average sea level. The Administrator
also considered these observed changes
as additional evidence of the
unequivocal warming of the climate
system driven primarily by elevated
atmospheric GHG concentrations
because the consistency of these
observed changes in physical and
biological systems and the observed
significant warming cannot be
explained entirely due to natural
variability or other confounding nonclimate factors.
120 74
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
FR at 66517–18.
15AUR3
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
54444
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
In addition, as described in more
detail in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding,121 the Administrator made the
judgment that the scientific evidence is
compelling that six GHGs are expected
to remain the primary driver of future
climate change and that, without
substantial and near-term efforts to
significantly reduce emissions, it can be
expected that atmospheric
concentrations of the six GHGs will
continue to climb and thus lead to ever
greater rates of climate change. Given
the long atmospheric lifetime of the six
well-mixed GHGs, which range from
roughly a decade to centuries, future
atmospheric GHG concentrations for the
remainder of this century and beyond
will be influenced not only by future
emissions but indeed by present-day
and near-term emissions. Consideration
of future plausible scenarios, and how
our current GHG emissions essentially
commit present and future generations
to cope with an altered atmosphere and
climate, reinforces the Administrator’s
judgment that it is appropriate to define
the combination of the six key
greenhouse gases as the air pollution.
Most future scenarios that assume no
explicit GHG mitigation actions (beyond
those already enacted) project
increasing global GHG emissions over
the century, which in turn result in
climbing GHG concentrations.
Concentrations of the six well-mixed
GHGs increase even for those scenarios
where annual emissions toward the end
of the century are assumed to be lower
than current annual emissions.
The EPA has also carefully reviewed
the recent assessments of the IPCC,
USGCRP, and NRC. The EPA finds that
these recent assessments support and
strengthen the evidence cited in the
2009 Endangerment Finding that
current atmospheric GHG
concentrations are now at elevated and
essentially unprecedented levels
primarily as a result of both historic and
current anthropogenic emissions. The
2014 USGCRP NCA3 states,
‘‘Atmospheric levels measured at
Mauna Loa in Hawai‘i and at other sites
around the world reached 400 parts per
million in 2013, higher than the Earth
has experienced in over a million
years.’’ 122 Such concentrations are the
primary driver of observed changes in
Earth’s climate system, namely
increased global average temperatures
that drive climate impacts like
widespread melting of snow and ice and
121 74
FR at 66518–19.
Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 739.
122 Melillo,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
rising global average sea level
(discussed in more detail in section
IV.C). The recent assessments of the
IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC also describe
how these six well-mixed GHGs play a
dominant role in future warming of the
climate system. The USGCRP NCA3
makes the following finding with very
high confidence: ‘‘The magnitude of
climate change beyond the next few
decades depends primarily on the
amount of heat-trapping gases emitted
globally, and how sensitive the Earth’s
climate is to those emissions.’’ 123 Key
findings from the recent assessments
regarding global and U.S. trends are
described briefly below.
a. Key Observed Trends Driven
Primarily by the Six Well-Mixed GHGs
According to the IPCC AR5,
observations of the Earth’s globally
averaged combined land and ocean
surface temperature over the period
1880 to 2012 show a warming of 0.85
[0.65 to 1.06] degrees Celsius or 1.53
[1.17 to 1.91] degrees Fahrenheit.124 The
IPCC AR5 concludes that the increase in
atmospheric GHG concentrations since
1750, plus other human activities (e.g.,
land use change and aerosol emissions),
has had a radiative forcing effect
estimated to be 2.3 Watts per square
meter (W/m2) in 2011.125 Radiative
forcing is a measure of a substance’s
total net effect on the global energy
balance for which a positive number
represents a warming effect and a
negative number represents a cooling
effect. The IPCC’s estimate is an
increase from the previous 2007 IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) total
net estimate of 1.6 W/m2 that was
referred to in the record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding. The reasons for
this increase include continued
increases in GHG concentrations, as
well as reductions in the estimated
negative forcing due to aerosol particles.
The IPCC AR5 rates the level of
confidence 126 in their radiative forcing
123 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p.20. See also p. 736: ‘‘Past emissions of heattrapping gases have already committed the world to
a certain amount of future climate change. How
much more the climate will change depends on
future emissions and the sensitivity of the climate
system to those emissions.’’
124 ‘‘IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K.
Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, 29 pp.
125 Ibid.
126 The IPCC expresses levels of confidence using
five qualifiers: Very low, low, medium, high, and
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
estimates as ‘‘high’’ for methane and
‘‘very high’’ for CO2 and nitrous oxide.
The new assessments also have
greater confidence since the 2009
Endangerment Finding in attributing
recent warming to human causes. The
IPCC AR5 stated that it is extremely
likely (>95 percent likelihood) that
human influences have been the
dominant cause of warming since the
mid-20th century, which is an even
stronger statement than the AR4
conclusion that it is very likely (>90
percent likelihood) that most of the
increase in temperature since the mid20th century was due to the observed
increase in anthropogenic GHG
concentrations. The AR4 conclusion
was referred to in the record for the
2009 Endangerment Finding. In
addition, the IPCC AR5 found that
concentrations of CO2 and several other
of the major GHGs are higher than they
have been in at least 800,000 years. This
is an increase from what was reported
in IPCC AR4, which found higher
concentrations than in at least 650,000
years.
The USGCRP NCA3 states that there
is very high confidence 127 that the
global climate change of the past 50
years is primarily due to human
activities. Human activities are affecting
climate through increasing atmospheric
levels of heat-trapping GHGs, through
changing levels of various particles that
can have either a heating or cooling
influence on the atmosphere, and
through activities such as land use
changes that alter the reflectivity of the
Earth’s surface and cause climatic
warming and cooling effects. The
USGCRP concludes that ‘‘considering
all known natural and human drivers of
climate since 1750, a strong net
warming from long-lived greenhouse
gases produced by human activities
dominates the recent climate
record.’’ 128
These recent and strong conclusions
attributing recent observed global
warming to human influence have been
made despite what some have termed a
very high. These levels are based on a qualitative
evaluation of the robustness of the evidence
(considering the type, amount, quality, and
consistency of evidence such as data, mechanistic
understanding, theory, models, and expert
judgment) and the degree of agreement among the
findings.
127 The NCA expresses levels of confidence using
four qualifiers: low, medium, high, and very high.
These levels are based on the strength and
consistency of the observed evidence; the skill,
range, and consistency of model projections; and
insights from peer-reviewed sources.
128 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 741.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
warming slowdown or ‘‘hiatus’’ over the
past 15 years or so. The IPCC AR5 notes
that global mean surface temperature
exhibits substantial natural decadal and
interannual variability. Short-term
variability does not alter conclusions
about the long-term climate trend that
the IPCC AR5 finds after its review of
independently verified observational
records: ‘‘Each of the past three decades
has been successively warmer at the
Earth’s surface than all the previous
decades in the instrumental record, and
the first decade of the 21st century has
been the warmest.’’ 129 130
Temperature trends at the global level
have also been observed regionally and
in the United States. In the Northern
Hemisphere, the IPCC AR5 finds that
the last 30 years were likely the warmest
30-year period of the last 1400 years.
The USGCRP NCA3 states with very
high confidence that ‘‘U.S. average
temperature has increased by 1.3 °F to
1.9 °F since record keeping began in
1895; most of this increase has occurred
since about 1970. The most recent
decade was the nation’s warmest on
record.’’ 131 The USGCRP also notes that
the rate of U.S. temperature increase
over the past 4 to 5 decades has been
greater than the rate observed in earlier
decades.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
b. Key Projections Based Primarily on
Future Scenarios of the Six Well-Mixed
GHGs
Future temperature changes will
depend on what path the world follows
with respect to GHG emissions and
associated levels of GHG concentrations
in the atmosphere. The NRC Climate
Stabilization Targets assessment
concludes that CO2 emissions are
currently altering the atmosphere’s
composition and will continue to alter
Earth’s climate for thousands of years.
The NRC Understanding Earth’s Deep
Past assessment finds that ‘‘the
magnitude and rate of the present
129 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor,
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex
and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].Cambridge University
Press, p. 161.
130 Furthermore, we note that according to both
NOAA and NASA, 2015 was the warmest year in
the modern instrumental record for globally
averaged surface temperature, breaking the record
previously held by 2014. This now means that the
last fifteen years have been fifteen of the sixteen
warmest years on record. Available at http://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513 (last
accessed April 11, 2016).
131 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 28.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
greenhouse gas increase place the
climate system in what could be one of
the most severe increases in radiative
forcing of the global climate system in
Earth history.’’ 132 A key future
projection of this assessment is that by
the end of the century, if no emissions
reductions are made, CO2
concentrations are projected to increase
to levels that Earth has not experienced
for more than 30 million years. In its
high emission scenario, the IPCC AR5
projects that global temperatures by the
end of the century will likely be 2.6 to
4.8 degrees Celsius (4.7 to 8.6 degrees
Fahrenheit) warmer than today.
Temperatures on land and in northern
latitudes will likely warm even faster
than the global average.
For the United States, the USGCRP
NCA3 concludes, ‘‘Warming is
ultimately projected for all parts of the
nation during this century. In the next
few decades, this warming will be
roughly 2 °F to 4 °F in most areas. By
the end of the century, U.S. warming is
projected to correspond closely to the
level of global emissions: roughly 3 °F
to 5 °F under lower emissions scenarios
(B1 or RCP 4.5) involving substantial
reductions in emissions, and 5 °F to 10
°F for higher emissions scenarios (A2 or
RCP 8.5) that assume continued
increases in emissions; the largest
temperature increases are projected for
the upper Midwest and Alaska.’’ 133
3. The Six Well-Mixed GHGs Are
Currently the Common Focus of the
Climate Change Science and Policy
Communities
The six well-mixed GHGs are
currently the common focus of climate
science and policy analyses and
discussions. Grouping them is
consistent with the focus of
international and domestic climate
science research enterprises like the
IPCC and USGCRP. The IPCC and
USGCRP assessment reports assess the
climate change effects on health,
society, and the environment as a result
of human-induced climate change
driven primarily by the group of six
gases.
Grouping them is also consistent with
the focus of climate policy. The United
Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed and
ratified by the United States in 1992,
requires its signatories to ‘‘develop,
132 NRC, 2011: Understanding Earth’s Deep Past:
Lessons for Our Climate Future. The National
Academies Press, p. 138.
133 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 29.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54445
periodically update, publish and make
available . . . national inventories of
anthropogenic emissions by sources and
removals by sinks of all greenhouse
gases not controlled by the Montreal
Protocol, using comparable
methodologies . . .’’ 134 To date, the
primary focus of UNFCCC actions and
discussions has been on the six wellmixed GHGs, including the recent Paris
Agreement in which Parties agreed to
undertake nationally determined
contributions to achieving the goal of
‘‘global peaking of GHG emissions as
soon as possible’’ in order to reach a
long-term global temperature target.135
Domestically, the EPA has been
developing standards for GHG
emissions from mobile and stationary
sources under the Clean Air Act since
finalizing the 2009 Endangerment
Finding.
4. Defining Air Pollution as the
Aggregate Group of Six GHGs Is
Consistent With Evaluation of Risks and
Impacts Due to Human-Induced Climate
Change
Based on her review of the science
described in detail above in section
IV.B.2, the Administrator judges that the
six well-mixed GHGs constitute the
largest anthropogenic driver of climate
change and play a dominant role in
observed and projected changes in
Earth’s climate system. Thus, the
Administrator finds, as she did in the
2009 Endangerment Finding, that
because the six well-mixed GHGs are
collectively the primary driver of
current and projected human-induced
climate change, the current and future
risks (here described in section IV.C
below) due to human-induced climate
change—whether these risks are
associated with increases in
temperature, changes in precipitation, a
rise in sea levels, changes in the
frequency and intensity of weather
events, or more directly with the
elevated GHG concentrations
themselves—can be associated with this
definition of air pollution. Due to the
cumulative purpose of the statutory
language, even if the Administrator
were to look at the atmospheric
134 United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, 1992: Article 4(1)(a) of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
p. 10. Available at https://unfccc.int/files/essential_
background/background_publications_htmlpdf/
application/pdf/conveng.pdf (last accessed April
11, 2016).
135 United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, 2015: Adoption of the Paris
Agreement Conference of the Parties Twenty-first
session Paris, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, 12
December 2015, Available at: https://unfccc.int/
resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54446
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
concentration of each GHG individually,
she would still consider the impact of
the concentration of a single GHG in
combination with that caused by the
other GHGs.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
5. Defining Air Pollution as the
Aggregate Group of Six GHGs Is
Consistent With Past EPA Practice
Treating the air pollution as the
aggregate of the well-mixed GHGs is
consistent with other provisions of the
CAA and previous EPA practice under
the CAA, where separate emissions from
different sources but with common
properties may be treated as a class (e.g.,
particulate matter (PM)). This approach
addresses the total, cumulative effect
that the elevated concentrations of the
six well-mixed GHGs have on climate
and, thus, on different elements of
health, society, and the environment.
The EPA treats, for example, PM as a
common class of air pollution; PM is a
complex mixture of extremely small
particles and liquid droplets. Particle
pollution is made up of a number of
components, including acids (such as
nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals,
metals, and soil or dust particles.
6. Response to Key Comments on
Defining the Air Pollution as the
Aggregate Group of the Six Well-Mixed
Greenhouse Gases
Many commenters agreed with the
EPA that the ‘‘air pollution’’ for
purposes of the endangerment finding
under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
should be defined as the six well-mixed
GHGs. Several commenters discussed
the fact that aircraft engines emit only
two of the six well-mixed GHGs.
Commenters pointed out that the
majority of aircraft emissions are CO2,
while nitrous oxide emissions are
described as ‘‘nominal (<1%)’’ or
‘‘trace.’’ Some commenters ultimately
concluded that the EPA’s approach to
defining the air pollution as an
aggregate group of six gases is
acceptable, but that the scope of future
regulations should be limited to CO2.
One commenter agreed with the
Agency’s evaluation of the six GHGs
based on their common attributes, but
questioned the EPA’s decision to
aggregate the six gases rather than
considering them individually for
purposes of making the findings. Other
commenters disagreed with the EPA and
requested limiting the definition of air
pollution in this action to CO2 or to CO2
and nitrous oxide.
The EPA disagrees with comments
regarding changing the definition of the
air pollution to limit it to only those
GHGs that are emitted from aircraft or
to CO2 only. The EPA has explained
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
both in the 2009 Endangerment Finding
and in the proposed findings under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) that the
definition of the air pollution is based
on shared characteristics and common
attributes relevant to climate change
science and policy 136—which is not
affected by the identity of the source(s)
of the emissions contributing to the air
pollution. The EPA recognized in the
proposed findings that aircraft emit two
of the six well-mixed GHGs but stated
that nonetheless it is entirely reasonable
and appropriate, and in keeping with
the 2009 Endangerment Finding and
past EPA practice, for the Administrator
to group into a single class those
substances that possess shared relevant
properties, even though they are not all
emitted from the classes of sources
before her.137 After considering all the
comments, this continues to be the
EPA’s view. Moreover, this approach to
defining air pollution (and air pollutant,
as described below) as a grouping of
many substances is not unique to GHGs
but rather is common practice under the
CAA, for example for particulate matter
and volatile organic compounds.
The five primary reasons for grouping
the six well-mixed GHGs are explained
in detail above in sections IV.B.1
through IV.B.5. Because the well-mixed
GHGs are collectively the primary driver
of current and projected human-induced
climate change, all current and future
risks due to human-induced climate
change can be associated with this
definition of air pollution. Thus, this
grouping is consistent with evaluation
of the scientific issues that the EPA is
required to examine in this
endangerment finding, namely the risks
and impacts due to human-induced
climate change. As discussed above, the
key scientific evidence and observations
that are the basis of this finding focus
on the combined six well-mixed GHGs,
and did not assess risks and impacts
associated with greenhouse gas-induced
climate change using an individual gas
approach. Accordingly, we are not
undertaking a separate endangerment
analysis for each of the six well-mixed
gases individually.
The question of limits to the scope of
future regulations is outside of the scope
of this action because the EPA has
neither proposed nor is finalizing in this
action any such regulatory standards.
This final action does not itself impose
any requirements on source categories
under CAA section 231. Thus, the EPA
anticipates that this question could be
raised and considered, as needed, in the
standard-setting phase of the regulatory
process, and the EPA will consider
137 80
PO 00000
FR at 37774, 37785 and 37787.
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
comments submitted on the issue of the
appropriate form of emission standards
in response to EPA’s anticipated future
notice of proposed rulemaking on
standards. Although this final action
establishes a duty for the EPA to
promulgate standards for the GHG
emissions from engines used by covered
aircraft, the findings do not pre-judge
the form that such standards may take.
Another commenter expressed
concern about EPA’s proposed
endangerment finding because it does
not differentiate between CO2 emissions
that result from combustion of fossil
fuels and those that result from
‘‘combustion of biomass or biofuels
derived from herbaceous crops or crop
residues, as well as biogenic CO2
emissions associated with the
production, gathering and processing of
crops or crop residues used in bio-based
products including fuels.’’ 138 The
commenter argues that such croprelated biogenic CO2 emissions should
be excluded from the endangerment
finding because the CO2 released back to
the atmosphere when emitted from
crop-derived biogenic sources contains
the same carbon that was previously
removed or sequestered from CO2 in the
atmosphere and thus does not
contribute to elevated atmospheric
concentrations of the six well-mixed
GHGs.
The EPA reiterates that the
Administrator defines the relevant air
pollution considered in the
endangerment finding as the aggregate
group of the six well-mixed GHGs based
on shared physical characteristics and
common attributes relevant to climate
change science and policy, which is not
affected by consideration of the sources
of the emissions contributing to the air
pollution. In the record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the Agency
stated that ‘‘all CO2 emissions,
regardless of source, influence radiative
forcing equally once it reaches the
atmosphere and therefore there is no
distinction between biogenic and nonbiogenic CO2 regarding the CO2 and the
other well-mixed GHGs within the
definition of air pollution that is
reasonably anticipated to endanger
public health and welfare.’’ 139 The EPA
continues to hold that position in these
138 Biogenic CO Coalition, 2015: Comments on
2
EPA’s Proposed Finding That Greenhouse Gas
Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air
Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To
Endanger Public Health and Welfare, 80 FR 37757
(July 1, 2015). Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–
2014–0828–0916. Available at www.regulations.gov
(last accessed April 11, 2016).
139 EPA, 2009. Response to Comments document,
Volume 9: The Endangerment Finding, EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0171–11676. Available at
www.regulations.gov (last accessed April 11, 2016).
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
findings, which is supported by the
evidence before it. First, the fact that
these CO2 emissions originate from
combustion of carbon-based fuels
created through different processes is
not relevant to defining the air pollution
that is reasonably anticipated to
endanger public health and welfare. The
origin and constitution of a fuel prior to
its combustion and subsequent emission
into the atmosphere has no bearing on
the fact that CO2 and the other wellmixed GHGs are all sufficiently long
lived to become well mixed in the
atmosphere, directly emitted, of wellknown radiative forcing, and generally
grouped and considered together in
climate change scientific and policy
forums as the primary driver of climate
change. Moreover, as explained in
section IV.C of this document, the
endangerment arises from the elevated
concentrations of the six well-mixed
GHGs in the atmosphere. A molecule of
biogenic CO2 has the same radiative
forcing effect as a molecule of fossil-fuel
derived CO2. In other words, no matter
the original source of the CO2, the
behavior of the CO2 molecules in the
atmosphere in terms of radiative forcing,
chemical reactivity, and atmospheric
lifetime is effectively the same. Any
differential treatment of biogenic CO2 in
the context of the endangerment finding
would be inconsistent with the primary
scientific basis for the grouping of the
six well-mixed GHGs as a single class
for purposes of identifying the air
pollution (and air pollutant, as
explained below). A more detailed
response to the issues raised in this
comment can be found in the Response
to Comments document in the docket.
7. Other Climate Forcers Not Being
Included in the Definition of Air
Pollution for This Finding
Both in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding and in this action, the
Administrator recognizes that there are
other substances in addition to the six
well-mixed GHGs that are emitted from
human activities and that affect Earth’s
climate (referred to as climate forcers).
However, as described in more detail in
the 2009 Endangerment Finding and in
the proposed findings under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A),140 these substances
do not fit within one or more of the five
primary reasons for focusing on this
aggregate group as the air pollution. As
described in the following subsections,
we received comments on the omission
of water vapor, NOX, and aerosol
particles emitted from aircraft from the
proposed definition of air pollution for
this finding, but not on the omission of
other climate forcers. After considering
public comments and additional
information in the new assessments
regarding the climate-relevant
substances outside the group of the six
well-mixed GHGs, it is the
Administrator’s view that the reasons
stated in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding 141 for not including these
substances in the scope of the GHG air
pollution still apply at this time.
As the EPA acknowledged in the
proposed findings,142 some short-lived
substances—namely water vapor, NOX
emitted at high altitude, and aerosol
particles including black carbon—have
physical properties that result in their
having different, and often larger,
climate effects when emitted at high
altitudes. For example, the assessment
literature indicates that aerosol
particles, including black carbon,
emitted at high altitudes have more
interactions with clouds and therefore
have different effects on the global
energy balance than do particles emitted
at the surface. However, the very
properties that lead to differential
climate effects depending on the
altitude of emission—properties that are
different from those of the six wellmixed GHGs—lead to more uncertainty
in the scientific understanding of these
short-lived substances’ total effect on
Earth’s climate. The short-lived nature
of these substances means that, unlike
GHGs that are sufficiently long lived to
become well mixed in the atmosphere,
the climatic impact of the substance is
dependent on a number of factors such
as the location and time of its emission.
The magnitude, and often the direction
(positive/warming or negative/cooling),
of the globally averaged climate impact
will differ depending on the location of
the emission due to the local
atmospheric conditions (e.g., due to
differing concentrations of other
compounds with which the emissions
can react, background humidity levels,
or the presence or absence of clouds). In
addition, for emissions at any given
location, the spatial and temporal
pattern of the climate forcing will be
heterogeneous, again often differing in
direction (for example, in the case of
NOX emissions, the near-term effect in
the hemisphere in which the emissions
occur is usually warming due to
increased ozone concentrations, but the
longer term effects, and effects in the
other hemisphere, are often cooling due
to increased destruction of methane).
More detail on the uncertainties relating
to the climate effects of these short-lived
substances is provided in the
141 74
140 74
FR at 66519–21 and 80 FR at 37781–84.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
142 80
PO 00000
FR at 66519–21.
FR at 37781–84.
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54447
subsections below in response to public
comments and in the Response to
Comments document.
Overall, the state of the science as
represented in the assessment literature
at present continues to highlight
significant scientific uncertainties
regarding the total net forcing effect of
water vapor, NOX, and aerosol particles
when emitted at high altitudes. The
dependence of the effects on where the
substance is emitted, and the complex
temporal and spatial patterns that result,
mean that the current level of
understanding regarding these shortlived substances is much lower than for
the six well-mixed GHGs. Given the
aforementioned scientific uncertainties
at present, the Agency is not including
these constituents in the definition of
air pollution for purposes of the
endangerment finding under section
231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA.
Many public comments either
supported or opposed inclusion of other
substances in addition to the six wellmixed GHGs in the definition of air
pollution, and some specifically
suggested water vapor, NOX, and aerosol
particles as additional substances to
include in that definition. The Agency’s
full responses to those comments can be
found in the Response to Comments
document; key comments and responses
are summarized below.
a. Response to Key Comments on
Including Other Climate Forcers in the
Definition of Air Pollution
Some commenters argued that the
proposed findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) did not demonstrate careful
examination of the scientific issues with
regard to those short-lived substances
that have different climate effects when
emitted at high altitudes, and that a
more thorough analysis should lead the
EPA to conclude that water vapor, NOX,
and black carbon also drive climate
change in addition to the six well-mixed
GHGs. These comments stated that the
EPA should have quantified and
included the effect of high-altitude
water vapor, NOX, and black carbon in
the Agency’s discussion of drivers of
climate change. Another commenter
argued that the EPA should include
metal particulates (specifically lead,
barium, and aluminum) in the
definition of air pollution for this
finding because of their role in aviationinduced cloudiness, which the
commenter argues has a larger effect on
climate change than the six well-mixed
GHGs.
Although the EPA is not at this time
taking final action to determine whether
these other climate forcers should be
found to represent air pollution within
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54448
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
the meaning of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A), the EPA disagrees with
these comments suggesting that the
Agency did not carefully examine the
scientific issues and information
supporting its current endangerment
finding in regard to these substances.
Consistent with the approach described
in the proposed findings and for the
reasons discussed above, the
Administrator considers the major peerreviewed scientific assessments of the
IPCC and NRC as the primary scientific
and technical basis informing the
endangerment finding and providing the
current state of scientific understanding
of the differential climate effects that
water vapor, NOX, and aerosols such as
black carbon have when emitted at high
altitudes. The EPA has considered the
following assessment reports to obtain
the best estimates of these substances’
net impact on the climate system, which
is generally discussed in terms of
radiative forcing: The IPCC AR5, the
IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4),143 the IPCC Special Report:
Aviation and the Global Atmosphere
(IPCC 1999),144 the NRC’s Advancing
the Science of Climate Change (NRC
2010),145 and the NRC’s Atmospheric
Effects of Aviation: A Review of NASA’s
Subsonic Assessment Project (NRC
1999).146 The USGCRP assessments
have not dealt specifically with
emissions at high altitude.
As described previously in section
IV.A of this document, the
Administrator’s consideration of the
major scientific assessments provides
assurance that the Administrator is
basing her judgment on the best
available, well-vetted science that
reflected the consensus of the climate
science research community. These
scientific assessments addressed the
scientific issues that the EPA was
required to examine, were
comprehensive in their coverage of the
GHG and climate change issues, and
underwent rigorous and exacting peer
review by the expert community, as
well as rigorous levels of U.S.
143 IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)] Cambridge University Press, 996 pp.
144 IPCC, 1999: Aviation and the Global
Atmosphere, Special Report to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Penner, J.E., D.H. Lister, D.J. Griggs, D.J.Dokken,
M.McFarland (eds.)] Cambridge University Press,
373 pp.
145 NRC, 2010: Advancing the Science of Climate
Change. The National Academies Press, 528 pp.
146 NRC, 1999: Atmospheric Effects of Aviation: A
Review of NASA’s Subsonic Assessment Project.
The National Academies Press, 54 pp.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
government review, in which the EPA
took part. The commenters provide no
compelling arguments against this
approach, which underwent judicial
review and was upheld as described in
section IV.A of this document. The
assessments synthesize literally
thousands of individual studies to
convey the consensus conclusions on
what the body of scientific literature
tells us, and the commenters did not
provide evidence that we had missed or
mischaracterized conclusions of the
assessments regarding aviation impacts.
The state of the science as represented
in the assessment literature supports the
EPA’s reasons for defining the air
pollution as the aggregate group of the
six well-mixed GHGs, which include
their common physical properties
relevant to climate change (i.e., directly
emitted and sufficiently long lived to
become well mixed in the atmosphere),
the fact that these gases are considered
the primary drivers of climate change,
and the fact that these gases remain the
best understood drivers of
anthropogenic climate change. Water
vapor, NOX, aerosol particles, or
aviation-induced cloudiness associated
with metal particulates do not share
these common attributes, and are each
associated with substantial scientific
uncertainty. Accordingly, although the
EPA is not making a final determination
on whether these additional substances
should be found to be air pollution
within the meaning of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A), the EPA is not at this time
changing or expanding the definition of
the air pollution to include these
additional substances. The following
subsections provide additional
discussion of the state of the science as
represented in the assessment literature
regarding the climatic effects of these
substances when emitted at high
altitudes.
b. Responses to Key Comments on
Changes in Clouds From High Altitude
Emissions of Water Vapor and Particles
Some commenters supported the
EPA’s summary of the scientific
assessment literature and agreed that
there are substantial scientific
uncertainties regarding net climate
effects of aviation-induced cloudiness
from high altitude emissions of water
vapor and particles. Other commenters
disagreed and argued that there is clear
scientific evidence that aviationinduced cloudiness associated with
high altitude emissions of water vapor
drives climate change and should be
included in the definition of air
pollution. One commenter disagrees and
argues that, due to their effect on
aviation-induced cloudiness and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
climate change, metal particulates
should be included in the definition of
air pollution.
The EPA disagrees with the comments
regarding changing or expanding the
definition of the air pollution employed
in this endangerment finding to include
these additional substances. For the
reasons stated above, the Administrator
considers the scientific assessment
literature as the primary scientific and
technical basis informing the
endangerment finding and providing the
state of climate science on aviationinduced cloudiness. Section IV.B.4 of
the proposed findings under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) 147 explained that
aviation-induced cloudiness (sometimes
called AIC) refers to all changes in
cloudiness associated with aviation
operations, which are primarily due to
the effects of high altitude emissions of
water vapor and particles (primarily
sulfates and black carbon). Changes in
cloudiness affect the climate by both
reflecting solar radiation (cooling) and
trapping outgoing longwave radiation
(warming). Unlike the warming effects
associated with GHGs that are
sufficiently long lived to become well
mixed in the atmosphere, the climate
effects associated with changes in cloud
cover are more regional and temporal in
nature. The assessment literature
describes three main components of
aviation-induced cloudiness—persistent
contrails, contrail-induced cirrus, and
induced cirrus. Aircraft engine
emissions of water vapor at high
altitudes during flight can lead to the
formation of condensation trails, or
contrails, under certain conditions such
as ice-supersaturated air masses with
specific humidity levels and
temperature.
The NRC estimated that persistent
contrails increased cloudiness above the
United States by two percent between
1950 and 1988, with similar results
reported over Europe.148 As stated
above, clouds can have both warming
and cooling effects, and persistent
contrails were once considered to have
significant net warming effects.
However, more recent estimates suggest
a smaller overall climate forcing effect
of persistent contrails. The IPCC AR5
best estimate for the global mean
radiative forcing from contrails is 0.01
W/m2 (medium confidence and with an
uncertainty range of 0.005 to 0.03 W/
m2). 149 To put both the magnitude and
147 80
FR at 37782–83.
1999: Atmospheric Effects of Aviation: A
Review of NASA’s Subsonic Assessment Project.
The National Academies Press, 54 pp.
149 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
148 NRC,
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
large uncertainty range of this number
for the first of the three components of
aviation-induced cloudiness into
context, some examples of other IPCC
AR5 best estimates for global mean
radiative forcing include: 1.68 W/m2 for
CO2 (very high confidence and with an
uncertainty range of 1.33 to 2.03 W/m2),
0.97 W/m2 for methane (high
confidence and with an uncertainty
range of 0.74 to 1.20 W/m2), and 0.17
W/m2 for nitrous oxide (very high
confidence and with an uncertainty
range of .013 to 0.21 W/m2).150 In
addition, the NRC (2010) assessment
suggested that contrails may affect
regional diurnal temperature
differences, but this has been called into
question by the recent findings
presented in the IPCC AR5, which
suggests that aviation contrails do not
have an effect on mean or diurnal range
of surface temperatures (medium
confidence).
Persistent contrails also sometimes
lose their linear form and develop into
cirrus clouds, an effect referred to as
contrail-induced cirrus. Studies to date
have been unable to isolate this second
of three main climate forcing
components of aviation-induced
cloudiness, but the IPCC AR5 provides
a combined contrail and contrailinduced cirrus best estimate of 0.05 W/
m2 (low confidence and with an
uncertainty range of 0.02 and 0.15 W/
m2).151
Particles emitted or formed in the
atmosphere as a result of aircraft
emissions (primarily sulfates and black
carbon) may also act as ice nuclei and
modify naturally forming cirrus clouds,
an effect referred to as ‘‘induced cirrus.’’
This third of three main climate forcing
components of aviation-induced
cloudiness is an area of active research,
and there are significant challenges in
estimating the climatic impacts of cirrus
cloud modification. Neither IPCC AR4
nor AR5 provided global or regional
estimates related to this forcing, with
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor,
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex
and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].Cambridge University
Press, 1535 pp.
150 IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K.
Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, 29 pp.
151 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor,
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex
and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].Cambridge University
Press, 1535 pp.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
the AR5 stating that ‘‘it is deemed too
uncertain to be further assessed
here.’’152 The 2007 IPCC AR4
characterizes our knowledge of the
natural freezing modes in cirrus
conditions as ‘‘poor’’ and notes that
cirrus cloud processes are not well
represented in global models.153
Given differences in scientific
understanding of the three main
components of aviation-induced
cloudiness, the more recent assessments
have not provided quantitative
estimates of the overall net climate
forcing effect of changes in clouds from
high altitude emissions of water vapor
and particles. Going back to the 1999
IPCC assessment’s quantitative
estimates, the science is characterized as
‘‘very uncertain’’ with a range for the
best estimate between 0 to 0.040 W/
m2.154 Thus, based on its consideration
of the scientific evidence and all the
comments on this issue, the EPA agrees
with those commenters that indicate
there are substantial scientific
uncertainties regarding net effects of the
three components of aviation-induced
cloudiness on the climate system. These
uncertainties result in the Agency’s not
being prepared at this time to determine
whether these additional substances are
air pollution within the meaning of
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) and not
including them within the definition of
‘‘air pollution’’ being employed in this
endangerment finding.
c. Responses to Key Comments on
Direct Radiative Forcing Effects of High
Altitude Particle Emissions
Some commenters supported the
EPA’s summary of the scientific
uncertainties regarding the net direct
radiative forcing effects of aviationinduced particles including black
carbon. Other commenters disagreed
and argued that there is clear scientific
evidence that black carbon in particular
drives climate change and should be
included in the definition of air
pollution.
The EPA disagrees with comments
regarding changing or expanding the
definition of the air pollution employed
in this endangerment finding to include
152 Ibid.
153 IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)] Cambridge University Press, 996 pp.
154 IPCC, 1999: Aviation and the Global
Atmosphere, Special Report to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Penner, J.E., D.H. Lister, D.J. Griggs, D.J.Dokken,
M.McFarland (eds.)] Cambridge University Press,
373 pp.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54449
aviation-induced particles like black
carbon. For the reasons stated above, the
Administrator considers the scientific
assessment literature as the primary
scientific and technical basis informing
the endangerment finding and providing
the state of climate science regarding the
direct radiative forcing effects of high
altitude emissions of the two primary
aviation-induced particles, sulfates and
black carbon. Section IV.B.4 of the
proposed findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) 155 explained that aircraft
emit precursor gases that convert to
sulfate particles in the atmosphere, such
as sulfur dioxide. Sulfate particles have
direct effects on the climate by
scattering solar radiation, which is a
negative radiative forcing that
ultimately results in cooling. The more
recent assessments have not identified a
quantitative best estimate for this
negative radiative forcing effect
specifically from aviation, as it is an
active area of scientific study with large
uncertainties. Going back to the 1999
IPCC assessment’s quantitative
estimates, the direct radiative forcing
effect of sulfate aerosols from aviation
for the year 1992 is estimated at ¥0.003
W/m2 with an uncertainty range
between ¥0.001 and ¥0.009 W/m2.156
Similarly, the proposed findings
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
explained that black carbon emissions
from aviation, which are produced by
the incomplete combustion of jet fuel,
primarily absorb solar radiation and
heat the surrounding air, resulting in a
warming effect (positive radiative
forcing). The more recent assessments
have not identified a quantitative best
estimate for this effect specifically from
aviation, as it is an area of active
scientific study with large uncertainties.
Going back to the 1999 IPCC
assessment’s quantitative estimates, the
global mean radiative forcing of black
carbon emissions from aircraft is
estimated to be 0.003 W/m2 with
uncertainty spanning 0.001 to 0.009 W/
m2.157 The IPCC 1999 assessment
suggests that because the contribution of
black carbon in the stratosphere (which
actually contributes to cooling of the
Earth’s surface rather than warming)
was not included in its calculations, its
estimates of radiative forcing were likely
to be too high.
In addition, the 2009 Endangerment
Finding did not include aerosols in the
155 80
FR at 37783.
1999: Aviation and the Global
Atmosphere, Special Report to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Penner, J.E., D.H. Lister, D.J. Griggs, D.J.Dokken,
M.McFarland (eds.)] Cambridge University Press,
373 pp.
157 Ibid.
156 IPCC,
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
54450
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
definition of air pollution, noting that
much of the uncertainty range
surrounding the best estimate of total
net forcing due to all human activities
was due to uncertainties about the
cooling and warming effects of
aerosols 158 (though from all sources, not
just aircraft). The 2009 Endangerment
Finding also stated that the magnitude
of aerosol effects can vary immensely
with location and season of emissions,
noting that estimates of its total climate
forcing effect have a large uncertainty
range.159 Regarding black carbon
specifically, the 2009 Endangerment
Finding noted that it does not share
common physical and chemical
attributes with the six well-mixed GHGs
because it is an aerosol particle (not a
gas) that has different physical,
chemical, and atmospheric properties.
Black carbon affects the climate
differently than GHGs that are
sufficiently long lived to become well
mixed in the atmosphere. In contrast to
its indirect warming and cooling effects
via clouds, black carbon causes a direct
warming effect primarily by absorbing
incoming and reflected sunlight
(whereas GHGs that are sufficiently long
lived to become well mixed in the
atmosphere cause warming by trapping
outgoing, infrared heat), and by
darkening bright surfaces such as snow
and ice, which reduces reflectivity.
Black carbon is short-lived, remaining
in the atmosphere for only about a
week, and does not become well-mixed
in the atmosphere. There are also
concerns in the international climate
science and policy communities about
how to treat the short-lived black carbon
emissions alongside GHGs—for
example, what are the appropriate
metrics to compare the warming and/or
climate effects of the different
substances, given that, unlike GHGs that
are sufficiently long lived to become
well mixed in the atmosphere, the
magnitude of aerosol effects can vary
immensely with location and season of
emissions.
Thus, although the EPA is not at this
time prepared to make a final
determination on whether black carbon
should be found to be air pollution
within the meaning of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A), based on its consideration
of the scientific evidence and all the
comments on this issue, and consistent
with its conclusion in the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the EPA
disagrees with commenters that ask for
black carbon to be included in the
definition of the air pollution as part of
this endangerment finding. Because
158 74
159 74
FR at 66517.
FR at 66520.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
aerosols such as black carbon and
sulfates are fundamentally different
from and do not share the relevant
properties that support grouping the six
well-mixed GHGs together as a class,
and scientific uncertainties remain
regarding the net radiative forcing
effects of these substances (whether in
general or when emitted at high
altitudes), the EPA is not at this time
including them in the definition of air
pollution employed in this finding.
However, because of these uncertainties
the Agency is not at this time taking
final action to determine whether these
additional substances should be found
to represent air pollution within the
meaning of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
the concentration of ozone, which has a
warming effect in the short term.
Elevated NOX concentrations also lead
to an increased rate of destruction of
methane, which has a cooling effect in
the long-term. The reduced methane
concentrations eventually contribute to
decreases in ozone, which also
decreases the long-term net warming
effect. Thus, the net radiative impact of
NOX emissions depends on the balance
between the reductions in methane
versus the production of ozone, which
in turn depends on the time scale under
consideration.
For the reasons stated above, the
Administrator considers the scientific
assessment literature as the primary
scientific and technical basis informing
d. Responses to Key Comments on
the endangerment finding and providing
Changes in Atmospheric Chemistry
the state of climate science regarding
From High Altitude Nitrogen Oxides
how emissions of NOX affect the climate
Emissions
system. Quantifying these impacts is an
Most commenters supported the
area of active scientific study with large
EPA’s summary of the scientific
uncertainties. The quantification of the
uncertainties regarding the changes in
net global effect of NOX is difficult
atmospheric chemistry from high
because the atmospheric chemistry
altitude NOX emissions. At least one
effects are heavily dependent on highly
commenter disagreed and argued that
localized atmospheric properties and
there is clear scientific evidence that the mixing ratios. Because the background
effects of NOX emissions on ozone
atmospheric concentration of NOX is
production have a significant climate
important for quantifying the impact of
forcing effect. They concluded that NOX NOX emissions on ozone and methane
should therefore be included in an
concentrations, the location of aircraft
endangerment finding.
emissions is an important additional
The EPA disagrees with comments to
factor. Going back to the IPCC 1999
the extent that they suggest including
assessment since no more recent
NOX in this endangerment finding by
quantitative estimates are available, the
changing or expanding the definition of globally averaged radiative forcing
the air pollution. NOX emissions have
estimates for high-altitude aircraft
different, and potentially larger, climate emissions of NOX in 1992 were 0.023
effects when emitted at high altitudes
W/m2 for ozone-induced changes
and about 90 percent of aircraft NOX is
(uncertainty range of 0.011 to 0.046
emitted in flight (not during landing and W/m2), and ¥0.014 W/m2 for methanetakeoff),160 meaning its relevance for
induced changes (uncertainty range of
climate change is primarily in relation
¥0.005 to ¥0.042 W/m2).162
to emissions at high altitude. The
The IPCC AR5 presents the impact of
atmospheric lifetime of NOX emitted
aviation high-altitude NOX emissions
near the surface is on the order of a few
using a different metric, global warming
hours, while in the upper troposphere,
potential (GWP), which is a measure of
or roughly the cruise altitude for jet
the warming impact of a pulse of
aircraft, it is on the order of several
emissions of a given substance over 100
days.
years relative to the same mass of CO2.
Section IV.B.4 of the proposed
The AR5 presents a range from ¥21 to
findings under CAA section
+75 for GWP of aviation NOX.163 The
231(a)(2)(A) 161 explained that emissions uncertainty in sign indicates uncertainty
of NOX do not themselves have warming
162 IPCC, 1999: Aviation and the Global
or cooling effects, but affect the climate
Atmosphere, Special Report to the
through catalyzing changes in the
chemical equilibrium of the atmosphere. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Penner, J.E., D.H. Lister, D.J. Griggs, D.J. Dokken,
High altitude emissions of NOX increase M. McFarland (eds.)] Cambridge University Press,
160 FAA,
System for Assessing Aviation’s Global
Emissions, Version 1.5, Global Aviation Emissions
Inventories for 2000 through 2004, FAA–EE–2005–
02, September 2005, revised March 2008, available
at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/apl/researc/models/sage/
(Last accessed April 14, 2016).
161 80 FR at 37783–84.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
373 pp.
163 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor,
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex
and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, 1535 pp.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
whether the net effect is one of warming
or cooling. This report further suggests
that at cruise altitude there is strong
regional sensitivity of ozone and
methane to NOX, particularly notable at
low latitudes.
Thus, although the EPA is not
prepared to determine whether NOX
emissions at high altitude should be
found to be air pollution within the
meaning of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A),
based on its consideration of the
scientific evidence and all the
comments on this issue, and consistent
with its conclusion in the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the EPA
disagrees with commenters that assert
that NOX should be included at this
time in the definition of the air
pollution for this finding. NOX does not
share the relevant properties that
support grouping the six well-mixed
GHGs together as a class. NOX is not
classified as a GHG because it
influences the climate system indirectly
through production of ozone rather than
directly through trapping outgoing heat.
In addition, NOX does not have a
sufficiently long atmospheric lifetime to
become well-mixed in the atmosphere
and significant scientific uncertainties
remain regarding its net radiative
forcing effects.
The Administrator notes that NOX
emissions are already regulated under
the EPA’s rules implementing CAA
section 231, at 40 CFR part 87, due to
their impacts during landing and takeoff operations (LTO). The prerequisite
endangerment and cause or contribute
findings that formed the basis for these
standards, however, did not rely upon
any conclusions regarding the climate
forcing impacts of NOX, but rather the
role of LTO NOX emissions as a
precursor to ozone formation in areas
that did not meet the NAAQS for
ozone.164 The continuing significant
uncertainties regarding high altitude
NOX emissions, which are emitted
during cruise operations rather than
during LTO, as a climate forcer do not
undermine the Agency’s prior
conclusion under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) that emissions of NOX from
aircraft engines cause or contribute to
air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare due to their contribution to
ozone concentrations that exceed the
NAAQS. This final finding does not
revise or reopen the Agency’s prior
findings under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
that emissions of NOX from aircraft
164 U.S. EPA, ‘‘Control of Air Pollution from
Aircraft and Aircraft Engines, Emission Standards
and Test Procedures for Aircraft.’’ Final Rule, 38 FR
19088 (July 17, 1973).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
engines cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare due to their contribution to
ozone concentrations that exceed the
NAAQS.
C. The Air Pollution is Reasonably
Anticipated To Endanger Both Public
Health and Welfare
The Administrator finds that elevated
atmospheric concentrations of the six
well-mixed GHGs may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger the public
health and welfare of current and future
generations within the meaning of CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). This section
describes the major pieces of scientific
evidence supporting the Administrator’s
endangerment finding, discusses both
the public health and welfare aspects of
the endangerment finding, and
addresses a number of key issues the
Administrator considered when
evaluating the state of the science.
The EPA is informed by and places
considerable weight on the extensive
scientific and technical evidence in the
record supporting the 2009
Endangerment Finding, including the
major, peer-reviewed scientific
assessments used to address the
question of whether GHGs in the
atmosphere endanger public health and
welfare, and on the analytical
framework and conclusions upon which
the EPA relied in making that finding.
This final finding under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) accounts for the EPA’s
careful consideration of the scientific
and technical record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding, of the new,
major scientific assessments issued
since closing the administrative record
for the 2009 Endangerment Finding, and
of public comments. No recent
information or assessments published
since late 2009 or provided by
commenters suggest that it would be
reasonable for the EPA to now reach a
different or contrary conclusion for
purposes of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
than the one the EPA reached in 2009
under CAA section 202(a). Rather, they
provide further support for this final
finding under section 231(a)(2)(A). In
particular, the new assessments
discussed in this document provide
additional detail regarding public health
impacts, particularly on groups and
people especially vulnerable to climate
change, including children, the elderly,
low-income communities and
individuals, indigenous groups, and
communities of color.
Following the same decision
framework and analysis that we
followed for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding, as detailed in section IV.B of
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54451
that finding,165 here we summarize the
general approach used by the
Administrator in reaching the judgment
that a positive endangerment finding
should be made for purposes of CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A), as well as the
specific rationale for finding that the
GHG air pollution may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger both public
health and welfare. First, the
Administrator finds the scientific
evidence linking anthropogenic
emissions and resulting elevated
atmospheric concentrations of the six
well-mixed GHGs to observed global
and regional temperature increases and
other climate changes to be sufficiently
robust and compelling. The
Administrator is basing her finding on
the total weight of scientific evidence
and what the science has to say
regarding the nature and potential
magnitude of the risks and impacts
across all climate-sensitive elements of
public health and welfare, now and
projected out into the foreseeable future.
The Administrator has considered the
state of the science on how
anthropogenic emissions and the
resulting elevated atmospheric
concentrations of the six well-mixed
GHGs may affect each of the major risk
categories, include human health, air
quality, food production and
agriculture, forestry, water resources,
sea level rise and coastal areas, the
energy sector, infrastructure and
settlements, and ecosystems and
wildlife. The Administrator understands
that the nature and potential severity of
impacts can vary across these different
elements of public health and welfare,
and that they can vary by region, as well
as over time.
The Administrator is therefore aware
that, because human-induced climate
change has the potential to be farreaching and multi-dimensional, not all
risks and potential impacts can be
characterized with a uniform level of
quantification or understanding, nor can
they be characterized with uniform
metrics. Thus, the Administrator is not
necessarily placing the greatest weight
on those risks and impacts which have
been the subject of the most study or
quantification. Rather, given this variety
in not only the nature and potential
magnitude of risks and impacts, but also
in our ability to characterize, quantify
and project into the future such impacts,
the Administrator must use her
judgment to weigh the threat in each of
the risk categories, weigh the potential
benefits where relevant, and ultimately
to judge whether these risks and
165 74
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
FR at 66523–36.
15AUR3
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
54452
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
benefits, when viewed in total, endanger
public health and/or welfare.
First, the Administrator has not
established a specific threshold metric
for the different categories of risk and
impacts, which are referred to as impact
sectors. The potential for both adverse
and beneficial effects is considered, as
well as the relative magnitude of such
effects, to the extent that the relative
magnitudes can be quantified or
characterized. Furthermore, given the
multiple ways in which the buildup of
anthropogenic GHG emissions in the
atmosphere can cause effects (e.g., via
elevated CO2 concentrations,
temperature increases, precipitation
increases, sea level rise, and changes in
extreme events), these multiple
pathways are considered. The
Administrator has balanced and
weighed the varying risks and effects for
each impact sector. She has judged
whether there is a pattern across the
sector that supports or does not support
an endangerment finding, and if so
whether the support is of more or less
weight. In cases where there is a
potential for both benefits and risks of
harm, the Administrator has balanced
these factors by determining whether
there appears to be any directional trend
in the overall evidence that would
support placing more weight on one
than the other, taking into consideration
all that is known about the likelihood of
the various risks and effects and their
seriousness. In all of these cases, the
judgment is largely qualitative in nature
and is not reducible to precise metrics
or quantification.
Regarding the timeframe for the
endangerment test, it is the
Administrator’s view that both current
and future conditions must be
considered. The Administrator is thus
taking the view that the endangerment
period of analysis extend from the
current time to the next several decades
and in some cases to the end of this
century. This consideration is also
consistent with the timeframes used in
the underlying scientific assessments.
The future timeframe under
consideration is consistent with the
atmospheric lifetime and climate effects
of the six well-mixed GHGs and also
with our ability to make reasonable and
plausible projections of future
conditions. The Administrator
acknowledges that some aspects of
climate change science and the
projected impacts are more certain than
others. Our state of knowledge is
strongest for recently observed, largescale changes. Uncertainty tends to
increase in characterizing changes at
smaller (regional) scales relative to large
(global) scales. Uncertainty also
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
increases as the temporal scales move
away from the present, either backward
or more importantly forward in time.
Nonetheless, the current state of
knowledge of observed and past climate
changes and their causes enables
projections of plausible future changes
under different scenarios of
anthropogenic forcing for a range of
spatial and temporal scales. The
subsections below summarize the
scientific information on climate change
impacts to public health and welfare
that inform the Administrator’s
judgment, as well as the key public
comments and Agency responses. The
Agency’s full responses to public
comments can be found in the Response
to Comments document.
1. The Air Pollution is Reasonably
Anticipated To Endanger Public Health
The Administrator finds under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) that the well-mixed
GHG air pollution is reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health,
for both current and future generations.
The Administrator finds that the public
health of current generations is
endangered and that the threat to public
health for both current and future
generations will mount over time as
GHGs continue to accumulate in the
atmosphere and result in ever greater
rates of climate change. The
Administrator continues to find robust
scientific evidence in the assessment
literature that climate change can
increase the risk of morbidity and
mortality and believes that these public
health impacts can and should be
considered when determining
endangerment to public health under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). As described
in section IV.B.1 of the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the
Administrator is not limited to only
considering whether there are any direct
health effects such as respiratory or
toxic effects associated with exposure to
GHGs.
Here we summarize information from
the scientific assessment literature cited
in the 2009 Endangerment Finding
showing that climate change resulting
from anthropogenic GHG emissions
threatens multiple aspects of public
health.166 In determining that the wellmixed GHG air pollution is reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health
for current and future generations under
CAA section 202(a), the Administrator
noted her view that climate change can
increase the risk of morbidity and
mortality. In making that public health
determination, the Administrator
considered direct temperature effects,
166 74
PO 00000
FR at 66524–30.
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
air quality effects, the potential for
changes in vector-borne diseases, and
the potential for changes in the severity
and frequency of extreme weather
events. In addition, the Administrator
considered whether and how
susceptible populations may be
particularly at risk. As explained in
more detail in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding, with respect to direct
temperature effects, by raising average
temperatures, climate change increases
the likelihood of heat waves, which are
associated with increased deaths and
illnesses. Climate change is also
expected to lead to reductions in coldrelated mortality. The 2009
Endangerment Finding, while noting
uncertainty about how heat and cold
related mortality would change in the
future, also pointed to a USGCRP
assessment report discussion that
increases in heat-related mortality due
to global warming in the United States
were unlikely to be compensated for by
decreases in cold-related mortality.
With regard to air quality effects,
climate change is expected to increase
ozone pollution over broad areas of the
country, including large metropolitan
population centers, and thereby increase
the risks of respiratory infection,
aggravation of asthma, and premature
death. Other public health threats stem
from the potential for increased deaths,
injuries, infectious and waterborne
diseases, stress-related disorders, and
other adverse effects associated with
increased hurricane intensity and
increased frequency of intense storms
and heavy precipitation associated with
climate change. In addition, climate
change is expected to be associated with
an increased risk of food-, water-, and
vector-borne diseases in susceptible
populations. Climate change also has
the potential to change aeroallergen
production (for example, through
lengthening the growing season for
allergen-producing plants), and
subsequent human exposures could
increase allergenic illnesses. Children,
the elderly, and the poor are among the
most vulnerable to climate-related
health risks and impacts. The
Administrator placed weight on the fact
that these certain groups are most
vulnerable to these climate-related
health effects.
The EPA concludes that the 2009
Endangerment Finding’s discussion
under CAA section 202(a) is equally
persuasive for purposes of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). In addition, the EPA has
carefully reviewed the key conclusions
in the recent assessments regarding
public health risks and the current and
projected health impacts from human-
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
induced climate change. The EPA finds
that the new assessments are consistent
with or strengthen the underlying
science considered in the 2009
Endangerment Finding regarding public
health effects from changes in
temperature, air quality, extreme
weather, and climate-sensitive diseases
and aeroallergens, further supporting an
endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). These key findings
are described briefly here.
The USGCRP NCA3 finds that,
‘‘Climate change threatens human
health and well-being in many ways,
including impacts from increased
extreme weather events, wildfire,
decreased air quality, threats to mental
health, and illnesses transmitted by
food, water, and diseases carriers such
as mosquitoes and ticks. Some of these
health impacts are already underway in
the United States.’’ 167 Regarding
temperature effects, the USGCRP NCA3
states, ‘‘The effects of temperature
extremes on human health have been
well documented for increased heat
waves, which cause more deaths,
hospital admissions and population
vulnerability.’’ 168 The conclusions of
the assessment literature cited in the
2009 Endangerment Finding were
uncertain with respect to the balance of
future heat- versus cold-related
mortality associated with climate
change, but they noted that the available
evidence suggested that the increased
risk from heat would exceed the
decreased risk from cold in a warming
climate. The most recent assessments
now have greater confidence that
increases in heat-related mortality likely
will be larger than the decreases in coldrelated mortality, further supporting this
endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). The USGCRP
NCA3 concludes, ‘‘While deaths and
injuries related to extreme cold events
are projected to decline due to climate
change, these reductions are not
expected to compensate for the increase
in heat-related deaths.’’ 169 The IPCC
AR5 also notes a potential benefit of
climate change could include ‘‘modest
reductions in cold-related mortality and
morbidity in some areas due to fewer
cold extremes (low confidence),’’ 170 but
167 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 221.
168 Ibid at p. 252.
169 Ibid at p. 224.
170 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field,
C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
that, ‘‘[o]verall, we conclude that the
increase in heat-related mortality by
mid-century will outweigh gains due to
fewer cold periods.’’ 171
Regarding air quality effects, the
assessment literature cited in the 2009
Endangerment Finding concluded that
climate change is expected to increase
regional ozone pollution, with
associated risks in respiratory illnesses
and premature death, but that the
directional effect of climate change on
ambient particulate matter levels was
less certain. One of the more recent
assessments, the USGCRP NCA3,
similarly concludes, ‘‘Climate change is
projected to harm human health by
increasing ground-level ozone and/or
particulate matter air pollution in some
locations. . . . There is less certainty in
the responses of airborne particles to
climate change than there is about the
response of ozone.’’ 172 The IPCC AR5
finds that ozone and particulate matter
have been associated with adverse
health effects in many locations in
North America, and that ozone
concentrations could increase under
future climate change scenarios if
emissions of precursors were held
constant. For particulate matter, both
the USGCRP NCA3 and IPCC AR5
discuss increasing wildfire risk under
climate change and explain that wildfire
smoke exposure can lead to various
respiratory and cardiovascular impacts.
The USGCRP NCA3 states, ‘‘The effects
of wildfire on human health have been
well documented with increases in
wildfire frequency, leading to decreased
air quality and negative health
impacts.’’ 173 The NRC Indoor
Environment assessment identifies
potential adverse health risks associated
with climate change-induced alterations
in the indoor environment, including
possible exposure to air pollutants due
to changes in outdoor air quality. Other
risks include potential for alterations in
indoor allergens due to climate changerelated increases in outdoor pollen
levels, potential chemical exposures due
to greater use of pesticides to address
changes in geographic ranges of pest
species, and dampness/mold associated
symptoms and illness due to potential
flooding and water damage in buildings
from projected climate change-related
Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.
Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.
White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, p. 713.
171 Ibid. at p. 721.
172 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 222.
173 Ibid at p. 252.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54453
increases in storm intensity and extreme
precipitation events in some regions of
the United States. Each of these
assessments further supports finding
endangerment under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A).
Regarding extreme weather events
(e.g., storms, heavy precipitation, and,
in some regions of the United States,
floods and droughts), the conclusions of
the assessment literature cited in the
2009 Endangerment Finding found
potential for increased deaths, injuries,
infectious and waterborne diseases, and
stress-related disorders. The more recent
assessments further support this
conclusion for purposes of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). The USGCRP NCA3 finds
that ‘‘Heavy downpours are increasing
nationally, especially over the last three
to five decades. Largest increases are in
the Midwest and Northeast. Increases in
the frequency and intensity of extreme
precipitation events are projected for all
U.S. regions.’’ 174 The USGCRP NCA3
identifies that: ‘‘Elevated waterborne
disease outbreaks have been reported in
the weeks following heavy rainfall,
although other variables may affect
these associations. Water intrusion into
buildings can result in mold
contamination that manifests later,
leading to indoor air quality
problems.’’ 175 Other risks include
mortality associated with flooding and
impacts on mental health, such as
anxiety and post-traumatic stress
disorder. The IPCC AR5 also discusses
increased risk of death and injury in
coastal zones and regions vulnerable to
inland flooding. The USGCRP NCA3
and the IPCC AR5 both find that climate
change may increase exposure to health
risks associated with drought
conditions, which includes impacts
from wildfires, dust storms, extreme
heat events, and flash flooding.
Droughts can lead to reduced water
quantity and degraded water quality,
thereby increasing the risk of waterrelated diseases. The IPCC SREX
assessment projects further increases in
some extreme weather and climate
events during this century, and it
specifically notes that changes in
extreme weather events have
implications for disaster risk in the
health sector.
The potential for changes in climatesensitive diseases was also cited in the
2009 Endangerment Finding. This
included an increase in the spread of
several food and water-borne pathogens,
174 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 36.
175 Ibid at p. 224–225.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54454
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
which can affect susceptible
populations. Also noted was the
potential for range expansion of some
zoonotic disease carriers such as the
Lyme disease-carrying tick. The new
assessment literature similarly focuses
on increased exposure risk for some
diseases under climate change, finding
that increasing temperatures may
expand or shift the ranges of some
disease vectors like mosquitoes, ticks,
and rodents. The IPCC AR5 notes that
climate change may influence the
‘‘growth, survival, persistence,
transmission, or virulence of
pathogens’’ 176 that cause food and
water-borne disease. The USGCRP
NCA3 notes that uncertainty remains
regarding future projections of increased
human burden of vector-borne disease,
given complex interacting factors such
as ‘‘local, small-scale differences in
weather, human modification of the
landscape, the diversity of animal hosts,
and human behavior that affects vectorhuman contact, among other
factors.’’ 177 This new assessment
literature further supports finding
endangerment under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A).
Regarding aeroallergens, the
assessment literature cited in the 2009
Endangerment Finding found potential
for climate change to affect the
prevalence and severity of allergy
symptoms, but definitive data or
conclusions were lacking on how
climate change might impact
aeroallergens in the United States.
Further supporting an endangerment
finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A),
the most recent assessments now
express greater confidence that climate
change influences the production of
pollen, which in turn could affect the
incidence of asthma and other allergic
respiratory illnesses such as allergic
rhinitis, as well as effects on
conjunctivitis and dermatitis. Both the
USGCRP NCA3 and the IPCC AR5 found
that increasing temperature has
lengthened the allergenic pollen season
for ragweed, and that increased CO2 by
itself can elevate production of plantbased allergens. The IPCC AR5
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
176 IPCC,
2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field,
C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D.
Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.
Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.
White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, p. 726.
177 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 225.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
a. Health Impacts of Climate Change on
Vulnerable Populations
In the 2009 Endangerment Finding,
the EPA cited the assessment literature’s
conclusions regarding the fact that
certain populations, including children,
the elderly, and the poor, are most
vulnerable to climate change-related
health effects. The 2009 Endangerment
Finding also described climate change
impacts facing indigenous peoples in
the United States, particularly Alaska
Natives. The new assessment literature
strengthens these conclusions and
further supports an endangerment
finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
by providing more detailed findings
regarding these populations’
vulnerabilities and the projected
impacts they may experience. In
addition, the most recent assessment
reports provide new analysis about how
some populations defined jointly by
ethnic/racial characteristics and
geographic location may be vulnerable
to certain climate change health
impacts. The following paragraphs
summarize information from the most
recent assessment reports on these
vulnerable populations.
The USGCRP NCA3 finds, ‘‘Climate
change will, absent other changes,
amplify some of the existing health
threats the nation now faces. Certain
people and communities are especially
vulnerable, including children, the
elderly, the sick, the poor, and some
communities of color.’’ 179 Limited
resources make low-income populations
more vulnerable to ongoing climaterelated threats, less able to adapt to
anticipated changes, and less able to
recover from climate change impacts.
Low-income populations also face
higher prevalence of chronic health
conditions than higher income groups,
which increases their vulnerability to
the health effects of climate change.
According to the USGCRP NCA3 and
IPCC AR5, some populations defined
jointly by ethnic/racial characteristics
and geographic location are more
vulnerable to certain health effects of
climate change due to factors such as
existing health disparities (e.g., higher
prevalence of chronic health
conditions), increased exposure to
health stresses, and social factors that
affect local resilience and ability to
recover from impacts.
The USGCRP NCA3 also finds that
climate change, in addition to chronic
stresses such as extreme poverty, is
affecting indigenous peoples’ health in
the United States through impacts such
as reduced access to traditional foods,
decreased water quality, and increasing
exposure to health and safety hazards.
The IPCC AR5 finds that climate
change-induced warming in the Arctic
and resultant changes in environment
(e.g., permafrost thaw, effects on
traditional food sources) have
significant observed and projected
impacts on the health and well-being of
Arctic residents, especially indigenous
peoples. Small, remote, predominantly
indigenous communities are especially
vulnerable given their ‘‘strong
dependence on the environment for
food, culture, and way of life; their
political and economic marginalization;
existing social, health, and poverty
disparities; as well as their frequent
close proximity to exposed locations
along ocean, lake, or river
shorelines.’’ 180 In addition, increasing
temperatures and loss of Arctic sea ice
increases the risk of drowning for those
engaged in traditional hunting and
fishing.
The USGCRP NCA3 concludes that
‘‘Children, primarily because of
physiological and developmental
factors, will disproportionately suffer
from the effects of heat waves, air
pollution, infectious illness, and trauma
resulting from extreme weather
events.’’ 181 As noted above, the IPCC
AR5 finds that in North America,
climate change will influence
production of pollen, and that this
affects asthma and other allergic
respiratory diseases to which children
are among those especially susceptible.
178 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field,
D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E.
Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C.
Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.
1465–1466.
179 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 221.
180 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field,
D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E.
Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C.
Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.
1581.
181 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p.228.
concludes that in North America, there
is high confidence that ‘‘warming will
lead to further changes in the seasonal
timing of pollen release.’’ 178
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
The IPCC AR5 also identifies children
as a susceptible population to health
effects associated with heat waves,
storms, and floods.
Both the USGCRP and IPCC conclude
that climate change increases health
risks facing the elderly. Older people are
at much higher risk of mortality during
extreme heat events. Pre-existing health
conditions also make older adults
susceptible to cardiac and respiratory
impacts of air pollution and to more
severe consequences from infectious
and waterborne diseases. Limited
mobility among older adults can also
increase health risks associated with
extreme weather and floods.
Accordingly, as discussed above, all
of these recent assessments further
support finding endangerment under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
b. Responses to Key Comments on
Endangerment to Public Health
Public comments supported the EPA’s
summary of the scientific information
and finding that the well-mixed GHG air
pollution is reasonably anticipated to
endanger public health of current and
future generations under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). Commenters cited a
number of examples of climate impacts
relevant to public health including
changes in outdoor and indoor air
quality, extreme temperatures, floods,
fires, and hurricanes. Some commenters
also agreed with the EPA’s summary of
health impacts to certain vulnerable
populations and emphasized that
certain populations like the elderly,
poor, very young, and indigenous
groups are more vulnerable to the health
impacts of climate change for various
reasons. No commenters disagreed with
the EPA’s summary of the scientific
information or with its conclusion on
endangerment to public health. The
EPA agrees with the commenters that
this endangerment finding is well
supported by the scientific assessment
literature; that it covers a range of health
risks associated with climate changeinduced changes in air quality,
increases in temperatures, changes in
extreme weather events, increases in
food and water borne pathogens, and
changes in aeroallergens; and that
certain populations are more vulnerable
to climate change health risks and
impacts.
2. The Air Pollution Is Reasonably
Anticipated To Endanger Welfare
The Administrator finds under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) that the air
pollution comprised of the six wellmixed GHGs is reasonably anticipated
to endanger welfare, for both current
and future generations. As with public
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
health, the Administrator considered
the multiple pathways in which the
GHG air pollution and resultant climate
change affect climate-sensitive sectors
and the impact this may have on
welfare. These sectors include food
production and agriculture; forestry;
water resources; sea level rise and
coastal areas; energy, infrastructure, and
settlements; and ecosystems and
wildlife. The Administrator examined
each climate-sensitive sector
individually, informed by the scientific
information in the major assessments
contained in the administrative record
for the 2009 Endangerment Finding as
well as the newer assessments in the
record for this action, and weighed the
extent to which the risks and impacts
within each sector support or do not
support a positive endangerment
finding in her judgment. The
Administrator then viewed the full
weight of evidence looking across all
sectors to reach her decision regarding
endangerment to welfare. For each of
these sectors, the evidence indicates
that the risk and the severity of adverse
impacts on welfare are expected to
increase over time, providing
compelling support for a finding of
endangerment to welfare. The
Administrator also considered impacts
on the U.S. population from climate
change effects occurring outside of the
United States, such as national security
concerns for the United States that may
arise as a result of climate change
impacts in other regions of the world,
and finds that this provides additional
support to the finding of endangerment
to welfare of current and future
generations of the United States
population.
The 2009 Endangerment Finding
summarized information from the
scientific assessment literature showing
that climate change resulting from
anthropogenic GHG emissions also
threatens multiple aspects of welfare
under CAA section 202(a).182 In
determining that the well-mixed GHG
air pollution is reasonably anticipated to
endanger welfare for current and future
generations, the Administrator
considered the multiple pathways by
which GHG air pollution and resultant
climate change affect welfare by
evaluating the numerous and far-ranging
risks and impacts associated with food
production and agriculture; forestry;
water resources; widespread snow and
ice melt, sea level rise and coastal areas;
energy, infrastructure, and settlements;
and ocean acidification, ecosystems,
and wildlife. The Administrator also
considered observed and projected risks
182 74
PO 00000
FR at 66530–36.
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54455
and impacts on the U.S. population
from climate change effects occurring
outside of the United States. As
explained in more detail in the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the potential
serious adverse impacts of extreme
events, such as wildfires, flooding,
drought, and extreme weather
conditions provided strong support for
the determination. Water resources
across large areas of the country are at
serious risk from climate change, with
effects on water supplies, water quality,
and adverse effects from extreme events
such as floods and droughts. The
severity of risks and impacts is likely to
increase over time with accumulating
GHG concentrations and associated
temperature increases and precipitation
changes. Coastal areas are expected to
face increased risks from storm and
flooding damage to property, as well as
adverse impacts from rising sea level
such as land loss due to inundation,
erosion, wetland submergence and
habitat loss. Climate change is expected
to result in an increase in electricity
production for peak electricity demand,
and extreme weather from climate
change threatens energy, transportation,
and water resource infrastructure.
Climate change may exacerbate existing
environmental pressures in certain
settlements. In Alaska, indigenous
communities are likely to experience
disruptive impacts. Climate change is
also very likely to fundamentally change
U.S. ecosystems over the 21st century
and to lead to predominantly negative
consequences for biodiversity,
ecosystem goods and services, and
wildlife. Though there may be some
benefits for agriculture and forestry in
the next few decades, the body of
evidence points towards increasing risks
of net adverse impacts on U.S. food
production, agriculture and forest
productivity as average temperature
continues to rise. Looking across all
sectors discussed above, the risk and the
severity of adverse impacts on welfare
are expected to increase over time.
Lastly, these impacts are global and may
exacerbate problems outside the United
States that raise humanitarian, trade,
and national security issues for the
United States.
The Administrator concludes that the
discussion in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding under CAA section 202(a) is
equally compelling to support an
endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). In addition, the
EPA has carefully reviewed the recent
scientific conclusions in the
assessments regarding human-induced
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54456
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
climate change impacts on welfare.183
The EPA finds that they further support
finding endangerment under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A), as they are largely
consistent with or strengthen the
underlying science supporting the 2009
Endangerment Finding regarding
observed and projected climate change
risks and impacts to food production
and agriculture; forestry; water
resources; widespread snow and ice
melt, sea level rise, and coastal areas;
energy, infrastructure, and settlements;
ocean acidification, ecosystems, and
wildlife; and impacts on the U.S.
population from climate change effects
occurring outside of the United States.
These key findings are described briefly
here.
Regarding agriculture, the assessment
literature cited in the 2009
Endangerment Finding found potential
for increased CO2 levels to benefit yields
of certain crops in the short term, but
with considerable uncertainty. The body
of evidence pointed towards increasing
risk of net adverse impacts on U.S. food
production and agriculture over time,
with the potential for significant
disruptions and crop failure in the
future. The most recent assessments
now have greater confidence that
climate change will negatively affect
U.S. agriculture over this century, and
support finding endangerment under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Specifically,
the USGCRP NCA3 concludes, ‘‘While
some U.S. regions and some types of
agricultural production will be
relatively resilient to climate change
over the next 25 years or so, others will
increasingly suffer from stresses due to
extreme heat, drought, disease, and
heavy downpours. From mid-century
on, climate change is projected to have
more negative impacts on crops and
livestock across the country.’’ 184 The
IPCC AR5 concludes, ‘‘Overall yields of
major crops in North America are
projected to decline modestly by midcentury and more steeply by 2100
among studies that do not consider
183 The CAA states that ‘‘[a]ll language referring
to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to,
effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and
climate, damage to and deterioration of property,
and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on
economic values and on personal comfort and wellbeing, whether caused by transformation,
conversion, or combination with other air
pollutants.’’ CAA section 302(h). This language is
quite broad. Importantly, it is not an exclusive list
due to the use of the term ‘‘includes, but is not
limited to . . .’’ Effects other than those listed here
may also be considered effects on welfare.
184 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 16.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
adaptation (very high confidence).’’ 185
The IPCC AR5 notes that in the absence
of extreme events, climate change may
benefit certain regions and crops, but
that in North America significant
harvest losses have been observed due
to recent extreme weather events. In
addition, the IPCC SREX assessment
specifically notes that projected changes
in extreme weather events will increase
disaster risk in the agriculture sector.
Regarding forestry, the assessment
literature cited in the 2009
Endangerment Finding found that nearterm benefits to forest growth and
productivity in certain parts of the
country from elevated CO2
concentrations and temperature
increases to date are offset by longerterm risks from wildfires and the spread
of destructive pests and disease that
present serious adverse risks for forest
productivity. The most recent
assessments provide further support for
finding endangerment under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). Both the USGCRP
NCA3 and the IPCC AR5 conclude that
climate change is increasing risks to
forest health from fire, tree disease and
insect infestations, and drought. The
IPCC AR5 also notes risks to forested
ecosystems associated with changes in
temperature, precipitation amount, and
CO2 concentrations, which can affect
species and ecological communities,
leading to ecosystem disruption,
reorganization, movement or loss. The
NRC Arctic assessment states that
climate change is likely to have a large
negative impact on forested ecosystems
in the high northern latitudes due to the
effects of permafrost thaw and greater
wildfire frequency, extent, and severity.
The NRC Climate Stabilization Targets
assessment found that for an increase in
global average temperature of 1 to 2 °C
above pre-industrial levels, the area
burnt by wildfires in western North
America will likely more than double.
Regarding water resources, the
assessment literature cited in the 2009
Endangerment Finding concluded that
increasing temperatures and increased
variability in precipitation associated
with climate change is expected to have
adverse impacts on water quality and is
likely to further constrain water
quantity through changes in snowpack,
increased risk of floods, drought, and
185 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field,
D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E.
Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C.
Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.
1462.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
other concerns such as water pollution.
Similarly, the new assessments further
support projections of water resource
impacts associated with increased
floods and short-term drought in most
U.S. regions, and therefore support an
endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). The USGCRP
NCA3 also finds that, ‘‘[c]limate change
is expected to affect water demand,
groundwater withdrawals, and aquifer
recharge, reducing groundwater
availability in some areas.’’ 186 The IPCC
AR5 finds that in part of the western
United States, ‘‘water supplies are
projected to be further stressed by
climate change, resulting in less water
availability and increased drought
conditions.’’ 187 The IPCC AR5 states,
‘‘Throughout the eastern USA, water
supply systems will be negatively
impacted by lost snowpack storage,
rising sea levels contributing to
increased storm intensities and
saltwater intrusion, possibly lower
streamflows, land use and population
changes, and other stresses.’’ 188 The
IPCC AR5 also synthesizes recent
studies that project a range of adverse
climate impacts in North America to
surface water quality (including to the
Great Lakes), drinking water treatment/
distribution, and sewage collection
systems.
The assessment literature cited in the
2009 Endangerment Finding found that
the most serious potential adverse
effects to coastal areas are the increased
risk of storm surge and flooding in
coastal areas from current and projected
rates of sea level rise and more intense
storms. Coastal areas also face other
adverse impacts from sea level rise such
as land loss due to inundation, erosion,
wetland submergence, and habitat loss.
The most recent assessments provide
further evidence in line with the science
supporting the 2009 Endangerment
Finding, and support finding
endangerment under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). The USGCRP NCA3 finds,
‘‘Sea level rise, combined with coastal
storms, has increased the risk of erosion,
storm surge damage, and flooding for
186 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 70.
187 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field,
D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E.
Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C.
Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.
1456–1457.
188 Ibid at p. 1457.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
coastal communities, especially along
the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic seaboard,
and in Alaska.’’ 189
The IPCC AR5 found that global sea
levels rose 0.19 m (7.5 inches) from
1901 to 2010. Contributing to this rise
was the warming of the oceans and
melting of land ice from glaciers and ice
sheets. It is likely that 275 gigatons per
year of ice melted from land glaciers
(not including ice sheets) from 1993–
2009, and that the rate of loss of ice
from the Greenland and Antarctic ice
sheets increased substantially in recent
years, to 215 gigatons per year and 147
gigatons per year respectively from
2002–2011. For context, 360 gigatons of
ice melt is sufficient to cause global sea
levels to rise one millimeter.
The IPCC AR5, the USGCRP NCA3,
and three of the new NRC assessments
provide estimates of projected global
average sea level rise. These estimates,
while not always directly comparable as
they assume different emissions
scenarios and baselines, are at least 40
percent larger than, and in some cases
more than twice as large as, the
projected rise estimated in the IPCC
AR4 assessment, which was referred to
in the 2009 Endangerment Finding.190
The NRC Sea Level Rise assessment
projects a global average sea level rise of
0.5 to 1.4 meters by 2100. Change of this
magnitude would be sufficient to lead to
a relative rise in sea level even around
the northern coasts of Washington State,
where the land is still rebounding from
the disappearance of the great ice
sheets.191 The NRC National Security
Implications assessment suggests that
‘‘the Department of the Navy should
expect roughly 0.4 to 2 meters global
average sea-level rise by 2100.’’ 192 The
NRC Climate Stabilization Targets
assessment states that a global average
temperature increase of 3 °C will lead to
a global average sea level rise of 0.5 to
1 meter by 2100. While these NRC and
IPCC assessments continue to recognize
and characterize the uncertainty
189 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 9.
190 The 2007 IPCC AR4 assessment cited in 2009
Endangerment Finding estimated a projected sea
level rise of between 0.18 and 0.59 meters by the
end of the century, relative to 1990. It should be
noted that in 2007, the IPCC stated that including
poorly understood ice sheet processes could lead to
an increase in the projections.
191 Sea level does not rise uniformly due to
changes in winds, temperature patterns, land uplift
or subsidence, and other factors. Therefore, relative
sea level rise along any given point on the coast can
vary from the global average.
192 NRC, 2011: National Security Implications of
Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces. The National
Academies Press, p. 28.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
inherent in accounting for melting ice
sheets in sea level rise projections, these
revised estimates are consistent with the
assessments underlying the 2009
Endangerment Finding, and support
finding endangerment under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A).
Regarding climate impacts on energy,
infrastructure and settlements, the 2009
Endangerment Finding cited the
assessment literature’s findings that
temperature increases will change
heating and cooling demand; that
declining water quantity may adversely
impact the availability of cooling water
and hydropower in the energy sector;
and that changes in extreme weather
events will threaten energy,
transportation, water, and other key
societal infrastructure, particularly on
the coast. The most recent assessments
provide further evidence in line with
the science supporting the 2009
Endangerment Finding, to support
finding endangerment under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). For example, the
USGCRP NCA3 finds, ‘‘Coastal
infrastructure, including roads, rail
lines, energy infrastructure, airports,
port facilities, and military bases, are
increasingly at risk from sea level rise
and damaging storm surges.’’ 193 The
NRC Arctic assessment identifies threats
to human infrastructure in the Arctic
from increased flooding, erosion, and
shoreline ice pile-up, or ivu, associated
with summer sea ice loss and the
increasing frequency and severity of
storms.
Regarding ecosystems and wildlife,
the assessment literature cited in the
2009 Endangerment Finding discussed a
number of impacts. These include a
high confidence finding that substantial
changes in the structure and functioning
of terrestrial ecosystems are very likely
to occur with a global warming greater
than 2 to 3 °C above pre-industrial
levels, with predominantly negative
consequences for biodiversity and the
provisioning of ecosystem goods and
services. In addition, climate change
and ocean acidification will likely
impair a wide range of planktonic and
other marine calcifiers such as corals.
The recent assessments published since
2009 provide additional support for
finding endangerment under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). The USGCRP
NCA3 concluded that ‘‘The oceans are
currently absorbing about a quarter of
the carbon dioxide emitted to the
atmosphere annually and are becoming
more acidic as a result, leading to
193 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 9.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54457
concerns about intensifying impacts on
marine ecosystems . . . Over the last
250 years, the oceans have absorbed 560
billion tons of CO2, increasing the
acidity of surface waters by 30%.
Although the average oceanic pH can
vary on interglacial timescales, the
current observed rate of change is
roughly 50 times faster than known
historical change.’’ 194
The NRC Arctic assessment states that
major marine and terrestrial biomes will
likely shift poleward, with significant
implications for changing species
composition, food web structures, and
ecosystem function. The NRC Climate
Stabilization Targets assessment found
that coral bleaching events will likely
increase in frequency and severity due
warming sea surface temperatures and
that ocean acidification will likely
reduce coral shell and skeleton growth
and increase erosion of coral reefs. The
NRC Understanding Earth’s Deep Past
assessment notes four of the five major
coral reef crises of the past 500 million
years were caused by GHG-induced
ocean acidification and warming that
followed releases of GHGs of similar
magnitude to the emissions increases
expected over the next hundred years.
Similarly, the NRC Ocean Acidification
assessment finds that ‘‘[t]he chemistry
of the ocean is changing at an
unprecedented rate and magnitude due
to anthropogenic CO2 emissions; the
rate of change exceeds any known to
have occurred for at least the past
hundreds of thousands of years.’’ 195
The assessment notes that the full range
of consequences is still unknown, but
the risks ‘‘threaten coral reefs, fisheries,
protected species, and other natural
resources of value to society.’’ 196 The
IPCC AR5 also projects biodiversity
losses in marine ecosystems, especially
in the Arctic and tropics.
The IPCC AR5 found that annual
mean Arctic sea ice has been declining
at 3.5 to 4.1 percent per decade, and
Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent
has decreased at about 1.6 percent per
decade for March and 11.7 percent per
decade for June. The USGCRP NCA3
finds that ‘‘rising temperatures across
the U.S. have reduced lake ice, sea ice,
glaciers, and seasonal snow cover over
the last few decades.’’ 197 These changes
194 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 48.
195 NRC, 2010: Ocean Acidification: A National
Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing
Ocean. The National Academies Press, p. 5.
196 Ibid.
197 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
Continued
15AUR3
54458
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
are projected to continue, threatening
seasonal water availability and
ecosystems reliant on ice and snow
cover.
a. Welfare Impacts of Climate Change on
Vulnerable Populations
In general, climate change impacts
related to welfare are expected to be
unevenly distributed across different
regions of the United States and are
expected to have a greater impact on
certain populations, such as indigenous
peoples and the poor. The USGCRP
NCA3 finds climate change impacts
such as the rapid pace of temperature
rise, coastal erosion and inundation
related to sea level rise and storms, ice
and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are
affecting indigenous people in the
United States. Particularly in Alaska,
critical infrastructure and traditional
livelihoods are threatened by climate
change, and ‘‘[i]n parts of Alaska,
Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other
coastal locations, climate change
impacts (through erosion and
inundation) are so severe that some
communities are already relocating from
historical homelands to which their
traditions and cultural identities are
tied.’’ 198 The IPCC AR5 notes, ‘‘Climaterelated hazards exacerbate other
stressors, often with negative outcomes
for livelihoods, especially for people
living in poverty (high confidence).
Climate-related hazards affect poor
people’s lives directly through impacts
on livelihoods, reductions in crop
yields, or destruction of homes and
indirectly through, for example,
increased food prices and food
insecurity.’’ 199
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
b. Other Considerations Regarding
Endangerment to Welfare
In the 2009 Endangerment Finding,
the Administrator considered impacts
on the U.S. population from climate
change effects occurring outside of the
United States, such as national security
concerns that may arise as a result of
climate change impacts in other regions
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 46.
198 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and
Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
p. 17.
199 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field,
C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D.
Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.
Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.
White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, p. 796.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
of the world. The most recent
assessments provide further evidence in
line with the science supporting the
2009 Endangerment Finding, and
further support finding endangerment
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). The
NRC Climate and Social Stress
assessment found that it would be
‘‘prudent for security analysts to expect
climate surprises in the coming decade
. . . and for them to become
progressively more serious and more
frequent thereafter.’’ 200 The NRC
National Security Implications
assessment recommends preparing for
increased needs for humanitarian aid;
responding to the effects of climate
change in geopolitical hotspots,
including possible mass migrations; and
addressing changing security needs in
the Arctic as sea ice retreats.
In addition, the NRC Abrupt Impacts
report examines the potential for tipping
points, thresholds beyond which major
and rapid changes occur in the Earth’s
climate system, as well as in natural and
human systems that are impacted by the
changing climate. The Abrupt Impacts
report did find less cause for concern
than some previous assessments
regarding some abrupt events within the
next century, such as disruption of the
oceanic Atlantic Meridional
Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and
sudden releases of high-latitude
methane from hydrates and permafrost.
But, the same report found that the
potential for abrupt changes in
ecosystems, weather and climate
extremes, and groundwater supplies
critical for agriculture now seem more
likely, severe, and imminent. The
assessment found that some abrupt
changes were already underway (e.g.,
Arctic sea ice retreat and increases in
extinction risk due to the speed of
climate change), and cautioned that
even abrupt changes such disruption to
the AMOC that are not expected in this
century can have severe impacts if/
when they happen, such as interference
with the global transport of oceanic
heat, salt, and carbon.
c. Responses to Key Comments on
Endangerment to Welfare
Public comments supported the EPA’s
summary of the scientific information
and finding that the well-mixed GHG air
pollution is reasonably anticipated to
endanger welfare under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). Commenters cited a
number of examples of climate impacts
relevant to welfare including sea level
rise and coastal erosion, species range
200 NRC, 2013: Climate and Social Stress:
Implications for Security Analysis. The National
Academies Press, p. 18.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
changes and extinctions, and reduced
water availability due to changes in
snowpack and timing of snow melt.
Some commenters also agreed with the
EPA’s summary of welfare impacts to
certain vulnerable populations and
emphasized that certain populations are
more vulnerable to the welfare impacts
of climate change, in particular tribes
and indigenous groups. No commenters
disagreed with the EPA’s summary of
the scientific information or with its
conclusion on endangerment to welfare.
The EPA agrees with the commenters
that this finding of endangerment to
welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
is well supported by the scientific
assessment literature; that it covers a
range of risks associated with climate
change threats to food production and
agriculture, forestry, water resources,
sea level rise and coastal areas, energy,
infrastructure, and settlements, and
ecosystems and wildlife; and that
certain populations are more vulnerable
to climate change welfare risks and
impacts.
D. Summary of the Administrator’s
Endangerment Finding Under CAA
Section 231
In sum, the Administrator finds, for
purposes of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A),
that elevated atmospheric
concentrations of the six well-mixed
GHGs constitute air pollution that
endangers both public health and
welfare of current and future
generations. In this final action under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the EPA is
informed by and places considerable
weight on the extensive scientific and
technical evidence in the record
supporting the 2009 Endangerment
Finding under CAA section 202(a),
including the major, peer-reviewed
scientific assessments used to address
the question of whether GHGs in the
atmosphere endanger public health and
welfare, and on the analytical
framework and conclusions upon which
the EPA relied in making that finding.
This final finding under section
231(a)(2)(A) accounts for the EPA’s
careful consideration of the scientific
and technical record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding, and of the new,
major scientific assessments issued
since closing the administrative record
for the 2009 Endangerment Finding, and
consideration of public comments. No
recent information or assessments
published since late 2009 suggest that it
would be reasonable for the EPA to now
reach a different or contrary conclusion
for purposes of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) than the Agency reached
for purposes of section 202(a); instead,
the new, major scientific assessments
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
further support finding endangerment
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). In
making this finding for purposes of
section 231(a)(2)(A), we are not
reopening or revisiting the 2009
Endangerment Finding under CAA
section 202(a). To the contrary, in light
of the recent judicial decisions
upholding that finding, the EPA
believes the 2009 Endangerment
Finding is firmly established and well
settled.201 Moreover, there is no need
for the EPA to reopen or revisit that
finding for purposes of CAA section
202(a) in order for the Administrator to
rely on its analyses and conclusions,
supported by more recent studies, in
support of making an additional
endangerment finding under section
231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Today’s final
endangerment finding, although
significantly informed by the scientific
information and the EPA’s prior
discussion of that information in the
2009 Endangerment Finding, is solely
for purposes of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
V. The Administrator’s Cause or
Contribute Finding for Greenhouse
Gases Emitted by Certain Classes of
Engines Used by Covered Aircraft
Under CAA Section 231
As noted above, the Administrator
defines the air pollution for purposes of
the endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) to be the aggregate
of six well-mixed GHGs in the
atmosphere, and finds that such air
pollution endangers public health and
welfare of current and future
generations. The second step of the twopart endangerment test for this finding
is for the Administrator to determine
whether the emission of any air
pollutant from certain classes of aircraft
engines used by certain aircraft causes
or contributes to this endangering air
pollution. This is referred to as the
cause or contribute finding, and is the
second finding by the Administrator in
this action under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A).
Section V.A of this document
describes the Administrator’s reasoning
for using under CAA section 231(a)(2)
the same definition and scope of the
GHG air pollutant that was used in the
2009 Endangerment Finding under CAA
section 202(a). Section V.B puts forth
the Administrator’s finding that
emissions of well-mixed GHGs from
certain classes of aircraft engines used
in covered aircraft contribute to the air
201 CRR, 684 F.3d at 117 (D.C. Cir. 2012), reh’g en
banc denied, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25997, 26313,
26315 (D.C. Cir. 2012); see also Utility Air Reg.
Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. at 2438 (2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
pollution which endangers public
health and welfare under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). The EPA’s responses to
some of the most significant comments
for the cause or contribute finding are
provided later in section V.C. Responses
to all significant issues raised by the
comments on the cause or contribute
finding are contained in the Response to
Comments document, which is
organized by subject area (found in
docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0828).
A. The Air Pollutant
1. Definition of Air Pollutant
Under section 231(a)(2)(A), the
Administrator is to determine whether
emissions of any air pollutant from any
class or classes of aircraft engines cause
or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. As with the
2009 Endangerment Finding that the
EPA conducted for purposes of CAA
section 202(a), when making a cause or
contribute finding under section
231(a)(2), the Administrator must first
define the air pollutant being evaluated.
The Administrator has considered the
logical relationship between the GHG
air pollution and air pollutant: While
the air pollution is the concentration
(e.g., stock) of the well-mixed GHGs in
the atmosphere, the air pollutant is the
same combined grouping of the wellmixed GHGs, the emissions of which are
analyzed for contribution (e.g., the flow
into the stock). See 74 FR at 66536
(similar discussion with respect to the
finding for CAA section 202(a)). For
purposes of section 231(a)(2)(A), the
Administrator is defining the air
pollutant as the same combined
grouping of the six well-mixed GHGs
that comprises the air pollution.
Accordingly, the Administrator is using
the same definition of the air pollutant
that was used in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding for purposes of CAA section
202(a), namely, the aggregate group of
the same six well-mixed GHGs: CO2,
methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,
and sulfur hexafluoride. See 74 FR at
66536–37 (discussing the definition of
the GHG air pollutant with respect to
the finding for CAA section 202(a)).
That is, as was done for the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the
Administrator is defining a single air
pollutant made up of these six GHGs in
this action under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A).
To reiterate what the Agency has
previously stated on this subject, this
collective approach for the contribution
test is consistent with the treatment of
GHGs by those studying climate change
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54459
science and policy, where it is common
practice to evaluate GHGs on a
collective, CO2-equivalent basis.202 This
collective approach to defining the air
pollutant is not unique; grouping of
many substances with common
attributes as a single pollutant is
common practice under the CAA, for
example with particulate matter and
volatile organic compounds (VOC). As
noted in section IV.B, these six
substances share common attributes that
support their grouping to define the air
pollution for purposes of the
endangerment finding. These same
common attributes also support the
Administrator grouping these six wellmixed GHGs for purposes of defining
the air pollutant for this cause or
contribute finding under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A).
The Administrator recognizes that in
this case, the aircraft engines covered by
this document emit two of the six gases,
but not the other four gases.
Nonetheless, it is entirely appropriate,
and in keeping with the 2009
Endangerment Finding and past EPA
practice, for the Administrator to define
the air pollutant under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) in a manner that recognizes
the shared relevant properties of all
these six gases, even though they are not
all emitted from the classes of sources
before her.203 For example, a source
may emit only 20 of the possible 200plus chemicals that meet the definition
of VOC in the EPA’s regulations, but
that source is evaluated based on its
emissions of VOC and not on its
emissions of the 20 chemicals by name.
The fact that these six substances within
the definition of GHGs share common,
relevant attributes is true regardless of
the type of sources being evaluated for
202 As detailed in the 2009 Endangerment Finding
proposal (74 FR at 18904) and continuing today, the
UNFCCC, the U.S. and other Parties report their
annual emissions of the six GHGs in CO2-equivalent
units. This facilitates comparisons of the multiple
GHGs from different sources and from different
countries, and provides a measure of the collective
warming potential of multiple GHGs. Emissions of
different GHGs are compared using GWPs, which as
described in section IV.B of this document are
measures of the warming impact of a pulse of
emissions of a given substance over 100 years
relative to the same mass of CO2. Therefore, GWPweighted emissions are measured in teragrams of
CO2 equivalent (Tg CO2eq). One teragram (Tg) = 1
million metric tons = 1 megatonne (Mt). 1 metric
ton = 1,000 kilograms = 1.102 short tons = 2,205
lbs. The EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
(http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html (last
accessed April 8, 2016)) also reports GHG emissions
on a CO2-equivalent basis, recognizing the common
and collective treatment of these six well-mixed
GHGs.
203 In the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the
Administrator found that four of the six gases that
were included in the definition of the air pollutant
were emitted by section 202 sources. 74 FR at
66537.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54460
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
contribution. Moreover, the
reasonableness of grouping these
chemicals as a single air pollutant does
not turn on the particular source
category. By using the definition of the
air pollutant as comprised of the six
GHGs with common attributes, the
Administrator is taking account of these
shared attributes and how they are
relevant to the air pollution that
endangers public health and welfare.
In fact, as explained in the 2009
Endangerment Finding, Congress has
given the EPA broad discretion to
determine that appropriate
combinations of compounds should be
treated as a single air pollutant. 74 FR
at 66537. Section 302(g) of the CAA
defines ‘‘air pollutant’’ as ‘‘any air
pollutant agent or combination of such
agents. . . .’’ Thus, it is clear that the
term ‘‘air pollutant’’ is not limited to
individual chemical compounds.
Moreover, in determining that GHGs are
within the scope of this definition, the
Supreme Court described section 302(g)
as a ‘‘sweeping’’ and ‘‘capacious’’
definition that unambiguously included
GHGs, which are ‘‘unquestionably
‘agents’ of air pollution.’’ Massachusetts
v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 528, 532, 529 n. 26.
Although the Court did not interpret the
term ‘‘combination of’’ air pollution
agents, there is no reason to interpret
this phrase more narrowly in this
context. Congress used the term ‘‘any’’
and did not qualify the kind of
combinations that EPA could define as
a single air pollutant.
2. The Definition of Air Pollutant May
Include Substances Not Emitted by CAA
Section 231(a)(2) Sources.
Similar to the discussion in section
IV.B.6 for the definition of ‘‘air
pollution’’ for purposes of the
endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A), many commenters
highlighted the fact that aircraft engines
emit only two of the six well-mixed
GHGs that together are defined as the
‘‘air pollutant’’ for purposes of the cause
or contribute finding under section
231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Commenters
point out that the majority of emissions
are CO2, while nitrous oxide emissions
are described as ‘‘nominal (<1%)’’ or
‘‘trace.’’ Some commenters ultimately
concluded that the EPA’s approach to
defining the air pollutant as an aggregate
group of six gases is acceptable, but that
the scope of future regulations should
be limited to CO2. One commenter
agreed with the Agency’s evaluation of
the six GHGs based on their common
attributes, but questioned the EPA’s
decision to aggregate the six gases rather
than considering them individually for
purposes of making the findings. Other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
commenters disagreed with the EPA and
requested limiting the definition of air
pollutant in this action to CO2 or to CO2
and nitrous oxide.
The EPA disagrees with comments
regarding changing the definition of the
air pollutant to limit it to only those
GHGs that are emitted from aircraft or
to CO2 only. The EPA has explained
both in the 2009 Endangerment Finding
under CAA section 202(a) and in the
proposed findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) that it is reasonable and
appropriate for the EPA to consider the
logical relationship between the GHG
air pollution and air pollutant when
defining the air pollutant. The purpose
of this cause or contribute inquiry is to
determine whether emissions of an air
pollutant from certain aircraft engines
cause or contribute to the endangering
GHG air pollution. As described in
section IV.B of this document, the
endangering GHG air pollution under
consideration is defined as the aggregate
group of the six well-mixed GHGs based
on shared characteristics and common
attributes relevant to climate change
science and policy’’ 204—a rationale that
does not take into consideration
emission source(s). Similarly, the
definition of the air pollutant in this
cause or contribute inquiry establishes
well-mixed GHGs as a single air
pollutant comprised of six substances
with common attributes. The
Administrator is giving effect to the
shared attributes of the six well-mixed
GHGs and how they are relevant to the
air pollution to which they contribute.
Thus, it is also reasonable for the EPA
to evaluate contribution for those gases
in the aggregate, rather than
individually, to ensure a like-to-like
comparison of aggregate emissions
contributing to an aggregate stock
(atmospheric concentration) of
endangering GHG air pollution.
The EPA recognized in the proposed
findings that aircraft emit two of the six
well-mixed GHGs, but stated that
nonetheless it is entirely reasonable and
appropriate, and in keeping with the
2009 Endangerment Finding under CAA
section 202(a) and other past EPA
practice, for the Administrator to group
into a single class those substances that
possess shared relevant properties, even
though they are not all emitted from the
classes of sources before her.205 The fact
that these six substances share these
common, relevant attributes is true
regardless of the source category being
evaluated for contribution. After
considering all the comments, this
continues to be the EPA’s view.
204 74
205 80
PO 00000
FR at 66517–19; 80 FR at 37774–85.
FR at 37774–85, and 37787.
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Moreover, this approach to defining an
air pollutant as a grouping of many
substances is not unique to GHGs, but
rather is common practice under the
CAA. For example, the EPA has heavyduty truck standards applicable to VOCs
and PM, but it is highly unlikely that
heavy-duty trucks emit every substance
that is included in the group defined as
VOC or PM. See 40 CFR 51.100(s)
(defining volatile organic compound
(VOC) as ‘‘any compound of carbon,
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides
or carbonates, and ammonium
carbonate, which participates in
atmospheric photochemical reactions’’;
a list of exemptions are also included in
the definition); 40 CFR 51.100(oo)
(defining particulate matter (PM) as
‘‘any airborne finely divided solid or
liquid material with an aerodynamic
diameter smaller than 100
micrometers’’).
Grouping these six substances as one
air pollutant is just as reasonable for the
contribution analysis undertaken for
CAA section 231(a)(2) sources that emit
one subset of the six substances as it
was for the category of sources that
emits another subset under CAA section
202(a). In other words, it is not
necessarily the source category, motor
vehicles or aircraft engines, being
evaluated for contribution that
determines the reasonableness of
defining a group air pollutant based on
the shared attributes of the group’s
constituent substances. Even if the EPA
defined the air pollutant as the group of
two compounds emitted by CAA section
231(a)(2) sources, it would not change
the result. The Administrator would
make the same contribution finding (as
described later in section V.B.), as it
would have no material effect on the
emissions comparisons discussed in
section V.B.
The question of limits to the scope of
future regulations is outside of the scope
of this action because the EPA has
neither proposed nor is finalizing in this
action any such regulatory standards.
This final action does not itself impose
any requirements on source categories
under CAA section 231. Thus, the EPA
anticipates that this question could be
raised and considered, as needed, in the
standard-setting phase of the regulatory
process, and invites potential
commenters to submit their views on
this issue in response to EPA’s
anticipated future notice of proposed
rulemaking on standards.
Another commenter expressed
concern about the EPA’s proposed
contribution finding because it does not
differentiate between CO2 emissions
that result from combustion of fossil
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
fuels and those that result from
‘‘combustion of biomass or biofuels
derived from herbaceous crops or crop
residues, as well as biogenic CO2
emissions associated with the
production, gathering and processing of
crops or crop residues used in bio-based
products including fuels.’’ 206 The
commenter argues that such croprelated biogenic CO2 emissions should
be excluded from the contribution
finding because the CO2 released back to
the atmosphere when emitted from
crop-derived biogenic sources contains
the same carbon that was previously
removed or sequestered from CO2 in the
atmosphere, and thus does not
contribute to elevated atmospheric
concentrations of the six well-mixed
GHGs.
Consistent with the previously
discussed response to the commenter in
the discussion of the definition of air
pollution being used under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A), the EPA reiterates that the
Administrator defines the relevant air
pollutant considered in the contribution
finding as the aggregate group of the six
well-mixed GHGs based on shared
physical characteristics and common
attributes relevant to climate change
science and policy, and does not
include consideration of the source of
the air pollutant. In the record for the
2009 Endangerment Finding under CAA
section 202(a), the Agency stated that
‘‘all CO2 emissions, regardless of source,
influence radiative forcing equally once
it reaches the atmosphere and therefore
there is no distinction between biogenic
and non-biogenic CO2 regarding the CO2
and the other well-mixed GHGs within
the definition of air pollution that is
reasonably anticipated to endanger
public health and welfare.’’ 207 The EPA
continues to hold that position in these
findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A), which is supported by the
evidence before it. First, the fact that
these CO2 emissions originate from
combustion of carbon-based fuels
created through different processes is
not relevant to defining the air pollutant
that contributes to the endangering air
pollution. The origin and constitution of
a fuel prior to its combustion and
subsequent emission into the
atmosphere has no bearing on the fact
206 Biogenic CO Coalition, 2015: Comments on
2
EPA’s Proposed Finding That Greenhouse Gas
Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air
Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To
Endanger Public Health and Welfare, 80 FR 37757
(July 1, 2015). Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–
2014–0828–0916. Available at www.regulations.gov
(last accessed April 11, 2016).
207 EPA, 2009. Response to Comments document,
Volume 9: The Endangerment Finding, EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0171–11676. Available at
www.regulations.gov (last accessed April 11, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
that CO2 and the other well-mixed
GHGs are all sufficiently long lived to
become well mixed in the atmosphere,
directly emitted, of well-known
radiative forcing, and generally grouped
and considered together in climate
change scientific and policy forums as
the primary driver of climate change. A
molecule of biogenic CO2 has the same
radiative forcing effect as a molecule of
fossil-fuel derived CO2. In other words,
no matter the original source of the CO2,
the behavior of the CO2 molecules in the
atmosphere in terms of radiative forcing,
chemical reactivity, and atmospheric
lifetime is effectively the same. Any
differential treatment of biogenic CO2 in
the context of the contribution finding
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) would
be inconsistent with the primary
scientific basis for the grouping of the
six well-mixed GHGs as a single class
for purposes of identifying the air
pollutant (and air pollution, as
explained in section IV.B.1). A more
detailed response to the issues raised in
this comment can be found in the
Response to Comments document in the
docket.
B. The Administrator’s Finding Under
CAA Section 231(a)(2)(A) That
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From
Certain Classes of Aircraft Engines Used
in Certain Aircraft Cause or Contribute
to Air Pollution That May Be
Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger
Public Health and Welfare
Under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the
Administrator finds that emissions of
the six well-mixed GHGs from classes of
engines used in U.S. covered aircraft,
which are subsonic jet aircraft with a
maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) greater
than 5,700 kilograms and subsonic
propeller driven (e.g., turboprop)
aircraft with a MTOM greater than 8,618
kilograms, contribute to the air
pollution that endangers public health
and welfare. The Administrator is not at
this time making a contribution finding
regarding GHG emissions from engines
not used in covered aircraft (i.e., those
used in smaller turboprops, smaller jet
aircraft, piston-engine aircraft,
helicopters and military aircraft), or
regarding the emission of other
substances emitted by aircraft engines.
A detailed discussion of covered aircraft
and their GHG emissions data is
provided below in section V.B.4.
The Administrator reached her
decision after reviewing emissions data
on the contribution of covered aircraft
under CAA section 231(a) relative to
both U.S. GHG and global GHG
emissions inventories. It is the
Administrator’s judgment that the
collective GHG emissions from the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54461
classes of engines used in U.S. covered
aircraft clearly contribute to
endangering GHG pollution, whether
the comparison is—as described later in
Tables V.1 and V.3 of sections V.B.4.a
and V.B.4.b respectively—to domestic
GHG inventories (10 percent of all U.S.
transportation GHG emissions,
representing 2.8 percent of total U.S.
emissions), to global GHG inventories
(26 percent of total global aircraft GHG
emissions representing 2.7 percent of
total global transportation emissions
and 0.4 percent of all global GHG
emissions), or if using a combination of
domestic and global inventory
comparisons. Both domestic and global
comparisons, independently and jointly,
support the contribution finding under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).208 209 210
Making this cause or contribute finding
for engines used in U.S. covered aircraft
results in the vast majority (89 percent)
of total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
being included in this determination (as
described later in Table V.1 of section
V.B.4.a.). Covered U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions are from aircraft that operate
in and from the U.S. and thus contribute
to emissions in the U.S. This includes
emissions from U.S. domestic flights,
and emissions from U.S. international
bunker flights (emissions from the
combustion of fuel used by aircraft
departing the U.S., regardless of
whether they are a U.S. flagged carrier—
also described as emissions from
combustion of U.S. international bunker
fuels 211). In addition, the Administrator
based her decision on all the
information in the record for this
finding, including the public comments
received on the proposed finding.
208 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp.,
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R–
16–002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14,
2016).
209 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum,
S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
¨
Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, 1435 pp.
210 The domestic inventory comparisons are for
the year 2014, and global inventory comparisons are
for the year 2010. The rationale for the different
years is discussed later in section V.B.4.
211 For example, a flight departing Los Angeles
and arriving in Tokyo, regardless of whether it is
a U.S. flagged carrier, is considered a U.S.
international bunker flight. A flight from London to
Hong Kong is not.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54462
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
1. The Administrator’s Approach in
Making This Finding
As it did for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding under CAA section 202(a), and
consistent with prior practice and
current science, under this CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) contribution finding the
EPA uses annual emissions as a
reasonable proxy for contributions to
the endangering air pollution, i.e., the
elevated atmospheric concentrations of
the six well-mixed GHGs. Cumulative
anthropogenic emissions are primarily
responsible for the observed change in
GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
(i.e., the fraction of a country’s or an
economic sector’s cumulative emissions
compared to global GHG emissions over
a long time period will be roughly equal
to the fraction of the change in
concentrations attributable to that
country or economic sector); likewise,
annual GHG emissions are a reasonable
proxy for annual incremental changes in
atmospheric GHG concentrations.
There are a number of possible ways
of assessing whether a source’s
emissions of air pollutants cause or
contribute to the endangering air
pollution, and no single approach is
required or has been used exclusively in
previous determinations under the
CAA. Because under this CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) action the air pollution
against which the contribution of air
pollutant emissions is being evaluated is
the six well-mixed GHGs, one
reasonable starting point for a
contribution analysis is a comparison of
the emissions of the air pollutant from
the aircraft under consideration to the
total U.S. and total global emissions of
these six GHGs. The Administrator
recognizes that there are other valid
comparisons that can be considered in
evaluating whether emissions of the air
pollutant cause or contribute to the
combined concentration of these six
GHGs. To inform the Administrator’s
assessment, section V.B.4 presents the
following types of simple and
straightforward comparisons of covered
U.S. aircraft GHG emissions:
• As a share of current total U.S. GHG
emissions;
• As a share of current U.S.
transportation GHG emissions;
• As a share of current total global
GHG emissions; and
• As a share of the current global
transportation GHG emissions.
All annual GHG emissions data are
reported on a CO2-equivalent (CO2eq)
basis, which as described above is a
commonly used metric to convert GHG
emissions into standard units so they
can be compared. This approach is
consistent with how the EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
determined contribution for GHGs
under section 202(a) of the CAA in
2009.
2. Details of the Administrator’s
Approach in Making This Cause or
Contribute Finding
The Administrator believes that
consideration of the global context is
important for the cause or contribute
finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A),
but that the analysis should not solely
consider the global context. GHG
emissions from engines used in U.S.
covered aircraft will become globally
well-mixed in the atmosphere, and thus
will have an effect not only on the U.S.
regional climate but also on the global
climate as a whole, for many decades to
come. It is the Administrator’s view that
it is reasonable for the cause or
contribute analysis conducted under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) for GHGs
emitted by covered U.S. aircraft engines
to be consistent with the reasoning
supporting the 2009 GHG cause or
contribute finding under CAA section
202, as the relevant statutory provisions
are parallel and as the pollutant is the
same. Accordingly, the Administrator
finds a positive cause or contribute
finding for GHG emissions from engines
used in U.S. covered aircraft is justified
whether only the domestic context is
considered, only the global context is
considered, or both the domestic and
global GHG emissions comparisons are
viewed in combination. Both domestic
and global comparisons, independently
and jointly, are equally important for
the finding.
In the 2009 CAA section 202(a) cause
or contribute finding, the Administrator
considered the totality of the
circumstances in order to best
understand the role played by CAA
section 202(a) source categories in
emitting air pollutants that contribute to
endangering GHG air pollution,
consistent with Congress’ intention for
EPA to consider the cumulative impact
of all emissions from sources to the
endangering air pollution. In that
context, the global nature of the air
pollution problem and the breadth of
countries and sources emitting GHGs
meant that no single country or source
category dominated contribution to the
endangering air pollution on the global
scale.212 As was the case in 2009, it is
still true that no single country or GHG
source category dominates contribution
to the collective stock of endangering
GHG air pollution on the global scale,
and contributions from individual GHG
source categories may appear small in
comparison to the total stock, when, in
212 74
PO 00000
FR at 66538.
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
fact, they are very important
contributors in terms of both absolute
emissions or in comparison to GHG
emissions from other source categories,
globally or within the United States.
That is, because climate change is a
global problem that results from global
GHG emissions, it is more the result of
numerous and varied sources each
emitting what may seem to be smaller
percentages of GHG pollutants
compared to the total stock of GHG
pollution, than typically might be
encountered when tackling solely
regional or local environmental issues
for different kinds of pollutants that
may have more of a direct impact on
receptors located in the relative vicinity
of the polluting sources (such as
emissions of lead, for example, or sulfur
dioxide without consideration of its role
as possible precursor to particulate
matter). It is reasonable for the
Administrator to take these
circumstances into account in making a
contribution determination regarding
emissions from sources of GHGs, as the
impacts from GHGs are not spatially or
temporally limited.213 Therefore, in
order to address the risks associated
with global climate change, it is less
likely that a single ‘‘majority’’
contributing source category could be
identified and controlled such that the
risks could be eliminated, without the
need to consider contributions to the
endangering stock of air pollution from
‘‘minority’’ source categories that may
present smaller percentages of
contribution than may sometimes be
encountered when tackling regional or
local environmental threats presented
by a single or limited set of dominant
sources. Thus, in addressing GHG risks,
it will be, as the Supreme Court
suggested in Massachusetts v. EPA,
necessary for agencies to take an
incremental approach to resolving the
larger GHG endangerment issue, as
‘‘[a]gencies, like legislatures, do not
generally resolve massive problems in
one fell regulatory swoop. . . . They
instead whittle away at them over time,
refining their preferred approach as
circumstances change and as they
develop a more nuanced understanding
of how best to proceed.’’ 549 U.S. 497,
524 (2007) (citations omitted). The
Administrator continues to believe that
the unique, global aspects of the climate
change problem—including that from a
percentage perspective there are no
dominating sources or countries for
GHG emissions contributing to the
endangering GHG air pollution and that
the global problem is due more to the
GHG emissions contributed from
213 74
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
FR at 66543.
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
numerous and varied sources—justify
consideration of contribution to the
endangering air pollution at lower
percentage levels than the EPA typically
might encounter when analyzing
contribution towards a more localized
air pollution problem. This is not to
suggest, however, that all or even most
local or regional air pollution problems
are due to a single or small set of
sources. For example, regional haze and
ambient concentrations of concern for
ozone, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter are commonly the
result of a variety and great number of
contributing sources, and the EPA has
frequently approached such problems
by incrementally regulating a set of
sources that, in isolation, is not
contributing the dominant share of air
pollutants to the stock of air pollution,
but is contributing a meaningful share.
This approach has been affirmed by
reviewing courts as reasonable and
lawful under the CAA. See, e.g.,
Bluewater Network v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1
(D.C. Cir. 2004). Thus, the
Administrator, similar to the approach
taken in the 2009 GHG cause or
contribute finding under CAA section
202(a), is under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) placing weight on the fact
that engines used in U.S. covered
aircraft, as discussed in detail in
sections V.B.4.a of this document,
contribute the single largest share of
GHG emissions from transportation
sources in the United States that have
not yet been regulated for GHG
emissions, and that such GHG emissions
from U.S. covered aircraft are a
meaningful contribution to total U.S.
and total global GHG emissions
inventories.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
3. Additional Considerations
The Administrator also considered
information that showed that reasonable
estimates of GHG emissions from
engines used in U.S. covered aircraft are
projected to grow over the next 20 to 30
years, in making her contribution
finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
Given the projected growth in aircraft
emissions compared to other sectors, it
is reasonable for the Administrator to
consider future emissions projections as
further supporting her assessment of
historical annual emissions (recent
emissions from the current fleet) and
informing her contribution
determination. As described with
further detail later in section V.B.4.c,
recent FAA projections reveal that by
2036 GHG emissions from all aircraft
and from U.S. covered aircraft are likely
to increase by 43 percent (from 191 Tg
CO2eq to 272 Tg CO2eq for the years
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
2010 to 2036).214 By contrast, it is
estimated that by 2036 the light-duty
vehicle sector is projected to see a 25
percent reduction in GHG emissions
(1,133 Tg CO2eq to 844 Tg CO2eq) from
the 2010 baseline, while the freight
trucks sector is projected to experience
a 23 percent increase in GHG emissions
(390 Tg CO2eq to 478 Tg CO2eq) from
the 2010 baseline (this projected
increase does not reflect the impact of
GHG reductions on the freight trucks
sector anticipated from the Phase 2
heavy-duty GHG standards that have not
yet been promulgated). In addition, by
2036 the rail sector is projected to
experience a 3 percent reduction in
GHG emissions (44 Tg CO2eq to 43 Tg
CO2eq) from the 2010 baseline.215
Because the projected growth in aircraft
engine GHG emissions from U.S.
covered aircraft through 2036 is more
than 80 Tg CO2eq,216 this consideration
of projected future emissions adds
further support to the Administrator’s
finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
that emissions of the six well-mixed
greenhouse gases from classes of
engines used in U.S. covered aircraft
contribute to the GHG air pollution that
endangers public health and welfare.217
214 As discussed in section V.B.4.c, fuel burn
growth rates for air carriers and general aviation
aircraft operating on jet fuel are projected to grow
by 43 percent from 2010 to 2036 and this provides
a scaling factor for growth in projected GHG
emissions, which are projected to increase at a
similar rate as the fuel burn by 2030, 2036, and
2040.
FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years
2016–2036, 94 pp. Available at https://
www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_
forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_
Forecast.pdf (last accessed March 29, 2016).
215 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA),
2015: Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2015 with
projections to 2040, DOE/EIA–0383, 154 pp. For the
years 2010 to 2014, the baseline emissions for each
sector are from the 2016 Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Report, and
after 2014 we utilize projections from the 2015 EIA
AEO report. Available at http://www.eia.gov/
forecasts/aeo/ (last accessed May 12, 2015).
216 In addition, we expect aircraft engine GHG
emissions from U.S. covered aircraft to continue
contributing to the endangering pollution in the
future and to be a bigger percentage of
transportation emissions, since these emission are
projected to increase at a faster rate than other
transportation sources.
217 In 2010, U.S covered aircraft were responsible
for 10 percent of U.S. transportation sector GHG
emissions, and in 2036, U.S. covered aircraft are
projected to be the source of 15 percent of U.S.
transportation GHG emissions. In 2010, light-duty
vehicles were responsible for 58 percent of U.S.
transportation GHG emissions, and in 2036 they are
projected to be the source of 46 percent of such
emissions. In 2010, heavy-duty vehicles emitted 20
percent of U.S. transportation GHG emissions, and
in 2036, they are projected to emit 26 percent (this
projection does not reflect the impact from the
Phase 2 heavy-duty GHG standards that have not
yet been promulgated). In 2010, the rail sector
contributed 2 percent of U.S. transportation GHG
emissions, and in 2036, they are projected to
contribute the same percentage.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54463
4. Overview of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2
and other GHGs are now at essentially
unprecedented levels compared to the
distant and recent past.218 This is the
unambiguous result of human-activity
emissions of these gases. See section
IV.B.2 for more information on elevated
atmospheric GHG concentrations and
anthropogenic drivers of climate
change. Global emissions of well-mixed
GHGs have been increasing, and are
projected to continue increasing for the
foreseeable future. According to the
IPCC AR5, total global (when using
inventories from all anthropogenic
emitting sources including forestry and
other land use) emissions of GHGs in
2010 were 49,000 Tg CO2eq.219 This
represents an increase in global GHG
emissions of 29 percent since 1990 and
of 23 percent since 2000. In 2010, total
U.S. GHG emissions were responsible
for 13 percent of global GHG emissions
(when comparing inventories from all
anthropogenic emitting sources
including forestry and other land
use).220
We are also providing 2012 estimates
from other widely used and recognized
global datasets, the World Resources
Institute’s (WRI) Climate Analysis
Indicators Tool (CAIT) and the
International Energy Agency (IEA).221
We are providing these data for several
reasons; first, there is value in looking
at multiple data sources to see if
estimates are generally in line with one
another. Second, there are more recent
218 IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K.
Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, p. 11.
219 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum,
S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
¨
Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, 1435 pp.
220 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum,
S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
¨
Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, 351–411 pp.
221 World Resources Institute (WRI) Climate
Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) Data Explorer
(Version 2.0). Available at http://cait.wri.org (last
accessed January 19, 2016). International Energy
Agency, Data Services. Available at http://
data.iea.org (last accessed January 21, 2016).
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
54464
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
data available in the WRI/CAIT and IEA
datasets (2010 IPCC data vs. 2012 WRI/
CAIT and IEA data). Third and finally,
these other datasets provide additional
utility for examining different
disaggregations of the data (by country,
sector, and with or without forestry and
other land use emissions). Unless
otherwise noted, we are presenting data
points from these other datasets without
including data regarding forestry and
other land use inventories to enable
straightforward comparisons of gross
emission estimates from transportation
sources specifically. The total global
GHG emissions in 2012 from WRI/CAIT
were 44,816 Tg of CO2eq, representing
an increase in global GHG emissions of
47 percent since 1990 and 32 percent
since 2000. In comparison, WRI/CAIT’s
estimate of total global GHG emissions
in 2012 when including forestry and
other land use inventories were 47,599
Tg of CO2eq (representing an increase in
global GHG emissions of 40 percent
since 1990 and 30 percent since 2000).
In past years, WRI/CAIT estimates have
generally been consistent with those of
IPCC. In 2012, WRI/CAIT data indicate
that total U.S. GHG emissions were
responsible for 15 percent of global
emissions, which is also generally in
line with the percentages using IPCC’s
2010 estimate described above.
According to WRI/CAIT, current U.S.
GHG emissions rank only behind
China’s, and China was responsible for
24 percent of total global GHG
emissions.
As described earlier in section IV.A,
in the proposed finding and this final
finding, the Administrator considers the
recent, major scientific assessments of
the IPCC, USGCRP, and the NRC as the
primary scientific and technical basis
informing her judgment. Thus, the
Administrator is informed by and places
considerable weight upon the IPCC’s
data on global GHG emissions. She also
considers but places less emphasis on
the WRI/CAIT and IEA emissions data,
which in comparison have a different
aggregation of underlying data but are
available for more recent years (2010
IPCC data vs. 2012 WRI/CAIT and IEA
data).
The approach of considering the
major scientific assessments, including
IPCC’s assessment, provides assurance
that the Administrator’s judgment is
informed by the best available, wellvetted science that reflects the
consensus of the climate science
research community. The major findings
of the assessments, including IPCC’s
assessment, support the Administrator’s
findings in this action. While the EPA
uses the IPCC data as the primary data
source for informing this contribution
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
finding, it has reasonably used
additional data sources from widely
used and recognized global datasets to
provide context and information from
more recent years. These additional data
supplement and confirm the IPCC data,
as they are generally in line with IPCC.
Comparing their 2010 total global GHG
emissions, IPCC data are 49,000 Tg
CO2eq, and WRI/CAIT data indicates
42,968 Tg CO2eq (a 12 percent
difference).222 Also, comparing their
2010 global aircraft GHG emissions
estimates, IPCC data are 743 Tg CO2eq,
and IEA data indicate 749 Tg CO2eq (a
1 percent difference).223 Ultimately,
whether the Agency utilizes the IPCC
data alone or the WRI/CAIT dataset (and
IEA data) alone, or both datasets
together, it would have no material
effect on the emissions comparisons
discussed in section V.B and the
Administrator would make the same
contribution finding.
The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks Report 224
(hereinafter ‘‘U.S. Inventory’’), in which
2014 is the most recent year for which
data are available, indicates that total
U.S. GHG emissions increased by 7.3
percent from 1990 to 2014 (or by 7.8
percent when using inventories that
include forestry and other land use),
and emissions increased from 2013 to
2014 by 1.1 percent.225 This 2013 to
222 Comparing their 2010 total global GHG
emissions, IPCC data are 49,000 Tg CO2eq, and
WRI/CAIT data, including forestry and land use
inventories, indicates 45,748 Tg CO2eq (a 7 percent
difference).
223 Comparing 2012 WRI/CAIT to 2010 IPCC data,
WRI/CAIT data for total global GHG emissions
indicates 44,816 Tg CO2eq for 2012 (a 9 percent
difference), and including forestry and land use
inventories WRI/CAIT data indicates 47,599 Tg
CO2eq for 2012 (a 3 percent difference). Comparing
2012 IEA data to 2010 IPCC data, IEA data for global
aircraft GHG emissions indicates 775 Tg CO2eq for
2012 (a 4 percent difference).
224 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp.,
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R–
16–002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14,
2016). The EPA has determined that the U.S.
Inventory has been adequately reviewed in
accordance with the EPA’s Peer Review Handbook.
For the presentation of emissions inventory
information in this contribution finding, the EPA
disaggregated the existing data in one area of the
U.S. Inventory (for the General Aviation Jet Fuel
Category) and had the disaggregation methodology
peer reviewed in accordance with the EPA’s Peer
Review Handbook. The EPA Science Advisory
Board reviewed this approach to the underlying
technical and scientific information supporting this
action, and concluded that the approach had
precedent and the action will be based on wellreviewed information. All relevant peer review
documentation is located in the docket for today’s
final action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0828).
225 As described later in detail, total U.S. GHG
emissions, include emissions from combustion of
U.S. international bunker fuels, which are fuels
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2014 increase was attributable to
multiple factors including an increase in
vehicle miles traveled and vehicle fuel
use, a colder winter resulting in an
increased demand for heating fuel, and
an increase in industrial production
across multiple sectors. The U.S.
Inventory also shows that while overall
U.S. GHG emissions grew between 1990
and 2014, transportation GHG emissions
grew at a significantly higher rate, 16
percent, more rapidly than any other
U.S. sector. Within the transportation
sector, aircraft remain the single largest
source of GHG emissions not yet subject
to any GHG regulations (U.S. covered
aircraft GHG emissions grew by 15
percent between 1990 and 2014, and
total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
decreased by 3 percent over this same
time period).226
Section V.B.4.a which follows
describes U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
within the domestic context, while
section V.B.4.b describes these same
GHG emissions in the global context.
Section V.B.4.c addresses future
projections of aircraft GHG emissions.
a. U.S. Aircraft GHG Emissions Relative
to U.S. GHG Transportation and Total
U.S. GHG Inventory
Relying on data from the U.S.
Inventory, we compare total U.S. aircraft
GHG emission and U.S. covered aircraft
GHG emissions to the transportation
sector and to total U.S. GHG emissions
as an indication of the role this source
plays in the total domestic portion of
the air pollution that is endangering by
causing climate change. We are
providing information about total U.S.
aircraft GHG emissions for purposes of
giving context for the discussion of GHG
emissions from U.S. covered aircraft,
which are included in this contribution
finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
As explained in more detail below, the
contribution finding under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) in this action does not
include GHG emissions from all aircraft
that operate in and from the U.S. and
thus emit GHGs in the U.S.
In 2014, total U.S. GHG emissions
from all sources were 6,975 Tg CO2eq.
As stated above, total U.S. GHG
emissions have increased by 7.3 percent
used for transport activities from aviation (both
commercial and military) and marine sources.
226 As described later in detail, total U.S. GHG
emissions, U.S. transportation GHG emissions, total
U.S. aircraft GHG emissions, and U.S. covered
aircraft GHG emissions include emissions from
combustion of U.S. international bunker fuels. More
specifically, total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
include international bunker fuel emissions from
both commercial and military aviation. U.S.
covered aircraft GHG emissions include
international bunker fuel emissions from only
commercial aviation.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
between 1990 and 2014, while U.S.
transportation GHG emissions from all
categories have grown 16 percent since
1990. The U.S. transportation sector was
the second largest GHG-emitting sector
(behind electricity generation),
contributing 1,919 Tg CO2eq or 28
percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in
2014. This sectoral total and the total
U.S. GHG emissions include emissions
from combustion of U.S. international
bunker fuels, which are fuels used for
transport activities from aviation (both
commercial and military) and marine
sources. Following the IPCC guidelines
for common and consistent accounting
and reporting of GHGs, the UNFCCC
requires countries to report both total
national GHG emissions and
international bunker fuel emissions
(aviation and marine international
bunker fuel emissions), and though
these emissions are reported separately,
both are assigned to the reporting
country. In meeting the UNFCCC
reporting requirements, the U.S.
Inventory calculates international
bunker fuel GHG emissions in a
consistent manner with domestic GHG
emissions. In this final contribution
finding, the EPA maintains its approach
used in the proposed findings to include
aviation international bunker fuel
emissions attributable to the United
States with the national emissions
number from the U.S. Inventory as
reported to the UNFCCC. It is the EPA’s
view that it is reasonable and
appropriate for the analysis in the
contribution finding to reflect the full
contribution of U.S. emissions from
certain classes of aircraft engines,
including those from domestic flights of
U.S. aircraft and those associated with
international aviation bunker fuel
emissions. Consistent with IPCC
guidelines for common and consistent
accounting and reporting of GHGs under
the UNFCCC, the ‘‘U.S. international
aviation bunker fuels’’ category includes
emissions from combustion of fuel used
by aircraft departing from the United
States, regardless of whether they are a
U.S. flagged carrier. Total U.S. aircraft
GHG emissions (which include
emissions from international
commercial and military aviation
bunker fuels) clearly are included in the
U.S. transportation sector’s GHG
emissions, accounting for 222 Tg CO2eq
or 12 percent of such emissions (see
Table V.1). In 2014, total U.S. aircraft
GHG emissions (222 Tg CO2eq) were the
third largest transportation source of
GHGs within the United States, behind
GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles
and medium- and heavy-duty trucks
(totaling 1,508 Tg CO2eq).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
For purposes of making this cause or
contribute finding, the EPA includes a
set of aircraft engine classes used in
types of aircraft as described below,
which corresponds to the scope of the
international CO2 emissions standard
agreed to by ICAO. These emissions are
from what we have previously described
as ‘‘covered aircraft’’ (which include
emissions from international
commercial aviation bunker fuels).
As mentioned earlier in section II.D,
traditionally the U.S. government (EPA
and FAA) participates at ICAO in the
development of international standards,
and then where appropriate, the EPA
establishes domestic aircraft engine
emission standards under CAA section
231 of at least equivalent stringency to
ICAO’s standards. An international CO2
emissions standard was agreed to in
February 2016, and we expect to
proceed with proposing emissions
standards of at least equivalent
stringency domestically as soon as is
practicable. The thresholds of
applicability for the international CO2
emissions standard are based on weight
as follows: For subsonic jet aircraft, a
maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) greater
than 5,700 kilograms; and for subsonic
propeller driven (e.g., turboprop)
aircraft, a MTOM greater than 8,618
kilograms.227 Applying these weight
thresholds, our contribution finding
applies to GHG emissions from classes
of engines used in covered aircraft that
meet these MTOM criteria. For purposes
of the contribution finding, examples of
covered aircraft include smaller jet
aircraft such as the Cessna Citation CJ3+
and the Embraer E170, up to the largest
commercial jet aircraft—the Airbus
A380 and the Boeing 747. Other
examples of covered aircraft include
larger turboprop aircraft, such as the
ATR 72 and the Bombardier Q400. The
scope of the contribution finding
corresponds to the aircraft engine GHG
emissions that are from aircraft that
match the applicability thresholds for
the international aircraft CO2 standard.
We have also identified aircraft that are
not covered aircraft for purposes of this
contribution finding. That includes
aircraft that fall below the international
applicability thresholds: Smaller
turboprop aircraft, such as the
Beechcraft King Air 350i, and smaller jet
aircraft, such as the Cessna Citation M2.
In addition, ICAO (with U.S.
227 ICAO, 2013: CAEP/9 Agreed Certification
Requirement for the Aeroplane CO2 Emissions
Standard, Circular (Cir) 337, 40 pp., AN/192,
Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/
catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 8,
2016). The ICAO Circular 337 is found on page 87
of the ICAO Products & Services 2016 catalog and
is copyright protected; Order No. CIR337.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54465
participation) has agreed to exclude
‘‘piston-engine aircraft,’’ ‘‘helicopters,’’
and ‘‘military aircraft’’ 228 from the types
of aircraft that will be subject to the
ICAO standards.229 As these aircraft will
not be subject to the ICAO standards, in
this contribution finding we are also not
including GHG emissions from classes
of engines used in these types of
aircraft. We stress that our exclusion of
these aircraft does not reflect a final
scientific or technical determination
regarding their GHG emissions. Rather,
consistent with how the endangerment
finding does not include various other
climate forcers within the scope of the
‘‘air pollution’’ defined in this final
action, we are not prepared to make
final decisions regarding the GHG
emissions from these excluded aircraft.
The majority of the GHG emissions
from all classes of aircraft engines are
within the scope of this contribution
finding, which corresponds to that
agreed to by ICAO. Below we describe
the contribution of these U.S. covered
aircraft GHG emissions to U.S. GHG
emissions, and later in section V.B.4.b
we discuss the contribution of these
U.S. covered aircraft emissions to global
GHG emissions, in support of our
conclusion that GHG emissions from
engines used by U.S. covered aircraft
contribute to endangering GHG air
pollution.
In 2014, GHG emissions from U.S.
covered aircraft (197 Tg CO2eq), which
includes non-military GHG emissions
from combustion of U.S. international
aviation bunker fuels,230 comprised 89
percent of total U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions 231 (222 Tg CO2eq) and 10
percent of total U.S. transportation
sector GHG emissions (1,919 Tg CO2eq)
(See Table V.1). Overall, U.S. covered
aircraft comprised the third largest
source of GHG emissions in the U.S.
transportation sector behind only the
light-duty vehicle and medium- and
heavy-duty truck sectors (totaling 1,508
Tg CO2eq),232 which is the same ranking
228 ICAO regulations only apply to civil aviation
(aircraft and aircraft engines); consequently, ICAO
regulations do not apply to military aircraft.
229 The applicability of the international CO
2
standard is limited to subsonic aircraft, and does
not extend to supersonic aircraft.
230 U.S. covered aircraft does not include military
aircraft that use U.S. international bunker fuels.
231 Eastern Research Group, Incorporated (ERG),
2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions
Inventory for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2 Standard
Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract Number
EP–D–11–006, 38 pp.
232 In 2014, the U.S. light-duty vehicle (passenger
cars and light-duty trucks) GHG emissions were
1,101 Tg CO2eq and the medium- and heavy-duty
truck GHG emissions were 407 Tg CO2eq.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54466
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
as total U.S. aircraft.233 The U.S.
covered aircraft also represent 2.8
percent of total U.S. GHG emissions
(6,975 Tg CO2eq), which is
approximately equal to the contribution
from total U.S. aircraft of 3.2 percent
(Table V.1).234 Also, in Table V.2 for
background information and context, we
provide similar information, but
excluding GHG emissions from aviation
combustion of U.S. international bunker
fuels.235
It is important to note that in regard
to the six well-mixed GHGs (CO2,
methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,
and sulfur hexafluoride), only two of
these gases—CO2 and nitrous oxide—are
reported as non-zero emissions for total
aircraft and covered aircraft.236 CO2
represents 99 percent of all GHGs from
both total U.S. aircraft (220 Tg CO2eq)
and U.S. covered aircraft (195 Tg
CO2eq), and nitrous oxide represents 1
percent from total aircraft (2.1 Tg
CO2eq) and covered aircraft (1.9 Tg
CO2eq). Modern aircraft do not emit
methane,237 and hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride are not products of aircraft
engine combustion.
TABLE V.1 238 239—COMPARISONS OF U.S. AIRCRAFT GHG EMISSIONS TO TOTAL U.S. TRANSPORTATION AND TOTAL U.S.
GHG EMISSIONS
1990
Total U.S. Aircraft GHG emissions (Tg CO2eq) ..................
Share of U.S. Transportation ........................................
Share of total U.S. Inventory ........................................
U.S. Covered Aircraft GHG emissions (Tg CO2eq) ............
Share of U.S. aircraft GHG emissions .........................
Share of U.S. Transportation ........................................
Share of total U.S. Inventory ........................................
U.S. Transportation GHG emissions (Tg CO2eq) ...............
Share of total U.S. Inventory ........................................
Total U.S. GHG emissions (Tg CO2eq) ...............................
228
14%
3.5%
171
75%
10%
2.6%
1,659
26%
6,502
2000
262
13%
3.6%
223
85%
11%
3%
2,029
28%
7,362
2005
254
12%
3.4%
218
86%
10%
2.9%
2,119
28%
7,493
2010
2012
216
11%
3%
191
88%
9.8%
2.7%
1,950
28%
7,104
212
11%
3.1%
190
90%
10%
2.8%
1,891
28%
6,750
2013
216
11%
3.1%
195
90%
10%
2.8%
1,895
28%
6,901
2014
222
12%
3.2%
197
89%
10%
2.8%
1,919
28%
6,975
TABLE V.2 240 241—COMPARISONS OF U.S. AIRCRAFT GHG EMISSIONS TO TOTAL U.S. TRANSPORTATION AND TOTAL U.S.
GHG EMISSIONS—EXCLUDING U.S. INTERNATIONAL BUNKER FUELS 242
1990
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
Total U.S. Aircraft GHG emissions (Tg CO2eq) ..................
Share of U.S. Transportation ........................................
Share of total U.S. Inventory ........................................
U.S. Covered Aircraft GHG emissions (Tg CO2eq) ............
Share of U.S. aircraft GHG emissions .........................
Share of U.S. Transportation ........................................
Share of total U.S. Inventory ........................................
U.S. Transportation GHG emissions (Tg CO2eq) ...............
Share of total U.S. Inventory ........................................
Total U.S. GHG emissions (Tg CO2eq) ...............................
233 Compared independently, total U.S. aircraft
GHG emissions and U.S. covered aircraft GHG
emissions are both ranked the third largest source
in the U.S. transportation sector, behind only lightduty vehicle and medium- and heavy-duty truck
sectors.
234 Total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions and U.S.
covered aircraft GHG emissions were from 12 to 31
percent greater in 2000 and 2005 than in 1990.
These increases in aircraft GHG emissions are
primarily because aircraft operations (or number of
flights) grew by similar amounts during this time
period. Also, total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions and
U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions were from 10
to 15 percent greater in 2000 and 2005 than in 2014.
These decreases in aircraft GHG emissions are
partly because aircraft operations decreased by
similar amounts during this time period. In
addition, the decreases in aircraft emissions are due
in part to improved operational efficiency that
results in more direct flight routing, improvements
in aircraft and engine technologies to reduce fuel
burn and emissions, and the accelerated retirement
of older, less fuel efficient aircraft. Also, the U.S.
transportation GHG emissions were changing at
similar rates as total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
and U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions for these
same time periods, and thus, the aircraft GHG
emissions share of U.S. Transportation remains
approximately constant (over these time periods).
(U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 558 pp. Available
at http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/
ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2016-MainText.pdf (last accessed April 22, 2016)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
190
12%
3%
141
74%
9%
2.2%
1,554
24%
6,397
2000
200
10%
2.8%
166
83%
8.6%
2.3%
1,927
27%
7,259
2005
194
9.7%
2.6%
162
84%
8.1%
2.2%
2,004
27%
7,379
235 For Table V.2, total U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions and U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions
exclude emissions from aviation combustion of U.S.
international bunker fuels. The U.S. transportation
sector GHG emissions and total U.S. GHG emissions
(in Table V.2) exclude emissions from both aviation
and marine combustion of U.S. international bunker
fuels.
236 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp.,
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R–
16–002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14,
2016).
237 Emissions of methane from jet fuels are no
longer considered to be emitted (based on the latest
studies) across the time series from aircraft gas
turbine engines burning jet fuel A at higher power
settings (EPA, Recommended Best Practice for
Quantifying Speciated Organic Gas Emissions from
Aircraft Equipped with Turbofan, Turbojet and
Turboprop Engines, EPA–420–R–09–901, May 27,
2009 (see https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/
aviation/420r09901.pdf (last accessed April 22,
2016)). Based on this data, methane emissions
factors for jet aircraft were reported as zero to reflect
the latest emissions testing data. Also, the 2006
IPCC Guidelines indicate the following: ‘‘Methane
(CH4) may be emitted by gas turbines during idle
and by older technology engines, but recent data
suggest that little or no CH4 is emitted by modern
engines.’’ (IPCC, 2006: IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, The National
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2010
2012
155
8.5%
2.2%
133
86%
7.3%
1.9%
1,832
26%
6,986
147
8.2%
2.2%
128
87%
7.2%
1.9%
1,784
27%
6,643
2013
151
8.4%
2.2%
132
88%
7.4%
1.9%
1,794
26%
6,800
2014
152
8.4%
2.2%
130
86%
7.2%
1.9%
1,815
26%
6,871
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, H.S.
Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K.
Tanabe (eds.). Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.) The EPA
uses an emissions factor of zero to maintain
consistency with the IPCC reporting guidelines,
while continuing to stay abreast of the evolving
research in this area. For example, one recent study
has indicated that modern aircraft jet engines
operating at higher power modes consume rather
than emit methane (Santoni et al., 2011: Aircraft
Emissions of Methane and Nitrous Oxide during the
Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 45 pp. 7075–7082).
238 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp.,
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R–
16–002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14,
2016).
239 ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO
2
Emissions Inventory for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2
Standard Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract
Number EP–D–11–006, 38 pp.
240 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp.,
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R–
16–002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14,
2016).
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
b. U.S. Aircraft GHG Emissions Relative
to Global Aircraft GHG Inventory and
the Total Global GHG Inventory
For background information and
context, we first provide information on
the portion of GHG emissions from
global aircraft and the global
transportation sector to total global GHG
emissions, and describe how this
compares to the emissions from aircraft
covered by the ICAO CO2 standard. We
then compare U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions to the global aircraft sector, to
the global transport sector, and to total
global GHG emissions as an indication
of the role this source plays in the total
global portion of the air pollution that
is causing climate change. As in the
preceding section, we present
comparisons from both total U.S.
aircraft GHG emissions and U.S.
covered aircraft GHG emissions.
According to IPCC AR5, global aircraft
GHG emissions in 2010 were 11 percent
of global transport GHG emissions and
1.5 percent of total global GHG
emissions. Data from ICAO’s 2013
Environmental Report indicate that the
vast majority of global emissions from
the aircraft sector are emitted by the
types of aircraft that are covered by the
ICAO CO2 standard (‘‘ICAO covered
aircraft’’), which was agreed to in
February 2016.243 When compared to
global data from IPCC AR5, worldwide
GHG emissions from ICAO covered
aircraft represented 93 percent (688 Tg
CO2eq) of global aircraft GHG
emissions,244 9.8 percent of global
transport GHG emissions, and 1.4
percent of total global GHG emissions in
2010.
Comparing data from the U.S.
Inventory to IPCC AR5, we find that
54467
total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
represented 29 percent of global aircraft
GHG emissions, 3.1 percent of global
transport GHG emissions, and 0.5
percent of total global GHG emissions in
2010 (see Table V.3). U.S. covered
aircraft in 2010 GHG emissions
represented 26 percent of global aircraft
GHG emissions, 2.7 percent of global
transport GHG emissions, and 0.4
percent of total global GHG emissions
(see Table V.3).245 For reasons described
above in section V.B.4, we also made
comparisons using 2012 estimates from
WRI/CAIT and the IEA and found that
they yield very similar results.246 Also,
in Table V.4 for background information
and context in regard to the global GHG
inventory, we provide similar
information, but excluding aviation
GHG emissions from combustion of U.S.
international bunker fuels.
TABLE V.3 247—COMPARISONS OF U.S. AIRCRAFT GHG EMISSIONS TO TOTAL GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN
2010
2010
(Tg CO2 eq)
Global Aircraft GHG emissions ......................................................................
Global Transport GHG emissions ..................................................................
Total Global GHG emissions .........................................................................
Total U.S.
aircraft share
(%)
743
7,000
49,000
29
3.1
0.5
U.S. covered
aircraft share
(%) 248
26
2.7
0.4
Global aircraft
share
(%)
........................
11
1.5
TABLE V.4 249—COMPARISONS OF U.S. AIRCRAFT GHG EMISSIONS TO TOTAL GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN
2010—EXCLUDING AVIATION GHG EMISSIONS FROM COMBUSTION OF U.S. INTERNATIONAL BUNKER FUELS FROM
THE U.S. AIRCRAFT GHG EMISSIONS
2010
(Tg CO2 eq)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
Global Aircraft GHG emissions ......................................................................
Global Transport GHG emissions ..................................................................
Total Global GHG emissions .........................................................................
241 ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO
2
Emissions Inventory for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2
Standard Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract
Number EP–D–11–006, 38 pp.
242 International bunker fuels emissions are
emissions resulting from the combustion of fuels
used for international transport activities, which
includes aviation and marine. U.S. international
bunker fuels includes aviation and marine bunker
fuels allocated to the U.S. The U.S. international
aviation bunker fuels category includes emissions
from combustion of fuel used by aircraft departing
from the United States, regardless of whether they
are a U.S. flagged carrier. The U.S. international
marine bunker fuels category includes emissions
from the combustion of fuel used by vessels of all
flags (that are engaged in international water-borne
navigation) departing from the United States.
243 ICAO CAEP, 2013: ICAO Environmental
Report 2013, Aviation and Climate Change, 224 pp.
Available at http://cfapp.icao.int/EnvironmentalReport-2013/ (last accessed April 8, 2016).
244 Worldwide GHG emissions from ICAO
covered aircraft include emissions from both
international and domestic aircraft operations
around the world.
245 We are providing information about total U.S.
aircraft GHG emissions for purposes of giving
context for the discussion of GHG emissions from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
743
7,000
49,000
U.S. covered aircraft, which are included in this
contribution finding under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). As explained in more detail below, the
contribution finding under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) in this action does not include GHG
emissions from all aircraft that operate in and from
the U.S and thus emit GHGs in the U.S.
246 Data from WRI/CAIT (that excludes forestry
and other land use inventories) and IEA show that,
in 2012, total U.S. aircraft emissions represented 27
percent of global aircraft GHG emissions, 2.9
percent of global transport GHG emissions, and 0.5
percent of total global GHG emissions. U.S. covered
aircraft represented 25 percent of global aircraft
GHG emissions, 2.6 percent of global transport GHG
emissions, and 0.4 percent of total global GHG
emissions in 2012.
247 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum,
S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
¨
Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, 1435 pp.
U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp.,
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Total U.S.
aircraft share
(%)
21
2.2
0.4
U.S. covered
aircraft share
(%) 250
18
1.9
0.3
Global aircraft
share
(%)
........................
11
1.5
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R–
16–002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14,
2016).
248 ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO
2
Emissions Inventory for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2
Standard Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract
Number EP–D–11–006, 38 pp.
249 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum,
S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
¨
Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, 1435 pp. U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014,
1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation,
EPA 430–R–16–002, April 2016. Available at:
www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14,
2016).
250 ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO
2
Emissions Inventory for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2
Standard Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract
Number EP–D–11–006, 38 pp.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54468
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
period, global aircraft GHG emissions
grew by 40 percent, and the portion
attributable to combustion of global
international aviation bunker fuels
increased by 80 percent.253 254
Notwithstanding the substantial growth
in GHG emissions from combustion of
U.S. international aviation bunker fuels,
U.S. covered aircraft emissions have not
increased as much as global aircraft
emissions from 1990 to 2010, primarily
because the U.S. aviation market was
relatively mature compared to the
markets in Europe and other emergent
markets, and because during this time
period the U.S. commercial air carriers
suffered several major shocks that
reduced demand for air travel.255 In fact,
U.S. covered aircraft emissions
decreased from 2000 to 2010 (13
percent), but then have increased from
2010 to 2014 (3 percent).256 After
consolidation and restructuring in
recent years, the U.S. commercial air
carriers have regained profitability and
are forecasted by the FAA to grow more
over the next 20 to 30 years.257 With
regard to global aircraft GHG emissions,
the aviation markets in Asia/Pacific,
Europe (where airline deregulation has
stimulated significant new demands in
this period), and the Middle East (and
other emerging markets) have been
c. Aircraft GHG Emissions Are Projected
To Increase in the Future
Global and U.S. covered aircraft GHG
emissions have increased between 1990
and 2010, and are predicted to continue
to increase in future years. While overall
GHG emissions from U.S. covered
aircraft increased by 12 percent from
1990 to 2010, the portion attributable to
combustion of U.S. international
aviation bunker fuels 251 increased by 91
percent.252 During this same time
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
For additional background
information and context, we used 2012
WRI/CAIT and IEA data to make
comparisons between the aircraft sector
and the emissions inventories of entire
countries and regions. When compared
to entire countries, total global aircraft
GHG emissions in 2012 ranked 8th
overall, behind only China, United
States, India, Russian Federation, Japan,
Brazil, and Germany, and ahead of
about 177 other countries. Total U.S.
aircraft GHG emissions have historically
been and continue to be by far the
largest contributor to global aircraft
GHG emissions. Total U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions are about 6 times higher than
aircraft GHG emissions from China,
which globally is the second ranked
country for aircraft GHG emissions, and
about 4 times higher than aircraft GHG
emissions from all of Asia. U.S. covered
aircraft GHG emissions are about 5
times more than total aircraft GHG
emissions from China, and about 4
times more than total aircraft GHG
emissions from all of Asia. If U.S.
covered aircraft emissions of GHGs were
ranked against total GHG emissions for
entire countries, these covered aircraft
emissions would rank ahead of Belgium,
Czech Republic, Ireland, Sweden,
Switzerland and about 150 other
countries in the world.
climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14,
2016).
253 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum,
S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
¨
Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, pp. 599–670.
254 According to IEA, from 1990 to 2012, global
aircraft GHG emissions grew by 53 percent, and
global international aviation bunker fuels increased
by 86 percent. International Energy Agency Data
Services, Available at http://data.iea.org (last
accessed January 21, 2016).
255 According to the FAA Aerospace Forecast
2014–2034, these shocks include the September 11,
2001, terror attacks, significant increases in fuel
prices, debt restructuring in Europe and U.S., and
a global recession. FAA, 2014: FAA Aerospace
Forecast Fiscal Years 2014–2034, 129 pp. Available
at http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/
aerospace_forecasts/media/2014_faa_aerospace_
forecast.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016).
256 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp.,
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R–
16–002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventory
report.html (last accessed June 14, 2016).
257 According to the FAA Aerospace Forecast
2016–2036, in 2015 U.S. air carriers were profitable
for the sixth consecutive year.
FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years
2016–2036, 94 pp. Available at https://www.faa.
gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/
media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf
(last accessed March 29, 2016).
251 The U.S. international aviation bunker fuels
category includes emissions from combustion of
fuel used by aircraft departing from the United
States, regardless of whether they are a U.S. flagged
carrier. GHG emissions from U.S. international
aviation bunker fuels are a subset of GHG emissions
from U.S. covered aircraft. From 1990 to 2010, GHG
emissions from U.S. covered aircraft increased from
171 to 191 Tg CO2eq, and GHG emissions from the
portion attributable to U.S. international aviation
bunker fuels grew from 30 to 58 Tg CO2eq during
this same time period. From 1990 to 2011, GHG
emissions from U.S. covered aircraft increased from
171 to 193 Tg CO2eq (13 percent), and GHG
emissions from the portion attributable to U.S.
international aviation bunker fuels grew from 30 to
62 Tg CO2eq (110 percent). From 1990 to 2012, GHG
emissions from U.S. covered aircraft increased from
171 to 190 Tg CO2eq (11 percent), and GHG
emissions from the portion attributable to U.S.
international aviation bunker fuels grew from 30 to
62 Tg CO2eq (110 percent).
252 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp.,
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R–
16–002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
growing rapidly, and the global market
is expected to continue to grow
significantly over the next 20 to 30
years.258
Recent studies estimate that both
ICAO covered aircraft and U.S. covered
aircraft will experience substantial
growth over the next 20 to 30 years in
their absolute fuel burn,259 and that this
will translate into increased GHG
emissions. ICAO estimates that the
global fuel burn from ICAO covered
aircraft will increase by about 120
percent from 2010 to 2030 and by about
210 percent from 2010 to 2040 (for a
scenario with moderate technology and
operational improvements).260 The FAA
projects that the fuel consumption from
U.S. air carriers and general aviation
aircraft operating on jet fuel will grow
by 43 percent from 2010 to 2036,
corresponding to an average annual
increase rate in fuel consumption of 1.4
percent.261 These aircraft groups (U.S.
air carriers and general aviation aircraft
operating on jet fuel) are of similar
scope to the U.S. covered aircraft whose
engine GHG emissions are the subject of
this contribution finding. Using fuel
burn growth rates provided above as a
scaling factor for growth in GHG
emissions (globally and nationally), it is
estimated that GHG emissions from
ICAO covered aircraft and U.S. covered
aircraft will increase at a similar rate as
the fuel burn by 2030, 2036, and 2040.
C. Response to Key Comments on the
Administrator’s Cause or Contribute
Finding
EPA received numerous comments
regarding the Administrator’s proposed
cause or contribute finding. Below is a
brief discussion of some of the key
comments. Responses to comments on
258 According to the FAA Aerospace Forecast
2014–2034, the International Air Transport
Association (IATA) reports that world air carriers
(including U.S. airlines) are expected to register an
operating profit for 2013. Based on financial data
compiled by ICAO and IATA, between 2004 and
2013 world airlines produced cumulative operating
profits (with nine years out of ten posting gains)
and net profits (with six years out of ten posting
gains).
259 FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal
Years 2016–2036, 94 pp. Available at https://
www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_
forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_
Forecast.pdf (last accessed March 29, 2016).
ICAO CAEP, 2013: ICAO Environmental Report
2013, Aviation and Climate Change, 224 pp.
Available at http://cfapp.icao.int/EnvironmentalReport-2013/ (last accessed April 8, 2016).
260 ICAO CAEP, 2013: ICAO Environmental
Report 2013, Aviation and Climate Change, 224 pp.
Available at http://cfapp.icao.int/EnvironmentalReport-2013/ (last accessed April 8, 2016).
261 FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal
Years 2016–2036, 94 pp. Available at https://
www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_
forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_
Forecast.pdf (last accessed March 29, 2016).
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
this topic (and further details for the key
comments) are also contained in the
Response to Comments document.
1. The Administrator Reasonably
Defined the Scope of the Cause or
Contribute Finding
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
a. Applicability Weight Thresholds
Match Those of International CO2
Standard
Several commenters stated that the
EPA should undertake another cause or
contribute finding for a broader range of
aircraft not covered in our proposed
finding, including smaller turboprop
aircraft (such as the Beechcraft King Air
350i), smaller jet aircraft (such as the
Cessna Citation M2), piston-engine
aircraft, and helicopters. These
commenters stated, however, that this
comment did not affect the validity of
the conclusions in the proposed finding.
Numerous commenters stated their
support for our proposed finding’s
scope matching the applicability
(weight or MTOM) thresholds of the
international CO2 standard.
As described earlier, at this time and
for the purposes of this cause or
contribute finding under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A), the EPA is including
emissions of the six well-mixed
greenhouse gases from classes of
engines used in U.S. covered aircraft
which are subsonic jet aircraft with a
maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) greater
than 5,700 kilograms and subsonic
propeller driven (e.g., turboprop)
aircraft with a MTOM greater than 8,618
kilograms. We are not at this time taking
final action with respect to the GHG
emissions from aircraft other than those
included in the scope of this finding.262
The cause or contribute finding is a
prerequisite under CAA section 231 for
EPA to adopt standards that are of at
least equivalent stringency to those set
by ICAO. Accordingly, in this finding,
the EPA is focusing on matching the
scope of our contribution finding to the
applicability thresholds of the
international standard. The covered
aircraft match the applicability (or
MTOM) thresholds of the international
aircraft CO2 standard. This is a
reasonable approach for this first
finding regarding the contribution of
aircraft GHG emissions to the
endangering air pollution, as the vast
majority of U.S. emissions from all
classes of aircraft engines (89 percent of
U.S. aircraft GHG emissions) will be
262 Consequently, this final action does not
restrict the EPA’s future discretion to address GHG
emissions from aircraft that are not included in the
scope of this finding, or prejudge how the Agency
would respond to a petition to address those GHG
emissions should one be submitted in the future.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
covered by this scope of applicability,
which corresponds to 26 percent of
global aircraft GHG emissions. This
approach is also consistent with our
past practice in promulgating aircraft
engine NOX standards. In ruling on a
petition for judicial review of the 2005
rule for further stringency of aircraft
engine NOX standards,263 the D.C.
Circuit held that the EPA’s approach in
that action of tracking the applicability
criteria of the ICAO standards was
reasonable and permissible under the
CAA. NACAA v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221,
1230–32 (D.C. Cir. 2007). (The Court
also held that section 231 of the CAA
confers a broad degree of discretion on
the EPA to adopt aircraft emission
standards that the Agency determines
are reasonable. Id.) Also, by using the
phrase ‘‘any class or classes of aircraft
engines which in [her] judgment causes,
or contributes to,’’ the endangering air
pollution, section 231(a)(2)(A) gives the
EPA discretion to determine which class
or classes of aircraft engines to evaluate
in making a cause or contribute finding,
and whether to focus on a single class
or multiple classes of aircraft engines in
satisfying the requirements of section
231(a)(2)(A).
In response to the commenters who
asked the EPA to undertake an
additional cause and contribute finding
regarding GHG emissions from noncovered U.S. aircraft, the Agency will
take that request under advisement and
consideration among its other duties
and priorities, but is not prepared at this
time to either reject or grant that
request. At this point, given the nearly
complete process for ICAO’s adoption of
an international standard, which will
under the Chicago Convention trigger
the duties of the U.S. and other member
states to adopt domestically standards
that are of at least equal stringency, it is
most important for the EPA to prepare
for having to meet that nearly certain
duty by expeditious completion of the
pre-requisite endangerment and cause
or contribute findings, without possibly
delaying final action to consider the
possibility of proposing a broader cause
or contribute finding before taking final
action.
263 U.S. EPA, 2005: Control of Air Pollution from
Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards
and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 70 FR 69664
(November 17, 2005).
In 2005, we promulgated more stringent NOX
emission standards for newly certified commercial
turbofan engines. That final rule brought the U.S.
standards closer to alignment with ICAO CAEP/4
requirements that became effective in 2004.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54469
b. The Administrator Reasonably
Defined U.S. Covered Aircraft
A commenter stated that they
understand that the scope of the finding
corresponds to the aircraft engine GHG
emissions that are from aircraft that
match the applicability thresholds (or
MTOM thresholds) for the international
aircraft CO2 standard; however, they
requested clarification on the difference
between ‘‘U.S. covered aircraft’’ and
non-U.S. covered aircraft. This
commenter requested clarification on
whether U.S. covered aircraft means
aircraft made in the U.S., registered in
the U.S., operated by an entity holding
an air carrier certificate issued by the
U.S., operated by an air carrier in the
National Air Space, or operated by
anyone in the U.S. (National) Air Space.
The commenter expressed that the EPA
must explain the basis for its definition,
and its claimed authority to regulate
U.S. covered aircraft.
As described earlier in section V.B.4,
U.S. covered aircraft for this cause or
contribute finding refers to aircraft that
are a subset of all aircraft that meet the
applicability thresholds of the
international aircraft CO2 standard,
namely those that fly domestically with
starting and ending points within the
U.S. and those that depart the U.S. for
international destinations. U.S. covered
aircraft include aircraft that operate in
the U.S., and thus contribute to GHG
emissions in the U.S. This includes
emissions from U.S. domestic flights of
these aircraft. In addition, the scope of
this finding reaches GHG emissions
from non-military aircraft combusting
U.S. international bunker fuels
departing the U.S., regardless of
whether they are a U.S. flagged carrier—
also described as emissions from
combustion of U.S. international bunker
fuels.264 Similar to statements earlier in
section V.B.4, in defining U.S. covered
aircraft for this specific contribution
finding, in advance of needing to meet
the expected duties imposed by the
ICAO standards, the EPA is focused on
the GHG emissions that the atmosphere
receives as a result of aviation activities
occurring inside the U.S. and
originating from the U.S., in order to
capture the full contribution of covered
aircraft to U.S. GHG emissions,
consistent with the scope of the ICAO
international standard. It is important
for the EPA’s finding to reach the subset
of aircraft that meet the definition of
U.S. covered aircraft, and that subset
264 For example, a flight departing Los Angeles
and arriving in Tokyo—regardless of whether it is
a U.S. flagged carrier—is considered a U.S.
international bunker flight. A flight from London to
Hong Kong is not.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54470
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
will not necessarily be covered by any
other member state with responsibilities
to meet the ICAO standard under the
Chicago Convention. For U.S. covered
aircraft, the EPA has chosen to combine
GHG emissions from all flights both
domestic and those reflected in
international bunker fuel inventories to
determine the contribution of U.S.
covered aircraft GHG emissions to the
endangering air pollution. We
additionally note that the IPCC and
UNFCCC guidance states that for an
international bunker flight the entire
flight’s emissions are calculated and
reported (for the country from where the
flight departed), and the GHG emission
calculation methodologies are the same
for both domestic and international
aviation bunker fuel flights. We have
followed this guidance in our
calculation methodologies for this
contribution finding.265 Ultimately,
GHG emissions inventories from U.S.
covered aircraft with or without GHG
emissions from combustion of U.S.
international aviation bunker fuels are
sufficient to support the Administrator’s
cause or contribute finding in this
action, whether we consider the
inventories both together, or just the
inventory from domestic flights of U.S.
covered aircraft.
In response to the comment that EPA
must explain its claimed authority to
regulate U.S. covered aircraft, as
described earlier, the endangerment and
cause or contribute findings are a
prerequisite under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) for EPA to adopt standards
(that are of at least equivalent stringency
to those set by ICAO). If the
Administrator makes these findings in
265 As described earlier, following the IPCC
guidelines for common and consistent accounting
and reporting of GHGs, the UNFCCC requires
countries to report both total national GHG
emissions and international bunker fuel emissions
(aviation and marine international bunker fuel
emissions), and though these emissions are reported
separately, both are assigned to the reporting
country. In meeting the UNFCCC reporting
requirements, the U.S. Inventory calculates
international bunker fuel GHG emissions in a
consistent manner with domestic GHG emissions.
In this final contribution finding, the EPA
maintains its approach used in the proposed
findings to include aviation international bunker
fuel emissions attributable to the United States with
the national emissions number from the U.S.
Inventory as reported to the UNFCCC. It is the
EPA’s view that it is reasonable and appropriate for
the analysis in the contribution finding to reflect
the full contribution of U.S. emissions from certain
classes of aircraft engines, including those from
domestic flights of U.S. aircraft and those associated
with international aviation bunker fuel emissions.
Consistent with IPCC guidelines for common and
consistent accounting and reporting of GHGs under
the UNFCCC, the ‘‘U.S. international aviation
bunker fuels’’ category includes emissions from
combustion of fuel used by aircraft departing from
the United States, regardless of whether they are a
U.S. flagged carrier.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
the affirmative, she must issue
standards under section 231(a)(2)(A).
c. It Is Reasonable for the Administrator
To Limit the Contribution Finding to
U.S. Covered Aircraft
Some commenters stated that the EPA
should issue a broader contribution
finding and wait until the standard
setting phase to exercise discretion as to
what classes of aircraft engines should
be covered by standards. These
commenters stated that the EPA has
authority to set aircraft engine GHG
emission standards, following a cause or
contribute finding, that do not impose
requirements on every engine or class of
aircraft engine within the scope of that
finding. They also argued that in this
instance there does not seem to be a
sufficiently reasoned basis for EPA to
exclude the non-covered aircraft for
purposes of making the cause or
contribute finding.
As described earlier in section III, the
endangerment and contribution findings
for aircraft GHG emissions under
section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA are a
necessary first step to begin to address
GHG emissions from the aviation sector,
the highest-emitting category of
transportation GHG sources that the
EPA has not yet addressed. As
presented in more detail in section
V.B.4 of this preamble, covered U.S.
aircraft GHG emissions in 2014
represented 10 percent of GHG
emissions from the U.S. transportation
sector,266 and in 2010, the latest year
with complete global emissions data,
U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions
represented 26 percent of global aircraft
GHG emissions.267 268 U.S. covered
aircraft GHG emissions are projected to
increase by 43 percent over the next two
decades.269
266 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp.,
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R–
16–002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14,
2016).
267 Ibid.
268 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum,
S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
¨
Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, 599–670 pp.
269 As discussed in section V.B.4.c, fuel burn
growth rates for air carriers and general aviation
aircraft operating on jet fuel are projected to grow
by 43 percent from 2010 to 2036, and this provides
a scaling factor for growth in GHG emissions which
would increase at a similar rate as the fuel burn by
2030, 2036, and 2040. FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace
Forecast Fiscal Years 2016–2036, 94 pp. Available
at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Section III of this preamble
summarizes the legal framework for this
action under CAA section 231. As
discussed there, section 231(a)(2)(A) of
the CAA states that ‘‘The Administrator
shall, from time to time, issue proposed
emission standards applicable to the
emission of any air pollutant from any
class or classes of aircraft engines which
in [her] judgment causes, or contributes
to, air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare.’’ Before the Administrator
may issue standards addressing
emissions of GHGs under section 231,
the Administrator must satisfy a twostep test. First, the Administrator must
decide whether, in her judgment, the air
pollution under consideration may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. Second, the
Administrator must decide whether, in
her judgment, emissions of an air
pollutant from the classes of aircraft
engines under consideration cause or
contribute to this air pollution.270 If the
Administrator answers both questions
in the affirmative, she must issue
standards under section 231. While we
agree that the EPA has significant
discretion in the standard-setting phase,
we disagree with the comment to the
extent that it suggests the standardsetting phase is the only appropriate
place for the EPA to exercise discretion
as to the scope of covered aircraft engine
classes in this first instance of findings
regarding aircraft GHG emissions. By
using the phrase ‘‘any class or classes of
aircraft engines which in [her] judgment
causes, or contributes to,’’ the
endangering air pollution, section
231(a)(2)(A) gives the EPA discretion to
determine which class or classes of
aircraft engines to evaluate in making a
cause or contribute finding, and
whether to focus on a single class or
multiple classes of aircraft engines in
satisfying the requirements of section
231(a)(2)(A). Because the scope of the
first international CO2 standard adopted
by ICAO is limited to aircraft over the
specified MTOM levels, and the U.S.
will have a duty to set domestic
standards in order to meet its
obligations under the Chicago
Convention, it is reasonable in this case
to similarly limit the scope of and issue
this first aircraft GHG contribution
aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_
Aerospace_Forecast.pdf (last accessed March 29,
2016).
270 To clarify the distinction between air
pollution and air pollutant, the air pollution is the
atmospheric concentrations and can be thought of
as the total, cumulative stock of GHGs in the
atmosphere. The air pollutants, on the other hand,
are the emissions of GHGs and can be thought of
as the flow that changes the size of the total stock.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
finding and not delay this determination
in order to possibly additionally
consider and re-propose our finding to
reach a broader scope. We do not
necessarily disagree with the
commenters who suggested that we
could issue a broader contribution
finding and then narrow the scope of
future standards at that stage, but doing
so in this action would require further
analysis and development of an
additional proposed finding, which
could impede expeditious final issuance
of the finding we proposed and thereby
possibly impede prompt development of
domestic standards that are of at least
equivalent stringency as ICAO’s. We
expect to proceed with promulgating a
domestic CO2 standard (or GHG
standard) of at least equivalent
stringency to the international CO2
standard as soon as it is practicable, and
to begin to take action along this
expected path, we are exercising our
discretion in matching the applicability
thresholds of the international CO2
standard. The majority of the GHG
emissions from all classes of aircraft
engines would be covered by these
applicability thresholds. We are not
making either positive or negative
contribution findings regarding GHG
emissions from engines used in noncovered aircraft at this time, but nothing
prevents us from doing so in the future.
2. The Administrator’s Cause or
Contribute Analysis Is Reasonable
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
a. It Is Reasonable To Include GHG
Emissions From Combustion of
International Aviation Bunker Fuels in
the U.S. Aircraft GHG Inventory
Some commenters stated that the
EPA’s choice of data for the cause or
contribute analysis was selective and
biased. They contended that emissions
resulting from combustion of the
international aviation bunker fuels
should not be part of the U.S. covered
aircraft GHG inventory or of the total
U.S. aircraft GHG inventory, since the
EPA’s own U.S. inventory for UNFCCC
reporting purposes does not include
emissions from combustion of these
fuels in the national GHG totals and
reports them separately to the UNFCCC,
pursuant to UNFCCC inventory
reporting guidelines.271 Consequently,
they asserted that the total emissions
from domestic commercial aircraft
accounts for less than 2 percent (1.7%)
of total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions.
271 EPA GHG Emissions Inventory at A–31
(reporting and methods) is available at: http://
www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/
ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Annex-2Emissions-Fossil-Fuel-Combustion.pdf (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
Because of this, commenters believe that
EPA inappropriately specified that the
U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions
represent 3 percent of the total U.S.
GHG emissions.
The EPA disagrees with this
comment. As stated earlier in this
section, U.S. covered aircraft GHG
emissions 272 (and total U.S. aircraft
GHG emissions) in this cause or
contribute finding include those GHG
emissions resulting from combustion of
international aviation bunker fuel
because we want to capture the full
contribution of GHG emissions from
aircraft that are attributable to covered
aircraft activity in or originating from
the U.S. In tracking aircraft GHG
emissions, the EPA is focused on the
U.S.’s contributions from this sector to
the atmosphere. Accordingly, the EPA
includes GHG emissions for all aircraft
departing from U.S. airports in a
calendar year (domestic and
international flights) in determining
total U.S. GHG emissions and total U.S.
aircraft GHG emissions. Thus,
consistent with that practice, for
assessing GHG emissions from U.S.
covered aircraft, EPA has chosen to
combine all flights, both those with
domestic takeoff and landing points,
and those with domestic takeoff points
and international landing points. In
addition, guidance from the IPCC and
UNFCCC states that for an international
bunker fuel-combusting flight the entire
flight’s emissions are calculated and
reported, and the GHG emission
calculation methodologies are the same
for both domestic and international
bunker fuel-combusting flights. The U.S.
calculates and reports emissions
resulting from combustion of
international bunker fuels in accordance
with this guidance. However, pursuant
to UNFCCC reporting guidelines,
emissions from combustion of
international bunker fuels are reported
separately from other aircraft emissions
in the U.S. Inventory, in order to meet
the reporting commitments under the
UNFCCC. We follow the IPCC and
UNFCC guidance in our calculation and
reporting methodologies.273
272 As described earlier in section V.B.4, U.S.
covered aircraft do not include military aircraft that
use U.S. international aviation bunker fuels.
273 As described earlier, following the IPCC
guidelines for common and consistent accounting
and reporting of GHGs, the UNFCCC requires
countries to report both total national GHG
emissions and international bunker fuel emissions
(aviation and marine international bunker fuel
emissions), and though these emissions are reported
separately, both are assigned to the reporting
country. In meeting the UNFCCC reporting
requirements, the U.S. Inventory calculates
international bunker fuel GHG emissions in a
consistent manner with domestic GHG emissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54471
b. The Administrator Does Not Need To
Find Significant Contribution, or
Establish a Bright Line
One comment letter stated that
aircraft GHG emissions are extremely
small relative to both domestic and
global GHG emissions in the aggregate,
and questioned whether there is a
reasoned basis for EPA to find that GHG
emissions from U.S. aircraft cause or
contribute to air pollution that
endangers public health and welfare
when assessed not only relative to
contributions from other sectors, but
also relative to climate impacts. For
example, this commenter indicated the
EPA estimates that total U.S. aircraft
GHG emissions accounted for about 0.5
percent of total global GHG emissions in
2010. Thus, the commenter stated that
the total U.S. aircraft GHG emission
contributions from the U.S. aviation
sector are extremely small relative to
total global GHG emissions, or
negligible as a percentage of total global
GHG emissions.
The EPA disagrees with this comment
and has fully explained the reasoning
for this contribution finding in section
V.B. In addition, the Administrator
interprets CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) to
require some level of contribution that,
while more than de minimis or trivial,
does not need to rise to the level of
significance to support a contribution
finding. By its terms, section
231(a)(2)(A) does not contain a modifier
on its use of the term ‘‘contribute,’’
which contrasts with some other
provisions of the CAA, such as sections
213(a)(2) and (4), and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
that expressly require a ‘‘significant’’
contribution. The Administrator’s
interpretation is consistent with the
interpretation of parallel language in
CAA section 202(a), which was
described in the 2009 Findings,274 and
is also supported by past court
decisions. For example, the D.C.
Circuit’s opinion in Catawba County v.
EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009),
In this final contribution finding, the EPA
maintains its approach used in the proposed
findings to include aviation international bunker
fuel emissions attributable to the United States with
the national emissions number from the U.S.
Inventory as reported to the UNFCCC. It is the
EPA’s view that it is reasonable and appropriate for
the analysis in the contribution finding to reflect
the full contribution of U.S. emissions from certain
classes of aircraft engines, including those from
domestic flights of U.S. aircraft and those associated
with international aviation bunker fuel emissions.
Consistent with IPCC guidelines for common and
consistent accounting and reporting of GHGs under
the UNFCCC, the ‘‘U.S. international aviation
bunker fuels’’ category includes emissions from
combustion of fuel used by aircraft departing from
the United States, regardless of whether they are a
U.S. flagged carrier.
274 74 FR at 66541–42.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
54472
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
discusses the concept of contribution in
the area designations context under
section 107(d)(1)(A), which, like section
231(a)(2)(A), does not include the term
‘‘significant’’ to modify ‘‘contribute.’’
This decision, along with others,
supports the Administrator’s
interpretation that CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) does not require a
significant contribution, but rather, in
the absence of specific language
regarding the degree of contribution,
provides the EPA discretion such that a
positive finding may be based on a
determination that the air pollutant
emissions from the relevant class or
classes of aircraft engines merely
‘‘contribute to’’ the air pollution which
may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. In
addition, similar to the interpretation of
section 202(a) described in the 2009
Findings, the Administrator is not
required under section 231(a)(2)(A) to
establish a bright-line, objective test for
contribution, but is to exercise her
judgment in determining
contribution.275 As explained above,
and similar to the approach used in the
2009 Findings, when exercising her
judgment under section 231(a)(2)(A), in
this context the Administrator considers
both the cumulative impact and also the
totality of the circumstances. It is
reasonable for the Administrator to
apply a ‘‘‘totality-of-the-circumstances
test to implement a statute that confers
broad discretionary authority, even if
the test lacks a definite ‘threshold’ or
‘clear line of demarcation to define an
open-ended term.’ ’’ Id. at 39 (citations
omitted).
In Catawba County the D.C. Circuit
upheld the EPA’s PM2.5 area designation
decisions and analyzed CAA section
107(d), which requires the EPA to
designate an area as nonattainment if it
‘‘contributes to ambient air quality in a
nearby area’’ not meeting the national
ambient air quality standards. Id. at 35.
CAA section 107(d)(1), as mentioned
above, like section 231(a)(2)(A), does
not use the term ‘‘significant’’ in
establishing this duty, or set forth any
other bright-line benchmark that must
be met for the EPA to find
‘‘contribution.’’ The court noted that it
had previously held that the term
‘‘contributes’’ is ambiguous in the
context of CAA language. See EDF v.
EPA, 82 F.3d 451, 459 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
‘‘[A]mbiguities in statutes within an
agency’s jurisdiction to administer are
delegations of authority to the agency to
fill the statutory gap in reasonable
fashion.’’ 571 F.3d at 35 (citing Nat’l
Cable & Telecomms. Ass’c v. Brand X
275 74
FR at 66542.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
Internet Servs, 545 U.S. 967, 980
(2005)).
The D.C. Circuit then proceeded to
consider and reject petitioners’
argument that the verb ‘‘contributes’’ in
CAA section 107(d) necessarily
connotes a significant causal
relationship. Specifically, the court
again noted that the term is ambiguous,
leaving it to the EPA to interpret in a
reasonable manner. In the context of
this discussion, the court noted that ‘‘a
contribution may simply exacerbate a
problem rather than cause it . . .’’ 571
F.3d at 39. This is consistent with the
D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bluewater
Network v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.
2004), in which the court, in evaluating
EPA’s judgment that emissions from a
specific class or category of nonroad
engines contribute to air pollution for
which findings of ‘‘significant’’
contribution had already been made
with respect to nonroad engines’
emissions in the aggregate, noted that
the term ‘‘contribute’’ in CAA section
213(a)(3) ‘‘[s]tanding alone, . . . has no
inherent connotation as to the
magnitude or importance of the relevant
‘share’ in the effect; certainly it does not
incorporate any ‘significance’
requirement.’’ 370 F.3d at 13. In that
context, the court found that the bare
term ‘‘contribute’’ invests the
Administrator with discretion to
exercise judgment regarding what
constitutes a sufficient contribution for
the purpose of making a contribution
finding. Id. at 14.
Finally, in Catawba County, the D.C.
Circuit also rejected ‘‘petitioners’
argument that the EPA violated the
statute by failing to articulate a
quantified amount of contribution that
would trigger’’ the regulatory action.
571 F.3d at 39. Although petitioners
preferred that the EPA establish a
bright-line test, the court recognized
that the statute did not require that EPA
‘‘quantify a uniform amount of
contribution.’’ Id.
Given this context, it is entirely
reasonable for the Administrator to
interpret CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) to
require some level of contribution that,
while more than de minimis or trivial,
need not be significant. It is also
reasonable for the EPA to find
contribution without establishing a
‘‘bright-line ‘objective’ test of
contribution.’’ 571 F.3d at 39. As in the
2009 Endangerment Finding, when
exercising her judgment under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A), the Administrator
not only considers the cumulative
impact, but also looks at the totality of
the circumstances (e.g., the air
pollutant, the air pollution, the nature of
the endangerment, the type of source
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
category, the number of sources in the
source category, and the number and
type of other source categories that may
emit the air pollutant) when
determining whether the emissions
justify regulation under the CAA. See id.
(finding it reasonable for an agency to
adopt a totality-of-the-circumstances
test under similar circumstances). In the
context of GHG emissions, which come
from many different sectors no single
one of which is primarily responsible as
their source, and which aggregate
together into a common pollution stock
that itself impacts public health and
welfare, it is particularly reasonable to
address those emissions from
contributing sectors, even if looked at
individually a sector may not be
considered dominant. Therefore, in the
specific context of making a
contribution finding regarding GHG
emissions from aircraft engines under
CAA section 231, it is reasonable for the
EPA to interpret that provision to not
require some level of contribution that
rises to a pre-determined numerical
level or percentage- or mass-based
portion of the overall endangering GHG
air pollution.
In addition, the EPA disagrees with
the assertion that we do not have a
reasoned basis to make this contribution
finding. As described earlier in section
V.B.4, the collective GHG emissions
from the classes of engines used in U.S.
covered aircraft (197 Tg CO2eq) clearly
contribute to the endangering GHG air
pollution, whether the comparison is
domestic (89 percent of total U.S.
aircraft GHG emissions, 10 percent of all
U.S. transportation GHG emissions,
representing 2.8 percent of total U.S.
GHG emissions), global (26 percent of
total global aircraft GHG emissions
representing 2.7 percent of total global
transportation GHG emissions and 0.4
percent of all global GHG emissions), or
a combination of domestic and global.
Both domestic and global comparisons,
independently and jointly, support the
finding. Moreover, these comparisons
also support the finding even if GHG
emissions from combustion of U.S.
international aviation bunker fuels are
excluded. Making this cause or
contribute finding for engines used in
U.S. covered aircraft will result in the
vast majority of total U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions being included in this
determination.
Also, even if the EPA were required
to determine that a contribution met or
exceeded a level of significance to make
a contribution finding, for the reasons
discussed above, the EPA would find
that the contribution to the U.S. and
global stocks of GHG air pollution from
GHG emissions from classes of engines
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
used in U.S. covered aircraft is
significant. As discussed in more detail
above, their GHG emissions are larger
than those from the great majority of
emitting countries, they are larger than
those of several major emitting
countries, and they constitute one of the
largest remaining unregulated
contributing parts of the U.S. GHG
emissions inventory.
Finally, in response to the suggestion
in the comments that a positive
contribution finding is not supportable
unless the EPA finds that GHG
emissions from covered aircraft
themselves cause climate impacts,
without consideration of the impacts
caused by the larger aggregate stock of
GHG air pollution, we stress that the
comment conflates the endangerment
and contribution steps of the analysis.
In making the contribution finding, the
EPA need not additionally and
separately find whether the contribution
alone causes endangerment. That
endangerment finding has already been
made with respect to the stock of GHG
air pollution to which covered aircraft
GHG emissions contribute. The only
remaining issue at the second step of the
analysis is whether the analyzed GHG
source sector in fact emits GHG air
pollutants that contribute to the air
pollution that has already been found to
endanger public health and welfare. The
covered aircraft, as we have shown and
explained, clearly do emit GHG air
pollutants that measurably contribute to
that stock.
c. The Administrator Reasonably
Provided Context in Comparing Aircraft
GHG Emissions to Other Sector GHG
Emissions
Some commenters asserted that the
EPA did not show important context in
comparing covered aircraft GHG
emissions to other mobile source
categories’ GHG emissions. The EPA
does not describe the very low level of
aircraft emissions in general relative to
emissions from other sources. The
commenters assert that, for example, the
EPA does not point out that the growth
in emissions from U.S. medium-duty
and heavy-duty trucks since 1990 is 53
percent greater than the GHG emissions
from the U.S. commercial aircraft sector
today, and 18 percent higher than the
total U.S. aircraft (or entire U.S. aviation
sector) GHG emissions today.
In the proposed finding and this final
finding, the EPA provides context for
covered aircraft GHG emissions relative
to other sectors’ GHG emissions,
including other categories within the
transportation sector. As described
earlier in section V.B.4, from a national
perspective, the EPA provided tables to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
compare total U.S. aircraft and U.S.
covered aircraft GHG emissions to U.S.
transportation and total U.S. inventory
GHG emissions, over an extended
timeframe (1990–2014). We also noted
that overall U.S. covered aircraft
comprised the third largest source of
GHG emissions in the U.S.
transportation sector behind only the
light-duty vehicle sector and mediumand heavy-duty truck sectors. This is the
same ranking as total U.S. aircraft, if
U.S. covered aircraft and total U.S.
aircraft are compared to the other
transportation sectors independent of
one another. Finally, we note that the
U.S. inventory also shows that while
overall U.S. GHG emissions grew
between 1990 and 2014, transportation
GHG emissions grew at a notably higher
rate, 16 percent, more rapidly than any
other U.S. sector. U.S. covered aircraft
GHG emissions grew by 15 percent in
this time period.276 Within the
transportation sector, aircraft remain the
single largest source of GHG emissions
not yet subject to any GHG standards.
In our proposal and again in this
finding in section V.B.4, the
Administrator also stated her concern
that recent projections indicate that by
2036 GHG emissions both from all
aircraft and from U.S. covered aircraft
are likely to increase by 43 percent
(from 191 Tg CO2eq to 272 Tg CO2eq for
the years 2010 to 2036).277 This was
contrasted with projections of GHG
emissions changes in other
transportation sectors in the same
timeframe. For example, projections
estimate that by 2036 the light-duty
vehicle sector is projected to see a 25
percent reduction in GHG emissions
(from 1,133 Tg CO2eq to 844 Tg CO2eq)
from the 2010 baseline, while the freight
trucks sector is projected to experience
a 23 percent increase in GHG emissions
(from 390 Tg CO2eq to 478 Tg CO2eq)
from the 2010 baseline. (However, this
projected increase does not reflect the
impact of GHG reductions on the freight
trucks sector anticipated from the Phase
2 heavy-duty GHG standards that have
not yet been promulgated.) In addition,
by 2036 the rail sector is projected to
276 Total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions decreased
by 3 percent from 1990 to 2014. U.S. non-covered
aircraft GHG emissions decreased by 56 percent in
this same time period.
277 As discussed in section V.B.4.c, fuel burn
growth rates for air carriers and general aviation
aircraft operating on jet fuel are projected to grow
by 43 percent from 2010 to 2036 and this provides
a scaling factor for growth in GHG emissions which
would increase at a similar rate as the fuel burn by
2030, 2036, and 2040.
FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years
2016–2036, 94 pp. Available at https://
www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_
forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_
Forecast.pdf (last accessed March 29, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54473
experience a 3 percent reduction in
GHG emissions (44 Tg CO2eq to 43 Tg
CO2eq) from the 2010 baseline.278
Therefore, in the context of projected
growth it appears that U.S. covered
aircraft GHG emissions through 2036 are
estimated to increase by more than 80
Tg CO2eq.279 280
Also, the EPA provided a global
perspective by showing how total U.S.
aircraft and U.S. covered aircraft GHG
emissions compare to global aircraft,
global transport, and total global GHG
emissions. In addition, the EPA shows
the ranking of the total U.S. aircraft and
U.S. covered GHG emissions relative to
other global transportation sectors and
entire country GHG emissions.
One commenter stated that it is
inappropriate and misleading to
compare U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
with those of other, individual
countries. They indicated that to fairly
compare the U.S. airlines’ GHG
emissions contribution, EPA should
analyze, as ICAO does, contributions
from other world regions with
comparable land masses and levels of
economic activity. (In terms of
landmass, the U.S. ranks third globally,
behind only Russia and Canada.) The
EPA disagrees with this comment. The
language of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) is
silent regarding how the Administrator
is to make her contribution analysis.
While it requires that the Administrator
assess whether emissions of an air
pollutant cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonable be
anticipated to endanger public health or
278 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA),
2015: Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2015 with
projections to 2040, DOE/EIA–0383, 154 pp. For the
years 2010 to 2014, the baseline emissions for each
sector are from the 2016 Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Report, and
after 2014 we utilize projections from the 2015 EIA
AEO report. Available at http://www.eia.gov/
forecasts/aeo/ (last accessed April 8, 2016).
279 As described earlier in section V.B.3, in 2010,
U.S. covered aircraft were 10 percent of U.S.
transportation sector GHG emissions, and in 2036,
U.S. covered aircraft are projected to be 15 percent
of U.S. transportation GHG emissions. In 2010,
light-duty vehicles were 58 percent of U.S.
transportation GHG emissions, and in 2036 they are
projected to be 46 percent. In 2010, heavy-duty
vehicles were 20 percent of U.S. transportation
GHG emissions, and in 2036, they are projected to
be 26 percent (does not reflect the impact from the
Phase 2 heavy-duty GHG standards that have not
been promulgated). In 2010, the rail sector was 2
percent of U.S. transportation GHG emissions, and
in 2036, they are projected to be the same
percentage.
280 Some commenters stated that section
231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA does not give the EPA the
authority to legally base the contribution finding on
future emission projections. As described earlier in
section V.B, the EPA considered future emission
projections as information to further support our
assessment of annual actual emissions (recent
emissions from the current fleet) for the
contribution finding.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
54474
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
welfare, it does not limit how she may
undertake that assessment. It surely is
reasonable that the Administrator look
at how total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
and U.S. covered aircraft GHG
emissions compare to U.S. and global
GHG emissions on an absolute and
relative basis, including ranking
compared to other transportation sectors
and entire country emissions. It is
entirely appropriate for the
Administrator to decide that part of
understanding how a U.S. source
category emitting GHGs fits into the
bigger picture of global climate change
is to determine how that source category
fits into the contribution from the
United States as a whole (including U.S.
transportation and total U.S. inventory
GHG emissions), where the United
States as a country is a major emitter of
GHGs. Knowing how total U.S. aircraft
GHG emissions and U.S. covered
aircraft GHG emissions rank compared
to entire country GHG emissions is
relevant to understanding what role
they play in the global problem and
hence whether they ‘‘contribute’’ to the
global problem. Moreover, the
Administrator is looking at these
emissions comparisons as appropriate
under the applicable science, facts, and
law. Therefore, the EPA appropriately
compared and provided sufficient
context for total U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions and U.S. covered aircraft
GHG emissions.
d. The Administrator Reasonably
Utilized Multiple Databases for Global
GHG Emissions
Some commenters stated that the mix
of data from different years utilizing
emissions data from IPCC, WRI/CAIT,
and IEA was confusing and potentially
misleading. The EPA acknowledges that
we presented data from a variety of
sources, but the EPA does not agree that
the analysis and presentation was
misleading. We note that the global
analysis for this covered aircraft
contribution finding is consistent with
the analytical approach originally
developed and used in the 2009
Endangerment Finding. As described
earlier in section IV.A, in the proposed
finding and this final finding, the
Administrator considers the recent,
major scientific assessments of the IPCC,
USGCRP, and the NRC as the primary
scientific and technical basis informing
her judgment. Thus, the Administrator
is informed by and places considerable
weight upon the IPCC’s data on global
GHG emissions. She places less
emphasis on the WRI/CAIT and IEA
emissions data, which in comparison
have a different aggregation of
underlying data but are available for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
more recent years (in comparison to the
IPCC data). As described earlier in
section V.B.4, the WRI/CAIT data are
generally in line with the IPCC data. For
2010 total global GHG emissions, IPCC
data are 49,000 Tg CO2eq, and WRI/
CAIT indicates 42,968 Tg CO2eq (a 12
percent difference).281 Also, for 2010
global aircraft GHG emissions, IPCC
data are 743 Tg CO2eq, and IEA data
indicate 749 Tg CO2eq (a 1 percent
difference).282
The approach of considering the
major scientific assessments, including
IPCC’s assessment, provides assurance
that the Administrator’s judgment is
informed by the best available, wellvetted science that reflects the
consensus of the climate science
research community. The major findings
of the assessments, including IPCC’s
assessment, support the Administrator’s
findings in this action. While the EPA
uses the IPCC data as the primary data
source for this contribution finding, it
has reasonably used additional data
sources from widely used and
recognized global datasets to provide
context and information from more
recent years. These additional data
supplement and confirm the IPCC data.
Ultimately, whether the Agency utilizes
the IPCC data alone or the WRI/CAIT
dataset (and IEA data) alone, or both
datasets together, it would have no
material effect on the emissions
comparisons discussed in section V.B
and the Administrator would make the
same contribution finding.
VI. Statutory Authority and Executive
Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory
action because it raises novel policy
issues. Accordingly, it was submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review. This action finalizes
a finding that GHG emissions from
aircraft cause or contribute to air
pollution that may be reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health
and welfare. Any changes made in
281 Comparing their 2010 total global GHG
emissions, IPCC data are 49,000 Tg CO2eq, and
WRI/CAIT data, including forestry and land use
inventories, indicates 45,748 Tg CO2eq (a 7 percent
difference).
282 Comparing 2012 WRI/CAIT to 2010 IPCC data,
WRI/CAIT data for total global GHG emissions
indicates 44,816 Tg CO2eq for 2012 (a 9 percent
difference), and including forestry and land use
inventories WRI/CAIT data indicates 47,599 Tg
CO2eq for 2012 (a 3 percent difference). Comparing
2012 IEA data to 2010 IPCC data, IEA data for global
aircraft GHG emissions indicates 775 Tg CO2eq for
2012 (a 4 percent difference).
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA. The endangerment and cause or
contribute findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) do not contain any
information collection activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. The endangerment and cause or
contribute findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) do not in-and-of-themselves
impose any new requirements but rather
set forth the Administrator’s
determination that GHG emissions from
certain classes of aircraft engines—those
used in U.S. covered aircraft—cause or
contribute to air pollution that may be
reasonably anticipated to endanger
public health and welfare. Accordingly,
this action affords no opportunity for
the EPA to fashion for small entities less
burdensome compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables or
exemptions from all or part of the
findings.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. The final endangerment
and cause or contribute findings under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) do not in-andof-themselves impose any new
requirements but rather set forth the
Administrator’s determination that GHG
emissions from certain classes of aircraft
engines—those used in U.S. covered
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
aircraft—cause or contribute to air
pollution that may be reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health
and welfare. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866. The
Administrator considered climate
change risks to children as part of the
endangerment and cause or contribute
findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). This action’s discussion of
climate change impacts on public health
and welfare is found in section IV of
this preamble. Specific discussion with
regard to children is contained in
sections IV.C.1.a of the preamble. A
copy of all documents pertaining to the
impacts on children’s health from
climate change have been placed in the
public docket for this action.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution or use of energy.
Further, we have concluded that this
action is not likely to have any adverse
energy effects because the
endangerment and cause or contribute
findings under section 231(a)(2)(A) do
not in-and-of themselves impose any
new requirements but rather set forth
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:06 Aug 13, 2016
Jkt 238001
the Administrator’s determination that
GHG emissions from certain classes of
aircraft engines—those used in U.S.
covered aircraft—cause or contribute to
air pollution that may be reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health
and welfare.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action does not involve technical
standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes this action will not
have potential disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority, lowincome, or indigenous populations
because this action does not affect the
level of protection provided to human
health or the environment. The
Administrator considered climate
change risks to minority, low-income,
and indigenous populations as part of
these endangerment and cause or
contribute findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). This action’s discussion of
climate change impacts on public health
and welfare is found in section IV.C of
the preamble. Specific discussion with
regard to minority, low-income, and
indigenous populations are found in
sections IV.C.1.a and IV.C.2.a of this
preamble. A copy of all documents
pertaining to the impacts on these
communities from climate change have
been placed in the public docket for this
action.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
54475
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
The EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Determination Under Section 307(d)
Section 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA
provides that the provisions of section
307(d) apply to ‘‘such other actions as
the Administrator may determine.’’
Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(V), the
Administrator determines that this
action is subject to the provisions of
section 307(d).
VII. Statutory Provisions and Legal
Authority
Statutory authority for this action
comes from 42 U.S.C. 7571, 7601 and
7607.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 87
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Aircraft, Aircraft
engines.
40 CFR Part 1068
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Imports, Motor vehicle pollution,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Warranties.
Dated: July 25, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016–18399 Filed 8–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\15AUR3.SGM
15AUR3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54421-54475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18399]
[[Page 54421]]
Vol. 81
Monday,
No. 157
August 15, 2016
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 87 and 1068
Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute
to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To Endanger Public
Health and Welfare; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 54422]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 87 and 1068
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828; FRL-9950-15-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS31
Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or
Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To
Endanger Public Health and Welfare
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the Administrator finds that elevated
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the
public health and welfare of current and future generations within the
meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA, or Act). She
makes this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed
greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous
oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride--
that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009
Endangerment Finding under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together
constitute the primary cause of the climate change problem. The
Administrator also finds that emissions of those six well-mixed
greenhouse gases from certain classes of engines used in certain
aircraft are contributing to the air pollution--the aggregate group of
the same six greenhouse gases--that endangers public health and welfare
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
DATES: These findings are effective on September 14, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828. All documents in the docket are
listed in the 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 in the EPA's docket. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
EPA/DC, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room 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: Lesley Jantarasami, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Mail Code 6207-A, Washington, DC
20460; Telephone number: (202) 343-9990; Email address:
ghgendangerment@epa.gov. For additional information regarding these
final findings, please go to the Web site http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-aviation.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Judicial Review
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by October 14, 2016. This
final action is a nationally applicable action because it triggers the
EPA's statutory duty to promulgate aircraft engine emission standards
under CAA section 231, which are nationally applicable regulations and
for which judicial review will be available only in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In the alternative, even
if this action were considered to be only locally or regionally
applicable, the Administrator determines that it has nationwide scope
and effect within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1) both because of
the obligation to establish standards under CAA section 231 that it
triggers and because it concerns risks from GHG pollution and
contributions to such pollution that occur across the nation. Under CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final action that was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a
mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f
the person raising an objection can demonstrate to [EPA] that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public
comment] 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 this
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, William
Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344-A) Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
II. Introduction: Overview and Context for This Final Action
A. Summary
B. Background Information Helpful To Understanding This Final
Action
C. The EPA's Responsibilities Under the Clean Air Act
D. U.S. Aircraft Regulations and the International Community
III. Legal Framework for This Action
A. Section 231(a)(2)(A)--Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
B. Air Pollutant, Public Health and Welfare
IV. The Administrator's Finding Under CAA Section 231 That
Greenhouse Gases Endanger Public Health and Welfare
A. The Science Upon Which the Agency Relied
B. The Air Pollution Consists of Six Key Well-Mixed Greenhouse
Gases
C. The Air Pollution Is Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger Both
Public Health and Welfare
D. Summary of the Administrator's Endangerment Finding Under CAA
Section 231
V. The Administrator's Cause or Contribute Finding for Greenhouse
Gases Emitted by Certain Classes of Engines Used by Covered Aircraft
Under CAA Section 231
A. The Air Pollutant
B. The Administrator's Finding Under CAA Section 231(a)(2)(A)
That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Certain Classes of Aircraft
Engines Used in Certain Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air
Pollution That May Be Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger Public
Health and Welfare
C. Response to Key Comments on the Administrator's Cause or
Contribute Finding
VI. Statutory Authority and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
[[Page 54423]]
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
L. Determination Under Section 307(d)
VII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
These final findings trigger new duties that apply to the EPA but
do not themselves apply new requirements to other entities outside the
federal government. Specifically, in issuing these final findings that
emissions of the six well-mixed GHGs from certain classes of engines
used in certain aircraft cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, the EPA
becomes subject to a duty under CAA section 231 to propose and
promulgate aircraft engine emission standards applicable to emissions
of that air pollutant from those classes of engines. We are
anticipating indicating an expected timeline for proposed GHG emission
standards for the classes of aircraft engines included in the
contribution finding in EPA's Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions. Only those future standards will apply to and
have an effect on other entities outside the federal government.
Entities potentially interested in this final action include those that
manufacture and sell aircraft engines and aircraft in the United
States. Categories that may be regulated in a future regulatory action
include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Manufacturers of new aircraft engines refers to
manufacturers of new type engines and in-production engines, and
manufacturers of new aircraft refers to manufacturers of new type
aircraft and in-production aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Potentially Affected
Category NAICS \a\ Code SIC \b\ Code Entities \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................... 3364412 3724 Manufacturers of new aircraft
engines.
Industry................................... 336411 3721 Manufacturers of new aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in this
final action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is
now aware could potentially have an interest in this final action. By
issuing these final findings under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) regarding
emissions of greenhouse gases from aircraft engines, the EPA is now
required to undertake a separate notice and comment rulemaking to
propose and issue emission standards applicable to greenhouse gas
emissions from the classes of aircraft engines subject to the findings,
and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is to prescribe
regulations to ensure compliance with EPA's future emissions standards
pursuant to CAA section 232. Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be interested and potentially affected by subsequent
actions at some future time. If you have any questions regarding the
scope of this final action, consult the person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II. Introduction: Overview and Context for This Final Action
A. Summary
Pursuant to CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the Administrator finds that
emissions of the six well-mixed \2\ greenhouse gases (GHGs) from
certain classes of aircraft engines used in certain types of aircraft
(referred to interchangeably as ``covered aircraft'' or ``US covered
aircraft'' throughout this document) contribute to air pollution that
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare
of current and future generations. This final action follows the
Administrator's proposed findings,\3\ and responds to public comments
submitted to the EPA following that proposal. It is based on careful
consideration of the scientific evidence, as well as a thorough review
of the public comments. In light of the large number of comments
received and overlap between many comments, EPA has not responded to
each comment individually. Instead, EPA has summarized and provided
responses to each significant argument, assertion and question
contained within the totality of these comments. Covered aircraft are
those aircraft to which the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) has agreed the recently recommended international CO2
standard will apply \4\: Subsonic jet aircraft with a maximum takeoff
mass (MTOM) greater than 5,700 kilograms and subsonic propeller-driven
(e.g., turboprop) aircraft with a MTOM greater than 8,618 kilograms.
Examples of covered aircraft include smaller jet aircraft such as the
Cessna Citation CJ3+ and the Embraer E170, up to and including the
largest commercial jet aircraft--the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 747.
Other examples of covered aircraft include larger turboprop aircraft,
such as the ATR 72 and the Bombardier Q400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The term ``well-mixed GHGs''--used both in the definition of
``air pollution'' in the endangerment finding and in the definition
of ``air pollutant'' in the cause or contribute finding--is based on
the fact that these gases are sufficiently long lived in the
atmosphere such that, once emitted, concentrations of each gas
become well mixed throughout the entire global atmosphere. These
shared attributes are one of five primary reasons that the EPA
considers the six gases as an aggregate group rather than as
individual gases. See section IV.B for more information on the
definition of ``air pollution'' and section V.A for more information
on the definition of the ``air pollutant.''
\3\ U.S. EPA, 2015: Proposed Finding That Greenhouse Gas
Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air Pollution That
May Reasonably Be Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare
and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Proposed Rule, 80 Federal
Register (FR) 37758 (July 1, 2015).
\4\ ICAO, 2013: CAEP/9 Agreed Certification Requirement for the
Aeroplane CO2 Emissions Standards, Circular (Cir) 337, 40 pp, AN/
192, Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed May 9, 2016). The ICAO Circular 337
is found on page 87 of the catalog and is copyright protected; Order
No. CIR337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final action, the EPA is informed by and places
considerable weight on the extensive scientific and technical evidence
in the record supporting the 2009 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings under CAA section 202(a) (hereafter, collectively referred to
as the 2009 Endangerment Finding).\5\ This includes the major, peer-
reviewed scientific assessments that were used to address the question
of whether elevated concentrations of GHGs in the
[[Page 54424]]
atmosphere endanger public health and welfare under CAA section 202(a),
as well as the analytical framework and conclusions upon which the EPA
relied in making that finding. The Administrator's view is that the
body of scientific evidence amassed in the record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding also compellingly supports an endangerment finding
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Furthermore, this finding under section
231(a)(2)(A) reflects the EPA's careful consideration not only of the
scientific and technical record for the 2009 Endangerment Finding, but
also of science assessments released since 2009, which, as illustrated
below, strengthen and further support the judgment that GHGs in the
atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health
and welfare of current and future generations. No information or
assessments published since late 2009 suggest that it would be
reasonable for the EPA to now reach a different or contrary conclusion
for purposes of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) than the Agency reached for
purposes of section 202(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. EPA, 2009: Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act; Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator defines the ``air pollution'' referred to in
section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA to be the combined mix of
CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (henceforth the six ``well-
mixed GHGs''). This is the same definition that was used for the
finding for purposes of section 202(a). It is the Administrator's
judgment that the total body of scientific evidence compellingly
supports a positive endangerment finding that elevated concentrations
of the six well-mixed GHGs constitute air pollution that endangers both
the public health and welfare of current and future generations within
the meaning of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). The Administrator is not at
this time making a finding regarding whether other substances emitted
from aircraft engines cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the Administrator must also
determine whether emissions of any air pollutant from a class or
classes of aircraft engines cause or contribute to the air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. Following the rationale outlined in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding, the Administrator in this action is using the same definition
of the air pollutant as was used for purposes of section 202(a) for
purposes of making the cause or contribute determination under section
231(a)(2)(A)--that is, the aggregate group of the same six well-mixed
GHGs. With respect to this pollutant, based on the data summarized in
section V.B, the Administrator finds that emissions of the six well-
mixed GHGs from aircraft engines used in covered aircraft contribute to
the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under
section 231(a)(2)(A). The Administrator is not at this time making a
cause or contribute finding regarding GHG emissions, or emissions of
other substances, from engines used in non-covered aircraft.
The Administrator's final findings come in response to a citizen
petition submitted by Friends of the Earth, Oceana, the Center for
Biological Diversity, and Earthjustice (Petitioners) requesting that
the EPA issue an endangerment finding and standards under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) for the GHG emissions from aircraft. Further, the EPA
anticipates that the 39th ICAO Assembly will approve a final
CO2 emissions standard in October 2016, and that
subsequently, ICAO will formally adopt the final CO2
emissions standard in March 2017. These final endangerment and cause or
contribute findings for aircraft engine GHG emissions are also part of
preparing for a subsequent domestic rulemaking process under CAA
section 231. If an international standard is approved and finalized by
ICAO, member states that wish to use aircraft in international
transportation will then be required under the Chicago Convention \6\
to adopt standards that are of at least equivalent stringency to those
set by ICAO. Section II.D provides additional discussion of the
international aircraft standard-setting process. This document does not
take action or respond to comments on the 2015 U.S. EPA Aircraft
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(henceforth the ``2015 ANPR''),\7\ which discussed such standards.
Technical issues and comments for the 2015 ANPR would be addressed in a
future notice of proposed rulemaking related to such standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil Aviation,
Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last accessed May
9, 2016).
\7\ 80 FR 37758 (July 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background Information Helpful to Understanding This Final Action
1. Greenhouse Gases and Their Effects
GHGs in the atmosphere have the effect of trapping some of the
Earth's heat that would otherwise escape to space. GHGs are both
naturally occurring and anthropogenic. The primary GHGs directly
emitted by human activities include CO2, methane, nitrous
oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
Of these six gases, two (CO2 and nitrous oxide) are emitted
by aircraft engines.
These six gases, once emitted, remain in the atmosphere for decades
to centuries. Thus, they become well mixed globally in the atmosphere,
and their concentrations accumulate when emissions exceed the rate at
which natural processes remove them from the atmosphere. Observations
of the Earth's globally averaged combined land and ocean surface
temperature over the period 1880 to 2012 show a warming of 0.85 degrees
Celsius or 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit.\8\ The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013-2014 Fifth Assessment Report concluded
that heating effect caused by the human-induced buildup of these and
other GHGs in the atmosphere, plus other human activities (e.g., land
use change and aerosol emissions), is extremely likely (>95 percent
likelihood) to be the cause of most of the observed global warming
since the mid-20th century.\9\ Further information about climate change
and its impact on health, society, and the environment is included in
the record for the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The relevant scientific
information from that record has also been included in the docket for
this determination under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0828). Section IV of this preamble discusses this information, as well
as information from the most recent scientific assessments, in the
context of the Administrator's endangerment finding under CAA section
231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor,
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 29 pp.
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. transportation sector constitutes a meaningful part of
total U.S. and global anthropogenic GHG emissions. In 2014, aircraft
remained the single largest GHG-emitting transportation source not yet
subject to any GHG standards. Aircraft clearly contribute to U.S.
transportation emissions, accounting for 12 percent of all U.S.
transportation GHG emissions and representing more than 3 percent of
total U.S. GHG emissions in 2014.\10\
[[Page 54425]]
Globally, U.S. aircraft GHG emissions represent 29 percent of all
global aircraft GHG emissions and 0.5 percent of total global GHG
emissions. Section V of this preamble provides detailed information on
aircraft GHG emissions in the context of the Administrator's cause or
contribute finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA 430-R-16-002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed
June 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Statutory Basis for This Final Action
Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA states that ``The Administrator
shall, from time to time, issue proposed emission standards applicable
to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of
aircraft engines which in [her] judgment causes, or contributes to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare.''
Before the Administrator may propose and issue final standards
addressing emissions of an air pollutant under section 231, the
Administrator must satisfy a two-step test. First, the Administrator
must decide whether, in her judgment, the air pollution under
consideration may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. Second, the Administrator must decide whether, in her
judgment, emissions of an air pollutant from certain classes of
aircraft engines cause or contribute to this air pollution.\11\ If the
Administrator answers both questions in the affirmative, she must
propose and issue final standards under section 231. See Massachusetts
v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 533 (2007) (interpreting analogous provision in
CAA section 202). Section III of this document summarizes the legal
framework for this final action under CAA section 231. Typically, past
endangerment and cause or contribute findings have been proposed and
promulgated concurrently with proposed and promulgated standards under
various sections of the CAA, including section 231. In those actions,
public comment was taken on the proposed findings as part of the notice
and comment process for the proposed emission standards. See, e.g.,
Rulemaking for non-road compression-ignition engines under section
213(a)(4) of the CAA, Proposed Rule at 58 FR 28809, 28813-14 (May 17,
1993), Final Rule at 59 FR 31306, 31318 (June 17, 1994); Rulemaking for
highway heavy-duty diesel engines and diesel sulfur fuel under sections
202(a) and 211(c) of the CAA, Proposed Rule at 65 FR 35430 (June 2,
2000), and Final Rule at 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001). However, there
is no requirement that the Administrator propose or finalize the
endangerment and cause or contribute findings concurrently with the
related standards. See 74 FR 66502 (December 15, 2009). As explained in
the 2009 Endangerment Finding, nothing in section 202(a) requires the
EPA to propose or issue endangerment and cause or contribute findings
in the same rulemaking, and Congress left the EPA discretion to choose
an approach that satisfied the requirements of section 202(a). See id.
The same analysis applies to section 231, which is analogous to section
202(a). The EPA is choosing to finalize these findings at this time for
a number of reasons, including its previous commitment to issue such
findings in response to a 2007 citizens' petition.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ To clarify the distinction between air pollution and air
pollutant, in the context of GHGs, the air pollution is the
atmospheric concentrations and can be thought of as the total,
cumulative stock of GHGs in the atmosphere. The air pollutant, on
the other hand, is the emissions of GHGs and can be thought of as
the flow that changes the size of the total stock.
\12\ Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety,
Friends of the Earth, International Center for Technology
Assessment, and Oceana, 2007: Petition for Rulemaking Under the
Clean Air Act to Reduce the Emissions of Air Pollutants from
Aircraft the Contribute to Global Climate Change, December 31, 2007.
Available at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm (last accessed
April 8, 2016). EPA, 2012: Response to the Petition for Rulemaking
Under the Clean Air Act to Reduce the Emission of Air Pollutants
from Aircraft that Contribute to Global Climate Change, June 14,
2012. Available at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator has applied the rulemaking provisions of CAA
section 307(d) to this action, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V),
which provides that the provisions of 307(d) apply to ``such other
actions as the Administrator may determine.'' \13\ CAA section 307(d)
provides specific procedural requirements for the EPA to follow in
taking certain rulemaking actions under the CAA, that apply in lieu of
the otherwise applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553-557, and 706. See, CAA section 307(d)(1). Any
standard-setting rulemaking under section 231 will also be subject to
the notice and comment rulemaking procedures under 307(d), as provided
in CAA section 307(d)(1)(F) (applying the provisions of 307(d) to the
promulgation or revision of any aircraft emission standard under
section 231). Thus, these findings were subject to the same rulemaking
procedures and requirements, as applicable, as would have applied if
they had been part of a standard-setting rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ As the Administrator is applying the provisions of section
307(d) to this rulemaking under section 307(d)(1)(V), we need not
determine whether those provisions would apply to this action under
section 307(d)(1)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The EPA's Responsibilities Under the Clean Air Act
The CAA provides broad authority to combat air pollution to protect
public health and welfare and the environment. Cars, trucks,
construction equipment, airplanes, and ships, as well as a broad range
of electricity generation, industrial, commercial and other facilities,
are subject to various CAA programs. Many of these programs are
targeted at ensuring protection of public health and welfare with a
margin of safety, others are directed at encouraging improved
industrial emissions performance and use of lesser polluting
technologies and processes, and some address the prevention of adverse
environmental effects. Implementation of the Act over the past four
decades has resulted in significant reductions in air pollution that
have benefited human health and the environment. The EPA's duties
regarding aircraft air pollution emissions under CAA section 231
reflect a combination of the CAA's goals to protect public health and
welfare and encourage improved emissions performance. This is shown by
section 231(a)(2)(A)'s directive that EPA first identify whether
emissions of aircraft engine air pollutants cause or contribute to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare (which is broadly defined in section 302(h) of the CAA).\14\
This is also shown by section 231(b)'s subsequent requirement that
EPA's standards, which may require improved emissions performance over
the status quo, provide sufficient time for the development and
application of requisite technology to meet emission standards, after
consideration of costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Previously the EPA has made the prerequisite endangerment
and cause or contribute findings under CAA section 231(A) that
formed the basis to begin addressing the issue of various aircraft
pollutants including NOX aircraft pollution. U.S. EPA,
``Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines,
Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Aircraft.'' Final Rule,
38 FR 19088 (July 17, 1973). See also section IV.B.7.d of this
preamble for a discussion of previous NOX section 231(A)
findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The EPA's Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court
found that GHGs are air pollutants that can be regulated under the CAA.
The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether emissions
of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution
which may
[[Page 54426]]
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and/or welfare, or
whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In
making these decisions, the Administrator was bound by the provisions
of section 202(a) of the CAA. The Supreme Court decision resulted from
a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a
dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.
Following the Supreme Court decision, the EPA proposed (74 FR
18886, April 24, 2009) and then finalized (74 FR 66496, December 15,
2009) the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which can be summarized as
follows:
Endangerment Finding: The Administrator found that the
then-current and projected concentrations of the combined mix in the
atmosphere of the six well-mixed GHGs--CO2, methane, nitrous
oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride--
endanger the public health and welfare of current and future
generations.
Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator found that
the combined emissions of the six well-mixed GHGs from new motor
vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution
which threatens public health and welfare.
The Administrator made both of these findings with respect to the
six well-mixed GHGs, recognizing that CAA section 202(a) sources emit
only four of the six substances. The findings did not themselves impose
any requirements on industry or other entities. However, these findings
compelled the EPA to promulgate GHG emission standards for new motor
vehicles under section 202(a). Subsequently, in May 2010 the EPA, in
collaboration with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), finalized Phase 1 GHG emission standards for light-duty
vehicles (2012-2016 model years).\15\ This was followed in August 2011
by adoption of the first-ever GHG emission standards for heavy-duty
engines and vehicles (2014-2018 model years).\16\ On August 29, 2012,
the EPA finalized the second phase of the GHG emission standards for
light-duty vehicles (2017-2025 model years), further reducing GHG
emissions from light-duty vehicles.\17\ In 2014, the President directed
the EPA and the Department of Transportation to set standards in 2016
that further increase fuel efficiency and reduce GHG emissions from
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. EPA, 2010: Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule,
75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010).
\16\ U.S. EPA, 2011: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles; Final Rule, 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
\17\ U.S. EPA, 2012: 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards; Final Rule, 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
\18\ Executive Office of the President, 2014: Remarks by the
President on Fuel Efficiency Standards of Medium and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, Office of the Press Secretary, February 18. Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/18/remarks-president-fuel-efficiency-standards-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicl
(last accessed April 27, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GHG rules for cars and trucks have been supported by a broad
range of stakeholders, including states, major automobile and truck
manufacturers, and environmental and labor organizations. Together
these new standards for cars and trucks are resulting in significant
reductions in GHG emissions, and over the lifetime of these vehicles
GHG emissions will have been reduced more than 6.25 billion metric
tons.19 20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. EPA, 2012: EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce
Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017-2025
Cars and Light Trucks. Document No. EPA-420-F-12-051, 10 pp.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f12051.pdf
(last accessed April 27, 2016). See also Table 7.4-2 in U.S. EPA,
2012: Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and
Corporation Average Fuel Economy Standards, EPA-420-R-12-016, 555
pp. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r12016.pdf (last accessed April 27, 2016).
\20\ U.S. EPA, 2011: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium-and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles;
Final Rule, 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced a Climate Action Plan
that set forth a series of executive actions to further reduce GHGs,
prepare the U.S. for the impacts of climate change, and lead
international efforts to address global climate change.\21\ As part of
the Climate Action Plan, the President issued a Presidential Memorandum
directing the EPA to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution
standards for the power sector.\22\ In August 2015, after notice and
comment rulemaking, the EPA finalized two carbon pollution rulemakings:
One for new, modified, and reconstructed electric utility generating
units \23\ and another for existing power plants.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Executive Office of the President, 2013: The President's
Climate Action Plan, June 25, 21 pp. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016).
\22\ Executive Office of the President, 2013: Presidential
Memorandum--Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards, Office of the
Press Secretary, June 25. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandum-power-sector-carbon-pollution-standards (last accessed April 8, 2016).
\23\ U.S. EPA, 2015: Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility Generating Units; Final Rule, 80 FR 64510 (October
23, 2015).
\24\ U.S. EPA, 2014: Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for
Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units;
Final Rule, 80 FR 64661 (October 23, 2015). On February 9, 2016 the
Supreme Court stayed this rule pending judicial review. The Court's
stay order does not articulate a basis for the stay and does not
address the merits of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Climate Action Plan, the President also indicated that the
United States was working internationally to make progress in a variety
of areas and specifically noted the progress being made by ICAO to
develop global CO2 emission standards for aircraft.\25\ The
final endangerment and cause or contribute findings for aircraft GHG
emissions under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA are a preliminary but
necessary first step to begin to address GHG emissions from the
aviation sector, the highest-emitting category of transportation
sources that the EPA has not yet addressed. As presented in more detail
in Section V of this document, total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions in
2014 represented 12 percent of GHG emissions from the U.S.
transportation sector,\26\ and in 2010, the latest year with complete
global emissions data, U.S. aircraft GHG emissions represented 29
percent of global aircraft GHG emissions.27 28 U.S. aircraft
GHG emissions are projected to increase by 43 percent over the next two
decades.\29\
[[Page 54427]]
See section V of this preamble for more information about the data
sources that comprise the aircraft GHG emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Executive Office of the President, 2013: The President's
Climate Action Plan, June 25, 21 pp. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016).
\26\ U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA 430-R-16-002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed
June 14, 2016).
\27\ Ibid.
\28\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer,
O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schl[ouml]mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, pp. 599-670.
\29\ As discussed in section V.B.4.c, fuel burn growth rates for
air carriers and general aviation aircraft operating on jet fuel are
projected to grow by 43 percent from 2010 to 2036, and this provides
a scaling factor for growth in GHG emissions which would increase at
a similar rate as the fuel burn by 2030, 2036, and 2040. FAA, 2016:
FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2016-2036, 94 pp. Available at
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf (last accessed April 8,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Background on the Aircraft Petition, the 2008 Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, and the D.C. District Court Decision
Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA directs the Administrator of the
EPA to, from time to time, propose aircraft engine emissions standards
applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any classes of
aircraft engines which in her judgment causes or contributes to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare.
On December 5, 2007, Friends of the Earth, Oceana, the Center for
Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, and others (Petitioners) sent a
letter to the EPA petitioning the Agency to undertake rulemaking
regarding GHG emissions from aircraft.\30\ Specifically, Petitioners
requested that the EPA make a finding that GHG emissions from aircraft
engines ``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and
welfare'' and that the EPA promulgate standards for GHG emissions from
aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety,
Friends of the Earth, International Center for Technology
Assessment, and Oceana, 2007: Petition for Rulemaking Under the
Clean Air Act to Reduce the Emissions of Air Pollutants from
Aircraft the Contribute to Global Climate Change, December 5, 26 pp.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm (last accessed
April 8, 2016) and Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA in
2007, the EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in
2008 presenting information relevant to potentially regulating GHGs
under the Act and soliciting public comment on how to respond to the
Court's ruling and the potential ramifications of the Agency's decision
to regulate GHGs under the CAA. This ANPR described and solicited
comment on numerous petitions the Agency had received to regulate GHG
emissions from both stationary and mobile sources, including aircraft.
73 FR 44354, 44468-73 (July 30, 2008). With regard to aircraft, the
Agency sought comment on the impact of aircraft operations on GHG
emissions and the potential for reductions in GHG emissions from these
operations.
On July 31, 2008, Earthjustice, on behalf of Petitioners, notified
the EPA of its intent to file suit under CAA section 304(a) against the
EPA for the Agency's alleged unreasonable delay in responding to its
aircraft petition and in making an endangerment finding under section
231. On June 11, 2010, Petitioners filed a complaint against the EPA in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia claiming that,
among other things, the EPA had unreasonably delayed because it had
failed to answer the 2007 Petition and to determine whether GHG
emissions from aircraft cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and/or welfare.
The District Court found that while CAA section 231 generally
confers broad discretion to the EPA in determining what standards to
promulgate, section 231(a)(2)(A) imposed a nondiscretionary duty on the
EPA to make a finding with respect to endangerment from aircraft GHG
emissions. Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA, 794 F. Supp.
2d 151 (D.D.C. 2011). This ruling was issued in response to the EPA's
motion to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds and did not
address the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims regarding the Agency's
alleged unreasonable delay. Therefore, it did not include an order for
the EPA to make such a finding by a certain date. In a subsequent
ruling on the merits, the Court found that the Plaintiffs had not shown
that the EPA had unreasonably delayed in making an endangerment
determination regarding GHG emissions from aircraft. Center for
Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA, No. 1:10-985 (D.D.C. March, 20,
2012). Thus, the Court did not find the EPA to be liable based on the
Plaintiffs' claims and did not place the Agency under a remedial order
to make an endangerment finding or to issue standards. The Plaintiffs
did not appeal this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (also called the ``D.C. Circuit'' in this
document).
The EPA issued a Response to the Aircraft Petition \31\ on June 27,
2012, stating our intention to move forward with a proposed
endangerment finding for aircraft GHG emissions under section 231,
while explaining that it would take the Agency significant time to
complete this action. The EPA explained that the Agency would not begin
this effort until after the U.S. Court of Appeals completed its then-
pending review of the previous section 202 Endangerment Finding, since
the then-awaited ruling might provide important guidance for the EPA in
conducting future GHG endangerment findings. The EPA further explained
that after receiving the Court of Appeal's ruling, it would take at
least 22 months from that point for the Agency to conduct an additional
finding regarding aircraft GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ U.S. EPA, 2012: Memorandum in Response to Petition
Regarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft, June 14, 11 pp.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm (last accessed
April 8, 2016) and Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals upheld the EPA's section 202
findings in a decision of a three-judge panel on June 26, 2012, and
denied petitions for rehearing of that decision on December 20, 2012.
Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc., v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C.
Cir. 2012), reh'g denied 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26315, 25997 (D.C. Cir
2012).\32\ Given these rulings, we are proceeding with these findings
regarding aircraft engine GHG emissions as a further step toward
responding to the 2007 Petition for Rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Petitions for certiorari were filed in the Supreme Court,
and the Supreme Court granted six of those petitions but ``agreed to
decide only one question: `Whether EPA permissibly determined that
its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles
triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for
stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.' '' Utility Air Reg.
Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2438 (2014); see also Virginia v.
EPA, 134 S. Ct. 418 (2013), Pac. Legal Found. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 418
(2013), and CRR, 134 S. Ct. 468 (2013) (all denying cert.). Thus,
the Supreme Court did not disturb the D.C. Circuit's holding that
affirmed the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. U.S. Aircraft Regulations and the International Community
The EPA and the FAA traditionally work within the standard-setting
process of ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP
or the Committee) to establish international emission standards and
related requirements, which individual nations later adopt into
domestic law in fulfillment of their obligations under the Convention
on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). Historically,
under this approach, international emission standards have first been
adopted by ICAO, and subsequently the EPA has initiated rulemakings
under CAA section 231 to establish domestic standards that are at least
as stringent as ICAO's standards. This approach has been affirmed as a
reasonable way to implement the Agency's duties under CAA section 231
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Nat'l Ass'n of Clean
Air Agencies (NACAA) v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1230-32 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
After EPA promulgates aircraft engine emissions standards, CAA section
232 requires the FAA to issue regulations to ensure compliance with
these standards when issuing certificates under its authority under
Title 49 of the United
[[Page 54428]]
States Code. These final endangerment and cause or contribute findings
for aircraft GHG emissions are in preparation for this domestic
emissions standards rulemaking process.
1. International Regulations and U.S. Obligations
The EPA has worked with the FAA since 1973, and later with ICAO, to
develop domestic and international standards and other recommended
practices pertaining to aircraft engine emissions. ICAO is a United
Nations (UN) specialized agency, established in 1944 by the Chicago
Convention, ``in order that international civil aviation may be
developed in a safe and orderly manner and that international air
transport services may be established on the basis of equality of
opportunity and operated soundly and economically.'' \33\ ICAO sets
international standards and regulations for aviation safety, security,
efficiency, capacity, and environmental protection and serves as the
forum for cooperation in all fields of international civil aviation.
ICAO works with the Chicago Convention's member states and global
aviation organizations to develop international Standards and
Recommended Practices (SARPs), which member states reference when
developing their legally enforceable national civil aviation
regulations. The United States is currently one of 191 participating
ICAO member states.34 35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil Aviation,
Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last accessed
April 20, 2016).
\34\ Members of ICAO's Assembly are generally termed member
states or contracting states. These terms are used interchangeably
throughout this preamble.
\35\ There are currently 191 contracting states according to
ICAO's Web site: www.icao.int (last accessed April 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interest of global harmonization and international air
commerce, the Chicago Convention urges its member states to collaborate
in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in
regulations, standards, procedures and organization. The Chicago
Convention also recognizes that member states may adopt standards that
are more stringent than those agreed upon by ICAO. Any member state
which finds it impracticable to comply in all respects with any
international standard or procedure, or that deems it necessary to
adopt regulations or practices differing in any particular respect from
those established by an international standard, is required to give
immediate notification to ICAO of the differences between its own
practice and that established by the international standard.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ICAO, 2006: Doc 7300-Convention on International Civil
Aviation, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at
http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAO's work on the environment focuses primarily on those problems
that benefit most from a common and coordinated approach on a worldwide
basis, namely aircraft noise and engine emissions. SARPs for the
certification of aircraft noise and aircraft engine emissions are
covered by Annex 16 of the Chicago Convention. To continue to address
aviation environmental issues, in 2004, ICAO established three
environmental goals: (1) Limit or reduce the number of people affected
by significant aircraft noise; (2) limit or reduce the impact of
aviation emissions on local air quality; and (3) limit or reduce the
impact of aviation GHG emissions on the global climate.
The Chicago Convention has a number of other features that govern
international commerce. First, member states that wish to use aircraft
in international transportation must adopt emissions standards and
other recommended practices that are at least as stringent as ICAO's
standards. Member states may ban the use of any aircraft within their
airspace that does not meet ICAO standards.\37\ Second, the Chicago
Convention indicates that member states are required to recognize the
airworthiness certificates of any state whose standards are at least as
stringent as ICAO's standards.\38\ Third, to ensure that international
commerce is not unreasonably constrained, a member state which elects
to adopt more stringent domestic emission standards is obligated to
notify ICAO of the differences between its standards and ICAO
standards.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil Aviation,
Article 87, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at
http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
\38\ ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil Aviation,
Article 33, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at
http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
\39\ ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil Aviation,
Article 38, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at
http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last
accessed April 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAO's CAEP, which consists of members and observers from states,
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations representing
aviation industry and environmental interests, undertakes ICAO's
technical work in the environmental field. The Committee is responsible
for evaluating, researching, and recommending measures to the ICAO
Council that address the environmental impacts of international civil
aviation. CAEP's terms of reference indicate that ``CAEP's assessments
and proposals are pursued taking into account: Technical feasibility;
environmental benefit; economic reasonableness; interdependencies of
measures (for example, among others, measures taken to minimize noise
and emissions); developments in other fields; and international and
national programs.'' \40\ The ICAO Council reviews and adopts the
recommendations made by CAEP. It then reports to the ICAO Assembly, the
highest body of the Organization, where the main policies on aviation
environmental protection are adopted and translated into Assembly
Resolutions. If ICAO adopts a CAEP proposal for a new environmental
standard, it then becomes part of ICAO standards and recommended
practices (Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention).41 42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ICAO: CAEP Terms of Reference. Available at http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/Caep.aspx#ToR (last
accessed April 27, 2016).
\41\ ICAO, 2008: Aircraft Engine Emissions, International
Standards and Recommended Practices, Environmental Protection, Annex
16, Volume II, Third Edition, July, 110 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed
April 8, 2016). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is found on page 19 of
the ICAO Products & Services 2016 catalog and is copyright
protected; Order No. AN16-2.
\42\ CAEP develops new emission standards based on an assessment
of the technical feasibility, cost, and environmental benefit of
potential requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At CAEP meetings, the United States is represented by the FAA and
plays an active role.\43\ The EPA has historically been a principal
participant in various ICAO/CAEP working groups and other international
venues, assisting and advising FAA on aviation emissions, technology,
and environmental policy matters. In turn, the FAA assists and advises
the EPA on aviation environmental issues, technology and certification
matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Pursuant to the President's memorandum of August 11, 1960
(and related Executive Order No. 10883 from 1960), the Interagency
Group on International Aviation (IGIA) was established to facilitate
coordinated recommendations to the Secretary of State on issues
pertaining to international aviation. The DOT/FAA is the chair of
IGIA, and as such, the FAA represents the U.S. on environmental
matters at CAEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first international standards and recommended practices for
aircraft engine emissions were recommended by CAEP's predecessor, the
Committee on Aircraft Engine Emissions (CAEE), and
[[Page 54429]]
adopted by ICAO in 1981.\44\ These standards limited aircraft engine
emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX). The 1981 standards applied to newly
manufactured engines, which are those engines built after the effective
date of the regulations--also referred to as in-production engines. In
1993, ICAO adopted a CAEP/2 proposal to tighten the original
NOX standard by 20 percent and amend the test
procedures.\45\ These 1993 standards applied both to newly certified
turbofan engines, which are those engine models that received their
initial type certificate after the effective date of the regulations--
also referred to as newly certified engines or new engine designs--and
to in-production engines, but with different effective dates for newly
certified engines and in-production engines. In 1995, CAEP/3
recommended a further tightening of the NOX standards by 16
percent and additional test procedure amendments, but in 1997 the ICAO
Council rejected this stringency proposal and approved only the test
procedure amendments. At the CAEP/4 meeting in 1998, the Committee
adopted a similar 16 percent NOX reduction proposal, which
ICAO approved in 1998. The CAEP/4 standards applied only to new engine
designs certified (or newly certified engines) after December 31, 2003
(i.e., unlike the CAEP/2 standards, the CAEP/4 requirements did not
apply to in-production engines). In 2004, CAEP/6 recommended a 12
percent NOX reduction, which ICAO approved in
2005.46 47 The CAEP/6 standards applied to new engine
designs certified after December 31, 2007. In 2010, CAEP/8 recommended
a further tightening of the NOX standards by 15 percent for
new engine designs certified after December 31, 2013.48 49
The Committee also recommended that the CAEP/6 standards be applied to
in-production engines (eliminating the production of CAEP/4 compliant
engines with the exception of spare engines), and ICAO approved these
recommendations in 2011.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ ICAO, 2008: Aircraft Engine Emissions: Foreword,
International Standards and Recommended Practices, Environmental
Protection, Annex 16, Volume II, Third Edition, July, 110 pp.
Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016). The ICAO Annex 16
Volume II is found on page 19 of the ICAO Products & Services 2016
catalog and is copyright protected; Order No. AN16-2.
\45\ CAEP conducts its work over a period of years. Each work
cycle is numbered sequentially and that identifier is used to
differentiate the results from one CAEP to another by convention.
The first technical meeting on aircraft emission standards was
CAEP's successor, i.e., CAEE. The first meeting of CAEP, therefore,
is referred to as CAEP/2.
\46\ CAEP/5 did not address new aircraft engine emission
standards.
\47\ ICAO, 2008: Aircraft Engine Emissions, Annex 16, Volume II,
Third Edition, July 2008, Amendment 5 effective on July 11, 2005,
110 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016). The ICAO Annex 16
Volume II is found on page 19 of the ICAO Products & Services 2016
catalog and is copyright protected; Order No. AN16-2.
\48\ CAEP/7 did not address new aircraft engine emission
standards.
\49\ ICAO, 2010: Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Report of the Eighth Meeting, Montreal, February 1-12, 2010,
CAEP/8-WP/80 Available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\50\ ICAO, 2014: Aircraft Engine Emissions, Annex 16, Volume II,
Third Edition, July 2008, Amendment 8, 108 pp. CAEP/8 corresponds to
Amendment 7 effective on July 18, 2011. Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed
April 8, 2016). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is found on page 19 of
the ICAO Products & Services 2016 catalog and is copyright
protected; Order No. AN16-2/E/11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The International Civil Aviation Organization's Reasons for
Addressing Aircraft GHG Emissions
In October 2010, the 37th Assembly (Resolution A37-19) of ICAO
requested the development of an ICAO CO2 emissions
standard.\51\ The Resolution provided a framework towards the
achievement of an environmentally sustainable future for international
aviation. With this Resolution, the ICAO Assembly agreed to a global
aspirational goal for international aviation of improving annual fuel
efficiency by two percent up to the year 2050, and stabilizing
CO2 emissions at 2020 levels.\52\ Reducing climate impacts
of international aviation is a critical element of ICAO's strategic
objective of achieving environmental protection and sustainable
development of air transport. ICAO is currently pursuing a
comprehensive set of measures to reduce aviation's climate impact,
including lower-carbon alternative fuels, CO2 emissions
technology-based standards, operational improvements, and market based
measures. The development and adoption of a CO2 emissions
standard is an important part of ICAO's comprehensive set of measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ A consolidated statement of continuing policies and
practices related to environmental protection (known as Assembly
Resolutions) is revised and updated by the Council every three years
for adoption by the ICAO Assembly. ICAO, 2010: Resolutions Adopted
by the Assembly, 37th Session, Montreal, September 29-October 8,
2010, Provisional Edition, November 2010.
\52\ The global aspirational goal for international aviation of
improving annual fuel efficiency by 2 percent is for the annual
international civil aviation in-service fleet. Fuel efficiency is
measured on the basis of the volume of fuel used per revenue tonne
kilometer performed. ICAO CAEP, 2009: Aspirational Goals and
Implementation Options, Working Paper HLM-ENV/09-WP/5, 5 pp.
Available at http://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/High%20Level%202009/hlmenv_wp005_en.pdf (last accessed April 8,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Regulation of Aircraft Emissions and the Relationship of the
Final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings to International
Aircraft Standards
As required by the CAA, the EPA has been engaged in reducing
harmful air pollution from aircraft engines for over 40 years,
regulating gaseous exhaust emissions, smoke, and fuel venting from
aircraft engines.\53\ We have periodically revised these regulations.
In a 1997 rulemaking, for example, we made our emission standards and
test procedures more consistent with those of ICAO's CAEP for turbofan
engines used in commercial aviation with rated thrusts greater than
26.7 kilonewtons.\54\ These ICAO requirements are generally referred to
as CAEP/2 standards.\55\ The 1997 rulemaking included new
NOX emission standards for newly manufactured commercial
turbofan engines (as described earlier, those engines built after the
effective date of the regulations that were already certified to pre-
existing standards--also referred to as in-production engines) \56\ and
for newly certified commercial turbofan engines (as described earlier,
those engine models that received their initial type certificate after
the effective date of the regulations--also referred to as new engine
designs).\57\ It also included a CO emission standard for in-production
commercial turbofan engines.\58\ In 2005, we promulgated more stringent
NOX emission standards for newly certified commercial
turbofan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ U.S. EPA, 1973: Emission Standards and Test Procedures for
Aircraft; Final Rule, 38 FR 19088 (July 17, 1973).
\54\ U.S. EPA, 1997: Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and
Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test rocedures; Final Rule,
62 FR 25355 (May 8, 1997).
\55\ The full CAEP membership meets every three years and each
session is denoted by a numerical identifier. For example, the
second meeting of CAEP is referred to as CAEP/2, and CAEP/2 occurred
in 1994.
\56\ This does not mean that in 1997 we promulgated requirements
for the re-certification or retrofit of existing in-use engines.
\57\ In the existing EPA regulations, 40 CFR part 87, newly
certified aircraft engines are described as engines of a type or
model of which the date of manufacture of the first individual
production model was after the implementation date. Newly
manufactured aircraft engines are characterized as engines of a type
or model for which the date of manufacturer of the individual engine
was after the implementation date.
\58\ U.S. EPA, 1997: Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and
Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test Procedures; Final
Rule, 62 FR 25355 (May 8, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54430]]
engines.\59\ That final rule brought the U.S. standards closer to
alignment with ICAO CAEP/4 requirements that became effective in 2004.
In 2012, we issued more stringent two-tiered NOX emission
standards for newly certified and in-production commercial and non-
commercial turbofan aircraft engines, and these NOX
standards align with ICAO's CAEP/6 and CAEP/8 requirements that became
effective in 2013 and 2014, respectively.60 61 The EPA's
actions to regulate certain pollutants emitted from aircraft engines
come directly from the authority in section 231 of the CAA, and we have
aligned the U.S. emissions requirements with those promulgated by ICAO.
All of these previous emission standards have generally been considered
anti-backsliding standards (most aircraft engines meet the standards),
which are technology-following.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ U.S. EPA, 2005: Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and
Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test Procedures; Final
Rule, 70 FR 69664 (November 17, 2005).
\60\ U.S. EPA, 2012: Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and
Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test Procedures; Final
Rule, 77 FR 36342 (June 18, 2012).
\61\ While ICAO's standards were not limited to ``commercial''
aircraft engines, our 1997 standards were explicitly limited to
commercial engines, as our finding that NOX and carbon
monoxide emissions from aircraft engines cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare was so limited. See 62 FR 25358 (May 8, 1997). In
the 2012 rulemaking, we expanded the scope of that finding and of
our standards pursuant to CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) to include such
emissions from both commercial and non-commercial aircraft engines
based on the physical and operational similarities between
commercial and noncommercial civilian aircraft and to bring our
standards into full alignment with ICAO's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addressing CO2 emissions, ICAO has moved to
regulating a whole aircraft. ICAO explained its decision to regulate
pollutant emissions from the whole aircraft in a 2013 ICAO
circular.\62\ Several factors are considered when addressing whole-
aircraft CO2 emissions, as CO2 emissions are
influenced by aerodynamics, weight, and engine technology. Since the
aircraft-specific characteristics of aerodynamics and weight affect
fuel consumption, they ultimately affect CO2 engine exhaust
emissions. Rather than viewing CO2 as a measurable emission
from the engine alone, ICAO addresses CO2 emissions as an
aircraft-specific characteristic based on fuel consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ ICAO, 2013: CAEP/9 Agreed Certification Requirement for the
Aeroplane CO2 Emissions Standard, Circular (Cir) 337, 40 pp, AN/192.
Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016). The ICAO Circular 337
is found on page 87 of the ICAO Products & Services 2016 catalog and
is copyright protected; Order No. CIR337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has worked diligently over the past six years within the
ICAO/CAEP process on a range of technical issues regarding aircraft
CO2 emission standards. The 2015 ANPR discussed the issues
arising from those international proceedings and requested public
comment on a variety of issues to assist the Agency in developing its
position with regard to these issues, to help ensure transparency and
obtain views on aircraft engine GHG emission standards that it might
potentially adopt under the CAA.
As described in the 2015 ANPR, in 2013 CAEP agreed on a metric \63\
to compare CO2 emissions from aircraft. The CO2
metric value is a comparative metric meant to differentiate between
generations of aircraft and to equitably capture improvements in
aerospace technology that contribute to a reduction in the airplane
CO2 emissions. The CO2 metric is not intended for
use as a direct measure of CO2 emissions rates or
operational fuel burn, rather it is a comparative measure of technology
on different aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The CO2 metric is the average of three cruise
test points normalized by a dimensionless parameter representing
aircraft fuselage size. The units of the metric value are kilograms
of fuel burned per kilometer flown. However, because the metric is a
normalized value it cannot be used to estimate operational fuel burn
or emission rates of aircraft. The metric value is described in
detail in both ICAO Circular 337 and in section D of the 2015 ANPR.
ICAO, 2013: CAEP/9 Agreed Certification Requirement for the
Aeroplane CO2 Emissions Standard, Circular (Cir) 337, 40 pp., AN/
192, Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 27, 2016). The ICAO Circular
337 is found on page 87 of the catalog and is copyright protected;
Order No. CIR337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using this metric, CAEP considered and analyzed 10 different
stringency levels for both in-production and new type standards,
comparing aircraft with a similar level of technology on the same
stringency level. These levels were generically referred to numerically
from ``1'' as the least stringent to ``10'' as the most stringent,
which correspond to the upper and lower lines of constant technology,
respectively, from the 2015 ANPR. The 2015 ANPR described the range of
stringency levels under consideration at CAEP as falling into three
categories as follows: (1) CO2 stringency levels that could
impact \64\ only the oldest, least efficient aircraft in-production
around the world, (2) middle range CO2 stringency levels
that could impact many aircraft currently in-production and comprising
much of the current operational fleet, and (3) CO2
stringency levels that could impact aircraft that have either just
entered production or are in final design phase but will be in-
production by the time the international CO2 standards
becomes effective.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ As described in the 2015 ANPR, the aircraft shown in
[Figure II.1 and II.2] are in-production and current in-development.
These aircraft could be impacted by an in-production standard in
that, if they were above the standard, they would need to either
implement a technology response or go out of production. For a new
type only standard there will be no regulatory requirement for these
aircraft to respond.
\65\ 80 FR at 37797.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At its meeting in February of 2016, CAEP agreed on an initial set
of international standards to regulate CO2 emissions from
aircraft.\66\ It was agreed that these international standards should
apply to both new type and in-production aircraft. The applicability
date for the in-production standard was agreed to be later than for the
new type standard. CAEP explained that this will allow manufacturers
and certification authorities additional preparation time to
accommodate the standards. The new type and in-production stringency
levels for smaller and larger aircraft were agreed to be set at
different levels to reflect the range of technology being used and the
availability of new fuel burn reduction technologies that vary across
aircraft of differing size and weight. Table II.1 provides a brief
overview of the applicability dates and stringency levels of the
standards agreed to at ICAO/CAEP. As described earlier, CAEP considered
and analyzed 10 different stringency levels for both in-production and
new type standards (from 1 as the least stringent to 10 as the most
stringent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Further, the EPA anticipates that the 39th ICAO Assembly
will approve these CO2 emissions standards in October
2016, and that subsequently, ICAO will formally adopt these
CO2 emissions standards in March 2017.
[[Page 54431]]
Table II.1--Stringency Levels and Applicability Dates for ICAO/CAEP CO2 Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-production
aircraft
Aircraft MTOM thresholds New type aircraft \67\ maximum
(kg) maximum permitted CO2 permitted CO2
metric value metric value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stringency Level........................ >5,700 to <60,000......... \A\ 5..................... \B\ 3
Horizontal Transition \68\ \C\....................... \D\
60,000 to ~70,000.........
> ~70,000................. \E\ 8.5................... \F\ 7
Applicability Date...................... Application for a new type 2020...................... 2023
certificate or a change (2023 for planes with less
to an existing type than 19 seats).
certificate.
Production Cut Off........ n/a....................... 2028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\A\ Equation of ICAO Stringency Option #5: MV = 10-2.73780+(0.681310*\l\\o\\g\ 10(\M\\T\\O\\M\))+(-
0.0277861*(\l\\o\\g\ 10(\M\\T\\O\\M\))2)
\B\ Equation of ICAO Stringency Option #3: MV = 10-2.57535+(0.609766*\l\\o\\g\ 10(\M\\T\\O\\M\))+(-
0.0191302*(\l\\o\\g\ 10(\M\\T\\O\\M\))2)
\C\ Equation of New Type transition--60,000 to 70,395 kg: MV = 0.764
\D\ Equation of In-production transition--60,000 to 70,107 kg: MV = 0.797
\E\ Equation of ICAO Stringency Option #8.5: MV = 10-2.57535+(0.609766*\l\\o\\g\ 10(\M\\T\\O\\M\))+(-
0.0191302*(\l\\o\\g\ 10(\M\\T\\O\\M\))2)
\F\ Equation of ICAO Stringency Option #7: MV = 10-1.39353+(-0.020517*\l\\o\\g\
10(\M\\T\\O\\M\))+(0.0593831*(\l\\o\\g\ 10(\M\\T\\O\\M\))2)
Figures II.1 and II.2 show a graphical depiction of both the new
type and in-production standards compared against the lines of constant
technology described in the 2015 ANPR and CO2 metric value
levels of current (as of February 2016) in-production and in-
development \69\ aircraft. The aircraft data shown were generated by
the EPA using a commercially available aircraft modeling tool called
PIANO.\70\ It should be noted that a number of the aircraft currently
shown as in-production are expected to go out of production and be
replaced by known in-development aircraft prior to both the new type
and the in-production CO2 standards going into effect
internationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ ``In Development'' aircraft shown in Figures II.1 and II.2
are the aircraft that were in development by manufacturers at the
time the 2015 ANPR was published.
\68\ Stringency lines above and below 60,000 kilograms (MTOM)
are connected by a horizontal transition starting at 60,000
kilograms (MTOM) and continuing right (increasing mass) until it
intersects with the next level.
\69\ Aircraft that are currently in-development but will be in
production by the applicability dates. These could be new types or
significant partial redesigned aircraft.
\70\ PIANO (Project Interactive Analysis and Optimization),
Aircraft Design and Analysis Software by Dr. Dimitri Simos, Lissys
Limited, UK, 1990-present; Available at www.piano.aero (last
accessed April 8, 2016). This is a commercially available aircraft
design and performance software suite used across the industry and
academia. This model contains non-manufacturer provided estimates of
performance of various aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 54432]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AU16.000
[[Page 54433]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AU16.001
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
In this final action, the EPA is promulgating findings under
section 231(a)(2) that emissions of the six well-mixed GHGs from
certain classes of engines used in covered aircraft cause or contribute
to endangering air pollution. The EPA is not yet issuing proposed or
final emission standards, nor is the EPA taking final action that
prejudges what future standards will be. Instead, the EPA's final
endangerment and cause or contribute findings for aircraft GHG
emissions are in preparation for a subsequent, expected domestic
[[Page 54434]]
rulemaking process to adopt future GHG emissions standards. If the ICAO
Assembly, in October 2016, approves the final CO2 standards
and subsequently ICAO formally adopts the final CO2
standards in March 2017, the EPA's standards will need to be at least
as stringent as the ICAO CO2 aircraft standards for the
United States to meet its treaty obligations under the Chicago
Convention. As a result of these positive findings, the EPA is
obligated under section 231 of the CAA to set emission standards
applicable to GHG emissions from the classes of aircraft engines
included in the contribution finding, no matter the outcome of ICAO's
future actions in October 2016 and March 2017.
III. Legal Framework for This Action
The EPA has previously made an endangerment finding for GHGs under
Title II of the CAA, in the 2009 Endangerment Finding for section
202(a) source categories. In the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the EPA
explained its legal framework for making an endangerment finding under
section 202(a) of the CAA (74 FR 18886, 18890-94 (April 24, 2009), and
74 FR 66496, 66505-10 (December 15, 2009)). The text in section 202(a)
that was the basis for the 2009 Endangerment Finding addresses ``the
emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of 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.'' Similarly, section
231(a)(2)(A) concerns ``the emission of any air pollutant from any
class or classes of aircraft engines which in [the Administrator's]
judgment causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' Thus, the text
of the CAA section concerning aircraft emissions in section
231(a)(2)(A) mirrors the text of CAA section 202(a) that was the basis
for the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
The EPA's approach in the 2009 Endangerment Finding (described
below in sections III.A and III.B) was affirmed by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Coalition for Responsible Regulation,
Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012), reh'g denied 2012 U.S. App.
LEXIS 26313, 26315, 25997 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (CRR). In particular, the
D.C. Circuit ruled that the 2009 Endangerment Finding (including the
Agency's denial of petitions for reconsideration of that Finding) was
not arbitrary or capricious, was consistent with the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA and the text and structure of
the CAA, and was adequately supported by the administrative record.
CRR, 684 F.3d at 116-128. The D.C. Circuit found that the EPA had based
its decision on ``substantial scientific evidence'' and noted that the
EPA's reliance on major scientific assessments was consistent with the
methods that decision-makers often use to make a science-based
judgment. Id. at 120-121. Petitions for certiorari were filed in the
Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted six of those petitions but
``agreed to decide only one question: `Whether EPA permissibly
determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new
motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air
Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.' '' Utility Air
Reg. Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2438 (2014); see also Virginia v.
EPA, 134 S. Ct. 418 (2013), Pac. Legal Found. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 418
(2013), and CRR, 134 S. Ct. 468 (2013) (all denying cert.). Thus, the
Supreme Court did not disturb the D.C. Circuit's holding that affirmed
the 2009 Endangerment Finding. Accordingly, the Agency finds that it is
reasonable to use that same approach under section 231(a)(2)(A)'s
similar endangerment text, and as explained in the following
discussion, is acting consistently with that judicially sanctioned
framework for purposes of this final section 231 finding.
Two provisions of the CAA govern this final action. Section
231(a)(2)(A) sets forth a two-part predicate for regulatory action
under that provision: Endangerment and cause or contribute. Section 302
of the Act contains definitions of the terms ``air pollutant'' and
``welfare'' used in section 231(a)(2)(A). These statutory provisions
are discussed below.
A. Section 231(a)(2)(A)--Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
As noted above, section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (like section
202(a)) calls for the Administrator to exercise her judgment and make
two separate determinations: first, whether the relevant kind of air
pollution--here, the six well-mixed GHGs--may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare, and second, whether emissions of
any air pollutant from classes of the sources in question (aircraft
engines under section 231 and new motor vehicles or engines under
section 202) cause or contribute to this air pollution.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See CRR, 684 F.3d at 117 (explaining two-part analysis
under section 202(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator interprets the two-part test required under
section 231(a)(2)(A) as being the same as that explained in the 2009
Endangerment Finding. See 74 FR 66505-06. As in the section 202(a)
context, this analysis entails a scientific judgment by the
Administrator about the potential risks posed by GHG emissions to
public health and welfare. See CRR, 684 F.3d at 117-118.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ When agencies such as the EPA make determinations based on
review of scientific data within their technical expertise, those
decisions are given an ``extreme degree of deference'' by the
courts. As the D.C. Circuit noted in reviewing the 2009 Endangerment
Finding, ``although we perform a searching and careful inquiry into
the facts underlying the agency's decisions, we will presume the
validity of the agency action as long as a rational basis for it is
presented.'' CRR, 684 F.3d at 120 (internal citations and marks
omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In making this scientific judgment, the Administrator is guided by
five principles. First, the Administrator is required to protect public
health and welfare. She is not asked to wait until harm has occurred
but instead must be ready to take regulatory action to prevent harm
before it occurs.\73\ The Administrator is thus to consider both
current and future risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See id. at 121-122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Administrator is to exercise judgment by weighing
risks, assessing potential harms, and making reasonable projections of
future trends and possibilities. It follows that when exercising her
judgment the Administrator balances the likelihood and severity of
effects. This balance involves a sliding scale: on one end the severity
of the effects may be significant, but the likelihood low, while on the
other end the severity may be less significant, but the likelihood
high.\74\ At different points along this scale, the Administrator is
permitted to find endangerment. Accordingly, the Administrator need not
set a precise or minimum threshold of risk or harm as part of making an
endangerment finding, but rather may base her determination on `` `a
lesser risk of greater harm . . . or a greater risk of lesser harm' or
any combination in between.'' CRR, 684 F.3d at 123 (quoting Ethyl Corp.
v. EPA, 541 F.2d, 1, 18 (D.C. Cir. 1976)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See id. at 122-123 (noting that the Sec. 202(a)(1) inquiry
``necessarily entails a case-by-case, sliding scale approach''
because endangerment is `` `composed of reciprocal elements of risk
and harm, or probability and severity' '' (quoting Ethyl Corp. v.
EPA, 541 F.2d, 1, 18 (D.C. Cir. 1976)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, because scientific knowledge is constantly evolving, the
Administrator may be called upon to make decisions while recognizing
the uncertainties and limitations of the data or information available,
as risks to public health or
[[Page 54435]]
welfare may involve the frontiers of scientific or medical
knowledge.\75\ At the same time, the Administrator must exercise
reasoned decision making, and avoid speculative inquiries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See id. at 121-122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, the Administrator is to consider the cumulative impact of
sources of a pollutant in assessing the risks from air pollution, and
is not to look only at the risks attributable to a single source or
class of sources. We additionally note that in making an endangerment
finding, the Administrator is not limited to considering only those
impacts that can be traced to the amount of air pollution directly
attributable to the subject source classes. Such an approach would
collapse the two prongs of the test by requiring that any climate
change impacts upon which an endangerment determination is made result
solely from the GHG emissions of aircraft. See 74 FR at 66542
(explaining the same point in the context of analogous language in
section 202(a)). Similarly, the Administrator is not, in making the
endangerment and cause or contribute findings, to consider the effect
of emissions reductions from the resulting standards.\76\ The threshold
endangerment and cause or contribute criteria are separate and distinct
from the standard setting criteria that apply if the threshold findings
are met, and they serve a different purpose. Indeed, the more serious
the endangerment to public health and welfare, the more important it
may be that action be taken to address the actual or potential harm
even if no one action alone can solve the problem, and a series of
actions is called for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ As the D.C. Circuit explained in reviewing the 2009
Endangerment Finding under analogous language in section 202(a):
``At bottom, Sec. 202(a)(1) requires EPA to answer only two
questions: whether particular `air pollution'--here, greenhouse
gases--`may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare,' and whether motor-vehicle emissions `cause, or contribute
to' that endangerment.'' CRR, 648 F.3d at 117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth, the Administrator is to consider the risks to all parts of
our population, including those who are at greater risk for reasons
such as increased susceptibility to adverse health and welfare effects.
If vulnerable subpopulations are especially at risk, the Administrator
is entitled to take that point into account in deciding the question of
endangerment. Here too, both likelihood and severity of adverse effects
are relevant. As explained previously in the 2009 Endangerment Finding
and as reiterated below for this section 231 finding, vulnerable
subpopulations face serious health and welfare risks as a result of
climate change.
As the Supreme Court recognized in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S.
at 534, the EPA may make an endangerment finding despite the existence
of ``some residual uncertainty'' in the scientific record. See also
CRR, 684 F. 2d at 122. Thus, this framework recognizes that regulatory
agencies such as the EPA must be able to deal with the reality that
``[m]an's ability to alter his environment has developed far more
rapidly than his ability to foresee with certainty the effects of his
alterations.'' Ethyl Corp v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir.), cert.
denied 426 U.S. 941 (1976). Both ``the Clean Air Act `and common sense
. . . demand regulatory action to prevent harm, even if the regulator
is less than certain that harm is otherwise inevitable.' ''
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 506, n.7 (citing Ethyl Corp.); see
also CRR, 684 F.3d at 121-122.
In the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator recognized that
the scientific context for an action addressing climate change was
unique at that time because there was a very large and comprehensive
base of scientific information that had been developed over many years
through a global consensus process involving numerous scientists from
many countries and representing many disciplines. 74 FR at 66506. That
informational base has since grown. The Administrator also previously
recognized that there are varying degrees of uncertainty across many of
these scientific issues, which remains true. It is in this context that
she is exercising her judgment and applying the statutory framework in
this final section 231 finding. Further discussion of the language in
section 231(a)(2)(A), and parallel language in 202(a), is provided
below to explain more fully the basis for this interpretation, which
the D.C. Circuit upheld in the 202(a) context.
1. The Statutory Language
The interpretation described above flows from the statutory
language itself. The phrase ``may reasonably be anticipated'' and the
term ``endanger'' in section 231(a)(2)(A) (as in section 202(a))
authorize, if not require, the Administrator to act to prevent harm and
to act in conditions of uncertainty. They do not limit her to merely
reacting to harm or to acting only when certainty has been achieved;
indeed, the references to anticipation and to endangerment imply that
to fail to look to the future or to less than certain risks would be to
abjure the Administrator's statutory responsibilities. As the D.C.
Circuit explained, the language ``may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare'' in CAA section 202(a) requires a
``precautionary, forward-looking scientific judgment about the risks of
a particular air pollutant, consistent with the CAA's precautionary and
preventive orientation.'' CRR, 684 F.3d at 122 (internal citations
omitted). The court determined that ``[r]equiring that EPA find
`certain' endangerment of public health or welfare before regulating
GHGs would effectively prevent EPA from doing the job that Congress
gave it in [section] 202(a)--utilizing emission standards to prevent
reasonably anticipated endangerment from maturing into concrete harm.''
Id. The same language appears in section 231(a)(2)(A), and the same
interpretation applies in that context.
Moreover, by instructing the Administrator to consider whether
emissions of an air pollutant cause or contribute to air pollution in
the second part of the two-part test, the Act makes clear that she need
not find that emissions from any one sector or class of sources are the
sole or even the major part of an air pollution problem. The use of the
term ``contribute'' clearly indicates that such emissions need not be
the sole or major cause of the pollution. In addition, the absence of
the term ``significantly'' or any other word that modifies
``contribute'' shows that the EPA need not find that contributing
emissions cross a minimum percentage- or mass-based threshold to be
cognizable. The phrase ``in [her] judgment'' authorizes the
Administrator to weigh risks and to consider projections of future
possibilities, while also recognizing uncertainties and extrapolating
from existing data. Finally, when exercising her judgment in making
both the endangerment and cause or contribute findings, the
Administrator balances the likelihood and severity of effects. Notably,
the phrase ``in [her] judgment'' modifies both ``may reasonably be
anticipated'' and ``cause or contribute.''
2. How the Origin of the Current Statutory Language Informs the EPA's
Interpretation of Section 231(a)(2)(A)
In the proposed and final 2009 Endangerment Finding, the EPA
explained that when Congress revised the section 202(a) language that
governed that finding, along with other provisions, as part of the 1977
amendments to the CAA, it was responding to decisions issued by the
D.C. Circuit in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA regarding the pre-1977 version of
section 211(c) of the Act. 74 FR at
[[Page 54436]]
18891; see also 74 FR at 66506. The legislative history of those
amendments, particularly the report by the House Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, demonstrates that the EPA's
interpretation of the section 231(a)(2)(A) language as set forth here
in support of the Agency's section 231 finding is fully consistent with
Congress' intention in crafting these provisions. See H.R. Rep. 95-294
(1977), as reprinted in 4 A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 (1978) at 2465 (hereinafter LH). The committee
explained that its action addressed not only section 211(c)(1)(A) but
rather the entirety of the proposed legislative amendments, and stated
that the committee's bill would thus apply the interpretation of
section 211(c)(1)(A) in the en banc decision in Ethyl Corp. to all
other sections of the Act relating to public health protection. 4 LH at
2516. It also noted that it had used the same basic formulation in
section 202 and section 231, as well as in other sections. Id. at 2517.
As both CAA sections 231 and 202 were included in the 1977 amendments,
the Agency's discussion for the 2009 Endangerment Finding regarding the
history of section 202 and how it supports the EPA's approach is also
relevant for section 231. EPA's interpretation of section 231 is the
same as its interpretation of the parallel language in section 202(a),
which is explained in the 2009 Endangerment Finding. See 74 FR at
18891; see also 74 FR at 66506.
The legislative history clearly indicates that the House Committee
believed the Ethyl Corp. decisions posed several ``crucial policy
questions'' regarding the protection of public health and welfare. H.R.
Rep. 95-294 at 48, 4 LH at 2515.\77\ The following paragraphs summarize
the en banc decision in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA and describe how the House
Committee revised the endangerment language in the 1977 amendments to
the CAA to serve several purposes consistent with that decision. In
particular, the language: (1) Emphasizes the preventive or
precautionary nature of the CAA;\78\ (2) authorizes the Administrator
to reasonably project into the future and weigh risks; (3) assures the
consideration of the cumulative impact of all sources; (4) instructs
that the health of susceptible individuals, as well as healthy adults,
should be part of the analysis; and (5) indicates an awareness of the
uncertainties and limitations in information available to the
Administrator. H.R. rep. 95-294 at 49-50, 4 LH 2516-17.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ The Supreme Court recognized that the current language in
section 202(a)(1), which uses the same formulation as that in
section 231(a)(2)(A), is ``more protective'' than the 1970 version
that was similar to the section 211 language before the D.C. Circuit
in Ethyl Corp. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 506, fn 7.
\78\ See H.R. Rep. 95-294 at 49, 4 LH at 2516 (``To emphasize
the preventive or precautionary nature of the Act, i.e. to assure
that regulatory action can effectively prevent harm before it
occurs'').
\79\ Congress also standardized this language across the various
sections of the CAA which address emissions from both stationary and
mobile sources. H.R. Rep. 95-294 at 50, 4 LH at 2517; section 401 of
the CAA Amendments of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In revising the statutory language, Congress relied heavily on the
en banc decision in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, which reversed a three-judge
panel opinion regarding an EPA rule restricting the content of lead in
leaded gasoline.\80\ After reviewing the relevant facts and law, the
full court evaluated the statutory language at issue to see what level
of ``certainty [was] required by the Clean Air Act before EPA may
act.'' 541 F.2d at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ At the time of the 1973 rules requiring the reduction of
lead in leaded gasoline, section 211(c)(1)(A) of the CAA stated that
the Administrator may promulgate regulations that: ``control or
prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for
sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive for use in a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine (A) if any emissions product of such
fuel or fuel additive will endanger the public health or welfare . .
.'' CAA section 211(c)(1)(A) (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners argued that the statutory language ``will
endanger'' required proof of actual harm, and that the actual harm had
to come from emissions from the fuels in and of themselves. Id. at 12,
29. The en banc court rejected this approach, finding that the term
``endanger'' allowed the Administrator to act when harm is threatened,
and did not require proof of actual harm. Id. at 13. ``A statute
allowing for regulation in the face of danger is, necessarily, a
precautionary statute.'' Id. Optimally, the court found, regulatory
action would not only precede, but prevent, a perceived threat. Id.
The court also rejected petitioners' argument that any threatened
harm must be ``probable'' before regulation was authorized.
Specifically, the court recognized that danger ``is set not by a fixed
probability of harm, but rather is composed of reciprocal elements of
risk and harm, or probability and severity.'' Id. at 18. Next, the
court held that the EPA's evaluation of risk is necessarily an exercise
of judgment, and that the statute did not require a factual finding.
Id. at 24. Thus, ultimately, the Administrator must ``act, in part on
`factual issues,' but largely `on choices of policy, on an assessment
of risks, [and] on predictions dealing with matters on the frontiers of
scientific knowledge . . .'' Id. at 29 (citations omitted). Finally,
the en banc court agreed with the EPA that even without the language in
section 202(a) (which is also in section 231(a)(2)(A)) regarding
``cause or contribute to,'' it was appropriate for the EPA to consider
the cumulative impact of lead from numerous sources, not just the fuels
being regulated under section 211(c). Id. at 29-31.
The dissent in the original Ethyl Corp. decision and the en banc
opinion were of ``critical importance'' to the House Committee which
proposed the revisions to the endangerment language in the 1977
amendments to the CAA. H.R. Rep. 95-294 at 48, 4 LH at 2515. The
Committee addressed those questions with the language that now appears
in section 231(a)(2)(A) and several other CAA provisions--``emission of
any air pollutant . . . which in [the Administrator's] judgment causes,
or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.''
As noted above in section III.A.1, the phrase ``in [her] judgment''
calls for the Administrator to make a comparative assessment of risks
and projections of future possibilities, consider uncertainties, and
extrapolate from limited data. Thus, the Administrator must balance the
likelihood of effects with the severity of the effects in reaching her
judgment. The Committee emphasized that the Administrator's exercise of
``judgment'' \81\ may include making projections, assessments and
estimates that are reasonable, as opposed to a speculative or ``
`crystal ball' inquiry.'' Moreover, procedural safeguards apply to the
exercise of judgment, and final decisions are subject to judicial
review. Also, the phrase ``in [her] judgment'' modifies both the
phrases ``cause and contribute'' and ``may reasonably be anticipated,''
as discussed above. H.R. Rep. 95-294 at 50-51, 4 LH at 2517-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Throughout this document under CAA section 231, as
throughout the previous notices concerning the 2009 Endangerment
Finding under section 202, the judgments on endangerment and cause
or contribute are described as a finding or findings. This is for
ease of reference only, and is not intended to imply that the
Administrator's judgment is solely a fact finding exercise; rather,
the Administrator's exercise of judgment is to consider and weigh
multiple factors when applying the scientific information to the
statutory criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Committee further explained, the phrase ``may reasonably be
anticipated'' points the Administrator in the direction of assessing
current and future risks rather than waiting for proof of actual harm.
This phrase is also intended to instruct the Administrator to consider
the limitations and
[[Page 54437]]
difficulties inherent in information on public health and welfare. H.R.
Rep. 95-294 at 51, 4 LH at 2518.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Thus, the statutory language does not require that the EPA
prove the effects of climate change ``beyond a reasonable doubt.''
Indeed, such an approach is inconsistent with the concepts of
reasonable anticipation and endangerment embedded in the statute.
See also CRR, 684 F.3d at 121-122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the phrase ``cause or contribute'' ensures that all
sources of the contaminant which contribute to air pollution are
considered in the endangerment analysis (e.g., not a single source or
category of sources). It is also intended to require the Administrator
to consider all sources of exposure to a pollutant (for example, food,
water, and air) when determining risk. Id.
3. Additional Considerations for the Cause or Contribute Analysis
By instructing the Administrator to consider whether emissions of
an air pollutant cause or contribute to air pollution, the statute is
clear that she need not find that emissions from any one sector or
class of sources are the sole or even the major part of an air
pollution problem. The use of the term ``contribute'' clearly indicates
a lower threshold than the sole or major cause.
Moreover, like the section 202(a) language that governed the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the statutory language in section 231(a)(2)(A)
does not contain a modifier on its use of the term ``contribute.'' This
contrasts with other CAA provisions that expressly require
``significant'' contribution. Compare, e.g., CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); 111(b); 213(a)(2), (4). In the absence of specific
language regarding the degree of contribution, the Administrator is to
exercise her judgment in determining contribution. Congress clearly
authorized regulatory controls to address air pollution even if the air
pollution problem results from a wide variety of sources. While the
endangerment test looks at the entire air pollution problem and the
risks it poses, the cause or contribute test is designed to authorize
the EPA to identify and then address what may well be many different
sectors, classes, or groups of sources that are each part of the
problem.
As explained for the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the D.C. Circuit
has discussed the concept of contribution in the CAA, and its case law
supports the EPA's interpretation that the level of contribution in
this context need not be significant. 74 FR at 66542. In Catawba County
v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009), the court upheld EPA's
PM2.5 attainment and nonattainment designation decisions,
analyzing CAA section 107(d), which requires EPA to designate an area
as nonattainment if it ``contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby
area'' that does not meet the national ambient air quality standards.
Id. at 35. The court noted that it had previously held that the term
``contributes'' is ambiguous in the context of CAA language. See EDF v.
EPA, 82 F.3d 451, 459 (D.C. Cir. 1996). ``[A]mbiguities in statutes
within an agency's jurisdiction to administer are delegations of
authority to the agency to fill the statutory gap in reasonable
fashion.'' 571 F.3d at 35 (citing Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'c v.
Brand X Internet Servs, 545 U.S. 967, 980 (2005)). The court then
proceeded to consider and reject petitioners' argument that the verb
``contributes'' in CAA section 107(d) necessarily connotes a
significant causal relationship. Specifically, the D.C. Circuit again
noted that the term is ambiguous, leaving it to EPA to interpret in a
reasonable manner. In the context of this discussion, the court noted
that ``a contribution may simply exacerbate a problem rather than cause
it . . .'' 571 F.3d at 39.
This is consistent with the D.C. Circuit's discussion of the
concept of contribution in the context of CAA section 213 and rules for
nonroad vehicles in Bluewater Network v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.
2004). In that case, industry argued that section 213(a)(3) requires a
finding of a significant contribution from classes of new nonroad
engines or vehicles to ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations before
the EPA can regulate those engines or vehicles, while the EPA's view
was that the CAA requires a finding only of contribution. Id. at 13.
Section 213(a)(3)'s regulatory authority for specific classes of
nonroad engines or vehicles, like that of section 231(a)(2)(A) for
classes of aircraft engines, is triggered by a finding that certain
sources ``cause, or contribute to,'' air pollution, whereas an adjacent
provision, section 213(a)(2), is triggered by a finding of a
``significant'' contribution from all new and existing nonroad engines
and vehicles. The court looked at the ``ordinary meaning of
`contribute' '' when upholding the EPA's reading of section 213(a)(3).
After referencing dictionary definitions of ``contribute,'' the court
also noted that ``[s]tanding alone, the term has no inherent
connotation as to the magnitude or importance of the relevant `share'
in the effect; certainly it does not incorporate any `significance'
requirement.'' 370 F.3d at 13.\83\ The court found that the bare
``contribute'' language in section 213(a)(3) invests the Administrator
with discretion to exercise judgment regarding what constitutes a
sufficient contribution for the purpose of making a cause or contribute
finding. Id. at 14.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Specifically, the decision noted that `` `contribute' means
simply `to have a share in any act or effect,' Webster's Third New
International Dictionary 496 (1993), or `to have a part or share in
producing,' 3 Oxford English Dictionary 849 (2d ed. 1989).'' Id. at
13.
\84\ The court explained, ``[t]he repeated use of the term
`significant' to modify the contribution required for all nonroad
vehicles, coupled with the omission of this modifier from the
`cause, or contribute to' finding required for individual categories
of new nonroad vehicles, indicates that Congress did not intend to
require a finding of `significant contribution' for individual
vehicle categories.'' Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the statutory language considered in Catawba County and
Bluewater Network, as well as the section 202(a) language that governed
the Agency's previous findings for GHGs emitted by other types of
mobile sources, section 231(a)(2)(A) refers to contribution and does
not specify that the contribution must be significant before an
affirmative finding can be made. To be sure, any finding of a
``contribution'' requires some measureable amount of pollutant
emissions to be resulting from the analyzed source category; a truly
trivial or de minimis ``contribution'' might not count as such
(although such a small level is not presented by the facts of today's
findings). The Administrator therefore has ample discretion in
exercising her reasonable judgment and determining whether, under the
circumstances presented, the cause or contribute criterion has been
met.\85\ As noted above, in addressing provisions in section 202(a),
the D.C. Circuit has explained that the Act at the endangerment finding
step did not require the EPA to identify a precise numerical value or
``a minimum threshold of risk or harm before determining whether an air
pollutant endangers.'' CRR, 684 F.3d at 122-123. Accordingly, EPA ``may
base an endangerment finding on `a lesser risk of greater harm . . . or
a greater risk of lesser harm' or any combination in between.'' Id.
(quoting Ethyl Corp., 541 F.2d at 18). Recognizing the substantial
record of empirical data and scientific evidence that the EPA relied
upon in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the court determined that its
``failure to
[[Page 54438]]
distill this ocean of evidence into a specific number at which
greenhouse gases cause `dangerous' climate change is a function of the
precautionary thrust of the CAA and the multivariate and sometimes
uncertain nature of climate science, not a sign of arbitrary or
capricious decision-making.'' Id. at 123. As the language in section
231(a)(2)(A) is analogous to that in section 202(a), it is clearly
reasonable to apply this interpretation to the endangerment
determination under section 231(a)(2)(A). Moreover, the logic
underlying this interpretation supports the general principle that
under CAA section 231 the EPA is not required to identify a specific
minimum threshold of contribution from potentially subject source
categories in determining whether their emissions ``cause or
contribute'' to the endangering air pollution. The reasonableness of
this principle is further supported by the fact that section 231 does
not impose on the EPA a requirement to find that such contribution is
``significant,'' let alone the sole or major cause of the endangering
air pollution. This context further supports the EPA's interpretation
that section 231(a)(2)(A) does not require some level of contribution
that rises to a pre-determined numerical level or percentage- or mass-
based portion of the overall endangering air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Section V discusses the evidence in this case that supports
the finding of contribution. The EPA need not determine at this time
the circumstances in which emissions would be trivial or de minimis
and would not warrant a finding of contribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, when exercising her judgment in making a cause or
contribute determination, the Administrator not only considers the
cumulative impact, but also looks at the totality of the circumstances
and weight of evidence (e.g., the air pollutant, the air pollution, the
nature of the endangerment, the type or classes of sources at issue,
the number of sources in the source sector or class, and the number and
type of other source sectors or categories that may emit the air
pollutant) when determining whether the emissions ``justify
regulation'' under the CAA. See Catawba County, 571 F.3d at 39
(discussing EPA's interpretation of the term ``contribute'' under CAA
section 107(d) and finding it reasonable for the agency to apply a
totality of the circumstances approach); see also 74 FR at 66542.
Further discussion of this issue can be found in sections IV and V of
this preamble.
4. Summary of Responses to Key Legal Comments on the Interpretation of
the CAA Section 231(a) Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Test
Here we summarize key public comments regarding the legal
interpretation of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) that supports this finding
and the Agency's response. The Response to Comments document contains
the Agency's full response to comments on this topic.
Some commenters strongly supported the proposed findings. These
comments stated, for example, that the proposed findings were clearly
authorized under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) and further noted that the
U.S. Supreme Court had upheld EPA's authority under section 202(a) of
the CAA to make an endangerment finding with regard to GHG emissions
from motor vehicles and that the findings required under section
202(a)(1) are the same as the findings required under section
231(a)(2)(A). Another commenter, however, questioned the EPA's
authority to make endangerment and cause or contribute findings for
GHGs, stating that the EPA had not sufficiently explained its authority
to address pollutants other than NAAQS under CAA section 231. This
commenter made the following points in support of this view. First, the
comment pointed to the use of the term ``air quality control regions''
in CAA sections 231(a)(1)(A) and 231(a)(3) as suggesting that Congress
intended to authorize EPA to issue standards only for pollutants for
which a NAAQS has been established. Second, the comment stated that the
EPA should address this issue in light of a recent Supreme Court case,
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014).
After consideration of these comments, we disagree with the
argument that Congress intended to only authorize the EPA to address
NAAQS pollutants under section 231(a)(2)(A). That provision of the Act
requires the EPA to issue standards ``applicable to the emission of any
air pollutant from any class or classes of aircraft engines which in
[her] judgment causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Looking to that plain language,
there is nothing that limits the scope of the air pollutants that can
be found to contribute to possible endangerment, and therefore which
the EPA may be required to regulate, under that section to NAAQS
pollutants. To the contrary, the language is clear that the EPA would
be required to regulate aircraft engine emissions of ``any air
pollutant'' as long the pre-requisite endangerment and cause or
contribute findings are made. ``Air pollutant'' is not defined in
section 231; instead, the definition under CAA section 302(g) applies,
which states in relevant part that `` `air pollutant' means any air
pollutant agent or combination of such agents, including any physical,
chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise
enters ambient air.'' CAA section 302(g) (emphasis added). Interpreting
this provision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court observed
that ``[o]n its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of
whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use
of the word `any.' '' 549 U.S. 497, 529 (2007). It further stated that
``[b]ecause greenhouse gases fit well within'' this ``capacious
definition of `air pollutant' '' the EPA has the statutory authority to
regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles under CAA
section 202(a)(2). Id. at 532. As noted above, sections 231(a)(2)(A)
and 202(a)(1) have parallel structures, use substantially the same
language, and use the same definition of air pollutant. As that
definition is ``unambiguous'' in its inclusion of GHGs, Massachusetts,
549 U.S. at 529, the Act clearly authorizes the EPA to make these
findings for GHGs under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Moreover, one U.S.
District Court has also ruled that the EPA has a duty to determine
whether aircraft engine emissions of GHGs cause or contribute to
endangerment, and that ruling was not appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA, 794 F. Supp. 2d 151
(D.D.C. 2011). Consequently, the statutory language imposing the EPA's
duties under section 231(a)(2)(A), and relevant case law in the GHG
context, do not support the commenter's limited reading of the EPA's
authority under that language.
The commenter points to the use of the term ``air quality control
regions'' in nearby paragraphs of CAA sections 231(a)(1)(A) and (a)(3)
to support its suggestion that Congress intended to limit the EPA's
analysis and regulatory authority to NAAQS pollutants in section
231(a)(2)(A). That argument is flawed for several reasons. The
commenter points to section 231(a)(1), which relates to a study the EPA
was to conduct of emissions of air pollutants from aircraft, and to
section 231(a)(3), which requires the EPA to hold public hearings with
respect to proposed standards under section 231(a)(2) in ``air quality
control regions . . . most seriously affected by aircraft emissions''
to the extent practicable. These obligations are imposed in addition to
those imposed by section 231(a)(2)(A), and their separate establishment
does not by that fact narrow the EPA's scope of authority regarding its
obligations imposed under section 231(a)(2)(A). They are additive, not
subtractive, duties. Moreover, one of those added
[[Page 54439]]
duties, to investigate the extent to which aircraft emissions affect
air quality in air quality control regions under section 231(a)(1)(A),
was a one-time duty that corresponded to NAAQS that have long-since
been revised, whereas the EPA's duty to propose and promulgate aircraft
emission standards is a continuing one to be conducted ``from time to
time'' under section 231(a)(2)(A). The commenter provides no reasoning
to explain why these provisions imposing additional duties should be
read to limit the scope of section 231(a)(2) beyond their proximity.
Sections 231(a)(1) and (a)(3) do not speak to what pollutants may be
addressed under section 231(a)(2). Further, there is no incompatibility
between the use of the term ``air quality control regions'' in those
provisions to identify geographic areas where certain activities are to
occur and making the endangerment and cause or contribute findings for
GHGs that are finalized in this action. In fact, the EPA long ago
discharged its one-time duty under CAA section 231(a)(1)(A) \86\ and,
after proposing new aircraft engine emission standards, could also meet
its obligations to hold public hearings in the air quality control
regions most seriously affected by aircraft emissions, to the extent
practicable, all while meeting its obligations under section
231(a)(2)(A). Accordingly, the EPA does not interpret sections
231(a)(1) and (a)(3) to limit the scope of the duties and authority
established by section 231(a)(2) to NAAQS pollutants. Further, the EPA
has previously implemented section 231(a)(2) to reach air pollutants
for which no NAAQS exists and has applied that provision to establish
standards for non-NAAQS pollutants, such as smoke. See, e.g., 40 CFR
87.21(a)-(c), (e), 87.23(a)-(c), and 87.31(a)-(c) emission standards
for smoke. The EPA's regulation of non-NAAQS smoke emissions from
aircraft engines has never been judicially challenged. Finally, even if
the Act were ambiguous, which it is not, the EPA's interpretation of
section 231(a)(2) to include authority to address GHGs, is reasonable
for the reasons described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ USEPA, 1973: Aircraft Emissions: Impact On Air Quality And
Feasibility Of Control. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 102
pp. Available at http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000T6Z0.txt (last accessed April 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in UARG cited by the commenter
does not change this analysis. The commenter misinterprets the UARG
decision to mean that for purposes of determining applicability of the
CAA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) preconstruction
permitting program, ``air pollutant'' meant only pollutants for which
NAAQS had been established. The UARG decision, however, does not limit
PSD applicability to only NAAQS pollutants. In fact, the Court
recognized that such theories had been advanced during the course of
that litigation but expressly declined to consider them in its
decision. See 134 S.Ct. 2427, 2442 n.6 (2014). Rather, in UARG, the
Court's holding pertained only to GHGs. More specifically, the Court
held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for the
specific purpose of determining whether a source is a major source (or
a modification thereof) and thus required to obtain a PSD permit or an
operating permit under title V of the CAA. Id. at 2449.
Further, the regulatory context that was addressed in UARG is
distinguishable from that of this action. In UARG, the Court explained
that Massachusetts does not prevent an Agency from using statutory
context to infer that in some provisions ``air pollutant'' refers only
to those airborne substances that ``may sensibly be encompassed within
the particular regulatory program.'' 134 S.Ct. at 2441. However, the
commenter offers no reason why GHG emissions from U.S. covered aircraft
could not ``sensibly be encompassed'' under CAA section 231; nor is the
EPA aware of any such reasons. In fact, UARG itself recognizes a
distinction between the statutory scheme of the CAA permitting programs
at issue in that case and the mobile source programs under Title II of
the Act which were at issue in Massachusetts. Namely, the UARG opinion
notes that part of the Court's reasoning in Massachusetts was based on
its understanding that ``nothing in the Act suggested that regulating
greenhouse gases under [Title II] would conflict with the statutory
design. Title II would not compel EPA to regulate in any way that would
be `extreme,' `counterintuitive,' or contrary to `common sense.' . . .
At most, it would require EPA to take the modest step of adding
greenhouse-gas standards to the roster of new-motor-vehicle emission
regulations.'' 134 S.Ct. at 2441 (quoting Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at
531). Like Massachusetts, the statutory provisions for this action are
found in Title II, and closely parallel the structure and language of
the statutory program at issue in Massachusetts.\87\ Compare CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) with 202(a)(1). Nor will reading the Title II
provision section 231(a)(2)(A) to extend to GHGs result in a regulatory
outcome that would be extreme, counterintuitive or contrary to common
sense. Instead, as the D.C. Circuit has previously ruled, the EPA's
discretion when establishing reasonable standards under section 231 is
exceptionally broad. See NACAA, 489 F.3d at 1230-32. In short, the UARG
opinion in no way precludes the EPA's interpretation that ``air
pollutant'' as used in CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) includes GHGs, but
rather supports that interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Although this comment asserts that section 202(a) does not
include mention of ``air quality control region'' as other
provisions of section 231(a) do, that distinction is immaterial. As
described above, the use of that term in other paragraphs imposing
additional duties beyond those established by section 231(a)(2)(A)
does not affect what pollutants may be addressed under section
231(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that the commenter is suggesting that the EPA should
exercise its discretion to interpret CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) to
exclude GHGs, the EPA declines to do so. The commenter has provided no
persuasive reason for such an exclusion. Moreover, to make the
threshold findings in this action, the EPA must, fundamentally, answer
only two questions: Whether the particular ``air pollution''--here, the
six well-mixed GHGs--``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare,'' and whether emissions of those six well-mixed GHGs
from U.S. covered aircraft engines ``cause, or contribute to'' that
endangerment. See CRR, 648 F.3d at 117 (interpreting analogous
provisions in CAA section 202(a)). Because the EPA answers both of
these questions in the affirmative for emissions of the six well-mixed
GHGs from U.S. covered aircraft engines--based on extensive scientific
evidence and emissions information, as explained in detail in sections
IV and V below--it is appropriate and reasonable to make both
endangerment and cause or contribute findings under section
231(a)(2)(A) in this action.
In sum, after considering all of the relevant information,
including that in public comments, the EPA interprets section
231(a)(2)(A) to include authority to address GHGs from U.S. covered
aircraft engines. This interpretation is consistent with both its own
and with judicial interpretations that the EPA's authority under the
analogous section 202(a) unambiguously extends to GHGs.
B. Air Pollutant, Public Health and Welfare
The CAA defines both ``air pollutant'' and ``welfare.'' Air
pollutant is defined as: ``any air pollution agent or combination of
such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological,
[[Page 54440]]
radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and
byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or
otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to
the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has
identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for
which the term `air pollutant' is used.'' CAA section 302(g). GHGs fit
well within this capacious definition. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549
U.S. at 532. They are ``without a doubt'' physical chemical substances
emitted into the ambient air. Id. at 529. Section V below contains
further discussion of the term ``air pollutant'' for purposes of this
section 231(a)(2)(A) contribution finding, which uses the same
definition of air pollutant as the one the EPA adopted for purposes of
the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
Regarding ``welfare,'' the CAA states that ``[a]ll language
referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to,
effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals,
wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration
of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on
economic values and on personal comfort and well-being, whether caused
by transformation, conversion, or combination with other air
pollutants.'' CAA section 302(h). This definition is quite broad.
Importantly, it is not an exclusive list due to the use of the term
``includes, but is not limited to . . .'' Effects other than those
listed here may also be considered effects on welfare.
Moreover, the terms contained within the definition are themselves
expansive. For example, deterioration to property could include damage
caused by extreme weather events. Effects on vegetation could include
impacts from changes in temperature and precipitation as well as from
the spreading of invasive species or insects. Prior welfare effects
evaluated by the EPA in other contexts include impacts on vegetation,
as well as reduced visibility, changes in nutrient balance and acidity
of the environment, soiling of buildings and statues, and erosion of
building materials. See, e.g., Final Secondary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur, 77 FR 20218 (April
3, 2012); Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large Spark Ignition
Engines and Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-Based), 67 FR 68242
(November 8, 2002); Final Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Sulfur Control Requirements, 66 FR 5002 (January 18,
2001).
Although the CAA defines ``effects on welfare'' as discussed above,
there is no definition of ``public health'' in the Clean Air Act. The
Supreme Court has discussed the concept of ``public health'' in the
context of whether costs can be considered when setting NAAQS. Whitman
v. American Trucking Ass'n, 531 U.S. 457 (2001). In Whitman, the Court
imbued the term with its most natural meaning: ``the health of the
public.'' Id. at 466. When considering public health, the EPA has
looked at morbidity, such as impairment of lung function, aggravation
of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and other acute and chronic
health effects, as well as mortality. See, e.g., Final National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for Ozone, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
IV. The Administrator's Finding Under CAA Section 231 That Greenhouse
Gases Endanger Public Health and Welfare
The Administrator finds, for purposes of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A),
that elevated concentrations of the six well-mixed GHGs constitute air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger both the
public health and welfare of current and future generations. The
Administrator is making this finding specifically with regard to the
same definition of the ``air pollution'' under CAA section 231(a)(2) as
that used under CAA section 202(a)(1), namely the combined mix of
CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, which together are the root
cause and best understood drivers of human-induced climate change and
the resulting impacts on public health and welfare. The EPA received
public comments on this definition of air pollution from the proposed
findings, and summarizes responses to some of those key comments below;
fuller responses to public comments can be found in EPA's Response to
Comments document included in the docket. The Administrator addresses
other climate-forcing agents both in the 2009 Endangerment Finding \88\
and in this action; however, these substances are not included in the
air pollution definition used in this action for the reasons discussed
below in section IV.B.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ 74 FR at 66519-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section IV.A below discusses the EPA's approach to evaluating the
scientific evidence before it. Section IV.B discusses the scope and
nature of the relevant air pollution for the endangerment finding under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), including a discussion of other substances
with climate effects that were addressed but not included in the
definition of air pollution. Section IV.C summarizes the scientific
evidence that the air pollution is reasonably anticipated to endanger
both public health and welfare. Section IV.D summarizes the
Administrator's conclusion for purposes of section 231(a)(2)(A), in
light of the evidence, analysis, and conclusions that led to the 2009
Endangerment Finding as well as more recent evidence and consideration
of public comments, that emissions of the six well-mixed GHGs in the
atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and
welfare.
A. The Science Upon Which the Agency Relied
This finding under section 231(a)(2)(A) reflects the EPA's careful
consideration not only of the scientific and technical record for the
2009 Endangerment Finding, but also of science assessments released
since 2009, which, as illustrated below, strengthen and further support
the judgment that the six well-mixed GHGs in the atmosphere may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. The
Administrator's view is that the body of scientific evidence amassed in
the record for the 2009 Endangerment Finding compellingly supports an
endangerment finding for the six well-mixed GHGs under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). While the EPA is providing a summary of newer scientific
assessments below, the EPA is also relying on the same scientific and
technical evidence discussed in the notices for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding in these final findings for purposes of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A).\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See sections III of the 2009 Proposed Endangerment Finding
and sections III and IV of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. 74 FR at
18894-18904 and 74 FR at 66510-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is following the same approach toward technical and
scientific information in this finding under section 231(a)(2)(A) as it
used in the 2009 Endangerment Finding. More specifically, in the 2009
Endangerment Finding the EPA's approach to providing the technical and
scientific information to inform the Administrator's judgment regarding
the question of whether GHGs endanger public health and welfare was to
consider the recent, major assessments by the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP), the IPCC, and the National Research Council
of the
[[Page 54441]]
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (referred to
interchangeably as NRC or NAS) as the primary scientific and technical
basis informing the endangerment finding. These assessments draw
synthesis conclusions across thousands of individual peer-reviewed
studies that appear in scientific journals, and the reports themselves
undergo additional peer review. The EPA has considered the processes
and procedures employed by the USGCRP, IPCC, and the NRC in terms of
factors such as their objectivity, integrity, utility, and
transparency, including how they have employed rigorous peer review
processes. The EPA considers these assessments to represent the best
available science that maintains the highest level of adherence to
Agency guidelines for information quality.\90\ These assessments have
been adequately peer reviewed in a manner commensurate with the EPA's
Peer Review Policy \91\ and guidance in the EPA's Peer Review
Handbook.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Applicable guidance includes U.S. EPA 2012: Addendum to A
Summary of General Assessment Factors for Evaluating the Quality of
Scientific and Technical Information, 9 pp. Available at https://www.epa.gov/risk/guidance-evaluating-and-documenting-quality-existing-scientific-and-technical-information (last accessed July
11, 2016) and U.S. EPA, 2002: Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing
the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information
Disseminated by the EPA, 61 pp. Available at https://www.epa.gov/quality/guidelines-ensuring-and-maximizing-quality-objectivity-utility-and-integrity-information (last accessed July 11, 2016).
\91\ U.S. EPA, 2006: Memorandum on Peer Review and Peer
Involvement at the U.S. EPA, 4 pp. Available at https://www.epa.gov/osa/memorandum-peer-review-and-peer-involvement-epa (last accessed
April 12, 2016).
\92\ U.S. EPA, 2015: EPA Peer Review Handbook, Fourth Edition,
248 pp. Available at https://www.epa.gov/osa/peer-review-handbook-4th-edition-2015-0 (last accessed April 12, 2016). Also, the EPA
Science Advisory Board reviewed this approach to the underlying
technical and scientific information supporting this action, and
concluded that the approach had precedent and the action will be
based on well-reviewed information. A copy of this letter and all
other relevant EPA peer review documentation is located in the
docket for today's final action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is giving careful consideration to all of the scientific
and technical information in the record. However, the Administrator
considers the major scientific assessments as the primary scientific
and technical basis of her endangerment decision. This provides
assurance that the Administrator is basing her judgment on the best
available, well-vetted science that reflects the consensus of the
climate science research community. These assessments addressed the
scientific issues that the EPA was required to examine, were
comprehensive in their coverage of the GHG and climate change issues,
and underwent rigorous and exacting peer review by the expert
community, as well as rigorous levels of U.S. government review, in
which the EPA took part. The major findings of the USGCRP, IPCC, and
NRC assessments support the Administrator's determination that elevated
concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger the public health and welfare of current and future
generations. The EPA presented this scientific support at length in the
comprehensive record for the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
The EPA reviewed ten administrative petitions for reconsideration
of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in 2010.\93\ In the Reconsideration
Denial, the Administrator denied those petitions on the basis of the
Petitioners' failure to provide substantial support for their argument
that the EPA should revise the 2009 Endangerment Finding and their
objections' lack of ``central relevance'' to the Finding.\94\ The EPA
prepared an accompanying three-volume Response to Petitions document to
provide additional information, often more technical in nature, in
response to the arguments, claims, and assertions by the Petitioners to
reconsider the Endangerment Finding.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Administrative petitions are available from www3.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html (last accessed June 21,
2016), and in the docket for the 2009 Endangerment Finding: EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0171.
\94\ U.S. EPA, 2010: Denial of the Petitions to Reconsider the
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases
Under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 75 FR 49557 (August 13,
2010) (``Reconsideration Denial''). In that notice, the EPA
thoroughly considered the scientific and technical information
relevant to the petitions. In addition to the other information
discussed in the present notice, the EPA is also relying on the
scientific and technical evidence discussed in that prior notice for
purposes of its proposed determination under CAA section 231. See
section III of the Reconsideration Denial.
\95\ The Response to Petitions document is available from
www3.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html (last
accessed June 21, 2016), and in the docket for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 Endangerment Finding and the 2010 Reconsideration Denial
were challenged in a lawsuit before the D.C. Circuit.\96\ On June 26,
2012, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Endangerment Finding and the
Reconsideration Denial, ruling that the Finding (including the
Reconsideration Denial) was not arbitrary or capricious, was consistent
with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (which
affirmed the EPA's authority to regulate GHGs) \97\ and the text and
structure of the CAA, and was adequately supported by the
administrative record.\98\ The D.C. Circuit also agreed with the EPA
that the Petitioners had ``not provided substantial support for their
argument that the Endangerment Finding should be revised.'' \99\ It
found that the EPA had based its decision on ``substantial scientific
evidence,'' observing that ``EPA's scientific evidence of record
included support for the proposition that greenhouse gases trap heat on
earth that would otherwise dissipate into space; that this `greenhouse
effect' warms the climate; that human activity is contributing to
increased atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases; and that the climate
system is warming,'' as well as providing extensive scientific evidence
for EPA's determination that anthropogenically induced climate change
threatens both public health and welfare.\100\ The D.C. Circuit further
noted that the EPA's reliance on assessments was consistent with the
methods decision-makers often use to make a science-based
judgment.\101\ Moreover, it supported the EPA's reliance on the major
scientific assessment reports conducted by USGCRP, IPCC, and NRC and
found:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012), reh'g en banc
denied, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25997, 26313, 26315 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
(CRR).
\97\ 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
\98\ CRR, 684 F.3d at 117-27.
\99\ Id. at 125.
\100\ Id. at 120-121.
\101\ Id. at 121.
The EPA evaluated the processes used to develop the various
assessment reports, reviewed their contents, and considered the
depth of the scientific consensus the reports represented. Based on
these evaluations, the EPA determined the assessments represented
the best source material to use in deciding whether GHG emissions
may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare .
. . It makes no difference that much of the scientific evidence in
large part consisted of ``syntheses'' of individual studies and
research. Even individual studies and research papers often
synthesize past work in an area and then build upon it. This is how
science works. The EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of
the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Id. at 120.
In addition, the EPA's consideration of the major assessments to
inform the Administrator's judgment allowed for full and explicit
recognition of scientific uncertainty regarding the endangerment posed
by the atmospheric buildup of GHGs. The Administrator considered the
fact that ``some aspects of climate change science and the projected
impacts are more certain than others.'' \103\ The D.C. Circuit
[[Page 54442]]
subsequently noted that ``the existence of some uncertainty does not,
without more, warrant invalidation of an endangerment finding.'' \104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ 74 FR at 66524.
\104\ CRR, 684 F.3d at 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the Supreme Court granted some of the petitions for
certiorari that were filed, while denying others, but agreed to decide
only the question: ``Whether EPA permissibly determined that its
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles
triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for
stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.'' \105\ Thus, the
Supreme Court did not disturb the D.C. Circuit's holding that affirmed
the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Utility Air Reg. Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2438
(2014) (internal marks and citations omitted). See also Virginia v.
EPA, 134 S. Ct. 418 (2013), Pac. Legal Found. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 418
(2013), and CRR, 134 S. Ct. 468 (2013) (all denying cert.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the closure of the administrative record concerning the 2009
Endangerment Finding (including the denial of petitions for
reconsideration), a number of new major, peer-reviewed scientific
assessments have been released. The EPA carefully reviewed the updated
scientific conclusions in these assessments, largely to evaluate
whether they would lead the EPA in this CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
finding to use a different interpretation of, or place more or less
weight on, the major findings reflected in the previous assessment
reports that underpinned the Administrator's judgment that the six
well-mixed GHGs endanger public health and welfare. The EPA reviewed
the following new major peer-reviewed scientific assessments:
IPCC's 2013-2014 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) \106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].Cambridge University
Press, 1535 pp, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324; IPCC, 2014: Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global
and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,
T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B.
Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and
L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 1132 pp; IPCC, 2014:
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B:
Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach,
T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B.
Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and
L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 688 pp; and IPCC,
2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R.
Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A.
Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schl[ouml]mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 1435 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPCC's 2012 ``Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme
Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation'' (SREX)
\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of
Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken,
K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen,
M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 582
pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USGCRP's 2014 ``Climate Change Impacts in the United States:
the Third National Climate Assessment'' (NCA3) \108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, 841 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC's 2010 ``Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet
the Challenges of a Changing Ocean'' (Ocean Acidification) \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ NRC, 2010: Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to
Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean. The National Academies
Press, 188 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC's 2011 ``Climate Change, the Indoor Environment, and
Health'' (Indoor Environment) \110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ NRC Institute of Medicine, 2011: Climate Change, the
Indoor Environment, and Health. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press, 272 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC's 2011 ``Report on Climate Stabilization Targets:
Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia''
(Climate Stabilization Targets) \111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ NRC 2011: Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions,
Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia. The National
Academies Press, 298 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC's 2011 ``National Security Implications for U.S. Naval
Forces'' (National Security Implications) \112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ NRC, 2011: National Security Implications of Climate
Change for U.S. Naval Forces. The National Academies Press, 226 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC's 2011 ``Understanding Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for Our
Climate Future'' (Understanding Earth's Deep Past) \113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ NRC, 2011: Understanding Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for
Our Climate Future. The National Academies Press, 212 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC's 2012 ``Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California,
Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future'' (Sea Level Rise)
\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ NRC, 2012: Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California,
Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. The National
Academies Press, 201 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC's 2013 ``Climate and Social Stress: Implications for
Security Analysis'' (Climate and Social Stress) \115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ NRC, 2013: Climate and Social Stress: Implications for
Security Analysis. The National Academies Press, 280 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC's 2013 ``Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change'' (Abrupt
Impacts) \116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ NRC, 2013: Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating
Surprises. The National Academies Press, 250 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC's 2014 ``The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research
Questions'' (Arctic) \117\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ NRC, 2014: The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging
Research Questions. The National Academies Press, 220 pp.
From its review, the EPA finds that these new assessments are
largely consistent with, and in many cases strengthen and add to, the
already compelling and comprehensive scientific evidence detailing the
role of the six well-mixed GHGs in driving climate change, explained in
the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
1. Response to Key Comments on the EPA's Approach to the Science
Here we summarize key public comments regarding the approach to the
science--see the Response to Comments document for the Agency's full
responses to comments. Several commenters agreed and no commenters
disagreed with the EPA's approach to the science for making an
endangerment decision specifically with respect to the six well-mixed
GHGs (see section IV.B.7 for a summary of key public comments and our
responses to commenters who argued that the science supports expanding
the scope of the endangerment finding to include other climate forcers
beyond the six well-mixed GHGs). They specifically mentioned their
support for the EPA's approach to considering the scientific and
technical information in the record of the 2009 Endangerment Finding--
primarily the recent, major assessments by the USGCRP, the IPCC, and
the NRC--as well as the most recent scientific assessments for
additional support and justification. For the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, the EPA agrees with the commenters that this approach
ensures that the Administrator considers the best available scientific
and technical information.
B. The Air Pollution Consists of Six Key Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gases
The Administrator must define the scope and nature of the relevant
air pollution for the endangerment finding under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). In this
[[Page 54443]]
final action, the Administrator finds that the air pollution is the
combined mix of six well-mixed GHGs, which together are the root cause
and best understood drivers of human-induced climate change and the
resulting impacts on public health and welfare. These six GHGs--
CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride--are considered an aggregate
group for purposes of this finding. The Administrator's definition of
air pollution for purposes of section 231(a)(2)(A) is made in light of
(1) the evidence, analysis, and conclusions that led to the 2009
Endangerment Finding; (2) more recent evidence from scientific
assessments published since 2009; and (3) consideration of public
comments, for which key comments and responses are summarized in
sections IV.B.6 and 7 below. The Administrator considered five primary
reasons in the 2009 Endangerment Finding for focusing on this aggregate
group as the air pollution: (1) They share common physical properties
that influence their climate effects; (2) on the basis of these common
physical properties, they have been determined to be the root cause of
human-induced climate change, are the best-understood driver of climate
change, and are expected to remain the primary driver of future climate
change; (3) they are the common focus of climate change science
research and policy analyses and discussions; (4) using the combined
mix of these gases as the definition (versus an individual gas-by-gas
approach) is consistent with the science, because risks and impacts
associated with GHG-induced climate change are not assessed on an
individual gas-by-gas basis; and (5) using the combined mix of these
gases is consistent with past EPA practice, where separate substances
from different sources, but with common properties, may be treated as a
class (e.g., oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, volatile organic
compounds).\118\ After consideration of all information before her,
including public comments, as explained below, the Administrator
maintains her view that these five reasons for defining the scope and
nature of the air pollution to be these six well-mixed GHGs remain
valid and well supported by the current science and are therefore
reasonable bases for adopting the same definition of ``air pollution''
in this section 231(a)(2)(A) finding as that under section 202(a)(1).
The following subsections summarize the five reasons detailed in the
2009 Endangerment Finding and as appropriate, summarize additional
supporting information from the recent scientific assessments published
since 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ 74 FR at 66517-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Common Physical Properties of the Six Greenhouse Gases
The six GHGs share common physical properties that are relevant to
the climate change problem. They all are sufficiently long lived in the
atmosphere such that, once emitted, concentrations of each gas become
globally well mixed in the atmosphere.\119\ A well-mixed gas has
relatively uniform concentrations in the atmosphere anywhere around the
globe, with little local or regional variation except immediately next
to sources or sinks. A given amount of a well-mixed gas emitted
anywhere will have similar impacts on global concentrations regardless
of the geographic location of emission. All six GHGs trap outgoing heat
that would otherwise escape to space, and all are directly emitted from
a source as a GHG rather than becoming a GHG in the atmosphere after
emission of a precursor gas. This fundamental scientific understanding
of the intrinsic physical, chemical, and atmospheric properties of the
six GHGs has not changed and remains supported by the more recent
climate change assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ The properties ``long lived'' and ``well mixed'' used in
this document mean that the gas has a lifetime in the atmosphere
sufficient to become globally well mixed throughout the entire
atmosphere, which requires a minimum atmospheric lifetime of about
one year. Atmospheric lifetime is a measure of how long a type of
molecule is likely to remain in the atmosphere before it breaks
down, reacts with other gases, or is absorbed by Earth's surface.
The IPCC often refers interchangeably to the six well-mixed GHGs as
long-lived GHGs; however, the IPCC and others in the international
climate change community, such as the United Nations Environment
Programme, also refer to methane and some HFCs as ``near-term
climate forcers,'' ``short-lived climate forcers,'' or ``short-lived
climate pollutants.'' These terms refer to those compounds whose
impacts on Earth's climate occurs primarily with the first decade
after their emission. According to the IPCC AR5 (2014), methane has
an atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years. One of the most commonly
used hydrofluorocarbons (HFC-134a) has a lifetime of about 13 years.
Thus, methane and some HFCs are both short- and long-lived GHGs--
i.e., they have lifetimes long enough to become globally well mixed
in the atmosphere, but short enough to primarily affect Earth's
climate within a decade after their emission. For comparison,
nitrous oxide has a lifetime of around 130 years; sulfur
hexafluoride over 3,000 years; and some perfluorocarbons up to
10,000 to 50,000 years. CO2 is sometimes approximated as
having a lifetime of roughly 100 years, but for a given amount of
CO2 emitted, a better description is that some fraction
of the atmospheric increase in concentration is quickly absorbed by
the oceans and terrestrial vegetation, some fraction of the
atmospheric increase will only slowly decrease over a number of
years, and a small portion of the increase will remain for many
centuries or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Six Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gases Are the Primary and Best
Understood Driver of Current and Projected Climate Change
The Administrator judges that the scientific evidence is compelling
that together the six well-mixed GHGs constitute the largest
anthropogenic driver of climate change. In addition, the six well-mixed
GHGs are the best-understood driver of climate change because they have
well-understood physical properties as described above that govern
their climate effect (e.g., their radiative forcing, a measure of their
total net effect on the global energy balance). As explained in more
detail in the 2009 Endangerment Finding,\120\ the Administrator made
the judgment that the scientific evidence is compelling that elevated
concentrations of heat-trapping GHGs are the root cause of recently
observed climate change and that the scientific record showed that most
of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-
20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic GHG concentrations. The attribution of observed climate
change to anthropogenic activities was based on multiple lines of
evidence. The first line of evidence arises from our basic physical
understanding of the effects of changing concentrations of GHGs,
natural factors, and other human impacts on the climate system. The
second line of evidence arises from indirect, historical estimates of
past climate changes that suggest that the changes in global surface
temperature over the last several decades are unusual. The third line
of evidence arises from the use of computer-based climate models to
simulate the likely patterns of response of the climate system to
different forcing mechanisms (both natural and anthropogenic). Observed
increases in global average air temperatures are driving observed
climate impacts like widespread melting of snow and ice and rising
global average sea level. The Administrator also considered these
observed changes as additional evidence of the unequivocal warming of
the climate system driven primarily by elevated atmospheric GHG
concentrations because the consistency of these observed changes in
physical and biological systems and the observed significant warming
cannot be explained entirely due to natural variability or other
confounding non-climate factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ 74 FR at 66517-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54444]]
In addition, as described in more detail in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding,\121\ the Administrator made the judgment that the scientific
evidence is compelling that six GHGs are expected to remain the primary
driver of future climate change and that, without substantial and near-
term efforts to significantly reduce emissions, it can be expected that
atmospheric concentrations of the six GHGs will continue to climb and
thus lead to ever greater rates of climate change. Given the long
atmospheric lifetime of the six well-mixed GHGs, which range from
roughly a decade to centuries, future atmospheric GHG concentrations
for the remainder of this century and beyond will be influenced not
only by future emissions but indeed by present-day and near-term
emissions. Consideration of future plausible scenarios, and how our
current GHG emissions essentially commit present and future generations
to cope with an altered atmosphere and climate, reinforces the
Administrator's judgment that it is appropriate to define the
combination of the six key greenhouse gases as the air pollution. Most
future scenarios that assume no explicit GHG mitigation actions (beyond
those already enacted) project increasing global GHG emissions over the
century, which in turn result in climbing GHG concentrations.
Concentrations of the six well-mixed GHGs increase even for those
scenarios where annual emissions toward the end of the century are
assumed to be lower than current annual emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ 74 FR at 66518-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has also carefully reviewed the recent assessments of the
IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC. The EPA finds that these recent assessments
support and strengthen the evidence cited in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding that current atmospheric GHG concentrations are now at elevated
and essentially unprecedented levels primarily as a result of both
historic and current anthropogenic emissions. The 2014 USGCRP NCA3
states, ``Atmospheric levels measured at Mauna Loa in Hawai`i and at
other sites around the world reached 400 parts per million in 2013,
higher than the Earth has experienced in over a million years.'' \122\
Such concentrations are the primary driver of observed changes in
Earth's climate system, namely increased global average temperatures
that drive climate impacts like widespread melting of snow and ice and
rising global average sea level (discussed in more detail in section
IV.C). The recent assessments of the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC also
describe how these six well-mixed GHGs play a dominant role in future
warming of the climate system. The USGCRP NCA3 makes the following
finding with very high confidence: ``The magnitude of climate change
beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-
trapping gases emitted globally, and how sensitive the Earth's climate
is to those emissions.'' \123\ Key findings from the recent assessments
regarding global and U.S. trends are described briefly below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 739.
\123\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p.20. See also p. 736: ``Past emissions of heat-trapping
gases have already committed the world to a certain amount of future
climate change. How much more the climate will change depends on
future emissions and the sensitivity of the climate system to those
emissions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Key Observed Trends Driven Primarily by the Six Well-Mixed GHGs
According to the IPCC AR5, observations of the Earth's globally
averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature over the period
1880 to 2012 show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] degrees Celsius or
1.53 [1.17 to 1.91] degrees Fahrenheit.\124\ The IPCC AR5 concludes
that the increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations since 1750, plus
other human activities (e.g., land use change and aerosol emissions),
has had a radiative forcing effect estimated to be 2.3 Watts per square
meter (W/m\2\) in 2011.\125\ Radiative forcing is a measure of a
substance's total net effect on the global energy balance for which a
positive number represents a warming effect and a negative number
represents a cooling effect. The IPCC's estimate is an increase from
the previous 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) total net
estimate of 1.6 W/m\2\ that was referred to in the record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding. The reasons for this increase include continued
increases in GHG concentrations, as well as reductions in the estimated
negative forcing due to aerosol particles. The IPCC AR5 rates the level
of confidence \126\ in their radiative forcing estimates as ``high''
for methane and ``very high'' for CO2 and nitrous oxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ ``IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor,
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 29 pp.
\125\ Ibid.
\126\ The IPCC expresses levels of confidence using five
qualifiers: Very low, low, medium, high, and very high. These levels
are based on a qualitative evaluation of the robustness of the
evidence (considering the type, amount, quality, and consistency of
evidence such as data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models,
and expert judgment) and the degree of agreement among the findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new assessments also have greater confidence since the 2009
Endangerment Finding in attributing recent warming to human causes. The
IPCC AR5 stated that it is extremely likely (>95 percent likelihood)
that human influences have been the dominant cause of warming since the
mid-20th century, which is an even stronger statement than the AR4
conclusion that it is very likely (>90 percent likelihood) that most of
the increase in temperature since the mid-20th century was due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. The AR4
conclusion was referred to in the record for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding. In addition, the IPCC AR5 found that concentrations of
CO2 and several other of the major GHGs are higher than they
have been in at least 800,000 years. This is an increase from what was
reported in IPCC AR4, which found higher concentrations than in at
least 650,000 years.
The USGCRP NCA3 states that there is very high confidence \127\
that the global climate change of the past 50 years is primarily due to
human activities. Human activities are affecting climate through
increasing atmospheric levels of heat-trapping GHGs, through changing
levels of various particles that can have either a heating or cooling
influence on the atmosphere, and through activities such as land use
changes that alter the reflectivity of the Earth's surface and cause
climatic warming and cooling effects. The USGCRP concludes that
``considering all known natural and human drivers of climate since
1750, a strong net warming from long-lived greenhouse gases produced by
human activities dominates the recent climate record.'' \128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ The NCA expresses levels of confidence using four
qualifiers: low, medium, high, and very high. These levels are based
on the strength and consistency of the observed evidence; the skill,
range, and consistency of model projections; and insights from peer-
reviewed sources.
\128\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These recent and strong conclusions attributing recent observed
global warming to human influence have been made despite what some have
termed a
[[Page 54445]]
warming slowdown or ``hiatus'' over the past 15 years or so. The IPCC
AR5 notes that global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial
natural decadal and interannual variability. Short-term variability
does not alter conclusions about the long-term climate trend that the
IPCC AR5 finds after its review of independently verified observational
records: ``Each of the past three decades has been successively warmer
at the Earth's surface than all the previous decades in the
instrumental record, and the first decade of the 21st century has been
the warmest.'' 129 130
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].Cambridge University
Press, p. 161.
\130\ Furthermore, we note that according to both NOAA and NASA,
2015 was the warmest year in the modern instrumental record for
globally averaged surface temperature, breaking the record
previously held by 2014. This now means that the last fifteen years
have been fifteen of the sixteen warmest years on record. Available
at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513 (last accessed April
11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature trends at the global level have also been observed
regionally and in the United States. In the Northern Hemisphere, the
IPCC AR5 finds that the last 30 years were likely the warmest 30-year
period of the last 1400 years. The USGCRP NCA3 states with very high
confidence that ``U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3 [deg]F
to 1.9 [deg]F since record keeping began in 1895; most of this increase
has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the nation's
warmest on record.'' \131\ The USGCRP also notes that the rate of U.S.
temperature increase over the past 4 to 5 decades has been greater than
the rate observed in earlier decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Key Projections Based Primarily on Future Scenarios of the Six Well-
Mixed GHGs
Future temperature changes will depend on what path the world
follows with respect to GHG emissions and associated levels of GHG
concentrations in the atmosphere. The NRC Climate Stabilization Targets
assessment concludes that CO2 emissions are currently
altering the atmosphere's composition and will continue to alter
Earth's climate for thousands of years. The NRC Understanding Earth's
Deep Past assessment finds that ``the magnitude and rate of the present
greenhouse gas increase place the climate system in what could be one
of the most severe increases in radiative forcing of the global climate
system in Earth history.'' \132\ A key future projection of this
assessment is that by the end of the century, if no emissions
reductions are made, CO2 concentrations are projected to
increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30
million years. In its high emission scenario, the IPCC AR5 projects
that global temperatures by the end of the century will likely be 2.6
to 4.8 degrees Celsius (4.7 to 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than
today. Temperatures on land and in northern latitudes will likely warm
even faster than the global average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ NRC, 2011: Understanding Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for
Our Climate Future. The National Academies Press, p. 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the United States, the USGCRP NCA3 concludes, ``Warming is
ultimately projected for all parts of the nation during this century.
In the next few decades, this warming will be roughly 2 [deg]F to 4
[deg]F in most areas. By the end of the century, U.S. warming is
projected to correspond closely to the level of global emissions:
roughly 3 [deg]F to 5 [deg]F under lower emissions scenarios (B1 or RCP
4.5) involving substantial reductions in emissions, and 5 [deg]F to 10
[deg]F for higher emissions scenarios (A2 or RCP 8.5) that assume
continued increases in emissions; the largest temperature increases are
projected for the upper Midwest and Alaska.'' \133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Six Well-Mixed GHGs Are Currently the Common Focus of the
Climate Change Science and Policy Communities
The six well-mixed GHGs are currently the common focus of climate
science and policy analyses and discussions. Grouping them is
consistent with the focus of international and domestic climate science
research enterprises like the IPCC and USGCRP. The IPCC and USGCRP
assessment reports assess the climate change effects on health,
society, and the environment as a result of human-induced climate
change driven primarily by the group of six gases.
Grouping them is also consistent with the focus of climate policy.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
signed and ratified by the United States in 1992, requires its
signatories to ``develop, periodically update, publish and make
available . . . national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by
sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by
the Montreal Protocol, using comparable methodologies . . .'' \134\ To
date, the primary focus of UNFCCC actions and discussions has been on
the six well-mixed GHGs, including the recent Paris Agreement in which
Parties agreed to undertake nationally determined contributions to
achieving the goal of ``global peaking of GHG emissions as soon as
possible'' in order to reach a long-term global temperature
target.\135\ Domestically, the EPA has been developing standards for
GHG emissions from mobile and stationary sources under the Clean Air
Act since finalizing the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
1992: Article 4(1)(a) of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, p. 10. Available at https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf (last accessed April 11, 2016).
\135\ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
2015: Adoption of the Paris Agreement Conference of the Parties
Twenty-first session Paris, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, 12 December
2015, Available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Defining Air Pollution as the Aggregate Group of Six GHGs Is
Consistent With Evaluation of Risks and Impacts Due to Human-Induced
Climate Change
Based on her review of the science described in detail above in
section IV.B.2, the Administrator judges that the six well-mixed GHGs
constitute the largest anthropogenic driver of climate change and play
a dominant role in observed and projected changes in Earth's climate
system. Thus, the Administrator finds, as she did in the 2009
Endangerment Finding, that because the six well-mixed GHGs are
collectively the primary driver of current and projected human-induced
climate change, the current and future risks (here described in section
IV.C below) due to human-induced climate change--whether these risks
are associated with increases in temperature, changes in precipitation,
a rise in sea levels, changes in the frequency and intensity of weather
events, or more directly with the elevated GHG concentrations
themselves--can be associated with this definition of air pollution.
Due to the cumulative purpose of the statutory language, even if the
Administrator were to look at the atmospheric
[[Page 54446]]
concentration of each GHG individually, she would still consider the
impact of the concentration of a single GHG in combination with that
caused by the other GHGs.
5. Defining Air Pollution as the Aggregate Group of Six GHGs Is
Consistent With Past EPA Practice
Treating the air pollution as the aggregate of the well-mixed GHGs
is consistent with other provisions of the CAA and previous EPA
practice under the CAA, where separate emissions from different sources
but with common properties may be treated as a class (e.g., particulate
matter (PM)). This approach addresses the total, cumulative effect that
the elevated concentrations of the six well-mixed GHGs have on climate
and, thus, on different elements of health, society, and the
environment. The EPA treats, for example, PM as a common class of air
pollution; PM is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and
liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of
components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic
chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.
6. Response to Key Comments on Defining the Air Pollution as the
Aggregate Group of the Six Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gases
Many commenters agreed with the EPA that the ``air pollution'' for
purposes of the endangerment finding under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the
CAA should be defined as the six well-mixed GHGs. Several commenters
discussed the fact that aircraft engines emit only two of the six well-
mixed GHGs. Commenters pointed out that the majority of aircraft
emissions are CO2, while nitrous oxide emissions are
described as ``nominal (<1%)'' or ``trace.'' Some commenters ultimately
concluded that the EPA's approach to defining the air pollution as an
aggregate group of six gases is acceptable, but that the scope of
future regulations should be limited to CO2. One commenter
agreed with the Agency's evaluation of the six GHGs based on their
common attributes, but questioned the EPA's decision to aggregate the
six gases rather than considering them individually for purposes of
making the findings. Other commenters disagreed with the EPA and
requested limiting the definition of air pollution in this action to
CO2 or to CO2 and nitrous oxide.
The EPA disagrees with comments regarding changing the definition
of the air pollution to limit it to only those GHGs that are emitted
from aircraft or to CO2 only. The EPA has explained both in
the 2009 Endangerment Finding and in the proposed findings under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) that the definition of the air pollution is based
on shared characteristics and common attributes relevant to climate
change science and policy \136\--which is not affected by the identity
of the source(s) of the emissions contributing to the air pollution.
The EPA recognized in the proposed findings that aircraft emit two of
the six well-mixed GHGs but stated that nonetheless it is entirely
reasonable and appropriate, and in keeping with the 2009 Endangerment
Finding and past EPA practice, for the Administrator to group into a
single class those substances that possess shared relevant properties,
even though they are not all emitted from the classes of sources before
her.\137\ After considering all the comments, this continues to be the
EPA's view. Moreover, this approach to defining air pollution (and air
pollutant, as described below) as a grouping of many substances is not
unique to GHGs but rather is common practice under the CAA, for example
for particulate matter and volatile organic compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ 80 FR at 37774, 37785 and 37787.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The five primary reasons for grouping the six well-mixed GHGs are
explained in detail above in sections IV.B.1 through IV.B.5. Because
the well-mixed GHGs are collectively the primary driver of current and
projected human-induced climate change, all current and future risks
due to human-induced climate change can be associated with this
definition of air pollution. Thus, this grouping is consistent with
evaluation of the scientific issues that the EPA is required to examine
in this endangerment finding, namely the risks and impacts due to
human-induced climate change. As discussed above, the key scientific
evidence and observations that are the basis of this finding focus on
the combined six well-mixed GHGs, and did not assess risks and impacts
associated with greenhouse gas-induced climate change using an
individual gas approach. Accordingly, we are not undertaking a separate
endangerment analysis for each of the six well-mixed gases
individually.
The question of limits to the scope of future regulations is
outside of the scope of this action because the EPA has neither
proposed nor is finalizing in this action any such regulatory
standards. This final action does not itself impose any requirements on
source categories under CAA section 231. Thus, the EPA anticipates that
this question could be raised and considered, as needed, in the
standard-setting phase of the regulatory process, and the EPA will
consider comments submitted on the issue of the appropriate form of
emission standards in response to EPA's anticipated future notice of
proposed rulemaking on standards. Although this final action
establishes a duty for the EPA to promulgate standards for the GHG
emissions from engines used by covered aircraft, the findings do not
pre-judge the form that such standards may take.
Another commenter expressed concern about EPA's proposed
endangerment finding because it does not differentiate between
CO2 emissions that result from combustion of fossil fuels
and those that result from ``combustion of biomass or biofuels derived
from herbaceous crops or crop residues, as well as biogenic
CO2 emissions associated with the production, gathering and
processing of crops or crop residues used in bio-based products
including fuels.'' \138\ The commenter argues that such crop-related
biogenic CO2 emissions should be excluded from the
endangerment finding because the CO2 released back to the
atmosphere when emitted from crop-derived biogenic sources contains the
same carbon that was previously removed or sequestered from
CO2 in the atmosphere and thus does not contribute to
elevated atmospheric concentrations of the six well-mixed GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Biogenic CO2 Coalition, 2015: Comments on EPA's
Proposed Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause
or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To
Endanger Public Health and Welfare, 80 FR 37757 (July 1, 2015).
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828-0916. Available at
www.regulations.gov (last accessed April 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA reiterates that the Administrator defines the relevant air
pollution considered in the endangerment finding as the aggregate group
of the six well-mixed GHGs based on shared physical characteristics and
common attributes relevant to climate change science and policy, which
is not affected by consideration of the sources of the emissions
contributing to the air pollution. In the record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the Agency stated that ``all CO2
emissions, regardless of source, influence radiative forcing equally
once it reaches the atmosphere and therefore there is no distinction
between biogenic and non-biogenic CO2 regarding the
CO2 and the other well-mixed GHGs within the definition of
air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health
and welfare.'' \139\ The EPA continues to hold that position in these
[[Page 54447]]
findings, which is supported by the evidence before it. First, the fact
that these CO2 emissions originate from combustion of
carbon-based fuels created through different processes is not relevant
to defining the air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to
endanger public health and welfare. The origin and constitution of a
fuel prior to its combustion and subsequent emission into the
atmosphere has no bearing on the fact that CO2 and the other
well-mixed GHGs are all sufficiently long lived to become well mixed in
the atmosphere, directly emitted, of well-known radiative forcing, and
generally grouped and considered together in climate change scientific
and policy forums as the primary driver of climate change. Moreover, as
explained in section IV.C of this document, the endangerment arises
from the elevated concentrations of the six well-mixed GHGs in the
atmosphere. A molecule of biogenic CO2 has the same
radiative forcing effect as a molecule of fossil-fuel derived
CO2. In other words, no matter the original source of the
CO2, the behavior of the CO2 molecules in the
atmosphere in terms of radiative forcing, chemical reactivity, and
atmospheric lifetime is effectively the same. Any differential
treatment of biogenic CO2 in the context of the endangerment
finding would be inconsistent with the primary scientific basis for the
grouping of the six well-mixed GHGs as a single class for purposes of
identifying the air pollution (and air pollutant, as explained below).
A more detailed response to the issues raised in this comment can be
found in the Response to Comments document in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ EPA, 2009. Response to Comments document, Volume 9: The
Endangerment Finding, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-11676. Available at
www.regulations.gov (last accessed April 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Other Climate Forcers Not Being Included in the Definition of Air
Pollution for This Finding
Both in the 2009 Endangerment Finding and in this action, the
Administrator recognizes that there are other substances in addition to
the six well-mixed GHGs that are emitted from human activities and that
affect Earth's climate (referred to as climate forcers). However, as
described in more detail in the 2009 Endangerment Finding and in the
proposed findings under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A),\140\ these substances
do not fit within one or more of the five primary reasons for focusing
on this aggregate group as the air pollution. As described in the
following subsections, we received comments on the omission of water
vapor, NOX, and aerosol particles emitted from aircraft from
the proposed definition of air pollution for this finding, but not on
the omission of other climate forcers. After considering public
comments and additional information in the new assessments regarding
the climate-relevant substances outside the group of the six well-mixed
GHGs, it is the Administrator's view that the reasons stated in the
2009 Endangerment Finding \141\ for not including these substances in
the scope of the GHG air pollution still apply at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ 74 FR at 66519-21 and 80 FR at 37781-84.
\141\ 74 FR at 66519-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the EPA acknowledged in the proposed findings,\142\ some short-
lived substances--namely water vapor, NOX emitted at high
altitude, and aerosol particles including black carbon--have physical
properties that result in their having different, and often larger,
climate effects when emitted at high altitudes. For example, the
assessment literature indicates that aerosol particles, including black
carbon, emitted at high altitudes have more interactions with clouds
and therefore have different effects on the global energy balance than
do particles emitted at the surface. However, the very properties that
lead to differential climate effects depending on the altitude of
emission--properties that are different from those of the six well-
mixed GHGs--lead to more uncertainty in the scientific understanding of
these short-lived substances' total effect on Earth's climate. The
short-lived nature of these substances means that, unlike GHGs that are
sufficiently long lived to become well mixed in the atmosphere, the
climatic impact of the substance is dependent on a number of factors
such as the location and time of its emission. The magnitude, and often
the direction (positive/warming or negative/cooling), of the globally
averaged climate impact will differ depending on the location of the
emission due to the local atmospheric conditions (e.g., due to
differing concentrations of other compounds with which the emissions
can react, background humidity levels, or the presence or absence of
clouds). In addition, for emissions at any given location, the spatial
and temporal pattern of the climate forcing will be heterogeneous,
again often differing in direction (for example, in the case of
NOX emissions, the near-term effect in the hemisphere in
which the emissions occur is usually warming due to increased ozone
concentrations, but the longer term effects, and effects in the other
hemisphere, are often cooling due to increased destruction of methane).
More detail on the uncertainties relating to the climate effects of
these short-lived substances is provided in the subsections below in
response to public comments and in the Response to Comments document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ 80 FR at 37781-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the state of the science as represented in the assessment
literature at present continues to highlight significant scientific
uncertainties regarding the total net forcing effect of water vapor,
NOX, and aerosol particles when emitted at high altitudes.
The dependence of the effects on where the substance is emitted, and
the complex temporal and spatial patterns that result, mean that the
current level of understanding regarding these short-lived substances
is much lower than for the six well-mixed GHGs. Given the
aforementioned scientific uncertainties at present, the Agency is not
including these constituents in the definition of air pollution for
purposes of the endangerment finding under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the
CAA.
Many public comments either supported or opposed inclusion of other
substances in addition to the six well-mixed GHGs in the definition of
air pollution, and some specifically suggested water vapor,
NOX, and aerosol particles as additional substances to
include in that definition. The Agency's full responses to those
comments can be found in the Response to Comments document; key
comments and responses are summarized below.
a. Response to Key Comments on Including Other Climate Forcers in the
Definition of Air Pollution
Some commenters argued that the proposed findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) did not demonstrate careful examination of the scientific
issues with regard to those short-lived substances that have different
climate effects when emitted at high altitudes, and that a more
thorough analysis should lead the EPA to conclude that water vapor,
NOX, and black carbon also drive climate change in addition
to the six well-mixed GHGs. These comments stated that the EPA should
have quantified and included the effect of high-altitude water vapor,
NOX, and black carbon in the Agency's discussion of drivers
of climate change. Another commenter argued that the EPA should include
metal particulates (specifically lead, barium, and aluminum) in the
definition of air pollution for this finding because of their role in
aviation-induced cloudiness, which the commenter argues has a larger
effect on climate change than the six well-mixed GHGs.
Although the EPA is not at this time taking final action to
determine whether these other climate forcers should be found to
represent air pollution within
[[Page 54448]]
the meaning of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the EPA disagrees with these
comments suggesting that the Agency did not carefully examine the
scientific issues and information supporting its current endangerment
finding in regard to these substances. Consistent with the approach
described in the proposed findings and for the reasons discussed above,
the Administrator considers the major peer-reviewed scientific
assessments of the IPCC and NRC as the primary scientific and technical
basis informing the endangerment finding and providing the current
state of scientific understanding of the differential climate effects
that water vapor, NOX, and aerosols such as black carbon
have when emitted at high altitudes. The EPA has considered the
following assessment reports to obtain the best estimates of these
substances' net impact on the climate system, which is generally
discussed in terms of radiative forcing: The IPCC AR5, the IPCC 2007
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4),\143\ the IPCC Special Report: Aviation
and the Global Atmosphere (IPCC 1999),\144\ the NRC's Advancing the
Science of Climate Change (NRC 2010),\145\ and the NRC's Atmospheric
Effects of Aviation: A Review of NASA's Subsonic Assessment Project
(NRC 1999).\146\ The USGCRP assessments have not dealt specifically
with emissions at high altitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Scientific
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon,
S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor
and H.L. Miller (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, 996 pp.
\144\ IPCC, 1999: Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, Special
Report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Penner,
J.E., D.H. Lister, D.J. Griggs, D.J.Dokken, M.McFarland (eds.)]
Cambridge University Press, 373 pp.
\145\ NRC, 2010: Advancing the Science of Climate Change. The
National Academies Press, 528 pp.
\146\ NRC, 1999: Atmospheric Effects of Aviation: A Review of
NASA's Subsonic Assessment Project. The National Academies Press, 54
pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described previously in section IV.A of this document, the
Administrator's consideration of the major scientific assessments
provides assurance that the Administrator is basing her judgment on the
best available, well-vetted science that reflected the consensus of the
climate science research community. These scientific assessments
addressed the scientific issues that the EPA was required to examine,
were comprehensive in their coverage of the GHG and climate change
issues, and underwent rigorous and exacting peer review by the expert
community, as well as rigorous levels of U.S. government review, in
which the EPA took part. The commenters provide no compelling arguments
against this approach, which underwent judicial review and was upheld
as described in section IV.A of this document. The assessments
synthesize literally thousands of individual studies to convey the
consensus conclusions on what the body of scientific literature tells
us, and the commenters did not provide evidence that we had missed or
mischaracterized conclusions of the assessments regarding aviation
impacts.
The state of the science as represented in the assessment
literature supports the EPA's reasons for defining the air pollution as
the aggregate group of the six well-mixed GHGs, which include their
common physical properties relevant to climate change (i.e., directly
emitted and sufficiently long lived to become well mixed in the
atmosphere), the fact that these gases are considered the primary
drivers of climate change, and the fact that these gases remain the
best understood drivers of anthropogenic climate change. Water vapor,
NOX, aerosol particles, or aviation-induced cloudiness
associated with metal particulates do not share these common
attributes, and are each associated with substantial scientific
uncertainty. Accordingly, although the EPA is not making a final
determination on whether these additional substances should be found to
be air pollution within the meaning of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the
EPA is not at this time changing or expanding the definition of the air
pollution to include these additional substances. The following
subsections provide additional discussion of the state of the science
as represented in the assessment literature regarding the climatic
effects of these substances when emitted at high altitudes.
b. Responses to Key Comments on Changes in Clouds From High Altitude
Emissions of Water Vapor and Particles
Some commenters supported the EPA's summary of the scientific
assessment literature and agreed that there are substantial scientific
uncertainties regarding net climate effects of aviation-induced
cloudiness from high altitude emissions of water vapor and particles.
Other commenters disagreed and argued that there is clear scientific
evidence that aviation-induced cloudiness associated with high altitude
emissions of water vapor drives climate change and should be included
in the definition of air pollution. One commenter disagrees and argues
that, due to their effect on aviation-induced cloudiness and climate
change, metal particulates should be included in the definition of air
pollution.
The EPA disagrees with the comments regarding changing or expanding
the definition of the air pollution employed in this endangerment
finding to include these additional substances. For the reasons stated
above, the Administrator considers the scientific assessment literature
as the primary scientific and technical basis informing the
endangerment finding and providing the state of climate science on
aviation-induced cloudiness. Section IV.B.4 of the proposed findings
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) \147\ explained that aviation-induced
cloudiness (sometimes called AIC) refers to all changes in cloudiness
associated with aviation operations, which are primarily due to the
effects of high altitude emissions of water vapor and particles
(primarily sulfates and black carbon). Changes in cloudiness affect the
climate by both reflecting solar radiation (cooling) and trapping
outgoing longwave radiation (warming). Unlike the warming effects
associated with GHGs that are sufficiently long lived to become well
mixed in the atmosphere, the climate effects associated with changes in
cloud cover are more regional and temporal in nature. The assessment
literature describes three main components of aviation-induced
cloudiness--persistent contrails, contrail-induced cirrus, and induced
cirrus. Aircraft engine emissions of water vapor at high altitudes
during flight can lead to the formation of condensation trails, or
contrails, under certain conditions such as ice-supersaturated air
masses with specific humidity levels and temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ 80 FR at 37782-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC estimated that persistent contrails increased cloudiness
above the United States by two percent between 1950 and 1988, with
similar results reported over Europe.\148\ As stated above, clouds can
have both warming and cooling effects, and persistent contrails were
once considered to have significant net warming effects. However, more
recent estimates suggest a smaller overall climate forcing effect of
persistent contrails. The IPCC AR5 best estimate for the global mean
radiative forcing from contrails is 0.01 W/m\2\ (medium confidence and
with an uncertainty range of 0.005 to 0.03 W/m\2\). \149\ To put both
the magnitude and
[[Page 54449]]
large uncertainty range of this number for the first of the three
components of aviation-induced cloudiness into context, some examples
of other IPCC AR5 best estimates for global mean radiative forcing
include: 1.68 W/m\2\ for CO2 (very high confidence and with
an uncertainty range of 1.33 to 2.03 W/m\2\), 0.97 W/m\2\ for methane
(high confidence and with an uncertainty range of 0.74 to 1.20 W/m\2\),
and 0.17 W/m\2\ for nitrous oxide (very high confidence and with an
uncertainty range of .013 to 0.21 W/m\2\).\150\ In addition, the NRC
(2010) assessment suggested that contrails may affect regional diurnal
temperature differences, but this has been called into question by the
recent findings presented in the IPCC AR5, which suggests that aviation
contrails do not have an effect on mean or diurnal range of surface
temperatures (medium confidence).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ NRC, 1999: Atmospheric Effects of Aviation: A Review of
NASA's Subsonic Assessment Project. The National Academies Press, 54
pp.
\149\ IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].Cambridge University
Press, 1535 pp.
\150\ IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor,
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 29 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persistent contrails also sometimes lose their linear form and
develop into cirrus clouds, an effect referred to as contrail-induced
cirrus. Studies to date have been unable to isolate this second of
three main climate forcing components of aviation-induced cloudiness,
but the IPCC AR5 provides a combined contrail and contrail-induced
cirrus best estimate of 0.05 W/m\2\ (low confidence and with an
uncertainty range of 0.02 and 0.15 W/m\2\).\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].Cambridge University
Press, 1535 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particles emitted or formed in the atmosphere as a result of
aircraft emissions (primarily sulfates and black carbon) may also act
as ice nuclei and modify naturally forming cirrus clouds, an effect
referred to as ``induced cirrus.'' This third of three main climate
forcing components of aviation-induced cloudiness is an area of active
research, and there are significant challenges in estimating the
climatic impacts of cirrus cloud modification. Neither IPCC AR4 nor AR5
provided global or regional estimates related to this forcing, with the
AR5 stating that ``it is deemed too uncertain to be further assessed
here.''\152\ The 2007 IPCC AR4 characterizes our knowledge of the
natural freezing modes in cirrus conditions as ``poor'' and notes that
cirrus cloud processes are not well represented in global models.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Ibid.
\153\ IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Scientific
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon,
S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor
and H.L. Miller (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, 996 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given differences in scientific understanding of the three main
components of aviation-induced cloudiness, the more recent assessments
have not provided quantitative estimates of the overall net climate
forcing effect of changes in clouds from high altitude emissions of
water vapor and particles. Going back to the 1999 IPCC assessment's
quantitative estimates, the science is characterized as ``very
uncertain'' with a range for the best estimate between 0 to 0.040 W/
m\2\.\154\ Thus, based on its consideration of the scientific evidence
and all the comments on this issue, the EPA agrees with those
commenters that indicate there are substantial scientific uncertainties
regarding net effects of the three components of aviation-induced
cloudiness on the climate system. These uncertainties result in the
Agency's not being prepared at this time to determine whether these
additional substances are air pollution within the meaning of CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) and not including them within the definition of
``air pollution'' being employed in this endangerment finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ IPCC, 1999: Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, Special
Report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Penner,
J.E., D.H. Lister, D.J. Griggs, D.J.Dokken, M.McFarland (eds.)]
Cambridge University Press, 373 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Responses to Key Comments on Direct Radiative Forcing Effects of
High Altitude Particle Emissions
Some commenters supported the EPA's summary of the scientific
uncertainties regarding the net direct radiative forcing effects of
aviation-induced particles including black carbon. Other commenters
disagreed and argued that there is clear scientific evidence that black
carbon in particular drives climate change and should be included in
the definition of air pollution.
The EPA disagrees with comments regarding changing or expanding the
definition of the air pollution employed in this endangerment finding
to include aviation-induced particles like black carbon. For the
reasons stated above, the Administrator considers the scientific
assessment literature as the primary scientific and technical basis
informing the endangerment finding and providing the state of climate
science regarding the direct radiative forcing effects of high altitude
emissions of the two primary aviation-induced particles, sulfates and
black carbon. Section IV.B.4 of the proposed findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) \155\ explained that aircraft emit precursor gases that
convert to sulfate particles in the atmosphere, such as sulfur dioxide.
Sulfate particles have direct effects on the climate by scattering
solar radiation, which is a negative radiative forcing that ultimately
results in cooling. The more recent assessments have not identified a
quantitative best estimate for this negative radiative forcing effect
specifically from aviation, as it is an active area of scientific study
with large uncertainties. Going back to the 1999 IPCC assessment's
quantitative estimates, the direct radiative forcing effect of sulfate
aerosols from aviation for the year 1992 is estimated at -0.003 W/m\2\
with an uncertainty range between -0.001 and -0.009 W/m\2\.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ 80 FR at 37783.
\156\ IPCC, 1999: Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, Special
Report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Penner,
J.E., D.H. Lister, D.J. Griggs, D.J.Dokken, M.McFarland (eds.)]
Cambridge University Press, 373 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the proposed findings under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
explained that black carbon emissions from aviation, which are produced
by the incomplete combustion of jet fuel, primarily absorb solar
radiation and heat the surrounding air, resulting in a warming effect
(positive radiative forcing). The more recent assessments have not
identified a quantitative best estimate for this effect specifically
from aviation, as it is an area of active scientific study with large
uncertainties. Going back to the 1999 IPCC assessment's quantitative
estimates, the global mean radiative forcing of black carbon emissions
from aircraft is estimated to be 0.003 W/m\2\ with uncertainty spanning
0.001 to 0.009 W/m\2\.\157\ The IPCC 1999 assessment suggests that
because the contribution of black carbon in the stratosphere (which
actually contributes to cooling of the Earth's surface rather than
warming) was not included in its calculations, its estimates of
radiative forcing were likely to be too high.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the 2009 Endangerment Finding did not include aerosols
in the
[[Page 54450]]
definition of air pollution, noting that much of the uncertainty range
surrounding the best estimate of total net forcing due to all human
activities was due to uncertainties about the cooling and warming
effects of aerosols \158\ (though from all sources, not just aircraft).
The 2009 Endangerment Finding also stated that the magnitude of aerosol
effects can vary immensely with location and season of emissions,
noting that estimates of its total climate forcing effect have a large
uncertainty range.\159\ Regarding black carbon specifically, the 2009
Endangerment Finding noted that it does not share common physical and
chemical attributes with the six well-mixed GHGs because it is an
aerosol particle (not a gas) that has different physical, chemical, and
atmospheric properties. Black carbon affects the climate differently
than GHGs that are sufficiently long lived to become well mixed in the
atmosphere. In contrast to its indirect warming and cooling effects via
clouds, black carbon causes a direct warming effect primarily by
absorbing incoming and reflected sunlight (whereas GHGs that are
sufficiently long lived to become well mixed in the atmosphere cause
warming by trapping outgoing, infrared heat), and by darkening bright
surfaces such as snow and ice, which reduces reflectivity. Black carbon
is short-lived, remaining in the atmosphere for only about a week, and
does not become well-mixed in the atmosphere. There are also concerns
in the international climate science and policy communities about how
to treat the short-lived black carbon emissions alongside GHGs--for
example, what are the appropriate metrics to compare the warming and/or
climate effects of the different substances, given that, unlike GHGs
that are sufficiently long lived to become well mixed in the
atmosphere, the magnitude of aerosol effects can vary immensely with
location and season of emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ 74 FR at 66517.
\159\ 74 FR at 66520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, although the EPA is not at this time prepared to make a final
determination on whether black carbon should be found to be air
pollution within the meaning of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), based on its
consideration of the scientific evidence and all the comments on this
issue, and consistent with its conclusion in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding, the EPA disagrees with commenters that ask for black carbon to
be included in the definition of the air pollution as part of this
endangerment finding. Because aerosols such as black carbon and
sulfates are fundamentally different from and do not share the relevant
properties that support grouping the six well-mixed GHGs together as a
class, and scientific uncertainties remain regarding the net radiative
forcing effects of these substances (whether in general or when emitted
at high altitudes), the EPA is not at this time including them in the
definition of air pollution employed in this finding. However, because
of these uncertainties the Agency is not at this time taking final
action to determine whether these additional substances should be found
to represent air pollution within the meaning of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A).
d. Responses to Key Comments on Changes in Atmospheric Chemistry From
High Altitude Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
Most commenters supported the EPA's summary of the scientific
uncertainties regarding the changes in atmospheric chemistry from high
altitude NOX emissions. At least one commenter disagreed and
argued that there is clear scientific evidence that the effects of
NOX emissions on ozone production have a significant climate
forcing effect. They concluded that NOX should therefore be
included in an endangerment finding.
The EPA disagrees with comments to the extent that they suggest
including NOX in this endangerment finding by changing or
expanding the definition of the air pollution. NOX emissions
have different, and potentially larger, climate effects when emitted at
high altitudes and about 90 percent of aircraft NOX is
emitted in flight (not during landing and takeoff),\160\ meaning its
relevance for climate change is primarily in relation to emissions at
high altitude. The atmospheric lifetime of NOX emitted near
the surface is on the order of a few hours, while in the upper
troposphere, or roughly the cruise altitude for jet aircraft, it is on
the order of several days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ FAA, System for Assessing Aviation's Global Emissions,
Version 1.5, Global Aviation Emissions Inventories for 2000 through
2004, FAA-EE-2005-02, September 2005, revised March 2008, available
at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/researc/models/sage/ (Last accessed April 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section IV.B.4 of the proposed findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) \161\ explained that emissions of NOX do not
themselves have warming or cooling effects, but affect the climate
through catalyzing changes in the chemical equilibrium of the
atmosphere. High altitude emissions of NOX increase the
concentration of ozone, which has a warming effect in the short term.
Elevated NOX concentrations also lead to an increased rate
of destruction of methane, which has a cooling effect in the long-term.
The reduced methane concentrations eventually contribute to decreases
in ozone, which also decreases the long-term net warming effect. Thus,
the net radiative impact of NOX emissions depends on the
balance between the reductions in methane versus the production of
ozone, which in turn depends on the time scale under consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ 80 FR at 37783-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated above, the Administrator considers the
scientific assessment literature as the primary scientific and
technical basis informing the endangerment finding and providing the
state of climate science regarding how emissions of NOX
affect the climate system. Quantifying these impacts is an area of
active scientific study with large uncertainties. The quantification of
the net global effect of NOX is difficult because the
atmospheric chemistry effects are heavily dependent on highly localized
atmospheric properties and mixing ratios. Because the background
atmospheric concentration of NOX is important for
quantifying the impact of NOX emissions on ozone and methane
concentrations, the location of aircraft emissions is an important
additional factor. Going back to the IPCC 1999 assessment since no more
recent quantitative estimates are available, the globally averaged
radiative forcing estimates for high-altitude aircraft emissions of
NOX in 1992 were 0.023 W/m\2\ for ozone-induced changes
(uncertainty range of 0.011 to 0.046 W/m\2\), and -0.014 W/m\2\ for
methane-induced changes (uncertainty range of -0.005 to -0.042 W/
m\2\).\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ IPCC, 1999: Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, Special
Report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Penner,
J.E., D.H. Lister, D.J. Griggs, D.J. Dokken, M. McFarland (eds.)]
Cambridge University Press, 373 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPCC AR5 presents the impact of aviation high-altitude
NOX emissions using a different metric, global warming
potential (GWP), which is a measure of the warming impact of a pulse of
emissions of a given substance over 100 years relative to the same mass
of CO2. The AR5 presents a range from -21 to +75 for GWP of
aviation NOX.\163\ The uncertainty in sign indicates
uncertainty
[[Page 54451]]
whether the net effect is one of warming or cooling. This report
further suggests that at cruise altitude there is strong regional
sensitivity of ozone and methane to NOX, particularly
notable at low latitudes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, 1535 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, although the EPA is not prepared to determine whether
NOX emissions at high altitude should be found to be air
pollution within the meaning of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), based on its
consideration of the scientific evidence and all the comments on this
issue, and consistent with its conclusion in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding, the EPA disagrees with commenters that assert that
NOX should be included at this time in the definition of the
air pollution for this finding. NOX does not share the
relevant properties that support grouping the six well-mixed GHGs
together as a class. NOX is not classified as a GHG because
it influences the climate system indirectly through production of ozone
rather than directly through trapping outgoing heat. In addition,
NOX does not have a sufficiently long atmospheric lifetime
to become well-mixed in the atmosphere and significant scientific
uncertainties remain regarding its net radiative forcing effects.
The Administrator notes that NOX emissions are already
regulated under the EPA's rules implementing CAA section 231, at 40 CFR
part 87, due to their impacts during landing and take-off operations
(LTO). The prerequisite endangerment and cause or contribute findings
that formed the basis for these standards, however, did not rely upon
any conclusions regarding the climate forcing impacts of
NOX, but rather the role of LTO NOX emissions as
a precursor to ozone formation in areas that did not meet the NAAQS for
ozone.\164\ The continuing significant uncertainties regarding high
altitude NOX emissions, which are emitted during cruise
operations rather than during LTO, as a climate forcer do not undermine
the Agency's prior conclusion under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) that
emissions of NOX from aircraft engines cause or contribute
to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare due to their contribution to ozone concentrations
that exceed the NAAQS. This final finding does not revise or reopen the
Agency's prior findings under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) that emissions
of NOX from aircraft engines cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare due to their contribution to ozone concentrations that
exceed the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ U.S. EPA, ``Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and
Aircraft Engines, Emission Standards and Test Procedures for
Aircraft.'' Final Rule, 38 FR 19088 (July 17, 1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Air Pollution is Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger Both Public
Health and Welfare
The Administrator finds that elevated atmospheric concentrations of
the six well-mixed GHGs may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the
public health and welfare of current and future generations within the
meaning of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). This section describes the major
pieces of scientific evidence supporting the Administrator's
endangerment finding, discusses both the public health and welfare
aspects of the endangerment finding, and addresses a number of key
issues the Administrator considered when evaluating the state of the
science.
The EPA is informed by and places considerable weight on the
extensive scientific and technical evidence in the record supporting
the 2009 Endangerment Finding, including the major, peer-reviewed
scientific assessments used to address the question of whether GHGs in
the atmosphere endanger public health and welfare, and on the
analytical framework and conclusions upon which the EPA relied in
making that finding. This final finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
accounts for the EPA's careful consideration of the scientific and
technical record for the 2009 Endangerment Finding, of the new, major
scientific assessments issued since closing the administrative record
for the 2009 Endangerment Finding, and of public comments. No recent
information or assessments published since late 2009 or provided by
commenters suggest that it would be reasonable for the EPA to now reach
a different or contrary conclusion for purposes of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) than the one the EPA reached in 2009 under CAA section
202(a). Rather, they provide further support for this final finding
under section 231(a)(2)(A). In particular, the new assessments
discussed in this document provide additional detail regarding public
health impacts, particularly on groups and people especially vulnerable
to climate change, including children, the elderly, low-income
communities and individuals, indigenous groups, and communities of
color.
Following the same decision framework and analysis that we followed
for the 2009 Endangerment Finding, as detailed in section IV.B of that
finding,\165\ here we summarize the general approach used by the
Administrator in reaching the judgment that a positive endangerment
finding should be made for purposes of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), as
well as the specific rationale for finding that the GHG air pollution
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger both public health and
welfare. First, the Administrator finds the scientific evidence linking
anthropogenic emissions and resulting elevated atmospheric
concentrations of the six well-mixed GHGs to observed global and
regional temperature increases and other climate changes to be
sufficiently robust and compelling. The Administrator is basing her
finding on the total weight of scientific evidence and what the science
has to say regarding the nature and potential magnitude of the risks
and impacts across all climate-sensitive elements of public health and
welfare, now and projected out into the foreseeable future. The
Administrator has considered the state of the science on how
anthropogenic emissions and the resulting elevated atmospheric
concentrations of the six well-mixed GHGs may affect each of the major
risk categories, include human health, air quality, food production and
agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea level rise and coastal
areas, the energy sector, infrastructure and settlements, and
ecosystems and wildlife. The Administrator understands that the nature
and potential severity of impacts can vary across these different
elements of public health and welfare, and that they can vary by
region, as well as over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ 74 FR at 66523-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator is therefore aware that, because human-induced
climate change has the potential to be far-reaching and multi-
dimensional, not all risks and potential impacts can be characterized
with a uniform level of quantification or understanding, nor can they
be characterized with uniform metrics. Thus, the Administrator is not
necessarily placing the greatest weight on those risks and impacts
which have been the subject of the most study or quantification.
Rather, given this variety in not only the nature and potential
magnitude of risks and impacts, but also in our ability to
characterize, quantify and project into the future such impacts, the
Administrator must use her judgment to weigh the threat in each of the
risk categories, weigh the potential benefits where relevant, and
ultimately to judge whether these risks and
[[Page 54452]]
benefits, when viewed in total, endanger public health and/or welfare.
First, the Administrator has not established a specific threshold
metric for the different categories of risk and impacts, which are
referred to as impact sectors. The potential for both adverse and
beneficial effects is considered, as well as the relative magnitude of
such effects, to the extent that the relative magnitudes can be
quantified or characterized. Furthermore, given the multiple ways in
which the buildup of anthropogenic GHG emissions in the atmosphere can
cause effects (e.g., via elevated CO2 concentrations,
temperature increases, precipitation increases, sea level rise, and
changes in extreme events), these multiple pathways are considered. The
Administrator has balanced and weighed the varying risks and effects
for each impact sector. She has judged whether there is a pattern
across the sector that supports or does not support an endangerment
finding, and if so whether the support is of more or less weight. In
cases where there is a potential for both benefits and risks of harm,
the Administrator has balanced these factors by determining whether
there appears to be any directional trend in the overall evidence that
would support placing more weight on one than the other, taking into
consideration all that is known about the likelihood of the various
risks and effects and their seriousness. In all of these cases, the
judgment is largely qualitative in nature and is not reducible to
precise metrics or quantification.
Regarding the timeframe for the endangerment test, it is the
Administrator's view that both current and future conditions must be
considered. The Administrator is thus taking the view that the
endangerment period of analysis extend from the current time to the
next several decades and in some cases to the end of this century. This
consideration is also consistent with the timeframes used in the
underlying scientific assessments. The future timeframe under
consideration is consistent with the atmospheric lifetime and climate
effects of the six well-mixed GHGs and also with our ability to make
reasonable and plausible projections of future conditions. The
Administrator acknowledges that some aspects of climate change science
and the projected impacts are more certain than others. Our state of
knowledge is strongest for recently observed, large-scale changes.
Uncertainty tends to increase in characterizing changes at smaller
(regional) scales relative to large (global) scales. Uncertainty also
increases as the temporal scales move away from the present, either
backward or more importantly forward in time. Nonetheless, the current
state of knowledge of observed and past climate changes and their
causes enables projections of plausible future changes under different
scenarios of anthropogenic forcing for a range of spatial and temporal
scales. The subsections below summarize the scientific information on
climate change impacts to public health and welfare that inform the
Administrator's judgment, as well as the key public comments and Agency
responses. The Agency's full responses to public comments can be found
in the Response to Comments document.
1. The Air Pollution is Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger Public
Health
The Administrator finds under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) that the
well-mixed GHG air pollution is reasonably anticipated to endanger
public health, for both current and future generations. The
Administrator finds that the public health of current generations is
endangered and that the threat to public health for both current and
future generations will mount over time as GHGs continue to accumulate
in the atmosphere and result in ever greater rates of climate change.
The Administrator continues to find robust scientific evidence in the
assessment literature that climate change can increase the risk of
morbidity and mortality and believes that these public health impacts
can and should be considered when determining endangerment to public
health under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). As described in section IV.B.1
of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator is not limited to
only considering whether there are any direct health effects such as
respiratory or toxic effects associated with exposure to GHGs.
Here we summarize information from the scientific assessment
literature cited in the 2009 Endangerment Finding showing that climate
change resulting from anthropogenic GHG emissions threatens multiple
aspects of public health.\166\ In determining that the well-mixed GHG
air pollution is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health for
current and future generations under CAA section 202(a), the
Administrator noted her view that climate change can increase the risk
of morbidity and mortality. In making that public health determination,
the Administrator considered direct temperature effects, air quality
effects, the potential for changes in vector-borne diseases, and the
potential for changes in the severity and frequency of extreme weather
events. In addition, the Administrator considered whether and how
susceptible populations may be particularly at risk. As explained in
more detail in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, with respect to direct
temperature effects, by raising average temperatures, climate change
increases the likelihood of heat waves, which are associated with
increased deaths and illnesses. Climate change is also expected to lead
to reductions in cold-related mortality. The 2009 Endangerment Finding,
while noting uncertainty about how heat and cold related mortality
would change in the future, also pointed to a USGCRP assessment report
discussion that increases in heat-related mortality due to global
warming in the United States were unlikely to be compensated for by
decreases in cold-related mortality. With regard to air quality
effects, climate change is expected to increase ozone pollution over
broad areas of the country, including large metropolitan population
centers, and thereby increase the risks of respiratory infection,
aggravation of asthma, and premature death. Other public health threats
stem from the potential for increased deaths, injuries, infectious and
waterborne diseases, stress-related disorders, and other adverse
effects associated with increased hurricane intensity and increased
frequency of intense storms and heavy precipitation associated with
climate change. In addition, climate change is expected to be
associated with an increased risk of food-, water-, and vector-borne
diseases in susceptible populations. Climate change also has the
potential to change aeroallergen production (for example, through
lengthening the growing season for allergen-producing plants), and
subsequent human exposures could increase allergenic illnesses.
Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to
climate-related health risks and impacts. The Administrator placed
weight on the fact that these certain groups are most vulnerable to
these climate-related health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ 74 FR at 66524-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA concludes that the 2009 Endangerment Finding's discussion
under CAA section 202(a) is equally persuasive for purposes of CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). In addition, the EPA has carefully reviewed the
key conclusions in the recent assessments regarding public health risks
and the current and projected health impacts from human-
[[Page 54453]]
induced climate change. The EPA finds that the new assessments are
consistent with or strengthen the underlying science considered in the
2009 Endangerment Finding regarding public health effects from changes
in temperature, air quality, extreme weather, and climate-sensitive
diseases and aeroallergens, further supporting an endangerment finding
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). These key findings are described
briefly here.
The USGCRP NCA3 finds that, ``Climate change threatens human health
and well-being in many ways, including impacts from increased extreme
weather events, wildfire, decreased air quality, threats to mental
health, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and diseases carriers
such as mosquitoes and ticks. Some of these health impacts are already
underway in the United States.'' \167\ Regarding temperature effects,
the USGCRP NCA3 states, ``The effects of temperature extremes on human
health have been well documented for increased heat waves, which cause
more deaths, hospital admissions and population vulnerability.'' \168\
The conclusions of the assessment literature cited in the 2009
Endangerment Finding were uncertain with respect to the balance of
future heat- versus cold-related mortality associated with climate
change, but they noted that the available evidence suggested that the
increased risk from heat would exceed the decreased risk from cold in a
warming climate. The most recent assessments now have greater
confidence that increases in heat-related mortality likely will be
larger than the decreases in cold-related mortality, further supporting
this endangerment finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). The USGCRP
NCA3 concludes, ``While deaths and injuries related to extreme cold
events are projected to decline due to climate change, these reductions
are not expected to compensate for the increase in heat-related
deaths.'' \169\ The IPCC AR5 also notes a potential benefit of climate
change could include ``modest reductions in cold-related mortality and
morbidity in some areas due to fewer cold extremes (low confidence),''
\170\ but that, ``[o]verall, we conclude that the increase in heat-
related mortality by mid-century will outweigh gains due to fewer cold
periods.'' \171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 221.
\168\ Ibid at p. 252.
\169\ Ibid at p. 224.
\170\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros,
D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,
K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, p. 713.
\171\ Ibid. at p. 721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding air quality effects, the assessment literature cited in
the 2009 Endangerment Finding concluded that climate change is expected
to increase regional ozone pollution, with associated risks in
respiratory illnesses and premature death, but that the directional
effect of climate change on ambient particulate matter levels was less
certain. One of the more recent assessments, the USGCRP NCA3, similarly
concludes, ``Climate change is projected to harm human health by
increasing ground-level ozone and/or particulate matter air pollution
in some locations. . . . There is less certainty in the responses of
airborne particles to climate change than there is about the response
of ozone.'' \172\ The IPCC AR5 finds that ozone and particulate matter
have been associated with adverse health effects in many locations in
North America, and that ozone concentrations could increase under
future climate change scenarios if emissions of precursors were held
constant. For particulate matter, both the USGCRP NCA3 and IPCC AR5
discuss increasing wildfire risk under climate change and explain that
wildfire smoke exposure can lead to various respiratory and
cardiovascular impacts. The USGCRP NCA3 states, ``The effects of
wildfire on human health have been well documented with increases in
wildfire frequency, leading to decreased air quality and negative
health impacts.'' \173\ The NRC Indoor Environment assessment
identifies potential adverse health risks associated with climate
change-induced alterations in the indoor environment, including
possible exposure to air pollutants due to changes in outdoor air
quality. Other risks include potential for alterations in indoor
allergens due to climate change-related increases in outdoor pollen
levels, potential chemical exposures due to greater use of pesticides
to address changes in geographic ranges of pest species, and dampness/
mold associated symptoms and illness due to potential flooding and
water damage in buildings from projected climate change-related
increases in storm intensity and extreme precipitation events in some
regions of the United States. Each of these assessments further
supports finding endangerment under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 222.
\173\ Ibid at p. 252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding extreme weather events (e.g., storms, heavy
precipitation, and, in some regions of the United States, floods and
droughts), the conclusions of the assessment literature cited in the
2009 Endangerment Finding found potential for increased deaths,
injuries, infectious and waterborne diseases, and stress-related
disorders. The more recent assessments further support this conclusion
for purposes of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). The USGCRP NCA3 finds that
``Heavy downpours are increasing nationally, especially over the last
three to five decades. Largest increases are in the Midwest and
Northeast. Increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme
precipitation events are projected for all U.S. regions.'' \174\ The
USGCRP NCA3 identifies that: ``Elevated waterborne disease outbreaks
have been reported in the weeks following heavy rainfall, although
other variables may affect these associations. Water intrusion into
buildings can result in mold contamination that manifests later,
leading to indoor air quality problems.'' \175\ Other risks include
mortality associated with flooding and impacts on mental health, such
as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. The IPCC AR5 also
discusses increased risk of death and injury in coastal zones and
regions vulnerable to inland flooding. The USGCRP NCA3 and the IPCC AR5
both find that climate change may increase exposure to health risks
associated with drought conditions, which includes impacts from
wildfires, dust storms, extreme heat events, and flash flooding.
Droughts can lead to reduced water quantity and degraded water quality,
thereby increasing the risk of water-related diseases. The IPCC SREX
assessment projects further increases in some extreme weather and
climate events during this century, and it specifically notes that
changes in extreme weather events have implications for disaster risk
in the health sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 36.
\175\ Ibid at p. 224-225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The potential for changes in climate-sensitive diseases was also
cited in the 2009 Endangerment Finding. This included an increase in
the spread of several food and water-borne pathogens,
[[Page 54454]]
which can affect susceptible populations. Also noted was the potential
for range expansion of some zoonotic disease carriers such as the Lyme
disease-carrying tick. The new assessment literature similarly focuses
on increased exposure risk for some diseases under climate change,
finding that increasing temperatures may expand or shift the ranges of
some disease vectors like mosquitoes, ticks, and rodents. The IPCC AR5
notes that climate change may influence the ``growth, survival,
persistence, transmission, or virulence of pathogens'' \176\ that cause
food and water-borne disease. The USGCRP NCA3 notes that uncertainty
remains regarding future projections of increased human burden of
vector-borne disease, given complex interacting factors such as
``local, small-scale differences in weather, human modification of the
landscape, the diversity of animal hosts, and human behavior that
affects vector-human contact, among other factors.'' \177\ This new
assessment literature further supports finding endangerment under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros,
D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,
K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, p. 726.
\177\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding aeroallergens, the assessment literature cited in the
2009 Endangerment Finding found potential for climate change to affect
the prevalence and severity of allergy symptoms, but definitive data or
conclusions were lacking on how climate change might impact
aeroallergens in the United States. Further supporting an endangerment
finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the most recent assessments now
express greater confidence that climate change influences the
production of pollen, which in turn could affect the incidence of
asthma and other allergic respiratory illnesses such as allergic
rhinitis, as well as effects on conjunctivitis and dermatitis. Both the
USGCRP NCA3 and the IPCC AR5 found that increasing temperature has
lengthened the allergenic pollen season for ragweed, and that increased
CO2 by itself can elevate production of plant-based
allergens. The IPCC AR5 concludes that in North America, there is high
confidence that ``warming will lead to further changes in the seasonal
timing of pollen release.'' \178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D.
Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.
Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1465-1466.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Health Impacts of Climate Change on Vulnerable Populations
In the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the EPA cited the assessment
literature's conclusions regarding the fact that certain populations,
including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to
climate change-related health effects. The 2009 Endangerment Finding
also described climate change impacts facing indigenous peoples in the
United States, particularly Alaska Natives. The new assessment
literature strengthens these conclusions and further supports an
endangerment finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) by providing more
detailed findings regarding these populations' vulnerabilities and the
projected impacts they may experience. In addition, the most recent
assessment reports provide new analysis about how some populations
defined jointly by ethnic/racial characteristics and geographic
location may be vulnerable to certain climate change health impacts.
The following paragraphs summarize information from the most recent
assessment reports on these vulnerable populations.
The USGCRP NCA3 finds, ``Climate change will, absent other changes,
amplify some of the existing health threats the nation now faces.
Certain people and communities are especially vulnerable, including
children, the elderly, the sick, the poor, and some communities of
color.'' \179\ Limited resources make low-income populations more
vulnerable to ongoing climate-related threats, less able to adapt to
anticipated changes, and less able to recover from climate change
impacts. Low-income populations also face higher prevalence of chronic
health conditions than higher income groups, which increases their
vulnerability to the health effects of climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the USGCRP NCA3 and IPCC AR5, some populations defined
jointly by ethnic/racial characteristics and geographic location are
more vulnerable to certain health effects of climate change due to
factors such as existing health disparities (e.g., higher prevalence of
chronic health conditions), increased exposure to health stresses, and
social factors that affect local resilience and ability to recover from
impacts.
The USGCRP NCA3 also finds that climate change, in addition to
chronic stresses such as extreme poverty, is affecting indigenous
peoples' health in the United States through impacts such as reduced
access to traditional foods, decreased water quality, and increasing
exposure to health and safety hazards. The IPCC AR5 finds that climate
change-induced warming in the Arctic and resultant changes in
environment (e.g., permafrost thaw, effects on traditional food
sources) have significant observed and projected impacts on the health
and well-being of Arctic residents, especially indigenous peoples.
Small, remote, predominantly indigenous communities are especially
vulnerable given their ``strong dependence on the environment for food,
culture, and way of life; their political and economic marginalization;
existing social, health, and poverty disparities; as well as their
frequent close proximity to exposed locations along ocean, lake, or
river shorelines.'' \180\ In addition, increasing temperatures and loss
of Arctic sea ice increases the risk of drowning for those engaged in
traditional hunting and fishing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D.
Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.
Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, p. 1581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USGCRP NCA3 concludes that ``Children, primarily because of
physiological and developmental factors, will disproportionately suffer
from the effects of heat waves, air pollution, infectious illness, and
trauma resulting from extreme weather events.'' \181\ As noted above,
the IPCC AR5 finds that in North America, climate change will influence
production of pollen, and that this affects asthma and other allergic
respiratory diseases to which children are among those especially
susceptible.
[[Page 54455]]
The IPCC AR5 also identifies children as a susceptible population to
health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and floods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p.228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the USGCRP and IPCC conclude that climate change increases
health risks facing the elderly. Older people are at much higher risk
of mortality during extreme heat events. Pre-existing health conditions
also make older adults susceptible to cardiac and respiratory impacts
of air pollution and to more severe consequences from infectious and
waterborne diseases. Limited mobility among older adults can also
increase health risks associated with extreme weather and floods.
Accordingly, as discussed above, all of these recent assessments
further support finding endangerment under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
b. Responses to Key Comments on Endangerment to Public Health
Public comments supported the EPA's summary of the scientific
information and finding that the well-mixed GHG air pollution is
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health of current and future
generations under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Commenters cited a number
of examples of climate impacts relevant to public health including
changes in outdoor and indoor air quality, extreme temperatures,
floods, fires, and hurricanes. Some commenters also agreed with the
EPA's summary of health impacts to certain vulnerable populations and
emphasized that certain populations like the elderly, poor, very young,
and indigenous groups are more vulnerable to the health impacts of
climate change for various reasons. No commenters disagreed with the
EPA's summary of the scientific information or with its conclusion on
endangerment to public health. The EPA agrees with the commenters that
this endangerment finding is well supported by the scientific
assessment literature; that it covers a range of health risks
associated with climate change-induced changes in air quality,
increases in temperatures, changes in extreme weather events, increases
in food and water borne pathogens, and changes in aeroallergens; and
that certain populations are more vulnerable to climate change health
risks and impacts.
2. The Air Pollution Is Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger Welfare
The Administrator finds under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) that the air
pollution comprised of the six well-mixed GHGs is reasonably
anticipated to endanger welfare, for both current and future
generations. As with public health, the Administrator considered the
multiple pathways in which the GHG air pollution and resultant climate
change affect climate-sensitive sectors and the impact this may have on
welfare. These sectors include food production and agriculture;
forestry; water resources; sea level rise and coastal areas; energy,
infrastructure, and settlements; and ecosystems and wildlife. The
Administrator examined each climate-sensitive sector individually,
informed by the scientific information in the major assessments
contained in the administrative record for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding as well as the newer assessments in the record for this action,
and weighed the extent to which the risks and impacts within each
sector support or do not support a positive endangerment finding in her
judgment. The Administrator then viewed the full weight of evidence
looking across all sectors to reach her decision regarding endangerment
to welfare. For each of these sectors, the evidence indicates that the
risk and the severity of adverse impacts on welfare are expected to
increase over time, providing compelling support for a finding of
endangerment to welfare. The Administrator also considered impacts on
the U.S. population from climate change effects occurring outside of
the United States, such as national security concerns for the United
States that may arise as a result of climate change impacts in other
regions of the world, and finds that this provides additional support
to the finding of endangerment to welfare of current and future
generations of the United States population.
The 2009 Endangerment Finding summarized information from the
scientific assessment literature showing that climate change resulting
from anthropogenic GHG emissions also threatens multiple aspects of
welfare under CAA section 202(a).\182\ In determining that the well-
mixed GHG air pollution is reasonably anticipated to endanger welfare
for current and future generations, the Administrator considered the
multiple pathways by which GHG air pollution and resultant climate
change affect welfare by evaluating the numerous and far-ranging risks
and impacts associated with food production and agriculture; forestry;
water resources; widespread snow and ice melt, sea level rise and
coastal areas; energy, infrastructure, and settlements; and ocean
acidification, ecosystems, and wildlife. The Administrator also
considered observed and projected risks and impacts on the U.S.
population from climate change effects occurring outside of the United
States. As explained in more detail in the 2009 Endangerment Finding,
the potential serious adverse impacts of extreme events, such as
wildfires, flooding, drought, and extreme weather conditions provided
strong support for the determination. Water resources across large
areas of the country are at serious risk from climate change, with
effects on water supplies, water quality, and adverse effects from
extreme events such as floods and droughts. The severity of risks and
impacts is likely to increase over time with accumulating GHG
concentrations and associated temperature increases and precipitation
changes. Coastal areas are expected to face increased risks from storm
and flooding damage to property, as well as adverse impacts from rising
sea level such as land loss due to inundation, erosion, wetland
submergence and habitat loss. Climate change is expected to result in
an increase in electricity production for peak electricity demand, and
extreme weather from climate change threatens energy, transportation,
and water resource infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate
existing environmental pressures in certain settlements. In Alaska,
indigenous communities are likely to experience disruptive impacts.
Climate change is also very likely to fundamentally change U.S.
ecosystems over the 21st century and to lead to predominantly negative
consequences for biodiversity, ecosystem goods and services, and
wildlife. Though there may be some benefits for agriculture and
forestry in the next few decades, the body of evidence points towards
increasing risks of net adverse impacts on U.S. food production,
agriculture and forest productivity as average temperature continues to
rise. Looking across all sectors discussed above, the risk and the
severity of adverse impacts on welfare are expected to increase over
time. Lastly, these impacts are global and may exacerbate problems
outside the United States that raise humanitarian, trade, and national
security issues for the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ 74 FR at 66530-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator concludes that the discussion in the 2009
Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a) is equally compelling to
support an endangerment finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). In
addition, the EPA has carefully reviewed the recent scientific
conclusions in the assessments regarding human-induced
[[Page 54456]]
climate change impacts on welfare.\183\ The EPA finds that they further
support finding endangerment under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), as they
are largely consistent with or strengthen the underlying science
supporting the 2009 Endangerment Finding regarding observed and
projected climate change risks and impacts to food production and
agriculture; forestry; water resources; widespread snow and ice melt,
sea level rise, and coastal areas; energy, infrastructure, and
settlements; ocean acidification, ecosystems, and wildlife; and impacts
on the U.S. population from climate change effects occurring outside of
the United States. These key findings are described briefly here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ The CAA states that ``[a]ll language referring to effects
on welfare includes, but is not limited to, effects on soils, water,
crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather,
visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property,
and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values
and on personal comfort and well-being, whether caused by
transformation, conversion, or combination with other air
pollutants.'' CAA section 302(h). This language is quite broad.
Importantly, it is not an exclusive list due to the use of the term
``includes, but is not limited to . . .'' Effects other than those
listed here may also be considered effects on welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding agriculture, the assessment literature cited in the 2009
Endangerment Finding found potential for increased CO2
levels to benefit yields of certain crops in the short term, but with
considerable uncertainty. The body of evidence pointed towards
increasing risk of net adverse impacts on U.S. food production and
agriculture over time, with the potential for significant disruptions
and crop failure in the future. The most recent assessments now have
greater confidence that climate change will negatively affect U.S.
agriculture over this century, and support finding endangerment under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Specifically, the USGCRP NCA3 concludes,
``While some U.S. regions and some types of agricultural production
will be relatively resilient to climate change over the next 25 years
or so, others will increasingly suffer from stresses due to extreme
heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours. From mid-century on,
climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and
livestock across the country.'' \184\ The IPCC AR5 concludes, ``Overall
yields of major crops in North America are projected to decline
modestly by mid-century and more steeply by 2100 among studies that do
not consider adaptation (very high confidence).'' \185\ The IPCC AR5
notes that in the absence of extreme events, climate change may benefit
certain regions and crops, but that in North America significant
harvest losses have been observed due to recent extreme weather events.
In addition, the IPCC SREX assessment specifically notes that projected
changes in extreme weather events will increase disaster risk in the
agriculture sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 16.
\185\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D.
Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.
Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, p. 1462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding forestry, the assessment literature cited in the 2009
Endangerment Finding found that near-term benefits to forest growth and
productivity in certain parts of the country from elevated
CO2 concentrations and temperature increases to date are
offset by longer-term risks from wildfires and the spread of
destructive pests and disease that present serious adverse risks for
forest productivity. The most recent assessments provide further
support for finding endangerment under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Both
the USGCRP NCA3 and the IPCC AR5 conclude that climate change is
increasing risks to forest health from fire, tree disease and insect
infestations, and drought. The IPCC AR5 also notes risks to forested
ecosystems associated with changes in temperature, precipitation
amount, and CO2 concentrations, which can affect species and
ecological communities, leading to ecosystem disruption,
reorganization, movement or loss. The NRC Arctic assessment states that
climate change is likely to have a large negative impact on forested
ecosystems in the high northern latitudes due to the effects of
permafrost thaw and greater wildfire frequency, extent, and severity.
The NRC Climate Stabilization Targets assessment found that for an
increase in global average temperature of 1 to 2 [deg]C above pre-
industrial levels, the area burnt by wildfires in western North America
will likely more than double.
Regarding water resources, the assessment literature cited in the
2009 Endangerment Finding concluded that increasing temperatures and
increased variability in precipitation associated with climate change
is expected to have adverse impacts on water quality and is likely to
further constrain water quantity through changes in snowpack, increased
risk of floods, drought, and other concerns such as water pollution.
Similarly, the new assessments further support projections of water
resource impacts associated with increased floods and short-term
drought in most U.S. regions, and therefore support an endangerment
finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). The USGCRP NCA3 also finds
that, ``[c]limate change is expected to affect water demand,
groundwater withdrawals, and aquifer recharge, reducing groundwater
availability in some areas.'' \186\ The IPCC AR5 finds that in part of
the western United States, ``water supplies are projected to be further
stressed by climate change, resulting in less water availability and
increased drought conditions.'' \187\ The IPCC AR5 states, ``Throughout
the eastern USA, water supply systems will be negatively impacted by
lost snowpack storage, rising sea levels contributing to increased
storm intensities and saltwater intrusion, possibly lower streamflows,
land use and population changes, and other stresses.'' \188\ The IPCC
AR5 also synthesizes recent studies that project a range of adverse
climate impacts in North America to surface water quality (including to
the Great Lakes), drinking water treatment/distribution, and sewage
collection systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 70.
\187\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D.
Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.
Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1456-1457.
\188\ Ibid at p. 1457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assessment literature cited in the 2009 Endangerment Finding
found that the most serious potential adverse effects to coastal areas
are the increased risk of storm surge and flooding in coastal areas
from current and projected rates of sea level rise and more intense
storms. Coastal areas also face other adverse impacts from sea level
rise such as land loss due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence,
and habitat loss. The most recent assessments provide further evidence
in line with the science supporting the 2009 Endangerment Finding, and
support finding endangerment under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). The USGCRP
NCA3 finds, ``Sea level rise, combined with coastal storms, has
increased the risk of erosion, storm surge damage, and flooding for
[[Page 54457]]
coastal communities, especially along the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic
seaboard, and in Alaska.'' \189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPCC AR5 found that global sea levels rose 0.19 m (7.5 inches)
from 1901 to 2010. Contributing to this rise was the warming of the
oceans and melting of land ice from glaciers and ice sheets. It is
likely that 275 gigatons per year of ice melted from land glaciers (not
including ice sheets) from 1993-2009, and that the rate of loss of ice
from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets increased substantially in
recent years, to 215 gigatons per year and 147 gigatons per year
respectively from 2002-2011. For context, 360 gigatons of ice melt is
sufficient to cause global sea levels to rise one millimeter.
The IPCC AR5, the USGCRP NCA3, and three of the new NRC assessments
provide estimates of projected global average sea level rise. These
estimates, while not always directly comparable as they assume
different emissions scenarios and baselines, are at least 40 percent
larger than, and in some cases more than twice as large as, the
projected rise estimated in the IPCC AR4 assessment, which was referred
to in the 2009 Endangerment Finding.\190\ The NRC Sea Level Rise
assessment projects a global average sea level rise of 0.5 to 1.4
meters by 2100. Change of this magnitude would be sufficient to lead to
a relative rise in sea level even around the northern coasts of
Washington State, where the land is still rebounding from the
disappearance of the great ice sheets.\191\ The NRC National Security
Implications assessment suggests that ``the Department of the Navy
should expect roughly 0.4 to 2 meters global average sea-level rise by
2100.'' \192\ The NRC Climate Stabilization Targets assessment states
that a global average temperature increase of 3 [deg]C will lead to a
global average sea level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter by 2100. While these
NRC and IPCC assessments continue to recognize and characterize the
uncertainty inherent in accounting for melting ice sheets in sea level
rise projections, these revised estimates are consistent with the
assessments underlying the 2009 Endangerment Finding, and support
finding endangerment under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ The 2007 IPCC AR4 assessment cited in 2009 Endangerment
Finding estimated a projected sea level rise of between 0.18 and
0.59 meters by the end of the century, relative to 1990. It should
be noted that in 2007, the IPCC stated that including poorly
understood ice sheet processes could lead to an increase in the
projections.
\191\ Sea level does not rise uniformly due to changes in winds,
temperature patterns, land uplift or subsidence, and other factors.
Therefore, relative sea level rise along any given point on the
coast can vary from the global average.
\192\ NRC, 2011: National Security Implications of Climate
Change for U.S. Naval Forces. The National Academies Press, p. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding climate impacts on energy, infrastructure and
settlements, the 2009 Endangerment Finding cited the assessment
literature's findings that temperature increases will change heating
and cooling demand; that declining water quantity may adversely impact
the availability of cooling water and hydropower in the energy sector;
and that changes in extreme weather events will threaten energy,
transportation, water, and other key societal infrastructure,
particularly on the coast. The most recent assessments provide further
evidence in line with the science supporting the 2009 Endangerment
Finding, to support finding endangerment under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). For example, the USGCRP NCA3 finds, ``Coastal
infrastructure, including roads, rail lines, energy infrastructure,
airports, port facilities, and military bases, are increasingly at risk
from sea level rise and damaging storm surges.'' \193\ The NRC Arctic
assessment identifies threats to human infrastructure in the Arctic
from increased flooding, erosion, and shoreline ice pile-up, or ivu,
associated with summer sea ice loss and the increasing frequency and
severity of storms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding ecosystems and wildlife, the assessment literature cited
in the 2009 Endangerment Finding discussed a number of impacts. These
include a high confidence finding that substantial changes in the
structure and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems are very likely to
occur with a global warming greater than 2 to 3 [deg]C above pre-
industrial levels, with predominantly negative consequences for
biodiversity and the provisioning of ecosystem goods and services. In
addition, climate change and ocean acidification will likely impair a
wide range of planktonic and other marine calcifiers such as corals.
The recent assessments published since 2009 provide additional support
for finding endangerment under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). The USGCRP
NCA3 concluded that ``The oceans are currently absorbing about a
quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually and
are becoming more acidic as a result, leading to concerns about
intensifying impacts on marine ecosystems . . . Over the last 250
years, the oceans have absorbed 560 billion tons of CO2, increasing the
acidity of surface waters by 30%. Although the average oceanic pH can
vary on interglacial timescales, the current observed rate of change is
roughly 50 times faster than known historical change.'' \194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC Arctic assessment states that major marine and terrestrial
biomes will likely shift poleward, with significant implications for
changing species composition, food web structures, and ecosystem
function. The NRC Climate Stabilization Targets assessment found that
coral bleaching events will likely increase in frequency and severity
due warming sea surface temperatures and that ocean acidification will
likely reduce coral shell and skeleton growth and increase erosion of
coral reefs. The NRC Understanding Earth's Deep Past assessment notes
four of the five major coral reef crises of the past 500 million years
were caused by GHG-induced ocean acidification and warming that
followed releases of GHGs of similar magnitude to the emissions
increases expected over the next hundred years. Similarly, the NRC
Ocean Acidification assessment finds that ``[t]he chemistry of the
ocean is changing at an unprecedented rate and magnitude due to
anthropogenic CO2 emissions; the rate of change exceeds any
known to have occurred for at least the past hundreds of thousands of
years.'' \195\ The assessment notes that the full range of consequences
is still unknown, but the risks ``threaten coral reefs, fisheries,
protected species, and other natural resources of value to society.''
\196\ The IPCC AR5 also projects biodiversity losses in marine
ecosystems, especially in the Arctic and tropics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ NRC, 2010: Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to
Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean. The National Academies
Press, p. 5.
\196\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPCC AR5 found that annual mean Arctic sea ice has been
declining at 3.5 to 4.1 percent per decade, and Northern Hemisphere
snow cover extent has decreased at about 1.6 percent per decade for
March and 11.7 percent per decade for June. The USGCRP NCA3 finds that
``rising temperatures across the U.S. have reduced lake ice, sea ice,
glaciers, and seasonal snow cover over the last few decades.'' \197\
These changes
[[Page 54458]]
are projected to continue, threatening seasonal water availability and
ecosystems reliant on ice and snow cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Welfare Impacts of Climate Change on Vulnerable Populations
In general, climate change impacts related to welfare are expected
to be unevenly distributed across different regions of the United
States and are expected to have a greater impact on certain
populations, such as indigenous peoples and the poor. The USGCRP NCA3
finds climate change impacts such as the rapid pace of temperature
rise, coastal erosion and inundation related to sea level rise and
storms, ice and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are affecting indigenous
people in the United States. Particularly in Alaska, critical
infrastructure and traditional livelihoods are threatened by climate
change, and ``[i]n parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and
other coastal locations, climate change impacts (through erosion and
inundation) are so severe that some communities are already relocating
from historical homelands to which their traditions and cultural
identities are tied.'' \198\ The IPCC AR5 notes, ``Climate-related
hazards exacerbate other stressors, often with negative outcomes for
livelihoods, especially for people living in poverty (high confidence).
Climate-related hazards affect poor people's lives directly through
impacts on livelihoods, reductions in crop yields, or destruction of
homes and indirectly through, for example, increased food prices and
food insecurity.'' \199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, p. 17.
\199\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros,
D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,
K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, p. 796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Other Considerations Regarding Endangerment to Welfare
In the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator considered
impacts on the U.S. population from climate change effects occurring
outside of the United States, such as national security concerns that
may arise as a result of climate change impacts in other regions of the
world. The most recent assessments provide further evidence in line
with the science supporting the 2009 Endangerment Finding, and further
support finding endangerment under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). The NRC
Climate and Social Stress assessment found that it would be ``prudent
for security analysts to expect climate surprises in the coming decade
. . . and for them to become progressively more serious and more
frequent thereafter.'' \200\ The NRC National Security Implications
assessment recommends preparing for increased needs for humanitarian
aid; responding to the effects of climate change in geopolitical
hotspots, including possible mass migrations; and addressing changing
security needs in the Arctic as sea ice retreats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ NRC, 2013: Climate and Social Stress: Implications for
Security Analysis. The National Academies Press, p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the NRC Abrupt Impacts report examines the potential
for tipping points, thresholds beyond which major and rapid changes
occur in the Earth's climate system, as well as in natural and human
systems that are impacted by the changing climate. The Abrupt Impacts
report did find less cause for concern than some previous assessments
regarding some abrupt events within the next century, such as
disruption of the oceanic Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
(AMOC) and sudden releases of high-latitude methane from hydrates and
permafrost. But, the same report found that the potential for abrupt
changes in ecosystems, weather and climate extremes, and groundwater
supplies critical for agriculture now seem more likely, severe, and
imminent. The assessment found that some abrupt changes were already
underway (e.g., Arctic sea ice retreat and increases in extinction risk
due to the speed of climate change), and cautioned that even abrupt
changes such disruption to the AMOC that are not expected in this
century can have severe impacts if/when they happen, such as
interference with the global transport of oceanic heat, salt, and
carbon.
c. Responses to Key Comments on Endangerment to Welfare
Public comments supported the EPA's summary of the scientific
information and finding that the well-mixed GHG air pollution is
reasonably anticipated to endanger welfare under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). Commenters cited a number of examples of climate impacts
relevant to welfare including sea level rise and coastal erosion,
species range changes and extinctions, and reduced water availability
due to changes in snowpack and timing of snow melt. Some commenters
also agreed with the EPA's summary of welfare impacts to certain
vulnerable populations and emphasized that certain populations are more
vulnerable to the welfare impacts of climate change, in particular
tribes and indigenous groups. No commenters disagreed with the EPA's
summary of the scientific information or with its conclusion on
endangerment to welfare. The EPA agrees with the commenters that this
finding of endangerment to welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) is
well supported by the scientific assessment literature; that it covers
a range of risks associated with climate change threats to food
production and agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea level rise
and coastal areas, energy, infrastructure, and settlements, and
ecosystems and wildlife; and that certain populations are more
vulnerable to climate change welfare risks and impacts.
D. Summary of the Administrator's Endangerment Finding Under CAA
Section 231
In sum, the Administrator finds, for purposes of CAA section
231(a)(2)(A), that elevated atmospheric concentrations of the six well-
mixed GHGs constitute air pollution that endangers both public health
and welfare of current and future generations. In this final action
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the EPA is informed by and places
considerable weight on the extensive scientific and technical evidence
in the record supporting the 2009 Endangerment Finding under CAA
section 202(a), including the major, peer-reviewed scientific
assessments used to address the question of whether GHGs in the
atmosphere endanger public health and welfare, and on the analytical
framework and conclusions upon which the EPA relied in making that
finding. This final finding under section 231(a)(2)(A) accounts for the
EPA's careful consideration of the scientific and technical record for
the 2009 Endangerment Finding, and of the new, major scientific
assessments issued since closing the administrative record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding, and consideration of public comments. No recent
information or assessments published since late 2009 suggest that it
would be reasonable for the EPA to now reach a different or contrary
conclusion for purposes of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) than the Agency
reached for purposes of section 202(a); instead, the new, major
scientific assessments
[[Page 54459]]
further support finding endangerment under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). In
making this finding for purposes of section 231(a)(2)(A), we are not
reopening or revisiting the 2009 Endangerment Finding under CAA section
202(a). To the contrary, in light of the recent judicial decisions
upholding that finding, the EPA believes the 2009 Endangerment Finding
is firmly established and well settled.\201\ Moreover, there is no need
for the EPA to reopen or revisit that finding for purposes of CAA
section 202(a) in order for the Administrator to rely on its analyses
and conclusions, supported by more recent studies, in support of making
an additional endangerment finding under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the
CAA. Today's final endangerment finding, although significantly
informed by the scientific information and the EPA's prior discussion
of that information in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, is solely for
purposes of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ CRR, 684 F.3d at 117 (D.C. Cir. 2012), reh'g en banc
denied, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25997, 26313, 26315 (D.C. Cir. 2012);
see also Utility Air Reg. Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. at 2438 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. The Administrator's Cause or Contribute Finding for Greenhouse Gases
Emitted by Certain Classes of Engines Used by Covered Aircraft Under
CAA Section 231
As noted above, the Administrator defines the air pollution for
purposes of the endangerment finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) to
be the aggregate of six well-mixed GHGs in the atmosphere, and finds
that such air pollution endangers public health and welfare of current
and future generations. The second step of the two-part endangerment
test for this finding is for the Administrator to determine whether the
emission of any air pollutant from certain classes of aircraft engines
used by certain aircraft causes or contributes to this endangering air
pollution. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding, and
is the second finding by the Administrator in this action under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A).
Section V.A of this document describes the Administrator's
reasoning for using under CAA section 231(a)(2) the same definition and
scope of the GHG air pollutant that was used in the 2009 Endangerment
Finding under CAA section 202(a). Section V.B puts forth the
Administrator's finding that emissions of well-mixed GHGs from certain
classes of aircraft engines used in covered aircraft contribute to the
air pollution which endangers public health and welfare under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). The EPA's responses to some of the most
significant comments for the cause or contribute finding are provided
later in section V.C. Responses to all significant issues raised by the
comments on the cause or contribute finding are contained in the
Response to Comments document, which is organized by subject area
(found in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828).
A. The Air Pollutant
1. Definition of Air Pollutant
Under section 231(a)(2)(A), the Administrator is to determine
whether emissions of any air pollutant from any class or classes of
aircraft engines cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. As with
the 2009 Endangerment Finding that the EPA conducted for purposes of
CAA section 202(a), when making a cause or contribute finding under
section 231(a)(2), the Administrator must first define the air
pollutant being evaluated. The Administrator has considered the logical
relationship between the GHG air pollution and air pollutant: While the
air pollution is the concentration (e.g., stock) of the well-mixed GHGs
in the atmosphere, the air pollutant is the same combined grouping of
the well-mixed GHGs, the emissions of which are analyzed for
contribution (e.g., the flow into the stock). See 74 FR at 66536
(similar discussion with respect to the finding for CAA section
202(a)). For purposes of section 231(a)(2)(A), the Administrator is
defining the air pollutant as the same combined grouping of the six
well-mixed GHGs that comprises the air pollution. Accordingly, the
Administrator is using the same definition of the air pollutant that
was used in the 2009 Endangerment Finding for purposes of CAA section
202(a), namely, the aggregate group of the same six well-mixed GHGs:
CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. See 74 FR at 66536-37
(discussing the definition of the GHG air pollutant with respect to the
finding for CAA section 202(a)). That is, as was done for the 2009
Endangerment Finding, the Administrator is defining a single air
pollutant made up of these six GHGs in this action under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A).
To reiterate what the Agency has previously stated on this subject,
this collective approach for the contribution test is consistent with
the treatment of GHGs by those studying climate change science and
policy, where it is common practice to evaluate GHGs on a collective,
CO2-equivalent basis.\202\ This collective approach to
defining the air pollutant is not unique; grouping of many substances
with common attributes as a single pollutant is common practice under
the CAA, for example with particulate matter and volatile organic
compounds (VOC). As noted in section IV.B, these six substances share
common attributes that support their grouping to define the air
pollution for purposes of the endangerment finding. These same common
attributes also support the Administrator grouping these six well-mixed
GHGs for purposes of defining the air pollutant for this cause or
contribute finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ As detailed in the 2009 Endangerment Finding proposal (74
FR at 18904) and continuing today, the UNFCCC, the U.S. and other
Parties report their annual emissions of the six GHGs in
CO2-equivalent units. This facilitates comparisons of the
multiple GHGs from different sources and from different countries,
and provides a measure of the collective warming potential of
multiple GHGs. Emissions of different GHGs are compared using GWPs,
which as described in section IV.B of this document are measures of
the warming impact of a pulse of emissions of a given substance over
100 years relative to the same mass of CO2. Therefore,
GWP-weighted emissions are measured in teragrams of CO2
equivalent (Tg CO2eq). One teragram (Tg) = 1 million
metric tons = 1 megatonne (Mt). 1 metric ton = 1,000 kilograms =
1.102 short tons = 2,205 lbs. The EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program (http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html (last accessed
April 8, 2016)) also reports GHG emissions on a CO2-
equivalent basis, recognizing the common and collective treatment of
these six well-mixed GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator recognizes that in this case, the aircraft
engines covered by this document emit two of the six gases, but not the
other four gases. Nonetheless, it is entirely appropriate, and in
keeping with the 2009 Endangerment Finding and past EPA practice, for
the Administrator to define the air pollutant under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) in a manner that recognizes the shared relevant properties
of all these six gases, even though they are not all emitted from the
classes of sources before her.\203\ For example, a source may emit only
20 of the possible 200-plus chemicals that meet the definition of VOC
in the EPA's regulations, but that source is evaluated based on its
emissions of VOC and not on its emissions of the 20 chemicals by name.
The fact that these six substances within the definition of GHGs share
common, relevant attributes is true regardless of the type of sources
being evaluated for
[[Page 54460]]
contribution. Moreover, the reasonableness of grouping these chemicals
as a single air pollutant does not turn on the particular source
category. By using the definition of the air pollutant as comprised of
the six GHGs with common attributes, the Administrator is taking
account of these shared attributes and how they are relevant to the air
pollution that endangers public health and welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ In the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found
that four of the six gases that were included in the definition of
the air pollutant were emitted by section 202 sources. 74 FR at
66537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, as explained in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, Congress
has given the EPA broad discretion to determine that appropriate
combinations of compounds should be treated as a single air pollutant.
74 FR at 66537. Section 302(g) of the CAA defines ``air pollutant'' as
``any air pollutant agent or combination of such agents. . . .'' Thus,
it is clear that the term ``air pollutant'' is not limited to
individual chemical compounds. Moreover, in determining that GHGs are
within the scope of this definition, the Supreme Court described
section 302(g) as a ``sweeping'' and ``capacious'' definition that
unambiguously included GHGs, which are ``unquestionably `agents' of air
pollution.'' Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 528, 532, 529 n. 26.
Although the Court did not interpret the term ``combination of'' air
pollution agents, there is no reason to interpret this phrase more
narrowly in this context. Congress used the term ``any'' and did not
qualify the kind of combinations that EPA could define as a single air
pollutant.
2. The Definition of Air Pollutant May Include Substances Not Emitted
by CAA Section 231(a)(2) Sources.
Similar to the discussion in section IV.B.6 for the definition of
``air pollution'' for purposes of the endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A), many commenters highlighted the fact that
aircraft engines emit only two of the six well-mixed GHGs that together
are defined as the ``air pollutant'' for purposes of the cause or
contribute finding under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Commenters
point out that the majority of emissions are CO2, while
nitrous oxide emissions are described as ``nominal (<1%)'' or
``trace.'' Some commenters ultimately concluded that the EPA's approach
to defining the air pollutant as an aggregate group of six gases is
acceptable, but that the scope of future regulations should be limited
to CO2. One commenter agreed with the Agency's evaluation of
the six GHGs based on their common attributes, but questioned the EPA's
decision to aggregate the six gases rather than considering them
individually for purposes of making the findings. Other commenters
disagreed with the EPA and requested limiting the definition of air
pollutant in this action to CO2 or to CO2 and
nitrous oxide.
The EPA disagrees with comments regarding changing the definition
of the air pollutant to limit it to only those GHGs that are emitted
from aircraft or to CO2 only. The EPA has explained both in
the 2009 Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a) and in the
proposed findings under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) that it is reasonable
and appropriate for the EPA to consider the logical relationship
between the GHG air pollution and air pollutant when defining the air
pollutant. The purpose of this cause or contribute inquiry is to
determine whether emissions of an air pollutant from certain aircraft
engines cause or contribute to the endangering GHG air pollution. As
described in section IV.B of this document, the endangering GHG air
pollution under consideration is defined as the aggregate group of the
six well-mixed GHGs based on shared characteristics and common
attributes relevant to climate change science and policy'' \204\--a
rationale that does not take into consideration emission source(s).
Similarly, the definition of the air pollutant in this cause or
contribute inquiry establishes well-mixed GHGs as a single air
pollutant comprised of six substances with common attributes. The
Administrator is giving effect to the shared attributes of the six
well-mixed GHGs and how they are relevant to the air pollution to which
they contribute. Thus, it is also reasonable for the EPA to evaluate
contribution for those gases in the aggregate, rather than
individually, to ensure a like-to-like comparison of aggregate
emissions contributing to an aggregate stock (atmospheric
concentration) of endangering GHG air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ 74 FR at 66517-19; 80 FR at 37774-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA recognized in the proposed findings that aircraft emit two
of the six well-mixed GHGs, but stated that nonetheless it is entirely
reasonable and appropriate, and in keeping with the 2009 Endangerment
Finding under CAA section 202(a) and other past EPA practice, for the
Administrator to group into a single class those substances that
possess shared relevant properties, even though they are not all
emitted from the classes of sources before her.\205\ The fact that
these six substances share these common, relevant attributes is true
regardless of the source category being evaluated for contribution.
After considering all the comments, this continues to be the EPA's
view. Moreover, this approach to defining an air pollutant as a
grouping of many substances is not unique to GHGs, but rather is common
practice under the CAA. For example, the EPA has heavy-duty truck
standards applicable to VOCs and PM, but it is highly unlikely that
heavy-duty trucks emit every substance that is included in the group
defined as VOC or PM. See 40 CFR 51.100(s) (defining volatile organic
compound (VOC) as ``any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and
ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical
reactions''; a list of exemptions are also included in the definition);
40 CFR 51.100(oo) (defining particulate matter (PM) as ``any airborne
finely divided solid or liquid material with an aerodynamic diameter
smaller than 100 micrometers'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ 80 FR at 37774-85, and 37787.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grouping these six substances as one air pollutant is just as
reasonable for the contribution analysis undertaken for CAA section
231(a)(2) sources that emit one subset of the six substances as it was
for the category of sources that emits another subset under CAA section
202(a). In other words, it is not necessarily the source category,
motor vehicles or aircraft engines, being evaluated for contribution
that determines the reasonableness of defining a group air pollutant
based on the shared attributes of the group's constituent substances.
Even if the EPA defined the air pollutant as the group of two compounds
emitted by CAA section 231(a)(2) sources, it would not change the
result. The Administrator would make the same contribution finding (as
described later in section V.B.), as it would have no material effect
on the emissions comparisons discussed in section V.B.
The question of limits to the scope of future regulations is
outside of the scope of this action because the EPA has neither
proposed nor is finalizing in this action any such regulatory
standards. This final action does not itself impose any requirements on
source categories under CAA section 231. Thus, the EPA anticipates that
this question could be raised and considered, as needed, in the
standard-setting phase of the regulatory process, and invites potential
commenters to submit their views on this issue in response to EPA's
anticipated future notice of proposed rulemaking on standards.
Another commenter expressed concern about the EPA's proposed
contribution finding because it does not differentiate between
CO2 emissions that result from combustion of fossil
[[Page 54461]]
fuels and those that result from ``combustion of biomass or biofuels
derived from herbaceous crops or crop residues, as well as biogenic
CO2 emissions associated with the production, gathering and
processing of crops or crop residues used in bio-based products
including fuels.'' \206\ The commenter argues that such crop-related
biogenic CO2 emissions should be excluded from the
contribution finding because the CO2 released back to the
atmosphere when emitted from crop-derived biogenic sources contains the
same carbon that was previously removed or sequestered from
CO2 in the atmosphere, and thus does not contribute to
elevated atmospheric concentrations of the six well-mixed GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ Biogenic CO2 Coalition, 2015: Comments on EPA's
Proposed Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause
or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To
Endanger Public Health and Welfare, 80 FR 37757 (July 1, 2015).
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828-0916. Available at
www.regulations.gov (last accessed April 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the previously discussed response to the commenter
in the discussion of the definition of air pollution being used under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the EPA reiterates that the Administrator
defines the relevant air pollutant considered in the contribution
finding as the aggregate group of the six well-mixed GHGs based on
shared physical characteristics and common attributes relevant to
climate change science and policy, and does not include consideration
of the source of the air pollutant. In the record for the 2009
Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a), the Agency stated that
``all CO2 emissions, regardless of source, influence
radiative forcing equally once it reaches the atmosphere and therefore
there is no distinction between biogenic and non-biogenic
CO2 regarding the CO2 and the other well-mixed
GHGs within the definition of air pollution that is reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.'' \207\ The EPA
continues to hold that position in these findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A), which is supported by the evidence before it. First, the
fact that these CO2 emissions originate from combustion of
carbon-based fuels created through different processes is not relevant
to defining the air pollutant that contributes to the endangering air
pollution. The origin and constitution of a fuel prior to its
combustion and subsequent emission into the atmosphere has no bearing
on the fact that CO2 and the other well-mixed GHGs are all
sufficiently long lived to become well mixed in the atmosphere,
directly emitted, of well-known radiative forcing, and generally
grouped and considered together in climate change scientific and policy
forums as the primary driver of climate change. A molecule of biogenic
CO2 has the same radiative forcing effect as a molecule of
fossil-fuel derived CO2. In other words, no matter the
original source of the CO2, the behavior of the
CO2 molecules in the atmosphere in terms of radiative
forcing, chemical reactivity, and atmospheric lifetime is effectively
the same. Any differential treatment of biogenic CO2 in the
context of the contribution finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
would be inconsistent with the primary scientific basis for the
grouping of the six well-mixed GHGs as a single class for purposes of
identifying the air pollutant (and air pollution, as explained in
section IV.B.1). A more detailed response to the issues raised in this
comment can be found in the Response to Comments document in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ EPA, 2009. Response to Comments document, Volume 9: The
Endangerment Finding, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-11676. Available at
www.regulations.gov (last accessed April 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Administrator's Finding Under CAA Section 231(a)(2)(A) That
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Certain Classes of Aircraft Engines Used
in Certain Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Be
Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare
Under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the Administrator finds that
emissions of the six well-mixed GHGs from classes of engines used in
U.S. covered aircraft, which are subsonic jet aircraft with a maximum
takeoff mass (MTOM) greater than 5,700 kilograms and subsonic propeller
driven (e.g., turboprop) aircraft with a MTOM greater than 8,618
kilograms, contribute to the air pollution that endangers public health
and welfare. The Administrator is not at this time making a
contribution finding regarding GHG emissions from engines not used in
covered aircraft (i.e., those used in smaller turboprops, smaller jet
aircraft, piston-engine aircraft, helicopters and military aircraft),
or regarding the emission of other substances emitted by aircraft
engines. A detailed discussion of covered aircraft and their GHG
emissions data is provided below in section V.B.4.
The Administrator reached her decision after reviewing emissions
data on the contribution of covered aircraft under CAA section 231(a)
relative to both U.S. GHG and global GHG emissions inventories. It is
the Administrator's judgment that the collective GHG emissions from the
classes of engines used in U.S. covered aircraft clearly contribute to
endangering GHG pollution, whether the comparison is--as described
later in Tables V.1 and V.3 of sections V.B.4.a and V.B.4.b
respectively--to domestic GHG inventories (10 percent of all U.S.
transportation GHG emissions, representing 2.8 percent of total U.S.
emissions), to global GHG inventories (26 percent of total global
aircraft GHG emissions representing 2.7 percent of total global
transportation emissions and 0.4 percent of all global GHG emissions),
or if using a combination of domestic and global inventory comparisons.
Both domestic and global comparisons, independently and jointly,
support the contribution finding under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A).208 209 210 Making this cause or contribute
finding for engines used in U.S. covered aircraft results in the vast
majority (89 percent) of total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions being
included in this determination (as described later in Table V.1 of
section V.B.4.a.). Covered U.S. aircraft GHG emissions are from
aircraft that operate in and from the U.S. and thus contribute to
emissions in the U.S. This includes emissions from U.S. domestic
flights, and emissions from U.S. international bunker flights
(emissions from the combustion of fuel used by aircraft departing the
U.S., regardless of whether they are a U.S. flagged carrier--also
described as emissions from combustion of U.S. international bunker
fuels \211\). In addition, the Administrator based her decision on all
the information in the record for this finding, including the public
comments received on the proposed finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA 430-R-16-002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed
June 14, 2016).
\209\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer,
O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schl[ouml]mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 1435 pp.
\210\ The domestic inventory comparisons are for the year 2014,
and global inventory comparisons are for the year 2010. The
rationale for the different years is discussed later in section
V.B.4.
\211\ For example, a flight departing Los Angeles and arriving
in Tokyo, regardless of whether it is a U.S. flagged carrier, is
considered a U.S. international bunker flight. A flight from London
to Hong Kong is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54462]]
1. The Administrator's Approach in Making This Finding
As it did for the 2009 Endangerment Finding under CAA section
202(a), and consistent with prior practice and current science, under
this CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) contribution finding the EPA uses annual
emissions as a reasonable proxy for contributions to the endangering
air pollution, i.e., the elevated atmospheric concentrations of the six
well-mixed GHGs. Cumulative anthropogenic emissions are primarily
responsible for the observed change in GHG concentrations in the
atmosphere (i.e., the fraction of a country's or an economic sector's
cumulative emissions compared to global GHG emissions over a long time
period will be roughly equal to the fraction of the change in
concentrations attributable to that country or economic sector);
likewise, annual GHG emissions are a reasonable proxy for annual
incremental changes in atmospheric GHG concentrations.
There are a number of possible ways of assessing whether a source's
emissions of air pollutants cause or contribute to the endangering air
pollution, and no single approach is required or has been used
exclusively in previous determinations under the CAA. Because under
this CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) action the air pollution against which
the contribution of air pollutant emissions is being evaluated is the
six well-mixed GHGs, one reasonable starting point for a contribution
analysis is a comparison of the emissions of the air pollutant from the
aircraft under consideration to the total U.S. and total global
emissions of these six GHGs. The Administrator recognizes that there
are other valid comparisons that can be considered in evaluating
whether emissions of the air pollutant cause or contribute to the
combined concentration of these six GHGs. To inform the Administrator's
assessment, section V.B.4 presents the following types of simple and
straightforward comparisons of covered U.S. aircraft GHG emissions:
As a share of current total U.S. GHG emissions;
As a share of current U.S. transportation GHG emissions;
As a share of current total global GHG emissions; and
As a share of the current global transportation GHG
emissions.
All annual GHG emissions data are reported on a CO2-
equivalent (CO2eq) basis, which as described above is a
commonly used metric to convert GHG emissions into standard units so
they can be compared. This approach is consistent with how the EPA
determined contribution for GHGs under section 202(a) of the CAA in
2009.
2. Details of the Administrator's Approach in Making This Cause or
Contribute Finding
The Administrator believes that consideration of the global context
is important for the cause or contribute finding under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A), but that the analysis should not solely consider the
global context. GHG emissions from engines used in U.S. covered
aircraft will become globally well-mixed in the atmosphere, and thus
will have an effect not only on the U.S. regional climate but also on
the global climate as a whole, for many decades to come. It is the
Administrator's view that it is reasonable for the cause or contribute
analysis conducted under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) for GHGs emitted by
covered U.S. aircraft engines to be consistent with the reasoning
supporting the 2009 GHG cause or contribute finding under CAA section
202, as the relevant statutory provisions are parallel and as the
pollutant is the same. Accordingly, the Administrator finds a positive
cause or contribute finding for GHG emissions from engines used in U.S.
covered aircraft is justified whether only the domestic context is
considered, only the global context is considered, or both the domestic
and global GHG emissions comparisons are viewed in combination. Both
domestic and global comparisons, independently and jointly, are equally
important for the finding.
In the 2009 CAA section 202(a) cause or contribute finding, the
Administrator considered the totality of the circumstances in order to
best understand the role played by CAA section 202(a) source categories
in emitting air pollutants that contribute to endangering GHG air
pollution, consistent with Congress' intention for EPA to consider the
cumulative impact of all emissions from sources to the endangering air
pollution. In that context, the global nature of the air pollution
problem and the breadth of countries and sources emitting GHGs meant
that no single country or source category dominated contribution to the
endangering air pollution on the global scale.\212\ As was the case in
2009, it is still true that no single country or GHG source category
dominates contribution to the collective stock of endangering GHG air
pollution on the global scale, and contributions from individual GHG
source categories may appear small in comparison to the total stock,
when, in fact, they are very important contributors in terms of both
absolute emissions or in comparison to GHG emissions from other source
categories, globally or within the United States. That is, because
climate change is a global problem that results from global GHG
emissions, it is more the result of numerous and varied sources each
emitting what may seem to be smaller percentages of GHG pollutants
compared to the total stock of GHG pollution, than typically might be
encountered when tackling solely regional or local environmental issues
for different kinds of pollutants that may have more of a direct impact
on receptors located in the relative vicinity of the polluting sources
(such as emissions of lead, for example, or sulfur dioxide without
consideration of its role as possible precursor to particulate matter).
It is reasonable for the Administrator to take these circumstances into
account in making a contribution determination regarding emissions from
sources of GHGs, as the impacts from GHGs are not spatially or
temporally limited.\213\ Therefore, in order to address the risks
associated with global climate change, it is less likely that a single
``majority'' contributing source category could be identified and
controlled such that the risks could be eliminated, without the need to
consider contributions to the endangering stock of air pollution from
``minority'' source categories that may present smaller percentages of
contribution than may sometimes be encountered when tackling regional
or local environmental threats presented by a single or limited set of
dominant sources. Thus, in addressing GHG risks, it will be, as the
Supreme Court suggested in Massachusetts v. EPA, necessary for agencies
to take an incremental approach to resolving the larger GHG
endangerment issue, as ``[a]gencies, like legislatures, do not
generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop. . . .
They instead whittle away at them over time, refining their preferred
approach as circumstances change and as they develop a more nuanced
understanding of how best to proceed.'' 549 U.S. 497, 524 (2007)
(citations omitted). The Administrator continues to believe that the
unique, global aspects of the climate change problem--including that
from a percentage perspective there are no dominating sources or
countries for GHG emissions contributing to the endangering GHG air
pollution and that the global problem is due more to the GHG emissions
contributed from
[[Page 54463]]
numerous and varied sources--justify consideration of contribution to
the endangering air pollution at lower percentage levels than the EPA
typically might encounter when analyzing contribution towards a more
localized air pollution problem. This is not to suggest, however, that
all or even most local or regional air pollution problems are due to a
single or small set of sources. For example, regional haze and ambient
concentrations of concern for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate
matter are commonly the result of a variety and great number of
contributing sources, and the EPA has frequently approached such
problems by incrementally regulating a set of sources that, in
isolation, is not contributing the dominant share of air pollutants to
the stock of air pollution, but is contributing a meaningful share.
This approach has been affirmed by reviewing courts as reasonable and
lawful under the CAA. See, e.g., Bluewater Network v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1
(D.C. Cir. 2004). Thus, the Administrator, similar to the approach
taken in the 2009 GHG cause or contribute finding under CAA section
202(a), is under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) placing weight on the fact
that engines used in U.S. covered aircraft, as discussed in detail in
sections V.B.4.a of this document, contribute the single largest share
of GHG emissions from transportation sources in the United States that
have not yet been regulated for GHG emissions, and that such GHG
emissions from U.S. covered aircraft are a meaningful contribution to
total U.S. and total global GHG emissions inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ 74 FR at 66538.
\213\ 74 FR at 66543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Additional Considerations
The Administrator also considered information that showed that
reasonable estimates of GHG emissions from engines used in U.S. covered
aircraft are projected to grow over the next 20 to 30 years, in making
her contribution finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Given the
projected growth in aircraft emissions compared to other sectors, it is
reasonable for the Administrator to consider future emissions
projections as further supporting her assessment of historical annual
emissions (recent emissions from the current fleet) and informing her
contribution determination. As described with further detail later in
section V.B.4.c, recent FAA projections reveal that by 2036 GHG
emissions from all aircraft and from U.S. covered aircraft are likely
to increase by 43 percent (from 191 Tg CO2eq to 272 Tg
CO2eq for the years 2010 to 2036).\214\ By contrast, it is
estimated that by 2036 the light-duty vehicle sector is projected to
see a 25 percent reduction in GHG emissions (1,133 Tg CO2eq
to 844 Tg CO2eq) from the 2010 baseline, while the freight
trucks sector is projected to experience a 23 percent increase in GHG
emissions (390 Tg CO2eq to 478 Tg CO2eq) from the
2010 baseline (this projected increase does not reflect the impact of
GHG reductions on the freight trucks sector anticipated from the Phase
2 heavy-duty GHG standards that have not yet been promulgated). In
addition, by 2036 the rail sector is projected to experience a 3
percent reduction in GHG emissions (44 Tg CO2eq to 43 Tg
CO2eq) from the 2010 baseline.\215\ Because the projected
growth in aircraft engine GHG emissions from U.S. covered aircraft
through 2036 is more than 80 Tg CO2eq,\216\ this
consideration of projected future emissions adds further support to the
Administrator's finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) that emissions
of the six well-mixed greenhouse gases from classes of engines used in
U.S. covered aircraft contribute to the GHG air pollution that
endangers public health and welfare.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ As discussed in section V.B.4.c, fuel burn growth rates
for air carriers and general aviation aircraft operating on jet fuel
are projected to grow by 43 percent from 2010 to 2036 and this
provides a scaling factor for growth in projected GHG emissions,
which are projected to increase at a similar rate as the fuel burn
by 2030, 2036, and 2040.
FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2016-2036, 94 pp.
Available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf (last
accessed March 29, 2016).
\215\ U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2015: Annual
Energy Outlook (AEO) 2015 with projections to 2040, DOE/EIA-0383,
154 pp. For the years 2010 to 2014, the baseline emissions for each
sector are from the 2016 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks Report, and after 2014 we utilize projections from the
2015 EIA AEO report. Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/
(last accessed May 12, 2015).
\216\ In addition, we expect aircraft engine GHG emissions from
U.S. covered aircraft to continue contributing to the endangering
pollution in the future and to be a bigger percentage of
transportation emissions, since these emission are projected to
increase at a faster rate than other transportation sources.
\217\ In 2010, U.S covered aircraft were responsible for 10
percent of U.S. transportation sector GHG emissions, and in 2036,
U.S. covered aircraft are projected to be the source of 15 percent
of U.S. transportation GHG emissions. In 2010, light-duty vehicles
were responsible for 58 percent of U.S. transportation GHG
emissions, and in 2036 they are projected to be the source of 46
percent of such emissions. In 2010, heavy-duty vehicles emitted 20
percent of U.S. transportation GHG emissions, and in 2036, they are
projected to emit 26 percent (this projection does not reflect the
impact from the Phase 2 heavy-duty GHG standards that have not yet
been promulgated). In 2010, the rail sector contributed 2 percent of
U.S. transportation GHG emissions, and in 2036, they are projected
to contribute the same percentage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs are now
at essentially unprecedented levels compared to the distant and recent
past.\218\ This is the unambiguous result of human-activity emissions
of these gases. See section IV.B.2 for more information on elevated
atmospheric GHG concentrations and anthropogenic drivers of climate
change. Global emissions of well-mixed GHGs have been increasing, and
are projected to continue increasing for the foreseeable future.
According to the IPCC AR5, total global (when using inventories from
all anthropogenic emitting sources including forestry and other land
use) emissions of GHGs in 2010 were 49,000 Tg CO2eq.\219\
This represents an increase in global GHG emissions of 29 percent since
1990 and of 23 percent since 2000. In 2010, total U.S. GHG emissions
were responsible for 13 percent of global GHG emissions (when comparing
inventories from all anthropogenic emitting sources including forestry
and other land use).\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor,
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, p. 11.
\219\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer,
O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schl[ouml]mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 1435 pp.
\220\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer,
O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schl[ouml]mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 351-411 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also providing 2012 estimates from other widely used and
recognized global datasets, the World Resources Institute's (WRI)
Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) and the International Energy
Agency (IEA).\221\ We are providing these data for several reasons;
first, there is value in looking at multiple data sources to see if
estimates are generally in line with one another. Second, there are
more recent
[[Page 54464]]
data available in the WRI/CAIT and IEA datasets (2010 IPCC data vs.
2012 WRI/CAIT and IEA data). Third and finally, these other datasets
provide additional utility for examining different disaggregations of
the data (by country, sector, and with or without forestry and other
land use emissions). Unless otherwise noted, we are presenting data
points from these other datasets without including data regarding
forestry and other land use inventories to enable straightforward
comparisons of gross emission estimates from transportation sources
specifically. The total global GHG emissions in 2012 from WRI/CAIT were
44,816 Tg of CO2eq, representing an increase in global GHG
emissions of 47 percent since 1990 and 32 percent since 2000. In
comparison, WRI/CAIT's estimate of total global GHG emissions in 2012
when including forestry and other land use inventories were 47,599 Tg
of CO2eq (representing an increase in global GHG emissions
of 40 percent since 1990 and 30 percent since 2000). In past years,
WRI/CAIT estimates have generally been consistent with those of IPCC.
In 2012, WRI/CAIT data indicate that total U.S. GHG emissions were
responsible for 15 percent of global emissions, which is also generally
in line with the percentages using IPCC's 2010 estimate described
above. According to WRI/CAIT, current U.S. GHG emissions rank only
behind China's, and China was responsible for 24 percent of total
global GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ World Resources Institute (WRI) Climate Analysis
Indicators Tool (CAIT) Data Explorer (Version 2.0). Available at
http://cait.wri.org (last accessed January 19, 2016). International
Energy Agency, Data Services. Available at http://data.iea.org (last
accessed January 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described earlier in section IV.A, in the proposed finding and
this final finding, the Administrator considers the recent, major
scientific assessments of the IPCC, USGCRP, and the NRC as the primary
scientific and technical basis informing her judgment. Thus, the
Administrator is informed by and places considerable weight upon the
IPCC's data on global GHG emissions. She also considers but places less
emphasis on the WRI/CAIT and IEA emissions data, which in comparison
have a different aggregation of underlying data but are available for
more recent years (2010 IPCC data vs. 2012 WRI/CAIT and IEA data).
The approach of considering the major scientific assessments,
including IPCC's assessment, provides assurance that the
Administrator's judgment is informed by the best available, well-vetted
science that reflects the consensus of the climate science research
community. The major findings of the assessments, including IPCC's
assessment, support the Administrator's findings in this action. While
the EPA uses the IPCC data as the primary data source for informing
this contribution finding, it has reasonably used additional data
sources from widely used and recognized global datasets to provide
context and information from more recent years. These additional data
supplement and confirm the IPCC data, as they are generally in line
with IPCC. Comparing their 2010 total global GHG emissions, IPCC data
are 49,000 Tg CO2eq, and WRI/CAIT data indicates 42,968 Tg
CO2eq (a 12 percent difference).\222\ Also, comparing their
2010 global aircraft GHG emissions estimates, IPCC data are 743 Tg
CO2eq, and IEA data indicate 749 Tg CO2eq (a 1
percent difference).\223\ Ultimately, whether the Agency utilizes the
IPCC data alone or the WRI/CAIT dataset (and IEA data) alone, or both
datasets together, it would have no material effect on the emissions
comparisons discussed in section V.B and the Administrator would make
the same contribution finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ Comparing their 2010 total global GHG emissions, IPCC data
are 49,000 Tg CO2eq, and WRI/CAIT data, including
forestry and land use inventories, indicates 45,748 Tg
CO2eq (a 7 percent difference).
\223\ Comparing 2012 WRI/CAIT to 2010 IPCC data, WRI/CAIT data
for total global GHG emissions indicates 44,816 Tg CO2eq
for 2012 (a 9 percent difference), and including forestry and land
use inventories WRI/CAIT data indicates 47,599 Tg CO2eq
for 2012 (a 3 percent difference). Comparing 2012 IEA data to 2010
IPCC data, IEA data for global aircraft GHG emissions indicates 775
Tg CO2eq for 2012 (a 4 percent difference).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Report
\224\ (hereinafter ``U.S. Inventory''), in which 2014 is the most
recent year for which data are available, indicates that total U.S. GHG
emissions increased by 7.3 percent from 1990 to 2014 (or by 7.8 percent
when using inventories that include forestry and other land use), and
emissions increased from 2013 to 2014 by 1.1 percent.\225\ This 2013 to
2014 increase was attributable to multiple factors including an
increase in vehicle miles traveled and vehicle fuel use, a colder
winter resulting in an increased demand for heating fuel, and an
increase in industrial production across multiple sectors. The U.S.
Inventory also shows that while overall U.S. GHG emissions grew between
1990 and 2014, transportation GHG emissions grew at a significantly
higher rate, 16 percent, more rapidly than any other U.S. sector.
Within the transportation sector, aircraft remain the single largest
source of GHG emissions not yet subject to any GHG regulations (U.S.
covered aircraft GHG emissions grew by 15 percent between 1990 and
2014, and total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions decreased by 3 percent over
this same time period).\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA 430-R-16-002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed
June 14, 2016). The EPA has determined that the U.S. Inventory has
been adequately reviewed in accordance with the EPA's Peer Review
Handbook. For the presentation of emissions inventory information in
this contribution finding, the EPA disaggregated the existing data
in one area of the U.S. Inventory (for the General Aviation Jet Fuel
Category) and had the disaggregation methodology peer reviewed in
accordance with the EPA's Peer Review Handbook. The EPA Science
Advisory Board reviewed this approach to the underlying technical
and scientific information supporting this action, and concluded
that the approach had precedent and the action will be based on
well-reviewed information. All relevant peer review documentation is
located in the docket for today's final action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0828).
\225\ As described later in detail, total U.S. GHG emissions,
include emissions from combustion of U.S. international bunker
fuels, which are fuels used for transport activities from aviation
(both commercial and military) and marine sources.
\226\ As described later in detail, total U.S. GHG emissions,
U.S. transportation GHG emissions, total U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions, and U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions include emissions
from combustion of U.S. international bunker fuels. More
specifically, total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions include
international bunker fuel emissions from both commercial and
military aviation. U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions include
international bunker fuel emissions from only commercial aviation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section V.B.4.a which follows describes U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
within the domestic context, while section V.B.4.b describes these same
GHG emissions in the global context. Section V.B.4.c addresses future
projections of aircraft GHG emissions.
a. U.S. Aircraft GHG Emissions Relative to U.S. GHG Transportation and
Total U.S. GHG Inventory
Relying on data from the U.S. Inventory, we compare total U.S.
aircraft GHG emission and U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions to the
transportation sector and to total U.S. GHG emissions as an indication
of the role this source plays in the total domestic portion of the air
pollution that is endangering by causing climate change. We are
providing information about total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions for
purposes of giving context for the discussion of GHG emissions from
U.S. covered aircraft, which are included in this contribution finding
under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). As explained in more detail below, the
contribution finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) in this action does
not include GHG emissions from all aircraft that operate in and from
the U.S. and thus emit GHGs in the U.S.
In 2014, total U.S. GHG emissions from all sources were 6,975 Tg
CO2eq. As stated above, total U.S. GHG emissions have
increased by 7.3 percent
[[Page 54465]]
between 1990 and 2014, while U.S. transportation GHG emissions from all
categories have grown 16 percent since 1990. The U.S. transportation
sector was the second largest GHG-emitting sector (behind electricity
generation), contributing 1,919 Tg CO2eq or 28 percent of
total U.S. GHG emissions in 2014. This sectoral total and the total
U.S. GHG emissions include emissions from combustion of U.S.
international bunker fuels, which are fuels used for transport
activities from aviation (both commercial and military) and marine
sources. Following the IPCC guidelines for common and consistent
accounting and reporting of GHGs, the UNFCCC requires countries to
report both total national GHG emissions and international bunker fuel
emissions (aviation and marine international bunker fuel emissions),
and though these emissions are reported separately, both are assigned
to the reporting country. In meeting the UNFCCC reporting requirements,
the U.S. Inventory calculates international bunker fuel GHG emissions
in a consistent manner with domestic GHG emissions. In this final
contribution finding, the EPA maintains its approach used in the
proposed findings to include aviation international bunker fuel
emissions attributable to the United States with the national emissions
number from the U.S. Inventory as reported to the UNFCCC. It is the
EPA's view that it is reasonable and appropriate for the analysis in
the contribution finding to reflect the full contribution of U.S.
emissions from certain classes of aircraft engines, including those
from domestic flights of U.S. aircraft and those associated with
international aviation bunker fuel emissions. Consistent with IPCC
guidelines for common and consistent accounting and reporting of GHGs
under the UNFCCC, the ``U.S. international aviation bunker fuels''
category includes emissions from combustion of fuel used by aircraft
departing from the United States, regardless of whether they are a U.S.
flagged carrier. Total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions (which include
emissions from international commercial and military aviation bunker
fuels) clearly are included in the U.S. transportation sector's GHG
emissions, accounting for 222 Tg CO2eq or 12 percent of such
emissions (see Table V.1). In 2014, total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
(222 Tg CO2eq) were the third largest transportation source
of GHGs within the United States, behind GHG emissions from light-duty
vehicles and medium- and heavy-duty trucks (totaling 1,508 Tg
CO2eq).
For purposes of making this cause or contribute finding, the EPA
includes a set of aircraft engine classes used in types of aircraft as
described below, which corresponds to the scope of the international
CO2 emissions standard agreed to by ICAO. These emissions
are from what we have previously described as ``covered aircraft''
(which include emissions from international commercial aviation bunker
fuels).
As mentioned earlier in section II.D, traditionally the U.S.
government (EPA and FAA) participates at ICAO in the development of
international standards, and then where appropriate, the EPA
establishes domestic aircraft engine emission standards under CAA
section 231 of at least equivalent stringency to ICAO's standards. An
international CO2 emissions standard was agreed to in
February 2016, and we expect to proceed with proposing emissions
standards of at least equivalent stringency domestically as soon as is
practicable. The thresholds of applicability for the international
CO2 emissions standard are based on weight as follows: For
subsonic jet aircraft, a maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) greater than 5,700
kilograms; and for subsonic propeller driven (e.g., turboprop)
aircraft, a MTOM greater than 8,618 kilograms.\227\ Applying these
weight thresholds, our contribution finding applies to GHG emissions
from classes of engines used in covered aircraft that meet these MTOM
criteria. For purposes of the contribution finding, examples of covered
aircraft include smaller jet aircraft such as the Cessna Citation CJ3+
and the Embraer E170, up to the largest commercial jet aircraft--the
Airbus A380 and the Boeing 747. Other examples of covered aircraft
include larger turboprop aircraft, such as the ATR 72 and the
Bombardier Q400. The scope of the contribution finding corresponds to
the aircraft engine GHG emissions that are from aircraft that match the
applicability thresholds for the international aircraft CO2
standard. We have also identified aircraft that are not covered
aircraft for purposes of this contribution finding. That includes
aircraft that fall below the international applicability thresholds:
Smaller turboprop aircraft, such as the Beechcraft King Air 350i, and
smaller jet aircraft, such as the Cessna Citation M2. In addition, ICAO
(with U.S. participation) has agreed to exclude ``piston-engine
aircraft,'' ``helicopters,'' and ``military aircraft'' \228\ from the
types of aircraft that will be subject to the ICAO standards.\229\ As
these aircraft will not be subject to the ICAO standards, in this
contribution finding we are also not including GHG emissions from
classes of engines used in these types of aircraft. We stress that our
exclusion of these aircraft does not reflect a final scientific or
technical determination regarding their GHG emissions. Rather,
consistent with how the endangerment finding does not include various
other climate forcers within the scope of the ``air pollution'' defined
in this final action, we are not prepared to make final decisions
regarding the GHG emissions from these excluded aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ ICAO, 2013: CAEP/9 Agreed Certification Requirement for
the Aeroplane CO2 Emissions Standard, Circular (Cir) 337, 40 pp.,
AN/192, Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/cat_2016_en.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016). The ICAO Circular 337
is found on page 87 of the ICAO Products & Services 2016 catalog and
is copyright protected; Order No. CIR337.
\228\ ICAO regulations only apply to civil aviation (aircraft
and aircraft engines); consequently, ICAO regulations do not apply
to military aircraft.
\229\ The applicability of the international CO2
standard is limited to subsonic aircraft, and does not extend to
supersonic aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of the GHG emissions from all classes of aircraft
engines are within the scope of this contribution finding, which
corresponds to that agreed to by ICAO. Below we describe the
contribution of these U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions to U.S. GHG
emissions, and later in section V.B.4.b we discuss the contribution of
these U.S. covered aircraft emissions to global GHG emissions, in
support of our conclusion that GHG emissions from engines used by U.S.
covered aircraft contribute to endangering GHG air pollution.
In 2014, GHG emissions from U.S. covered aircraft (197 Tg
CO2eq), which includes non-military GHG emissions from
combustion of U.S. international aviation bunker fuels,\230\ comprised
89 percent of total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions \231\ (222 Tg
CO2eq) and 10 percent of total U.S. transportation sector
GHG emissions (1,919 Tg CO2eq) (See Table V.1). Overall,
U.S. covered aircraft comprised the third largest source of GHG
emissions in the U.S. transportation sector behind only the light-duty
vehicle and medium- and heavy-duty truck sectors (totaling 1,508 Tg
CO2eq),\232\ which is the same ranking
[[Page 54466]]
as total U.S. aircraft.\233\ The U.S. covered aircraft also represent
2.8 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions (6,975 Tg CO2eq),
which is approximately equal to the contribution from total U.S.
aircraft of 3.2 percent (Table V.1).\234\ Also, in Table V.2 for
background information and context, we provide similar information, but
excluding GHG emissions from aviation combustion of U.S. international
bunker fuels.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ U.S. covered aircraft does not include military aircraft
that use U.S. international bunker fuels.
\231\ Eastern Research Group, Incorporated (ERG), 2015: U.S. Jet
Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions Inventory for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2
Standard Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract Number EP-D-11-006,
38 pp.
\232\ In 2014, the U.S. light-duty vehicle (passenger cars and
light-duty trucks) GHG emissions were 1,101 Tg CO2eq and
the medium- and heavy-duty truck GHG emissions were 407 Tg
CO2eq.
\233\ Compared independently, total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
and U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions are both ranked the third
largest source in the U.S. transportation sector, behind only light-
duty vehicle and medium- and heavy-duty truck sectors.
\234\ Total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions and U.S. covered
aircraft GHG emissions were from 12 to 31 percent greater in 2000
and 2005 than in 1990. These increases in aircraft GHG emissions are
primarily because aircraft operations (or number of flights) grew by
similar amounts during this time period. Also, total U.S. aircraft
GHG emissions and U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions were from 10
to 15 percent greater in 2000 and 2005 than in 2014. These decreases
in aircraft GHG emissions are partly because aircraft operations
decreased by similar amounts during this time period. In addition,
the decreases in aircraft emissions are due in part to improved
operational efficiency that results in more direct flight routing,
improvements in aircraft and engine technologies to reduce fuel burn
and emissions, and the accelerated retirement of older, less fuel
efficient aircraft. Also, the U.S. transportation GHG emissions were
changing at similar rates as total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions and
U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions for these same time periods, and
thus, the aircraft GHG emissions share of U.S. Transportation
remains approximately constant (over these time periods). (U.S. EPA,
2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2014, 558 pp. Available at http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2016-Main-Text.pdf (last
accessed April 22, 2016)).
\235\ For Table V.2, total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions and U.S.
covered aircraft GHG emissions exclude emissions from aviation
combustion of U.S. international bunker fuels. The U.S.
transportation sector GHG emissions and total U.S. GHG emissions (in
Table V.2) exclude emissions from both aviation and marine
combustion of U.S. international bunker fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that in regard to the six well-mixed GHGs
(CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride), only two of these gases--
CO2 and nitrous oxide--are reported as non-zero emissions
for total aircraft and covered aircraft.\236\ CO2 represents
99 percent of all GHGs from both total U.S. aircraft (220 Tg
CO2eq) and U.S. covered aircraft (195 Tg CO2eq),
and nitrous oxide represents 1 percent from total aircraft (2.1 Tg
CO2eq) and covered aircraft (1.9 Tg CO2eq).
Modern aircraft do not emit methane,\237\ and hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are not products of aircraft
engine combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA 430-R-16-002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed
June 14, 2016).
\237\ Emissions of methane from jet fuels are no longer
considered to be emitted (based on the latest studies) across the
time series from aircraft gas turbine engines burning jet fuel A at
higher power settings (EPA, Recommended Best Practice for
Quantifying Speciated Organic Gas Emissions from Aircraft Equipped
with Turbofan, Turbojet and Turboprop Engines, EPA-420-R-09-901, May
27, 2009 (see https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/420r09901.pdf (last accessed April 22, 2016)). Based on this data,
methane emissions factors for jet aircraft were reported as zero to
reflect the latest emissions testing data. Also, the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines indicate the following: ``Methane (CH4) may be
emitted by gas turbines during idle and by older technology engines,
but recent data suggest that little or no CH4 is emitted
by modern engines.'' (IPCC, 2006: IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, The National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, H.S.
Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe (eds.).
Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.) The EPA uses an emissions factor of zero
to maintain consistency with the IPCC reporting guidelines, while
continuing to stay abreast of the evolving research in this area.
For example, one recent study has indicated that modern aircraft jet
engines operating at higher power modes consume rather than emit
methane (Santoni et al., 2011: Aircraft Emissions of Methane and
Nitrous Oxide during the Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 45 pp. 7075-7082).
\238\ U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA 430-R-16-002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed
June 14, 2016).
\239\ ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions Inventory
for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2 Standard Thresholds, Final Report, EPA
Contract Number EP-D-11-006, 38 pp.
\240\ U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA 430-R-16-002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed
June 14, 2016).
Table V.1 238 239--Comparisons of U.S. Aircraft GHG Emissions to Total U.S. Transportation and Total U.S. GHG
Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 2000 2005 2010 2012 2013 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total U.S. Aircraft GHG emissions 228 262 254 216 212 216 222
(Tg CO2eq)........................
Share of U.S. Transportation... 14% 13% 12% 11% 11% 11% 12%
Share of total U.S. Inventory.. 3.5% 3.6% 3.4% 3% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2%
U.S. Covered Aircraft GHG emissions 171 223 218 191 190 195 197
(Tg CO2eq)........................
Share of U.S. aircraft GHG 75% 85% 86% 88% 90% 90% 89%
emissions.....................
Share of U.S. Transportation... 10% 11% 10% 9.8% 10% 10% 10%
Share of total U.S. Inventory.. 2.6% 3% 2.9% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8%
U.S. Transportation GHG emissions 1,659 2,029 2,119 1,950 1,891 1,895 1,919
(Tg CO2eq)........................
Share of total U.S. Inventory.. 26% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28%
Total U.S. GHG emissions (Tg CO2eq) 6,502 7,362 7,493 7,104 6,750 6,901 6,975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.2 240 241--Comparisons of U.S. Aircraft GHG Emissions to Total U.S. Transportation and Total U.S. GHG
Emissions--Excluding U.S. International Bunker Fuels 242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 2000 2005 2010 2012 2013 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total U.S. Aircraft GHG emissions 190 200 194 155 147 151 152
(Tg CO2eq)........................
Share of U.S. Transportation... 12% 10% 9.7% 8.5% 8.2% 8.4% 8.4%
Share of total U.S. Inventory.. 3% 2.8% 2.6% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%
U.S. Covered Aircraft GHG emissions 141 166 162 133 128 132 130
(Tg CO2eq)........................
Share of U.S. aircraft GHG 74% 83% 84% 86% 87% 88% 86%
emissions.....................
Share of U.S. Transportation... 9% 8.6% 8.1% 7.3% 7.2% 7.4% 7.2%
Share of total U.S. Inventory.. 2.2% 2.3% 2.2% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%
U.S. Transportation GHG emissions 1,554 1,927 2,004 1,832 1,784 1,794 1,815
(Tg CO2eq)........................
Share of total U.S. Inventory.. 24% 27% 27% 26% 27% 26% 26%
Total U.S. GHG emissions (Tg CO2eq) 6,397 7,259 7,379 6,986 6,643 6,800 6,871
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54467]]
b. U.S. Aircraft GHG Emissions Relative to Global Aircraft GHG
Inventory and the Total Global GHG Inventory
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions Inventory
for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2 Standard Thresholds, Final Report, EPA
Contract Number EP-D-11-006, 38 pp.
\242\ International bunker fuels emissions are emissions
resulting from the combustion of fuels used for international
transport activities, which includes aviation and marine. U.S.
international bunker fuels includes aviation and marine bunker fuels
allocated to the U.S. The U.S. international aviation bunker fuels
category includes emissions from combustion of fuel used by aircraft
departing from the United States, regardless of whether they are a
U.S. flagged carrier. The U.S. international marine bunker fuels
category includes emissions from the combustion of fuel used by
vessels of all flags (that are engaged in international water-borne
navigation) departing from the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For background information and context, we first provide
information on the portion of GHG emissions from global aircraft and
the global transportation sector to total global GHG emissions, and
describe how this compares to the emissions from aircraft covered by
the ICAO CO2 standard. We then compare U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions to the global aircraft sector, to the global transport
sector, and to total global GHG emissions as an indication of the role
this source plays in the total global portion of the air pollution that
is causing climate change. As in the preceding section, we present
comparisons from both total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions and U.S.
covered aircraft GHG emissions.
According to IPCC AR5, global aircraft GHG emissions in 2010 were
11 percent of global transport GHG emissions and 1.5 percent of total
global GHG emissions. Data from ICAO's 2013 Environmental Report
indicate that the vast majority of global emissions from the aircraft
sector are emitted by the types of aircraft that are covered by the
ICAO CO2 standard (``ICAO covered aircraft''), which was
agreed to in February 2016.\243\ When compared to global data from IPCC
AR5, worldwide GHG emissions from ICAO covered aircraft represented 93
percent (688 Tg CO2eq) of global aircraft GHG
emissions,\244\ 9.8 percent of global transport GHG emissions, and 1.4
percent of total global GHG emissions in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ ICAO CAEP, 2013: ICAO Environmental Report 2013, Aviation
and Climate Change, 224 pp. Available at http://cfapp.icao.int/Environmental-Report-2013/ (last accessed April 8, 2016).
\244\ Worldwide GHG emissions from ICAO covered aircraft include
emissions from both international and domestic aircraft operations
around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing data from the U.S. Inventory to IPCC AR5, we find that
total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions represented 29 percent of global
aircraft GHG emissions, 3.1 percent of global transport GHG emissions,
and 0.5 percent of total global GHG emissions in 2010 (see Table V.3).
U.S. covered aircraft in 2010 GHG emissions represented 26 percent of
global aircraft GHG emissions, 2.7 percent of global transport GHG
emissions, and 0.4 percent of total global GHG emissions (see Table
V.3).\245\ For reasons described above in section V.B.4, we also made
comparisons using 2012 estimates from WRI/CAIT and the IEA and found
that they yield very similar results.\246\ Also, in Table V.4 for
background information and context in regard to the global GHG
inventory, we provide similar information, but excluding aviation GHG
emissions from combustion of U.S. international bunker fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ We are providing information about total U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions for purposes of giving context for the discussion of GHG
emissions from U.S. covered aircraft, which are included in this
contribution finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). As explained in
more detail below, the contribution finding under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) in this action does not include GHG emissions from all
aircraft that operate in and from the U.S and thus emit GHGs in the
U.S.
\246\ Data from WRI/CAIT (that excludes forestry and other land
use inventories) and IEA show that, in 2012, total U.S. aircraft
emissions represented 27 percent of global aircraft GHG emissions,
2.9 percent of global transport GHG emissions, and 0.5 percent of
total global GHG emissions. U.S. covered aircraft represented 25
percent of global aircraft GHG emissions, 2.6 percent of global
transport GHG emissions, and 0.4 percent of total global GHG
emissions in 2012.
\247\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer,
O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schl[ouml]mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 1435 pp.
U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation,
EPA 430-R-16-002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed
June 14, 2016).
\248\ ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions Inventory
for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2 Standard Thresholds, Final Report, EPA
Contract Number EP-D-11-006, 38 pp.
\249\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer,
O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schl[ouml]mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 1435 pp. U.S. EPA, 2016:
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014,
1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430-R-16-002,
April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed June 14, 2016).
\250\ ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions Inventory
for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2 Standard Thresholds, Final Report, EPA
Contract Number EP-D-11-006, 38 pp.
Table V.3 \247\--Comparisons of U.S. Aircraft GHG Emissions to Total Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total U.S. U.S. covered Global
2010 (Tg CO2 aircraft share aircraft share aircraft share
eq) (%) (%) \248\ (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Aircraft GHG emissions.................. 743 29 26 ..............
Global Transport GHG emissions................. 7,000 3.1 2.7 11
Total Global GHG emissions..................... 49,000 0.5 0.4 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.4 \249\--Comparisons of U.S. Aircraft GHG Emissions to Total Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2010--
Excluding Aviation GHG Emissions From Combustion of U.S. International Bunker Fuels From the U.S. Aircraft GHG
Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total U.S. U.S. covered Global
2010 (Tg CO2 aircraft share aircraft share aircraft share
eq) (%) (%) \250\ (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Aircraft GHG emissions.................. 743 21 18 ..............
Global Transport GHG emissions................. 7,000 2.2 1.9 11
Total Global GHG emissions..................... 49,000 0.4 0.3 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54468]]
For additional background information and context, we used 2012
WRI/CAIT and IEA data to make comparisons between the aircraft sector
and the emissions inventories of entire countries and regions. When
compared to entire countries, total global aircraft GHG emissions in
2012 ranked 8th overall, behind only China, United States, India,
Russian Federation, Japan, Brazil, and Germany, and ahead of about 177
other countries. Total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions have historically
been and continue to be by far the largest contributor to global
aircraft GHG emissions. Total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions are about 6
times higher than aircraft GHG emissions from China, which globally is
the second ranked country for aircraft GHG emissions, and about 4 times
higher than aircraft GHG emissions from all of Asia. U.S. covered
aircraft GHG emissions are about 5 times more than total aircraft GHG
emissions from China, and about 4 times more than total aircraft GHG
emissions from all of Asia. If U.S. covered aircraft emissions of GHGs
were ranked against total GHG emissions for entire countries, these
covered aircraft emissions would rank ahead of Belgium, Czech Republic,
Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland and about 150 other countries in the
world.
c. Aircraft GHG Emissions Are Projected To Increase in the Future
Global and U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions have increased
between 1990 and 2010, and are predicted to continue to increase in
future years. While overall GHG emissions from U.S. covered aircraft
increased by 12 percent from 1990 to 2010, the portion attributable to
combustion of U.S. international aviation bunker fuels \251\ increased
by 91 percent.\252\ During this same time period, global aircraft GHG
emissions grew by 40 percent, and the portion attributable to
combustion of global international aviation bunker fuels increased by
80 percent.253 254 Notwithstanding the substantial growth in
GHG emissions from combustion of U.S. international aviation bunker
fuels, U.S. covered aircraft emissions have not increased as much as
global aircraft emissions from 1990 to 2010, primarily because the U.S.
aviation market was relatively mature compared to the markets in Europe
and other emergent markets, and because during this time period the
U.S. commercial air carriers suffered several major shocks that reduced
demand for air travel.\255\ In fact, U.S. covered aircraft emissions
decreased from 2000 to 2010 (13 percent), but then have increased from
2010 to 2014 (3 percent).\256\ After consolidation and restructuring in
recent years, the U.S. commercial air carriers have regained
profitability and are forecasted by the FAA to grow more over the next
20 to 30 years.\257\ With regard to global aircraft GHG emissions, the
aviation markets in Asia/Pacific, Europe (where airline deregulation
has stimulated significant new demands in this period), and the Middle
East (and other emerging markets) have been growing rapidly, and the
global market is expected to continue to grow significantly over the
next 20 to 30 years.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ The U.S. international aviation bunker fuels category
includes emissions from combustion of fuel used by aircraft
departing from the United States, regardless of whether they are a
U.S. flagged carrier. GHG emissions from U.S. international aviation
bunker fuels are a subset of GHG emissions from U.S. covered
aircraft. From 1990 to 2010, GHG emissions from U.S. covered
aircraft increased from 171 to 191 Tg CO2eq, and GHG
emissions from the portion attributable to U.S. international
aviation bunker fuels grew from 30 to 58 Tg CO2eq during
this same time period. From 1990 to 2011, GHG emissions from U.S.
covered aircraft increased from 171 to 193 Tg CO2eq (13
percent), and GHG emissions from the portion attributable to U.S.
international aviation bunker fuels grew from 30 to 62 Tg
CO2eq (110 percent). From 1990 to 2012, GHG emissions
from U.S. covered aircraft increased from 171 to 190 Tg
CO2eq (11 percent), and GHG emissions from the portion
attributable to U.S. international aviation bunker fuels grew from
30 to 62 Tg CO2eq (110 percent).
\252\ U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA 430-R-16-002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed
June 14, 2016).
\253\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer,
O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schl[ouml]mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, pp. 599-670.
\254\ According to IEA, from 1990 to 2012, global aircraft GHG
emissions grew by 53 percent, and global international aviation
bunker fuels increased by 86 percent. International Energy Agency
Data Services, Available at http://data.iea.org (last accessed
January 21, 2016).
\255\ According to the FAA Aerospace Forecast 2014-2034, these
shocks include the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, significant
increases in fuel prices, debt restructuring in Europe and U.S., and
a global recession. FAA, 2014: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years
2014-2034, 129 pp. Available at http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/2014_faa_aerospace_forecast.pdf
(last accessed April 8, 2016).
\256\ U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA 430-R-16-002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed
June 14, 2016).
\257\ According to the FAA Aerospace Forecast 2016-2036, in 2015
U.S. air carriers were profitable for the sixth consecutive year.
FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2016-2036, 94 pp.
Available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf (last
accessed March 29, 2016).
\258\ According to the FAA Aerospace Forecast 2014-2034, the
International Air Transport Association (IATA) reports that world
air carriers (including U.S. airlines) are expected to register an
operating profit for 2013. Based on financial data compiled by ICAO
and IATA, between 2004 and 2013 world airlines produced cumulative
operating profits (with nine years out of ten posting gains) and net
profits (with six years out of ten posting gains).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent studies estimate that both ICAO covered aircraft and U.S.
covered aircraft will experience substantial growth over the next 20 to
30 years in their absolute fuel burn,\259\ and that this will translate
into increased GHG emissions. ICAO estimates that the global fuel burn
from ICAO covered aircraft will increase by about 120 percent from 2010
to 2030 and by about 210 percent from 2010 to 2040 (for a scenario with
moderate technology and operational improvements).\260\ The FAA
projects that the fuel consumption from U.S. air carriers and general
aviation aircraft operating on jet fuel will grow by 43 percent from
2010 to 2036, corresponding to an average annual increase rate in fuel
consumption of 1.4 percent.\261\ These aircraft groups (U.S. air
carriers and general aviation aircraft operating on jet fuel) are of
similar scope to the U.S. covered aircraft whose engine GHG emissions
are the subject of this contribution finding. Using fuel burn growth
rates provided above as a scaling factor for growth in GHG emissions
(globally and nationally), it is estimated that GHG emissions from ICAO
covered aircraft and U.S. covered aircraft will increase at a similar
rate as the fuel burn by 2030, 2036, and 2040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2016-2036,
94 pp. Available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf (last
accessed March 29, 2016).
ICAO CAEP, 2013: ICAO Environmental Report 2013, Aviation and
Climate Change, 224 pp. Available at http://cfapp.icao.int/Environmental-Report-2013/ (last accessed April 8, 2016).
\260\ ICAO CAEP, 2013: ICAO Environmental Report 2013, Aviation
and Climate Change, 224 pp. Available at http://cfapp.icao.int/Environmental-Report-2013/ (last accessed April 8, 2016).
\261\ FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2016-2036,
94 pp. Available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf (last
accessed March 29, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Response to Key Comments on the Administrator's Cause or Contribute
Finding
EPA received numerous comments regarding the Administrator's
proposed cause or contribute finding. Below is a brief discussion of
some of the key comments. Responses to comments on
[[Page 54469]]
this topic (and further details for the key comments) are also
contained in the Response to Comments document.
1. The Administrator Reasonably Defined the Scope of the Cause or
Contribute Finding
a. Applicability Weight Thresholds Match Those of International
CO2 Standard
Several commenters stated that the EPA should undertake another
cause or contribute finding for a broader range of aircraft not covered
in our proposed finding, including smaller turboprop aircraft (such as
the Beechcraft King Air 350i), smaller jet aircraft (such as the Cessna
Citation M2), piston-engine aircraft, and helicopters. These commenters
stated, however, that this comment did not affect the validity of the
conclusions in the proposed finding. Numerous commenters stated their
support for our proposed finding's scope matching the applicability
(weight or MTOM) thresholds of the international CO2
standard.
As described earlier, at this time and for the purposes of this
cause or contribute finding under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the EPA is
including emissions of the six well-mixed greenhouse gases from classes
of engines used in U.S. covered aircraft which are subsonic jet
aircraft with a maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) greater than 5,700
kilograms and subsonic propeller driven (e.g., turboprop) aircraft with
a MTOM greater than 8,618 kilograms. We are not at this time taking
final action with respect to the GHG emissions from aircraft other than
those included in the scope of this finding.\262\ The cause or
contribute finding is a prerequisite under CAA section 231 for EPA to
adopt standards that are of at least equivalent stringency to those set
by ICAO. Accordingly, in this finding, the EPA is focusing on matching
the scope of our contribution finding to the applicability thresholds
of the international standard. The covered aircraft match the
applicability (or MTOM) thresholds of the international aircraft
CO2 standard. This is a reasonable approach for this first
finding regarding the contribution of aircraft GHG emissions to the
endangering air pollution, as the vast majority of U.S. emissions from
all classes of aircraft engines (89 percent of U.S. aircraft GHG
emissions) will be covered by this scope of applicability, which
corresponds to 26 percent of global aircraft GHG emissions. This
approach is also consistent with our past practice in promulgating
aircraft engine NOX standards. In ruling on a petition for
judicial review of the 2005 rule for further stringency of aircraft
engine NOX standards,\263\ the D.C. Circuit held that the
EPA's approach in that action of tracking the applicability criteria of
the ICAO standards was reasonable and permissible under the CAA. NACAA
v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1230-32 (D.C. Cir. 2007). (The Court also held
that section 231 of the CAA confers a broad degree of discretion on the
EPA to adopt aircraft emission standards that the Agency determines are
reasonable. Id.) Also, by using the phrase ``any class or classes of
aircraft engines which in [her] judgment causes, or contributes to,''
the endangering air pollution, section 231(a)(2)(A) gives the EPA
discretion to determine which class or classes of aircraft engines to
evaluate in making a cause or contribute finding, and whether to focus
on a single class or multiple classes of aircraft engines in satisfying
the requirements of section 231(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\262\ Consequently, this final action does not restrict the
EPA's future discretion to address GHG emissions from aircraft that
are not included in the scope of this finding, or prejudge how the
Agency would respond to a petition to address those GHG emissions
should one be submitted in the future.
\263\ U.S. EPA, 2005: Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and
Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test Procedures; Final
Rule, 70 FR 69664 (November 17, 2005).
In 2005, we promulgated more stringent NOX emission
standards for newly certified commercial turbofan engines. That
final rule brought the U.S. standards closer to alignment with ICAO
CAEP/4 requirements that became effective in 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the commenters who asked the EPA to undertake an
additional cause and contribute finding regarding GHG emissions from
non-covered U.S. aircraft, the Agency will take that request under
advisement and consideration among its other duties and priorities, but
is not prepared at this time to either reject or grant that request. At
this point, given the nearly complete process for ICAO's adoption of an
international standard, which will under the Chicago Convention trigger
the duties of the U.S. and other member states to adopt domestically
standards that are of at least equal stringency, it is most important
for the EPA to prepare for having to meet that nearly certain duty by
expeditious completion of the pre-requisite endangerment and cause or
contribute findings, without possibly delaying final action to consider
the possibility of proposing a broader cause or contribute finding
before taking final action.
b. The Administrator Reasonably Defined U.S. Covered Aircraft
A commenter stated that they understand that the scope of the
finding corresponds to the aircraft engine GHG emissions that are from
aircraft that match the applicability thresholds (or MTOM thresholds)
for the international aircraft CO2 standard; however, they
requested clarification on the difference between ``U.S. covered
aircraft'' and non-U.S. covered aircraft. This commenter requested
clarification on whether U.S. covered aircraft means aircraft made in
the U.S., registered in the U.S., operated by an entity holding an air
carrier certificate issued by the U.S., operated by an air carrier in
the National Air Space, or operated by anyone in the U.S. (National)
Air Space. The commenter expressed that the EPA must explain the basis
for its definition, and its claimed authority to regulate U.S. covered
aircraft.
As described earlier in section V.B.4, U.S. covered aircraft for
this cause or contribute finding refers to aircraft that are a subset
of all aircraft that meet the applicability thresholds of the
international aircraft CO2 standard, namely those that fly
domestically with starting and ending points within the U.S. and those
that depart the U.S. for international destinations. U.S. covered
aircraft include aircraft that operate in the U.S., and thus contribute
to GHG emissions in the U.S. This includes emissions from U.S. domestic
flights of these aircraft. In addition, the scope of this finding
reaches GHG emissions from non-military aircraft combusting U.S.
international bunker fuels departing the U.S., regardless of whether
they are a U.S. flagged carrier--also described as emissions from
combustion of U.S. international bunker fuels.\264\ Similar to
statements earlier in section V.B.4, in defining U.S. covered aircraft
for this specific contribution finding, in advance of needing to meet
the expected duties imposed by the ICAO standards, the EPA is focused
on the GHG emissions that the atmosphere receives as a result of
aviation activities occurring inside the U.S. and originating from the
U.S., in order to capture the full contribution of covered aircraft to
U.S. GHG emissions, consistent with the scope of the ICAO international
standard. It is important for the EPA's finding to reach the subset of
aircraft that meet the definition of U.S. covered aircraft, and that
subset
[[Page 54470]]
will not necessarily be covered by any other member state with
responsibilities to meet the ICAO standard under the Chicago
Convention. For U.S. covered aircraft, the EPA has chosen to combine
GHG emissions from all flights both domestic and those reflected in
international bunker fuel inventories to determine the contribution of
U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions to the endangering air pollution.
We additionally note that the IPCC and UNFCCC guidance states that for
an international bunker flight the entire flight's emissions are
calculated and reported (for the country from where the flight
departed), and the GHG emission calculation methodologies are the same
for both domestic and international aviation bunker fuel flights. We
have followed this guidance in our calculation methodologies for this
contribution finding.\265\ Ultimately, GHG emissions inventories from
U.S. covered aircraft with or without GHG emissions from combustion of
U.S. international aviation bunker fuels are sufficient to support the
Administrator's cause or contribute finding in this action, whether we
consider the inventories both together, or just the inventory from
domestic flights of U.S. covered aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ For example, a flight departing Los Angeles and arriving
in Tokyo--regardless of whether it is a U.S. flagged carrier--is
considered a U.S. international bunker flight. A flight from London
to Hong Kong is not.
\265\ As described earlier, following the IPCC guidelines for
common and consistent accounting and reporting of GHGs, the UNFCCC
requires countries to report both total national GHG emissions and
international bunker fuel emissions (aviation and marine
international bunker fuel emissions), and though these emissions are
reported separately, both are assigned to the reporting country. In
meeting the UNFCCC reporting requirements, the U.S. Inventory
calculates international bunker fuel GHG emissions in a consistent
manner with domestic GHG emissions. In this final contribution
finding, the EPA maintains its approach used in the proposed
findings to include aviation international bunker fuel emissions
attributable to the United States with the national emissions number
from the U.S. Inventory as reported to the UNFCCC. It is the EPA's
view that it is reasonable and appropriate for the analysis in the
contribution finding to reflect the full contribution of U.S.
emissions from certain classes of aircraft engines, including those
from domestic flights of U.S. aircraft and those associated with
international aviation bunker fuel emissions. Consistent with IPCC
guidelines for common and consistent accounting and reporting of
GHGs under the UNFCCC, the ``U.S. international aviation bunker
fuels'' category includes emissions from combustion of fuel used by
aircraft departing from the United States, regardless of whether
they are a U.S. flagged carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the comment that EPA must explain its claimed
authority to regulate U.S. covered aircraft, as described earlier, the
endangerment and cause or contribute findings are a prerequisite under
CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) for EPA to adopt standards (that are of at
least equivalent stringency to those set by ICAO). If the Administrator
makes these findings in the affirmative, she must issue standards under
section 231(a)(2)(A).
c. It Is Reasonable for the Administrator To Limit the Contribution
Finding to U.S. Covered Aircraft
Some commenters stated that the EPA should issue a broader
contribution finding and wait until the standard setting phase to
exercise discretion as to what classes of aircraft engines should be
covered by standards. These commenters stated that the EPA has
authority to set aircraft engine GHG emission standards, following a
cause or contribute finding, that do not impose requirements on every
engine or class of aircraft engine within the scope of that finding.
They also argued that in this instance there does not seem to be a
sufficiently reasoned basis for EPA to exclude the non-covered aircraft
for purposes of making the cause or contribute finding.
As described earlier in section III, the endangerment and
contribution findings for aircraft GHG emissions under section
231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA are a necessary first step to begin to address
GHG emissions from the aviation sector, the highest-emitting category
of transportation GHG sources that the EPA has not yet addressed. As
presented in more detail in section V.B.4 of this preamble, covered
U.S. aircraft GHG emissions in 2014 represented 10 percent of GHG
emissions from the U.S. transportation sector,\266\ and in 2010, the
latest year with complete global emissions data, U.S. covered aircraft
GHG emissions represented 26 percent of global aircraft GHG
emissions.267 268 U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions are
projected to increase by 43 percent over the next two decades.\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., U.S. EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA 430-R-16-002, April 2016. Available at: www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html (last accessed
June 14, 2016).
\267\ Ibid.
\268\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer,
O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schl[ouml]mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 599-670 pp.
\269\ As discussed in section V.B.4.c, fuel burn growth rates
for air carriers and general aviation aircraft operating on jet fuel
are projected to grow by 43 percent from 2010 to 2036, and this
provides a scaling factor for growth in GHG emissions which would
increase at a similar rate as the fuel burn by 2030, 2036, and 2040.
FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2016-2036, 94 pp.
Available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf (last
accessed March 29, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section III of this preamble summarizes the legal framework for
this action under CAA section 231. As discussed there, section
231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA states that ``The Administrator shall, from
time to time, issue proposed emission standards applicable to the
emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of aircraft
engines which in [her] judgment causes, or contributes to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare.'' Before the Administrator may issue standards addressing
emissions of GHGs under section 231, the Administrator must satisfy a
two-step test. First, the Administrator must decide whether, in her
judgment, the air pollution under consideration may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Second, the
Administrator must decide whether, in her judgment, emissions of an air
pollutant from the classes of aircraft engines under consideration
cause or contribute to this air pollution.\270\ If the Administrator
answers both questions in the affirmative, she must issue standards
under section 231. While we agree that the EPA has significant
discretion in the standard-setting phase, we disagree with the comment
to the extent that it suggests the standard-setting phase is the only
appropriate place for the EPA to exercise discretion as to the scope of
covered aircraft engine classes in this first instance of findings
regarding aircraft GHG emissions. By using the phrase ``any class or
classes of aircraft engines which in [her] judgment causes, or
contributes to,'' the endangering air pollution, section 231(a)(2)(A)
gives the EPA discretion to determine which class or classes of
aircraft engines to evaluate in making a cause or contribute finding,
and whether to focus on a single class or multiple classes of aircraft
engines in satisfying the requirements of section 231(a)(2)(A). Because
the scope of the first international CO2 standard adopted by
ICAO is limited to aircraft over the specified MTOM levels, and the
U.S. will have a duty to set domestic standards in order to meet its
obligations under the Chicago Convention, it is reasonable in this case
to similarly limit the scope of and issue this first aircraft GHG
contribution
[[Page 54471]]
finding and not delay this determination in order to possibly
additionally consider and re-propose our finding to reach a broader
scope. We do not necessarily disagree with the commenters who suggested
that we could issue a broader contribution finding and then narrow the
scope of future standards at that stage, but doing so in this action
would require further analysis and development of an additional
proposed finding, which could impede expeditious final issuance of the
finding we proposed and thereby possibly impede prompt development of
domestic standards that are of at least equivalent stringency as
ICAO's. We expect to proceed with promulgating a domestic
CO2 standard (or GHG standard) of at least equivalent
stringency to the international CO2 standard as soon as it
is practicable, and to begin to take action along this expected path,
we are exercising our discretion in matching the applicability
thresholds of the international CO2 standard. The majority
of the GHG emissions from all classes of aircraft engines would be
covered by these applicability thresholds. We are not making either
positive or negative contribution findings regarding GHG emissions from
engines used in non-covered aircraft at this time, but nothing prevents
us from doing so in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ To clarify the distinction between air pollution and air
pollutant, the air pollution is the atmospheric concentrations and
can be thought of as the total, cumulative stock of GHGs in the
atmosphere. The air pollutants, on the other hand, are the emissions
of GHGs and can be thought of as the flow that changes the size of
the total stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Administrator's Cause or Contribute Analysis Is Reasonable
a. It Is Reasonable To Include GHG Emissions From Combustion of
International Aviation Bunker Fuels in the U.S. Aircraft GHG Inventory
Some commenters stated that the EPA's choice of data for the cause
or contribute analysis was selective and biased. They contended that
emissions resulting from combustion of the international aviation
bunker fuels should not be part of the U.S. covered aircraft GHG
inventory or of the total U.S. aircraft GHG inventory, since the EPA's
own U.S. inventory for UNFCCC reporting purposes does not include
emissions from combustion of these fuels in the national GHG totals and
reports them separately to the UNFCCC, pursuant to UNFCCC inventory
reporting guidelines.\271\ Consequently, they asserted that the total
emissions from domestic commercial aircraft accounts for less than 2
percent (1.7%) of total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions. Because of this,
commenters believe that EPA inappropriately specified that the U.S.
covered aircraft GHG emissions represent 3 percent of the total U.S.
GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ EPA GHG Emissions Inventory at A-31 (reporting and
methods) is available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Annex-2-Emissions-Fossil-Fuel-Combustion.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA disagrees with this comment. As stated earlier in this
section, U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions \272\ (and total U.S.
aircraft GHG emissions) in this cause or contribute finding include
those GHG emissions resulting from combustion of international aviation
bunker fuel because we want to capture the full contribution of GHG
emissions from aircraft that are attributable to covered aircraft
activity in or originating from the U.S. In tracking aircraft GHG
emissions, the EPA is focused on the U.S.'s contributions from this
sector to the atmosphere. Accordingly, the EPA includes GHG emissions
for all aircraft departing from U.S. airports in a calendar year
(domestic and international flights) in determining total U.S. GHG
emissions and total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions. Thus, consistent with
that practice, for assessing GHG emissions from U.S. covered aircraft,
EPA has chosen to combine all flights, both those with domestic takeoff
and landing points, and those with domestic takeoff points and
international landing points. In addition, guidance from the IPCC and
UNFCCC states that for an international bunker fuel-combusting flight
the entire flight's emissions are calculated and reported, and the GHG
emission calculation methodologies are the same for both domestic and
international bunker fuel-combusting flights. The U.S. calculates and
reports emissions resulting from combustion of international bunker
fuels in accordance with this guidance. However, pursuant to UNFCCC
reporting guidelines, emissions from combustion of international bunker
fuels are reported separately from other aircraft emissions in the U.S.
Inventory, in order to meet the reporting commitments under the UNFCCC.
We follow the IPCC and UNFCC guidance in our calculation and reporting
methodologies.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ As described earlier in section V.B.4, U.S. covered
aircraft do not include military aircraft that use U.S.
international aviation bunker fuels.
\273\ As described earlier, following the IPCC guidelines for
common and consistent accounting and reporting of GHGs, the UNFCCC
requires countries to report both total national GHG emissions and
international bunker fuel emissions (aviation and marine
international bunker fuel emissions), and though these emissions are
reported separately, both are assigned to the reporting country. In
meeting the UNFCCC reporting requirements, the U.S. Inventory
calculates international bunker fuel GHG emissions in a consistent
manner with domestic GHG emissions. In this final contribution
finding, the EPA maintains its approach used in the proposed
findings to include aviation international bunker fuel emissions
attributable to the United States with the national emissions number
from the U.S. Inventory as reported to the UNFCCC. It is the EPA's
view that it is reasonable and appropriate for the analysis in the
contribution finding to reflect the full contribution of U.S.
emissions from certain classes of aircraft engines, including those
from domestic flights of U.S. aircraft and those associated with
international aviation bunker fuel emissions. Consistent with IPCC
guidelines for common and consistent accounting and reporting of
GHGs under the UNFCCC, the ``U.S. international aviation bunker
fuels'' category includes emissions from combustion of fuel used by
aircraft departing from the United States, regardless of whether
they are a U.S. flagged carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The Administrator Does Not Need To Find Significant Contribution, or
Establish a Bright Line
One comment letter stated that aircraft GHG emissions are extremely
small relative to both domestic and global GHG emissions in the
aggregate, and questioned whether there is a reasoned basis for EPA to
find that GHG emissions from U.S. aircraft cause or contribute to air
pollution that endangers public health and welfare when assessed not
only relative to contributions from other sectors, but also relative to
climate impacts. For example, this commenter indicated the EPA
estimates that total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions accounted for about
0.5 percent of total global GHG emissions in 2010. Thus, the commenter
stated that the total U.S. aircraft GHG emission contributions from the
U.S. aviation sector are extremely small relative to total global GHG
emissions, or negligible as a percentage of total global GHG emissions.
The EPA disagrees with this comment and has fully explained the
reasoning for this contribution finding in section V.B. In addition,
the Administrator interprets CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) to require some
level of contribution that, while more than de minimis or trivial, does
not need to rise to the level of significance to support a contribution
finding. By its terms, section 231(a)(2)(A) does not contain a modifier
on its use of the term ``contribute,'' which contrasts with some other
provisions of the CAA, such as sections 213(a)(2) and (4), and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), that expressly require a ``significant''
contribution. The Administrator's interpretation is consistent with the
interpretation of parallel language in CAA section 202(a), which was
described in the 2009 Findings,\274\ and is also supported by past
court decisions. For example, the D.C. Circuit's opinion in Catawba
County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009),
[[Page 54472]]
discusses the concept of contribution in the area designations context
under section 107(d)(1)(A), which, like section 231(a)(2)(A), does not
include the term ``significant'' to modify ``contribute.'' This
decision, along with others, supports the Administrator's
interpretation that CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) does not require a
significant contribution, but rather, in the absence of specific
language regarding the degree of contribution, provides the EPA
discretion such that a positive finding may be based on a determination
that the air pollutant emissions from the relevant class or classes of
aircraft engines merely ``contribute to'' the air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In
addition, similar to the interpretation of section 202(a) described in
the 2009 Findings, the Administrator is not required under section
231(a)(2)(A) to establish a bright-line, objective test for
contribution, but is to exercise her judgment in determining
contribution.\275\ As explained above, and similar to the approach used
in the 2009 Findings, when exercising her judgment under section
231(a)(2)(A), in this context the Administrator considers both the
cumulative impact and also the totality of the circumstances. It is
reasonable for the Administrator to apply a ```totality-of-the-
circumstances test to implement a statute that confers broad
discretionary authority, even if the test lacks a definite `threshold'
or `clear line of demarcation to define an open-ended term.' '' Id. at
39 (citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ 74 FR at 66541-42.
\275\ 74 FR at 66542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Catawba County the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA's
PM2.5 area designation decisions and analyzed CAA section
107(d), which requires the EPA to designate an area as nonattainment if
it ``contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area'' not meeting
the national ambient air quality standards. Id. at 35. CAA section
107(d)(1), as mentioned above, like section 231(a)(2)(A), does not use
the term ``significant'' in establishing this duty, or set forth any
other bright-line benchmark that must be met for the EPA to find
``contribution.'' The court noted that it had previously held that the
term ``contributes'' is ambiguous in the context of CAA language. See
EDF v. EPA, 82 F.3d 451, 459 (D.C. Cir. 1996). ``[A]mbiguities in
statutes within an agency's jurisdiction to administer are delegations
of authority to the agency to fill the statutory gap in reasonable
fashion.'' 571 F.3d at 35 (citing Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'c v.
Brand X Internet Servs, 545 U.S. 967, 980 (2005)).
The D.C. Circuit then proceeded to consider and reject petitioners'
argument that the verb ``contributes'' in CAA section 107(d)
necessarily connotes a significant causal relationship. Specifically,
the court again noted that the term is ambiguous, leaving it to the EPA
to interpret in a reasonable manner. In the context of this discussion,
the court noted that ``a contribution may simply exacerbate a problem
rather than cause it . . .'' 571 F.3d at 39. This is consistent with
the D.C. Circuit's decision in Bluewater Network v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1
(D.C. Cir. 2004), in which the court, in evaluating EPA's judgment that
emissions from a specific class or category of nonroad engines
contribute to air pollution for which findings of ``significant''
contribution had already been made with respect to nonroad engines'
emissions in the aggregate, noted that the term ``contribute'' in CAA
section 213(a)(3) ``[s]tanding alone, . . . has no inherent connotation
as to the magnitude or importance of the relevant `share' in the
effect; certainly it does not incorporate any `significance'
requirement.'' 370 F.3d at 13. In that context, the court found that
the bare term ``contribute'' invests the Administrator with discretion
to exercise judgment regarding what constitutes a sufficient
contribution for the purpose of making a contribution finding. Id. at
14.
Finally, in Catawba County, the D.C. Circuit also rejected
``petitioners' argument that the EPA violated the statute by failing to
articulate a quantified amount of contribution that would trigger'' the
regulatory action. 571 F.3d at 39. Although petitioners preferred that
the EPA establish a bright-line test, the court recognized that the
statute did not require that EPA ``quantify a uniform amount of
contribution.'' Id.
Given this context, it is entirely reasonable for the Administrator
to interpret CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) to require some level of
contribution that, while more than de minimis or trivial, need not be
significant. It is also reasonable for the EPA to find contribution
without establishing a ``bright-line `objective' test of
contribution.'' 571 F.3d at 39. As in the 2009 Endangerment Finding,
when exercising her judgment under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A), the
Administrator not only considers the cumulative impact, but also looks
at the totality of the circumstances (e.g., the air pollutant, the air
pollution, the nature of the endangerment, the type of source category,
the number of sources in the source category, and the number and type
of other source categories that may emit the air pollutant) when
determining whether the emissions justify regulation under the CAA. See
id. (finding it reasonable for an agency to adopt a totality-of-the-
circumstances test under similar circumstances). In the context of GHG
emissions, which come from many different sectors no single one of
which is primarily responsible as their source, and which aggregate
together into a common pollution stock that itself impacts public
health and welfare, it is particularly reasonable to address those
emissions from contributing sectors, even if looked at individually a
sector may not be considered dominant. Therefore, in the specific
context of making a contribution finding regarding GHG emissions from
aircraft engines under CAA section 231, it is reasonable for the EPA to
interpret that provision to not require some level of contribution that
rises to a pre-determined numerical level or percentage- or mass-based
portion of the overall endangering GHG air pollution.
In addition, the EPA disagrees with the assertion that we do not
have a reasoned basis to make this contribution finding. As described
earlier in section V.B.4, the collective GHG emissions from the classes
of engines used in U.S. covered aircraft (197 Tg CO2eq) clearly
contribute to the endangering GHG air pollution, whether the comparison
is domestic (89 percent of total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions, 10
percent of all U.S. transportation GHG emissions, representing 2.8
percent of total U.S. GHG emissions), global (26 percent of total
global aircraft GHG emissions representing 2.7 percent of total global
transportation GHG emissions and 0.4 percent of all global GHG
emissions), or a combination of domestic and global. Both domestic and
global comparisons, independently and jointly, support the finding.
Moreover, these comparisons also support the finding even if GHG
emissions from combustion of U.S. international aviation bunker fuels
are excluded. Making this cause or contribute finding for engines used
in U.S. covered aircraft will result in the vast majority of total U.S.
aircraft GHG emissions being included in this determination.
Also, even if the EPA were required to determine that a
contribution met or exceeded a level of significance to make a
contribution finding, for the reasons discussed above, the EPA would
find that the contribution to the U.S. and global stocks of GHG air
pollution from GHG emissions from classes of engines
[[Page 54473]]
used in U.S. covered aircraft is significant. As discussed in more
detail above, their GHG emissions are larger than those from the great
majority of emitting countries, they are larger than those of several
major emitting countries, and they constitute one of the largest
remaining unregulated contributing parts of the U.S. GHG emissions
inventory.
Finally, in response to the suggestion in the comments that a
positive contribution finding is not supportable unless the EPA finds
that GHG emissions from covered aircraft themselves cause climate
impacts, without consideration of the impacts caused by the larger
aggregate stock of GHG air pollution, we stress that the comment
conflates the endangerment and contribution steps of the analysis. In
making the contribution finding, the EPA need not additionally and
separately find whether the contribution alone causes endangerment.
That endangerment finding has already been made with respect to the
stock of GHG air pollution to which covered aircraft GHG emissions
contribute. The only remaining issue at the second step of the analysis
is whether the analyzed GHG source sector in fact emits GHG air
pollutants that contribute to the air pollution that has already been
found to endanger public health and welfare. The covered aircraft, as
we have shown and explained, clearly do emit GHG air pollutants that
measurably contribute to that stock.
c. The Administrator Reasonably Provided Context in Comparing Aircraft
GHG Emissions to Other Sector GHG Emissions
Some commenters asserted that the EPA did not show important
context in comparing covered aircraft GHG emissions to other mobile
source categories' GHG emissions. The EPA does not describe the very
low level of aircraft emissions in general relative to emissions from
other sources. The commenters assert that, for example, the EPA does
not point out that the growth in emissions from U.S. medium-duty and
heavy-duty trucks since 1990 is 53 percent greater than the GHG
emissions from the U.S. commercial aircraft sector today, and 18
percent higher than the total U.S. aircraft (or entire U.S. aviation
sector) GHG emissions today.
In the proposed finding and this final finding, the EPA provides
context for covered aircraft GHG emissions relative to other sectors'
GHG emissions, including other categories within the transportation
sector. As described earlier in section V.B.4, from a national
perspective, the EPA provided tables to compare total U.S. aircraft and
U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions to U.S. transportation and total
U.S. inventory GHG emissions, over an extended timeframe (1990-2014).
We also noted that overall U.S. covered aircraft comprised the third
largest source of GHG emissions in the U.S. transportation sector
behind only the light-duty vehicle sector and medium- and heavy-duty
truck sectors. This is the same ranking as total U.S. aircraft, if U.S.
covered aircraft and total U.S. aircraft are compared to the other
transportation sectors independent of one another. Finally, we note
that the U.S. inventory also shows that while overall U.S. GHG
emissions grew between 1990 and 2014, transportation GHG emissions grew
at a notably higher rate, 16 percent, more rapidly than any other U.S.
sector. U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions grew by 15 percent in this
time period.\276\ Within the transportation sector, aircraft remain the
single largest source of GHG emissions not yet subject to any GHG
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ Total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions decreased by 3 percent
from 1990 to 2014. U.S. non-covered aircraft GHG emissions decreased
by 56 percent in this same time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our proposal and again in this finding in section V.B.4, the
Administrator also stated her concern that recent projections indicate
that by 2036 GHG emissions both from all aircraft and from U.S. covered
aircraft are likely to increase by 43 percent (from 191 Tg
CO2eq to 272 Tg CO2eq for the years 2010 to
2036).\277\ This was contrasted with projections of GHG emissions
changes in other transportation sectors in the same timeframe. For
example, projections estimate that by 2036 the light-duty vehicle
sector is projected to see a 25 percent reduction in GHG emissions
(from 1,133 Tg CO2eq to 844 Tg CO2eq) from the
2010 baseline, while the freight trucks sector is projected to
experience a 23 percent increase in GHG emissions (from 390 Tg
CO2eq to 478 Tg CO2eq) from the 2010 baseline.
(However, this projected increase does not reflect the impact of GHG
reductions on the freight trucks sector anticipated from the Phase 2
heavy-duty GHG standards that have not yet been promulgated.) In
addition, by 2036 the rail sector is projected to experience a 3
percent reduction in GHG emissions (44 Tg CO2eq to 43 Tg
CO2eq) from the 2010 baseline.\278\ Therefore, in the context of
projected growth it appears that U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions
through 2036 are estimated to increase by more than 80 Tg
CO2eq.279 280
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ As discussed in section V.B.4.c, fuel burn growth rates
for air carriers and general aviation aircraft operating on jet fuel
are projected to grow by 43 percent from 2010 to 2036 and this
provides a scaling factor for growth in GHG emissions which would
increase at a similar rate as the fuel burn by 2030, 2036, and 2040.
FAA, 2016: FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2016-2036, 94 pp.
Available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2016-36_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf (last
accessed March 29, 2016).
\278\ U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2015: Annual
Energy Outlook (AEO) 2015 with projections to 2040, DOE/EIA-0383,
154 pp. For the years 2010 to 2014, the baseline emissions for each
sector are from the 2016 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks Report, and after 2014 we utilize projections from the
2015 EIA AEO report. Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/
(last accessed April 8, 2016).
\279\ As described earlier in section V.B.3, in 2010, U.S.
covered aircraft were 10 percent of U.S. transportation sector GHG
emissions, and in 2036, U.S. covered aircraft are projected to be 15
percent of U.S. transportation GHG emissions. In 2010, light-duty
vehicles were 58 percent of U.S. transportation GHG emissions, and
in 2036 they are projected to be 46 percent. In 2010, heavy-duty
vehicles were 20 percent of U.S. transportation GHG emissions, and
in 2036, they are projected to be 26 percent (does not reflect the
impact from the Phase 2 heavy-duty GHG standards that have not been
promulgated). In 2010, the rail sector was 2 percent of U.S.
transportation GHG emissions, and in 2036, they are projected to be
the same percentage.
\280\ Some commenters stated that section 231(a)(2)(A) of the
CAA does not give the EPA the authority to legally base the
contribution finding on future emission projections. As described
earlier in section V.B, the EPA considered future emission
projections as information to further support our assessment of
annual actual emissions (recent emissions from the current fleet)
for the contribution finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, the EPA provided a global perspective by showing how total
U.S. aircraft and U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions compare to global
aircraft, global transport, and total global GHG emissions. In
addition, the EPA shows the ranking of the total U.S. aircraft and U.S.
covered GHG emissions relative to other global transportation sectors
and entire country GHG emissions.
One commenter stated that it is inappropriate and misleading to
compare U.S. aircraft GHG emissions with those of other, individual
countries. They indicated that to fairly compare the U.S. airlines' GHG
emissions contribution, EPA should analyze, as ICAO does, contributions
from other world regions with comparable land masses and levels of
economic activity. (In terms of landmass, the U.S. ranks third
globally, behind only Russia and Canada.) The EPA disagrees with this
comment. The language of CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) is silent regarding
how the Administrator is to make her contribution analysis. While it
requires that the Administrator assess whether emissions of an air
pollutant cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonable be
anticipated to endanger public health or
[[Page 54474]]
welfare, it does not limit how she may undertake that assessment. It
surely is reasonable that the Administrator look at how total U.S.
aircraft GHG emissions and U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions compare
to U.S. and global GHG emissions on an absolute and relative basis,
including ranking compared to other transportation sectors and entire
country emissions. It is entirely appropriate for the Administrator to
decide that part of understanding how a U.S. source category emitting
GHGs fits into the bigger picture of global climate change is to
determine how that source category fits into the contribution from the
United States as a whole (including U.S. transportation and total U.S.
inventory GHG emissions), where the United States as a country is a
major emitter of GHGs. Knowing how total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions
and U.S. covered aircraft GHG emissions rank compared to entire country
GHG emissions is relevant to understanding what role they play in the
global problem and hence whether they ``contribute'' to the global
problem. Moreover, the Administrator is looking at these emissions
comparisons as appropriate under the applicable science, facts, and
law. Therefore, the EPA appropriately compared and provided sufficient
context for total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions and U.S. covered aircraft
GHG emissions.
d. The Administrator Reasonably Utilized Multiple Databases for Global
GHG Emissions
Some commenters stated that the mix of data from different years
utilizing emissions data from IPCC, WRI/CAIT, and IEA was confusing and
potentially misleading. The EPA acknowledges that we presented data
from a variety of sources, but the EPA does not agree that the analysis
and presentation was misleading. We note that the global analysis for
this covered aircraft contribution finding is consistent with the
analytical approach originally developed and used in the 2009
Endangerment Finding. As described earlier in section IV.A, in the
proposed finding and this final finding, the Administrator considers
the recent, major scientific assessments of the IPCC, USGCRP, and the
NRC as the primary scientific and technical basis informing her
judgment. Thus, the Administrator is informed by and places
considerable weight upon the IPCC's data on global GHG emissions. She
places less emphasis on the WRI/CAIT and IEA emissions data, which in
comparison have a different aggregation of underlying data but are
available for more recent years (in comparison to the IPCC data). As
described earlier in section V.B.4, the WRI/CAIT data are generally in
line with the IPCC data. For 2010 total global GHG emissions, IPCC data
are 49,000 Tg CO2eq, and WRI/CAIT indicates 42,968 Tg
CO2eq (a 12 percent difference).\281\ Also, for 2010 global
aircraft GHG emissions, IPCC data are 743 Tg CO2eq, and IEA
data indicate 749 Tg CO2eq (a 1 percent difference).\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ Comparing their 2010 total global GHG emissions, IPCC data
are 49,000 Tg CO2eq, and WRI/CAIT data, including
forestry and land use inventories, indicates 45,748 Tg
CO2eq (a 7 percent difference).
\282\ Comparing 2012 WRI/CAIT to 2010 IPCC data, WRI/CAIT data
for total global GHG emissions indicates 44,816 Tg CO2eq
for 2012 (a 9 percent difference), and including forestry and land
use inventories WRI/CAIT data indicates 47,599 Tg CO2eq
for 2012 (a 3 percent difference). Comparing 2012 IEA data to 2010
IPCC data, IEA data for global aircraft GHG emissions indicates 775
Tg CO2eq for 2012 (a 4 percent difference).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approach of considering the major scientific assessments,
including IPCC's assessment, provides assurance that the
Administrator's judgment is informed by the best available, well-vetted
science that reflects the consensus of the climate science research
community. The major findings of the assessments, including IPCC's
assessment, support the Administrator's findings in this action. While
the EPA uses the IPCC data as the primary data source for this
contribution finding, it has reasonably used additional data sources
from widely used and recognized global datasets to provide context and
information from more recent years. These additional data supplement
and confirm the IPCC data. Ultimately, whether the Agency utilizes the
IPCC data alone or the WRI/CAIT dataset (and IEA data) alone, or both
datasets together, it would have no material effect on the emissions
comparisons discussed in section V.B and the Administrator would make
the same contribution finding.
VI. Statutory Authority and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory action because it raises
novel policy issues. Accordingly, it was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This action finalizes a finding
that GHG emissions from aircraft cause or contribute to air pollution
that may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and
welfare. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. The endangerment and cause or contribute findings under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A) do not contain any information collection
activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The
endangerment and cause or contribute findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A) do not in-and-of-themselves impose any new requirements
but rather set forth the Administrator's determination that GHG
emissions from certain classes of aircraft engines--those used in U.S.
covered aircraft--cause or contribute to air pollution that may be
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
Accordingly, this action affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion
for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements
or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the findings.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The final endangerment and cause or contribute
findings under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) do not in-and-of-themselves
impose any new requirements but rather set forth the Administrator's
determination that GHG emissions from certain classes of aircraft
engines--those used in U.S. covered
[[Page 54475]]
aircraft--cause or contribute to air pollution that may be reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. The
Administrator considered climate change risks to children as part of
the endangerment and cause or contribute findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). This action's discussion of climate change impacts on
public health and welfare is found in section IV of this preamble.
Specific discussion with regard to children is contained in sections
IV.C.1.a of the preamble. A copy of all documents pertaining to the
impacts on children's health from climate change have been placed in
the public docket for this action.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
action is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because the
endangerment and cause or contribute findings under section
231(a)(2)(A) do not in-and-of themselves impose any new requirements
but rather set forth the Administrator's determination that GHG
emissions from certain classes of aircraft engines--those used in U.S.
covered aircraft--cause or contribute to air pollution that may be
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes this action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because this
action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health
or the environment. The Administrator considered climate change risks
to minority, low-income, and indigenous populations as part of these
endangerment and cause or contribute findings under CAA section
231(a)(2)(A). This action's discussion of climate change impacts on
public health and welfare is found in section IV.C of the preamble.
Specific discussion with regard to minority, low-income, and indigenous
populations are found in sections IV.C.1.a and IV.C.2.a of this
preamble. A copy of all documents pertaining to the impacts on these
communities from climate change have been placed in the public docket
for this action.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
The EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and
to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Determination Under Section 307(d)
Section 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA provides that the provisions of
section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may
determine.'' Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator
determines that this action is subject to the provisions of section
307(d).
VII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
Statutory authority for this action comes from 42 U.S.C. 7571, 7601
and 7607.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 87
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Aircraft, Aircraft
engines.
40 CFR Part 1068
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Imports, Motor vehicle pollution,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
Dated: July 25, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-18399 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
