46256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Notices 

1Please note that, as used herein, the term ‘‘HD 

GHG Regulations’’ encompasses all of 17 CCR 

95300 through 95312, thus including provisions 

whose scope may apply to products beyond 

using www.regulations.gov (our 

preferred method), by email to 

oei.docket@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via 

email to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Address comments to OMB Desk Officer 

for EPA. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes profanity, threats, 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Humphries, Policy, Training, and 

Oversight Division, Acquisition Policy 

and Training Service Center (3802R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

564–4377; email address: 

Humphries.daniel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Supporting documents which explain in 

detail the information that the EPA will 

be collecting are available in the public 

docket for this ICR. The docket can be 

viewed online at www.regulations.gov 

or in person at the EPA Docket Center, 

WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The telephone number for the 

Docket Center is 202–566–1744. For 

additional information about EPA’s 

public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

Abstract: EPA contractors will be 

required to disclose business 

relationships and corporate affiliations 

to determine whether EPA’s interests 

are jeopardized by such relationships 

(40 CFR part 486(c). Because EPA has 

the dual responsibility of cleanup and 

enforcement and because its contractors 

are often involved in both activities, it 

is imperative that contractors are free 

from conflicts of interest so as not to 

prejudice response and enforcement 

actions. Contractors will be required to 

maintain a database of business 

relationships and report information to 

EPA on either an annual basis or when 

each work order is issued. 

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1550.10, 

OMB Control No. 2030–0023. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Respondents/affected entities: Private 

businesses or non-profits. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Required to obtain or retain benefits. 

Estimated number of respondents: 

135 (total). 

Frequency of response: On occasion. 

Total estimated burden: 164,525 

hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.03(b). 

Total estimated cost: Estimated total 

annual costs are $10,684,253.50, 

includes $0 annualized capital or 

operation & maintenance costs. 

Changes in Estimates: There is an 

increase of 10,899 hours in the total 

estimated respondent burden compared 

with the ICR currently approved by 

OMB. The reason for this change is due 

to a correction of the calculations for the 

10 new respondents. 

Spencer Clark, 

Acting Director, Collection Strategies 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18585 Filed 8–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491; FRL9914–78– 

OAR] 

California State Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control Standards; HeavyDuty Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas 

Regulations; Notice of Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting the California 

Air Resources Board’s (CARB) request 

for a waiver of Clean Air Act 

preemption to enforce provisions of its 

Heavy-Duty Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse 

Gas Regulations (‘‘HD GHG 

Regulations’’) applicable to new 2011 

through 2013 model year (MY) Class 8 

tractors equipped with integrated 

sleeper berths (sleeper-cab tractors) and 

to new 2011 and subsequent MY dryvan and refrigerated-van trailers that are 

pulled by such tractors on California 

highways. This decision is issued under 

the authority of the Clean Air Act 

(‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’). 

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed 

by October 6, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491. All 

documents relied upon in making this 

decision, including those submitted to 

EPA by CARB, are contained in the 

public docket. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The 

Public Reading Room is open to the 

public on all federal government 

working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m.; generally, it is open Monday 

through Friday, excluding holidays. The 

telephone number for the Reading Room 

is (202) 566–1744. The Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center’s Web site is http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/docket.html. The email address for 

the Air and Radiation Docket is: a-andr-docket@epa.gov, the telephone 

number is (202) 566–1742, and the fax 

number is (202) 566–9744. An 

electronic version of the public docket 

is available through the federal 

government’s electronic public docket 

and comment system at http://

www.regulations.gov. After opening the 

www.regulations.gov Web site, enter 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491 in the ‘‘Enter 

Keyword or ID’’ fill-in box to view 

documents in the record. Although a 

part of the official docket, the public 

docket does not include Confidential 

Business Information (‘‘CBI’’) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

EPA’s Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality (‘‘OTAQ’’) maintains a Web 

page that contains general information 

on its review of California waiver and 

authorization requests. Included on that 

page are links to prior waiver Federal 

Register notices, some of which are 

cited in today’s notice; the page can be 

accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

cafr.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Read, Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Rd., 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (734) 

214–4367. Fax: (734) 214–4212. Email: 

read.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

By letter dated June 20, 2013, CARB 

requested that EPA grant a waiver of 

preemption pursuant to section 209(b) 

of the CAA for the California HD GHG 

Regulations applicable to new 2011 

through 2013 model year (MY) Class 8 

tractors equipped with integrated 

sleeper berths (sleeper-cab tractors) and 

to new 2011 and subsequent MY dryvan and refrigerated-van trailers that are 

pulled by such tractors on California 

highways. The HD GHG Regulations are 

set forth at title 17, California Code of 

Regulations (CCR) sections 95300 

through 95312.1 The HD GHG 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Notices 46257 

California’s waiver request. EPA will clarify when 

statements herein apply exclusively to provisions 

that are included in the waiver request, and not also 

to the HD GHG Regulations more generally. 

2 17 CCR §§ 95301(a)(1) and 95302(a)(28). 

3California Waiver Request Support Document, 

June 20, 2013, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0003, at 

2. California’s waiver request does not include 

California’s more recent action to harmonize its HD 

GHG Regulations with EPA’s HD GHG rule 

beginning MY 2014. 

4 Id. at 8. 

5California Global Warming Solutions Act of 

2006, Assembly Bill 32, Stats. 2006, Chapter 488. 

6 17 CCR § 95301(b), (c). Exemptions include 

local-haul and short-haul tractors and trailers, 

drayage tractors and trailers, storage trailers, empty 

trailers, drop-frame trailers, chassis trailers, curtainside trailers, livestock trailers, refuse trailers, and 

box-type trailers that are less than 53 feet in length. 

7EPA’s SmartWay Technology Program is a 

voluntary testing, verification, and designation 

program to help freight companies identify 

equipment, technologies and strategies that save 

fuel and lower emissions. See http://epa.gov/

smartway/about/index.htm. 

8These criteria for tractors include (i) a 2007 or 

subsequent MY federally certified engine, (ii) an 

integrated sleeper-cab high roof fairing, (iii) tractormounted side-fairing gap reducers, (iv) tractor fueltank side fairings, (v) aerodynamic bumpers and 

mirrors, (vi) low-rolling-resistance tires meeting 

SmartWay specifications, and (vii) optional systems 

for reducing extended engine idling. California 

Waiver Request Support Document, June 20, 2013, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0003, at 9. 

9As noted above, this waiver request is 

applicable only to MY 2011–2013 sleeper-cab 

tractors. 

10California’s term ‘‘SmartWay certified’’ is 

synonymous with EPA’s term ‘‘SmartWay 

designated’’ herein. 

11 17 CCR § 95303(a). 

12 17 CCR § 95303(b). EPA SmartWay criteria for 

dry-van trailers include five possible 

configurations, all requiring low-rolling-resistance 

tires and aerodynamic improvements (e.g., trailer 

side skirt fairings, trailer front-mounted gap reducer 

fairings, and trailer rear fairings). California Waiver 

Request Support Document, June 20, 2013, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0003, at 11. 

13 17 CCR §§ 95301(a), 95302(a)(37), 95303. 

14California Waiver Request Support Document, 

June 20, 2013, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0003, at 

1. 

15California Waiver Request Support Document, 

June 20, 2013, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0003, at 

1. The NOX reduction benefit is projected to fall to 

a 1 ton per day reduction in NOX emissions by 

2020. Id. 

16California Waiver Request Support Document, 

June 20, 2013, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0003, at 

4. 

17 Id. at 7. 

18CAA § 209(a). 42 U.S.C. 7543(a). 

19CAA § 209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1). 

California is the only state that meets section 

209(b)(1)’s requirement for obtaining a waiver. See 

S. Rep. No. 90–403 at 632 (1967). 

20CAA § 209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1). 

Regulations apply to new and in-use 53- 

foot or longer trailers and the new and 

in-use tractors that pull them.2

However, California expressly limited 

the scope of its waiver request to just 

new MY2011–MY2013 tractors and 

MY2011 and later trailers, as described 

above, ‘‘that together are considered to 

operate as an integrated vehicle.’’ 3

CARB did not include the full suite of 

HD GHG Regulations in its waiver 

request, nor did it include emergency, 

temporary amendments to the HD GHG 

Regulations that CARB adopted in 

2012.4

CARB’s June 20, 2013 submission 

provides analysis and evidence to 

support its finding that the HD GHG 

Regulations satisfy the CAA section 

209(b) criteria and that a waiver of 

preemption should be granted. 

The request notes that CARB 

promulgated the HD GHG Regulations 

in response to the California Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 

32).5 That legislation directs CARB to 

implement ‘‘discrete early action GHG 

emission reduction measures’’ to 

achieve cost-effective reductions in 

GHG emissions. The resulting HD GHG 

Regulations are designed to reduce GHG 

emissions by, inter alia, requiring 

certain tractors and semitrailers on 

California highways to employ 

aerodynamic technologies and lowrolling-resistance tires. CARB 

determined that aerodynamic and other 

efficiency upgrades would yield the 

greatest GHG benefits when installed on 

vehicles that operate frequently at 

highway speeds. The HD GHG 

Regulations therefore exempt certain 

types of tractors and trailers that CARB 

deemed to be less likely to travel at 

highway speeds.6

For vehicles that are not exempted, 

the HD GHG Regulations incorporate 

elements of EPA’s SmartWay®

Program,7 in effect mandating use of 

technologies that fleets may adopt 

voluntarily to achieve SmartWay 

designation.8 Specifically, the HD GHG 

Regulations subject to this waiver 

request require new 2011 and 

subsequent MY sleeper-cab tractors 9

that haul 53-foot or longer box-type 

trailers on California highways to be 

SmartWay certified 10 and to use 

SmartWay verified tires beginning 

January 1, 2010.11 Likewise, new 2011 

and subsequent MY dry-van and 

refrigerated-van trailers are also 

required to be SmartWay certified (or 

equipped with specified SmartWay 

Verified Technologies) beginning 

January 1, 2010.12 The HD GHG 

Regulations apply to tractors and trailers 

when driven on a highway within 

California whether or not the equipment 

is registered in California.13

CARB projects that the HD GHG 

Regulations overall will reduce GHG 

emissions in California by 0.7 million 

metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent 

emissions by 2020.14 CARB also projects 

that the HD GHG Regulations will 

reduce nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions 

in California by 3.1 tons per day in 

2014, thereby helping California meet 

national ambient air quality standards 

for particulate matter and ozone.15

CARB states that it formally adopted 

the HD GHG Regulations on October 23, 

2009, and the HD GHG Regulations 

became operative under state law on 

January 1, 2010.16 Amendments to 

provide compliance flexibility (‘‘the 

2010 Amendments’’), including limited 

five-day exemptions and an alternative 

compliance schedule, were adopted by 

CARB on October 26, 2011, and became 

operative on January 11, 2012.17

II. Principles Governing This Review 

A. Scope of Review 

Section 209(a) of the CAA provides: 

No State or any political subdivision thereof 

shall adopt or attempt to enforce any 

standard relating to the control of emissions 

from new motor vehicles or new motor 

vehicle engines subject to this part. No State 

shall require certification, inspection or any 

other approval relating to the control of 

emissions from any new motor vehicle or 

new motor vehicle engine as condition 

precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if 

any), or registration of such motor vehicle, 

motor vehicle engine, or equipment.18

Section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires 

the Administrator, after an opportunity 

for public hearing, to waive application 

of the prohibitions of section 209(a) for 

any state that has adopted standards 

(other than crankcase emission 

standards) for the control of emissions 

from new motor vehicles or new motor 

vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, 

if the state determines that its state 

standards will be, in the aggregate, at 

least as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable federal 

standards.19 However, no such waiver 

shall be granted if the Administrator 

finds that: (A) The protectiveness 

determination of the state is arbitrary 

and capricious; (B) the state does not 

need such state standards to meet 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions; or (C) such state standards 

and accompanying enforcement 

procedures are not consistent with 

section 202(a) of the Act.20

Key principles governing this review 

are that EPA should limit its inquiry to 

the specific findings identified in 

section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 

and that EPA will give substantial 

deference to the policy judgments 

California has made in adopting its 

regulations. In previous waiver 

decisions, EPA has stated that Congress 

intended the Agency’s review of 

California’s decision-making to be 

narrow. EPA has rejected arguments that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Notices 

21 ‘‘Waiver of Application of Clean Air Act to 

California State Standards,’’ 36 FR 17458 (Aug. 31, 

1971). Note that the more stringent standard 

expressed here, in 1971, was superseded by the 

1977 amendments to section 209, which established 

that California must determine that its standards 

are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public 

health and welfare as applicable federal standards. 

22See, e.g., Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 

627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (‘‘MEMA I’’). 

23 MEMA I, note 19, at 1121. 

24 Id. at 1126. 

25 Id. at 1126. 

26 Id. at 1122. 

27 Id. 

28 Id. 

29 Id. 

30See, e.g., ‘‘California State Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal 

Preemption,’’ 40 FR 23102 (May 28, 1975), at 23103. 

31 40 FR 23102, 23103–04 (May 28, 1975). 

32 40 FR 23102, 23104 (May 28, 1975); 58 FR 4166 

(January 13, 1993). 

are not specified in the statute as 

grounds for denying a waiver: 

‘‘The law makes it clear that the waiver 

requests cannot be denied unless the specific 

findings designated in the statute can 

properly be made. The issue of whether a 

proposed California requirement is likely to 

result in only marginal improvement in 

California air quality not commensurate with 

its costs or is otherwise an arguably unwise 

exercise of regulatory power is not legally 

pertinent to my decision under section 209, 

so long as the California requirement is 

consistent with section 202(a) and is more 

stringent than applicable Federal 

requirements in the sense that it may result 

in some further reduction in air pollution in 

California.’’ 21

This principle of narrow EPA review 

has been upheld by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit.22 Thus, EPA’s consideration of 

all the evidence submitted concerning a 

waiver decision is circumscribed by its 

relevance to those questions that may be 

considered under section 209(b)(1). 

B. Burden and Standard of Proof 

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit has made clear in MEMA I, 

opponents of a waiver request by 

California bear the burden of showing 

that the statutory criteria for a denial of 

the request have been met: 

‘‘[T]he language of the statute and its 

legislative history indicate that California’s 

regulations, and California’s determinations 

that they must comply with the statute, when 

presented to the Administrator are presumed 

to satisfy the waiver requirements and that 

the burden of proving otherwise is on 

whoever attacks them. California must 

present its regulations and findings at the 

hearing and thereafter the parties opposing 

the waiver request bear the burden of 

persuading the Administrator that the waiver 

request should be denied.’’ 23

The Administrator’s burden, on the 

other hand, is to make a reasonable 

evaluation of the information in the 

record in coming to the waiver decision. 

As the court in MEMA I stated: ‘‘here, 

too, if the Administrator ignores 

evidence demonstrating that the waiver 

should not be granted, or if he seeks to 

overcome that evidence with 

unsupported assumptions of his own, 

he runs the risk of having his waiver 

decision set aside as ‘arbitrary and 

capricious.’ ’’ 24 Therefore, the 

Administrator’s burden is to act 

‘‘reasonably.’’ 25

With regard to the standard of proof, 

the court in MEMA I explained that the 

Administrator’s role in a section 209 

proceeding is to: 

‘‘[. . .]consider all evidence that passes the 

threshold test of materiality and . . . 

thereafter assess such material evidence 

against a standard of proof to determine 

whether the parties favoring a denial of the 

waiver have shown that the factual 

circumstances exist in which Congress 

intended a denial of the waiver.’’ 26

In that decision, the court considered 

the standards of proof under section 209 

for the two findings related to granting 

a waiver for an ‘‘accompanying 

enforcement procedure.’’ Those findings 

involve: (1) Whether the enforcement 

procedures impact California’s prior 

protectiveness determination for the 

associated standards, and (2) whether 

the procedures are consistent with 

section 202(a). The principles set forth 

by the court, however, are similarly 

applicable to an EPA review of a request 

for a waiver of preemption for a 

standard. The court instructed that ‘‘the 

standard of proof must take account of 

the nature of the risk of error involved 

in any given decision, and it therefore 

varies with the finding involved. We 

need not decide how this standard 

operates in every waiver decision.’’ 27

With regard to the protectiveness 

finding, the court upheld the 

Administrator’s position that, to deny a 

waiver, there must be ‘‘clear and 

compelling evidence’’ to show that 

proposed enforcement procedures 

undermine the protectiveness of 

California’s standards.28 The court 

noted that this standard of proof also 

accords with the congressional intent to 

provide California with the broadest 

possible discretion in setting regulations 

it finds protective of the public health 

and welfare.29

With respect to the consistency 

finding, the court did not articulate a 

standard of proof applicable to all 

proceedings, but found that the 

opponents of the waiver were unable to 

meet their burden of proof even if the 

standard were a mere preponderance of 

the evidence. Although MEMA I did not 

explicitly consider the standards of 

proof under section 209 concerning a 

waiver request for ‘‘standards,’’ as 

compared to a waiver request for 

accompanying enforcement procedures, 

there is nothing in the opinion to 

suggest that the court’s analysis would 

not apply with equal force to such 

determinations. EPA’s past waiver 

decisions have consistently made clear 

that: ‘‘[E]ven in the two areas 

concededly reserved for Federal 

judgment by this legislation—the 

existence of ‘compelling and 

extraordinary’ conditions and whether 

the standards are technologically 

feasible—Congress intended that the 

standards of EPA review of the State 

decision to be a narrow one.’’ 30

C. Deference to California 

In previous waiver decisions, EPA has 

recognized that the intent of Congress in 

creating a limited review based on 

specifically listed criteria was to ensure 

that the federal government did not 

second-guess state policy choices. As 

the Agency explained in one prior 

waiver decision: 

‘‘It is worth noting . . . I would feel 

constrained to approve a California approach 

to the problem which I might also feel unable 

to adopt at the federal level in my own 

capacity as a regulator. . . . Since a 

balancing of [ ] risks and costs against the 

potential benefits from reduced emissions is 

a central policy decision for any regulatory 

agency under the statutory scheme outlined 

above, I believe I am required to give very 

substantial deference to California’s 

judgments on this score.’’ 31

Similarly, EPA has stated that the 

text, structure, and history of the 

California waiver provision clearly 

indicate both a congressional intent and 

appropriate EPA practice of leaving the 

decision on ‘‘ambiguous and 

controversial matters of public policy’’ 

to California’s judgment.32 This 

interpretation is supported by relevant 

discussion in the House Committee 

Report for the 1977 amendments to the 

CAA. Congress had the opportunity 

through the 1977 amendments to restrict 

the preexisting waiver provision, but 

elected instead to expand California’s 

flexibility to adopt a complete program 

of motor vehicle emission controls. The 

report explains that the amendment is 

intended to ratify and strengthen the 

preexisting California waiver provision 

and to affirm the underlying intent of 

that provision, that is, to afford 

California the broadest possible 

discretion in selecting the best means to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Notices 46259 

33 MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 

294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301–02 (1977)). 

34 78 FR 51724 (August 21, 2013). 

35 78 FR 51725 (August 21, 2013). 

36CCTA comments are at EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0491–0051. 

37OOIDA comments are at EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0491–0053. 

38CTA comments are at EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0491–0052. 

39ATA comments are at EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0491–0050. 

40CARB supplemental comments are at EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0054. 

41 42 U.S.C. 7543(a). 

42CCTA, at 2; OOIDA, at 4. 

43See Response to Comments Submitted by 

Parties Opposing California’s Request for Waiver for 

California’s Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas 

Regulation Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 

209(b), December 6, 2013, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0491–0054 (‘‘CARB’s Supplemental Comment’’), at 

2 (‘‘CARB’s authority to regulate new 53-foot and 

longer box-type trailers pulled by tractors is derived 

from state law, primarily, the California Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006. . .’’) 

44 MEMA I at 1110–1111 (‘‘The history of 

congressional consideration of the California waiver 

provision, from its original enactment up through 

1977, indicates that Congress intended the State to 

continue and expand its pioneering efforts at 

adopting and enforcing motor vehicle emission 

standards. . . .’’) (Emphasis added). 

45California Waiver Request Support Document, 

June 20, 2013, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0003, at 

2 n.4. 

46CARB’s Supplemental Comment, at 3–4, citing 

75 FR 74152, 74159–160, 74346 (November 30, 

2010) and 76 FR 57106, 57362 (September 15, 

2011). 

47 42 U.S.C. 7550(2). 

protect the health of its citizens and the 

public welfare.33

D. EPA’s Administrative Process in 

Consideration of California’s Request 

On August 21, 2013, EPA published a 

notice of opportunity for public hearing 

and comment on California’s waiver 

request. EPA scheduled a public hearing 

concerning CARB’s request for 

September 6, 2013, and asked for 

written comments to be submitted by 

October 18, 2013.34 EPA’s notice of 

CARB’s request invited public comment 

on the following issues: 

‘‘Whether (a) California’s determination that 

its motor vehicle emission standards are, in 

the aggregate, at least as protective of public 

health and welfare as applicable federal 

standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) 

California needs such standards to meet 

compelling and extraordinary conditions, 

and (c) California’s standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures are 

consistent with section 202(a) of the Clean 

Air Act.’’ 35

EPA received no requests for a public 

hearing, so EPA did not hold a hearing. 

In response to the request for comments, 

EPA received comments from the 

California Construction Trucking 

Association (‘‘CCTA’’),36 the OwnerOperated Independent Drivers 

Association, Inc. (OOIDA),37 the 

California Trucking Association 

(CTA),38 and American Trucking 

Associations, Inc. (ATA).39 EPA also 

received an additional submission from 

CARB.40

III. Discussion 

As discussed above, California’s HD 

GHG Regulations apply to trailers as 

well as to tractors. The inclusion of 

trailers in the HD GHG Regulations led 

to comments raising the question of 

whether California’s HD GHG trailer 

regulations are ‘‘standards relating to 

the control of emissions from new motor 

vehicles or new motor vehicle engines’’ 

and thus, subject to CAA preemption 

under section 209(a) and EPA waiver 

review under section 209(b)(1). As a 

result, before proceeding to a discussion 

on the merits of the waiver request, the 

Agency will first address the threshold 

question of whether the trailer 

regulations are indeed preempted and 

subject to EPA waiver review. 

A. Whether Regulation of GHG 

Emissions Associated With Trailer Use 

Relates to the Control of Emissions From 

New Motor Vehicles 

Section 209(a) of the CAA only 

applies to states’ efforts to ‘‘adopt or 

attempt to enforce any standard relating 

to the control of emissions from new 

motor vehicles or new motor vehicle 

engines.’’ 41 Thus, if a California 

regulation (in this case the regulation of 

greenhouse gas emissions associated 

with trailers) does not relate to the 

control of emissions from new motor 

vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, 

there would be no preemption under 

section 209(a), in which case no waiver 

is necessary under section 209(b) for 

California to enforce its regulation. 

Conversely, a waiver would be 

necessary and a waiver review 

appropriate for any California regulation 

that sets forth any standard relating to 

the control of emissions from new motor 

vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. 

Therefore, as a threshold issue, the 

Agency first examines whether the HD 

GHG Regulations, as applied to the 

reduction of emissions associated with 

trailer use, relate to the control of 

emissions from new motor vehicles or 

new motor vehicle engines, as defined 

and applied under the CAA. 

EPA received comments from CCTA 

and OOIDA arguing that trailers are not 

by themselves ‘‘motor vehicles’’ and do 

not by themselves produce emissions, 

and therefore the HD GHG Regulations 

for trailers are not related to the control 

of emissions from new motor vehicles.42

If this argument were correct, then 

California would not need a waiver of 

preemption under section 209(b), as 

discussed above. We note that both 

CCTA and OOIDA make this point as 

part of arguments that assume that 

CARB’s authority to regulate comes 

from CAA section 209, and that CARB 

has no authority to regulate trailers 

apart from the CAA. However, CARB’s 

authority to regulate comes from 

California state law.43 As noted in 

MEMA I, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit, in 

reviewing the legislative history of 

section 209, noted that California had 

regulated motor vehicle pollution well 

before any federal emission standards 

were promulgated.44 Section 209 only 

relates to the potential Clean Air Act 

preemption of California’s laws on the 

issue. EPA did not receive comment 

indicating why a regulation that is not 

preempted by section 209(a) should be 

disallowed by EPA. Certainly, for the 

purposes of this proceeding, if a state 

regulation is not prohibited under 

section 209(a), then a waiver of 

preemption is unnecessary under 

section 209(b). 

CARB’s waiver request did not 

address the statutory interpretation of 

the CAA definition of ‘‘motor vehicle,’’ 

or specifically, whether that would 

include trailers. CARB nevertheless 

requested a waiver for the HD GHG 

Regulations (including the trailer 

provisions), stating that its request ‘‘is 

consistent with EPA’s statements that 

trailers affect the aerodynamic drag, 

rolling resistance, and overall weight of 

combination tractor-trailers.’’ 45 In 

addition, CARB notes that EPA had 

found that addressing GHG emissions 

from heavy-duty trucks requires a focus 

on the entire vehicle, and that trailers 

impact the carbon dioxide emissions 

from combination tractors.46

The CAA defines ‘‘motor vehicle’’ as 

‘‘any self-propelled vehicle designed for 

transporting persons or property on a 

street or highway.’’ 47 The commenters 

note that a trailer by itself is not ‘‘selfpropelled.’’ They claim that as a result, 

a trailer does not constitute a ‘‘motor 

vehicle’’ under the Act. EPA disagrees. 

Another evident way to view the issue 

is that the heavy-duty vehicles subject 

to this waiver discussion are comprised 

of two major components: The tractor 

and the trailer. The vehicle consists of 

these two detachable parts. The trailer’s 

sole purpose is to serve as the cargohauling part of the vehicle. Without the 

tractor, the trailer cannot transport 

property; however, the tractor is also 

incomplete without the trailer. The 

motor vehicle needs both parts to 

accomplish its fully intended use. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Notices 

48 40 CFR 86.1803.01 ‘‘Complete heavy-duty 

vehicle means any Otto-cycle heavy-duty vehicle of 

14,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating or less 

that has the primary load carrying device or 

container attached at the time the vehicle leaves the 

control of the manufacturer of the engine.’’ . . . 

‘‘Incomplete heavy-duty vehicle means any heavyduty vehicle which does not have the primary load 

carrying device or container attached.’’ . . . 

‘‘Incomplete truck means any truck which does not 

have the primary load carrying device or container 

attached.’’ 

49See 75 FR 74152, 74347–49 (Nov. 30, 2010); 76 

FR 57106, 57362 (Sept. 15, 2011). Weight reduction 

from trailers affords another opportunity for GHG 

reductions. Id. 50CCTA, at 2. 

51 MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122, 1124 (‘‘Once 

California has come forward with a finding that the 

procedures it seeks to adopt will not undermine the 

protectiveness of its standards, parties opposing the 

waiver request must show that this finding is 

unreasonable.’’); see also 78 FR 2112, at 2121 (Jan. 

9, 2013). 

52California Waiver Request Support Document, 

June 20, 2013, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0003, at 

16, citing Board Resolutions 08–44 and 10–46. 

53 Id. 

54CAA § 209(b)(2); see also 78 FR 2112, at 2121– 

22 (Jan. 9, 2013). 

55As mentioned, while comparable federal 

standards for tractors will apply beginning MY 

2014, there are no comparable standards for MYs 

2011–2013 and no comparable federal standards for 

trailers. 

56 78 FR 2112, at 2122 n. 52 (Jan. 9, 2013); see 

also 71 FR 78190 (December 21, 2006). 

Connected together, a tractor and trailer 

constitute ‘‘a self-propelled vehicle 

designed for transporting persons or 

property on a street or highway,’’ and 

thus meet the definition of ‘‘motor 

vehicle’’ under the Act. 

This analysis is consistent with 

definitions in the federal regulations 

issued under the Act at 40 CFR 

86.1803.01, where a heavy-duty vehicle 

‘‘that has the primary load carrying 

device or container attached’’ is referred 

to as a ‘‘[c]omplete heavy-duty vehicle,’’ 

while a heavy-duty vehicle or truck 

‘‘which does not have the primary load 

carrying device or container attached’’ is 

referred to as an ‘‘[i]ncomplete heavyduty vehicle’’ or ‘‘[i]ncomplete 

truck.’’ 48 The trailers covered by 

California’s HD GHG Regulations here 

are properly considered ‘‘the primary 

load carrying device or container’’ for 

the heavy-duty vehicles to which they 

become attached for use. Therefore, 

such trailers are implicitly part of a 

‘‘complete heavy-duty vehicle,’’ and 

thus part of a ‘‘motor vehicle.’’ 

Moreover, it is important to remember 

that the preemption language in section 

209 does not apply to ‘‘motor vehicles,’’ 

but to ‘‘standards relating to the control 

of emissions from new motor vehicles or 

new motor vehicle engines.’’ As EPA 

discussed in its regulation of 

greenhouse gas emissions from heavyduty engines, improvement of trailer 

aerodynamic properties will result in 

GHG emission reductions from the 

engine of the vehicle. Likewise, the 

efficiency of the trailer’s tires affects 

GHG emission levels.49 It is therefore 

logical to treat emission-related 

regulations directed at trailers pulled by 

tractors as regulations related to 

emissions of motor vehicles under the 

CAA. In the same way, EPA has applied 

its regulations to other equipment that 

is known to be generally part of a motor 

vehicle and to affect the emissions of 

the motor vehicle, but is not part of the 

engine system or powertrain itself. For 

example, emissions testing provisions 

under the federal rules controlling GHG 

emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and 

engines consider the test vehicle’s tires 

in determining the vehicle’s emissions 

test results. Light-duty vehicle roof 

racks and side mirrors (which affect 

vehicle aerodynamics, and hence GHG 

emissions) are additional examples from 

the EPA light-duty vehicle rules. 

Similarly, under 40 CFR 86.1832–01, 

optional equipment that exceeds a 

certain minimum weight is counted in 

the curb weight for a motor vehicle if it 

is expected to be attached to at least a 

certain minimum percentage of the car 

line. Like trailers, these parts of a motor 

vehicle do not generally produce 

emissions by themselves, but they are 

nevertheless considered in determining 

emissions related to motor vehicles 

under the CAA. 

In addition, we note that the 

California program regulates emissions 

associated with trailers when the trailer 

is operated as part of the vehicle. The 

reason the trailers are regulated is 

because of their effect on the vehicle’s 

emissions. CCTA, in its comments, does 

not dispute that a trailer affects the GHG 

emissions of the tractor pulling the 

trailer or that the HD GHG Regulations 

as to trailers are intended to create 

emissions reductions from new motor 

vehicles that include those trailers.50 In 

summary, California’s HD GHG 

Regulations clearly relate to the control 

of emissions from new motor vehicles 

and are thus subject to the CAA 

preemption and waiver requirements 

under section 209 of the Act. 

Moreover, as noted above, even under 

the commenters’ argument that emission 

standards applicable to trailers are not 

standards related to emissions from 

motor vehicles, the effect of that 

argument would be that California 

regulations affecting trailers would not 

be preempted under section 209(a) of 

the Act, and thus would not need a 

waiver under section 209(b) of the Act 

to be enforced. 

B. California’s Protectiveness 

Determination 

Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the Act sets 

forth the first of the three criteria 

governing a waiver request—whether 

California was arbitrary and capricious 

in its determination that its state 

standards will be, in the aggregate, at 

least as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable federal standards. 

Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires 

EPA to deny a waiver if the 

Administrator finds that California’s 

protectiveness determination was 

arbitrary and capricious. However, a 

finding that California’s determination 

was arbitrary and capricious must be 

based upon clear and convincing 

evidence that California’s finding was 

unreasonable.51

CARB did make a protectiveness 

determination in adopting the HD GHG 

Regulations, and found that the HD 

GHG Regulations would not cause 

California motor vehicle emissions 

standards, in the aggregate, to be less 

protective of the public health and 

welfare than applicable federal 

standards.52 CARB noted that EPA has 

not issued regulations to control GHG 

emissions from medium and heavy-duty 

on-road vehicles for MYs 2011 through 

2013, nor has EPA issued regulations to 

control GHG emissions relating to trailer 

usage. Thus, CARB concluded that 

California’s 2011 through 2013 MY 

standards for sleeper-cab tractors and 

California’s standards for MY 2011 and 

subsequent trailers are clearly, in the 

aggregate, at least as protective of the 

public health and welfare as applicable 

federal standards.53

Under CAA section 209(b)(2), ‘‘[i]f 

each State standard is at least as 

stringent as the comparable applicable 

Federal standard, such State standard 

shall be deemed to be at least as 

protective of health and welfare as such 

Federal standards for purposes of 

[209(b)(1)].’’ 54 Where, as here, there are 

no federal standards directly 

comparable to the specific California 

standards under review,55 the analysis 

then occurs against the backdrop of 

previous waivers, which have 

determined that the California program 

overall was at least as protective as the 

federal program.56 Consistent with this 

precedent, we cannot find that the HD 

GHG Regulations for which California is 

now requesting a waiver diminish the 

protectiveness of the overall California 

program. 

EPA received no comments or 

evidence suggesting that CARB’s 

protectiveness determination, under 

EPA’s traditional analysis, is arbitrary 

and capricious. In particular, no 

commenter disputes that California 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Notices 46261 

57CTA, at 3; ‘‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,’’ 

76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011) (‘‘Heavy-Duty 

National Program’’). 

58CTA, at 3–4. 

59CTA, at 4 and at Attachment B. 

60 40 FR 23102, 23104 (May 28, 1975); 58 FR 4166 

(January 13, 1993). 

61 74 FR 32744, 32755 (July 8, 2009). 

62See California State Motor Vehicle Pollution 

Control Standards; Notice of Decision Granting a 

Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption for California’s 

2009 and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas 

Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles,’’ 74 

FR 32744 (July 8, 2009), at 32761; see also 

‘‘California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control 

Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption Notice of 

Decision,’’ 49 FR 18887 (May 3, 1984), at 18889– 

18890. 

63See 78 FR 2112, at 2125–26 (Jan. 9, 2013) 

(‘‘EPA does not look at whether the specific 

standards at issue are needed to meet compelling 

and extraordinary conditions related to that air 

pollutant.’’ ; see also EPA’s July 9, 2009 GHG 

Waiver Decision wherein EPA rejected the 

suggested interpretation of section 209(b)(1)(B) as 

requiring a review of the specific need for 

California’s new motor vehicle greenhouse gas 

emission standards as opposed to the traditional 

interpretation (need for the program as a whole) 

applied to local or regional air pollution problems. 

64California Waiver Request Support Document, 

at 16–17. 65California Waiver Request Support Document, 

at 17. 66See CARB Resolution 08–44 at 5. These 

estimates were later reduced somewhat. See 

footnote 69 hereafter. 67 74 FR 32744, 32762–63 (July 8, 2009). 68 74 FR 32744, 32762 (July 8, 2009); 76 FR 

77515, 77518 (December 13, 2011). 69California Waiver Request Support Document, 

at 1; see also CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement 

of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking (ISOR), 

October 2008, at ES5 and 56 (initially projecting 

even higher CO2 and NOX emission reductions). 70California Waiver Request Support Document, 

at 1. 

standards, whether looking at the 

particular California standards being 

analyzed in this proceeding or the entire 

suite of California standards applicable 

to heavy-duty motor vehicles and 

engines, are at least as stringent, in the 

aggregate, as applicable federal 

standards. 

CTA did note that EPA provided 

policy reasons for not regulating trailers 

in the first phase of EPA’s Heavy-Duty 

National Program.57 However, EPA’s 

policy discussion cited by CTA does not 

indicate regulation of trailers was not 

protective of public health. As noted 

above, EPA acknowledged that 

regulation of trailers could have an 

effect on emissions. 

CTA commented that CARB’s 

protectiveness conclusion was not 

rationally based on any empirical 

evidence demonstrating benefits from 

the HD GHG Regulations.58 CTA argues 

that the actual emission reduction 

benefits of the HD GHG Regulations are 

much lower than CARB claimed, 

although CTA acknowledges that the 

HD GHG Regulations do provide at least 

some emissions reduction benefit in the 

aggregate.59

However, this comment does not take 

into account that the protectiveness 

criterion does not require EPA to 

determine whether California’s 

projections of emission reductions are 

correct in all of its aspects, but rather 

whether CARB’s protectiveness 

determination is arbitrary and 

capricious. EPA need not confirm the 

precise accuracy of California’s 

projections of emission benefits to find 

that its protectiveness determination is 

not arbitrary or capricious. This has not 

been EPA’s practice in prior waiver 

decisions. As previously explained, the 

text, structure, and history of section 

209(b)(1) clearly indicate both a 

congressional intent and appropriate 

EPA practice of leaving the decision on 

‘‘ambiguous and controversial matters of 

public policy’’ to California’s 

judgment.60 Thus, unless EPA finds 

California’s protectiveness 

determination to be arbitrary and 

capricious, the state’s determination 

that the HD GHG regulations provide an 

emissions reduction benefit that is at 

least equivalent to federal standards is 

sufficient. 

Indeed, California standards are most 

clearly ‘‘at least as protective’’ when 

they are compared to the absence of 

federal emission standards.61 In the 

absence of EPA standards there is a 

clear rational basis for CARB’s 

determination that its standards will be 

at least as protective of human health 

and welfare as applicable federal 

standards. 

Because the commenters have not 

presented evidence to show that CARB’s 

protectiveness determination is arbitrary 

and capricious, EPA cannot find that 

California’s protectiveness 

determination is arbitrary and 

capricious. 

C. Whether the Standards are Necessary 

to Meet Compelling and Extraordinary 

Conditions 

Section 209(b)(1)(B) instructs that 

EPA cannot grant a waiver if the Agency 

finds that California ‘‘does not need 

such California standards to meet 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions.’’ EPA’s inquiry under this 

second criterion has traditionally been 

to determine whether California needs 

its own mobile source pollution 

program (i.e. set of standards) for the 

relevant class or category of vehicles or 

engines to meet compelling and 

extraordinary conditions, and not 

whether the specific standards that are 

the subject of the waiver request are 

necessary to meet such conditions.62 In 

recent waiver actions, EPA again 

examined the language of section 

209(b)(1)(B) and reiterated this 

longstanding traditional interpretation 

as the better approach for analyzing the 

need for ‘‘such State standards’’ to meet 

‘‘compelling and extraordinary 

conditions.’’ 63

CARB determined in Resolutions 08– 

44 and 10–46 that California continues 

to need its own motor vehicle program 

to meet serious ongoing air pollution 

problems.64 CARB asserted that ‘‘[t]he 

geographical and climatic conditions 

and the tremendous growth in vehicle 

population and use that moved 

Congress to authorize California to 

establish vehicle standards in 1967 still 

exist today . . . and therefore there can 

be no doubt of the continuing existence 

of compelling and extraordinary 

conditions justifying California’s need 

for its own motor vehicle emissions 

control program.’’ 65 Specifically, 

CARB’s Board noted ‘‘The proposed 

regulation is estimated to result in 

statewide reductions of oxides of 

nitrogen emissions of approximately 4.3 

tons per day in 2014 and 1.4 tons per 

day in 2020. These reductions will help 

with progress toward attainment of 

National and State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for particulate matter and 

ozone.’’ 66

There has been no evidence submitted 

to indicate that California’s compelling 

and extraordinary conditions do not 

continue to exist. California, 

particularly the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley air basins, continues to 

experience some of the worst air quality 

in the nation and many areas in 

California continue to be in nonattainment with national ambient air 

quality standards for fine particulate 

matter and ozone.67 As California has 

previously stated, ‘‘nothing in 

[California’s unique geographic and 

climatic] conditions has changed to 

warrant a change in this 

determination.’’ 68

California projects reductions in NOX

emissions of 3.1 tons per day in 2014 

and one ton per day in 2020 due to the 

HD GHG Regulations.69 California states 

that these emissions reductions will 

help California in its efforts to attain 

applicable air quality standards. 

California further projects that the HD 

GHG Regulations will reduce GHG 

emissions in California by 

approximately 0.7 million metric tons 

(MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent 

emissions (CO2e) by 2020.70

Based on the record before us, EPA is 

unable to identify any change in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Notices 

71CCTA, at 6. As background, on December 7, 

2009 the EPA Administrator made two distinct 

findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act. These findings were 

published at 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009). EPA 

noted that the transportation sources covered under 

section 202(a) (the section under which the two 

findings occur) include passenger cars, light- and 

heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles. 

72Although CCTA did not suggest that a 

supposed lack of an endangerment and/or cause or 

contribution finding regarding trailers causes 

CARB’s Regulations to be inconsistent with section 

202(a) (and thus a waiver should not be granted 

under the third waiver prong), EPA nevertheless 

incorporates the reasoning set forth in the 2009 

light-duty motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission 

waiver at 74 FR 32744, 32778–32780 (July 8, 2009). 

73CCTA acknowledges that the California 

program to reduce emissions from motor vehicles 

in fact predates the CAA. Here, California’s HD 

GHG tractor-trailer regulations are particularly 

authorized under the California Global Warming 

Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), codified at California 

Health and Safety Code section 38560.5. See CARB 

Supplemental Comments, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0491–0054, at 2–3. 

74CTA, at 2. CTA’s argument is perhaps more 

relevant to the ‘‘protectiveness’’ criterion discussed 

above, but CTA nevertheless raised the issue under 

this prong instead, as to whether California’s 

program is necessary to meet compelling and 

extraordinary conditions. 

75California Waiver Request Support Document, 

at 1; see also CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement 

of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking (ISOR), 

October 2008, at ES5 and 56 (initially projecting 

even higher CO2 and NOX emission reductions). 

76See 78 FR 2112, at 2125–26 (Jan. 9, 2013) 

(‘‘EPA does not look at whether the specific 

standards at issue are needed to meet compelling 

and extraordinary conditions related to that air 

pollutant.’’); see also EPA’s July 9, 2009 GHG 

Waiver Decision wherein EPA rejected the 

suggested interpretation of section 209(b)(1)(B) as 

requiring a review of the specific need for 

California’s new motor vehicle greenhouse gas 

emission standards as opposed to the traditional 

interpretation (need for the program as a whole) 

applied to local or regional air pollution problems. 

77CCTA, at 6. 

78See, e.g., California State Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control Standards; Notice of Decision 

Granting a Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption for 

California’s 2009 and Subsequent Model Year 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor 

Vehicles,’’ 74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009) (granting 

waiver despite the fact that EPA and NHTSA had 

embarked on a parallel national program to reduce 

GHG emissions from light duty vehicles). 

circumstances or evidence to suggest 

that the conditions that Congress 

identified as giving rise to serious air 

quality problems in California no longer 

exist. Therefore, EPA cannot deny the 

waiver based on EPA’s traditional 

interpretation under this waiver prong. 

EPA received comment suggesting 

that the Agency’s past actions suggest 

that there can be no ‘‘need’’ for CARB’s 

trailer standards. Specifically, in one 

comment, CCTA argues that the EPA’s 

‘‘cause or contribution finding,’’ made at 

the same time as EPA’s endangerment 

finding, concludes that current and 

projected concentrations of six key 

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 

threaten the public health and welfare 

of current and future generations, but 

only included a definition of ‘‘new 

motor vehicles and new motor vehicle 

engines’’ and did not include new or 

newer trailers in the finding.71 While 

CCTA phrased its comment as an 

argument against a necessity 

determination, these issues are 

extraneous to EPA’s evaluation of the 

request as dictated by section 

209(b)(1)(B).72 First, as previously 

noted, the HD GHG Regulations relate to 

the control of emissions from new motor 

vehicles, and trailers are appropriately 

considered within that term. Therefore, 

CCTA’s claim that EPA’s cause or 

contribution finding excluded trailers is 

incorrect. Second, the HD GHG 

Regulations are promulgated under the 

authority of California state law, and are 

neither contingent on nor dependent 

upon EPA’s endangerment finding.73

Finally, EPA’s evaluation of whether 

California’s standards are necessary to 

meet compelling and extraordinary 

conditions is not contingent on or 

directly related to EPA’s cause or 

contribution finding, which was a 

completely different determination than 

whether California needs its mobile 

source pollution program to meet 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions in California. 

CTA, also commenting on 

protectiveness, argues that California 

has not quantified how the HD GHG 

Regulations would ‘‘contribute to 

attainment of ozone or fine particle 

standards in any meaningful way.’’ 74

But nothing in section 209(b)(1)(B) calls 

for California to quantify specifically 

how its regulations would affect 

attainment of the national ambient air 

quality standards in the state. As noted 

above, California did quantify the 

projected reductions in emissions.75

California further states that these 

emissions reductions will help 

California in its efforts to attain national 

and California air quality standards for 

particulate matter and ozone. As stated 

before, the relevant question is whether 

California needs its own motor vehicle 

pollution program to meet compelling 

and extraordinary conditions, and not 

whether the specific standards that are 

the subject of this waiver request are 

necessary to meet such conditions.76

In another comment, CCTA argues 

that since EPA and the National 

Highway Transportation Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) have 

embarked on the Heavy-Duty National 

Program to regulate GHG emissions 

from heavy-duty vehicles, California’s 

program is no longer necessary.77

However, as EPA has explained in 

previous decisions, the existence of a 

parallel or harmonized national program 

does not mean that California’s program 

is no longer necessary.78 Furthermore, 

EPA’s GHG regulations for heavy-duty 

vehicles apply to 2014 and later tractors. 

California’s HD GHG Regulations, on the 

other hand, extend further than EPA’s 

regulations to cover 2011 through 2013 

tractors and also 2011 and later trailers. 

The California HD GHG Regulations 

apply earlier than the Heavy-Duty 

National Program, reflecting CARB’s 

interest in further action to address 

California’s ongoing air quality 

conditions. The CCTA presents no 

evidence that CARB’s emissions 

regulation program is not necessary to 

address the ‘‘compelling and 

extraordinary conditions’’ underlying 

the state’s air pollution problems. 

In summary, EPA has not received 

any adverse comments suggesting that 

California no longer needs a separate 

motor vehicle emissions program to 

address the various conditions that led 

to serious and unique air pollution 

problems in California. Based on the 

record, EPA is unable to identify any 

change in circumstances or any 

evidence to suggest that the conditions 

that California identified as giving rise 

to serious air quality problems in 

California no longer exist. Therefore, 

EPA cannot deny the waiver request 

here based on this criterion. 

D. Consistency With Section 202(a) 

For the third and final criterion, EPA 

evaluates the program for consistency 

with section 202(a) of the CAA. Under 

section 209(b)(1)(C) of the CAA, EPA 

must deny California’s waiver request if 

EPA finds that California’s standards 

and accompanying enforcement 

procedures are not consistent with 

section 202(a). Section 202(a) requires 

that regulations ‘‘shall take effect after 

such period as the Administrator finds 

necessary to permit the development 

and application of the relevant 

technology, considering the cost of 

compliance within that time.’’ 

EPA has previously stated that the 

determination is limited to whether 

those opposed to the waiver have met 

their burden of establishing that 

California’s standards are 

technologically infeasible, or that 

California’s test procedures impose 

requirements inconsistent with the 

federal test procedure. Infeasibility is 

shown by demonstrating that there is 

inadequate lead time to permit the 

development of technology necessary to 

meet the HD GHG Regulations that are 

subject to the waiver request, giving 

appropriate consideration to the cost of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Notices 46263 

79See, e.g., 38 F.R 30136 (November 1, 1973) and 

40 FR 30311 (July 18, 1975). 

80See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978). 

81California Waiver Request Support Document, 

at 22. EPA notes that California’s trailer 

requirements are based on EPA’s SmartWay 

program, including requiring implementation of 

EPA SmartWay verified technologies (or their 

equivalents). However, as mentioned above, EPA’s 

SmartWay Program is a voluntary system, and does 

not involve any federal standards or test procedures 

that could be considered inconsistent with 

California’s HD GHG Regulations. 

82OOIDA, at 3–4. 

83See, e.g., 78 FR 2134 (Jan. 9, 2013), 47 FR 7306, 

7309 (Feb. 18, 1982), 43 FR 25735 (Jun. 17, 1978), 

and 46 FR 26371, 26373 (May 12, 1981). 

84California Waiver Request Support Document, 

June 20, 2013, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0003, at 

21. 

85California Waiver Request Support Document, 

June 20, 2013, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0003, at 

24–25; see also CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement 

of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking (ISOR), 

October 2008, at 33–42, 60–62. 

86California Waiver Request Support Document, 

at 25; ISOR, at 42. 

87ATA, at 5 (citing CARB estimates that were 

updated in 2012). 

88OOIDA, at 4. 

89OOIDA, at 5, 10, 14. 

90Compare OOIDA, at 4, and California Waiver 

Request Support Document, June 20, 2013, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0491–0003, at 24–25; see also 

ISOR, at 20, 60, and CARB’s Supplemental 

Comment, at 14. 

91 17 C.C.R. § 95303(b) (requiring 2011 and newer 

trailers to be either (i) a U.S. EPA Certified 

SmartWay Trailer or (ii) equipped with verified 

SmartWay tires plus any combination or 

aerodynamic technologies demonstrated to provide 

a specified level of fuel savings (4% for refrigerated 

trailers, and 5% for dry van trailers)). Specifications 

for EPA Certified SmartWay Trailer configurations 

generally have a gap reducer on the trailer front or 

tail, but not both. See U.S. EPA Designated 

SmartWay Mark: License Agreement, Technical 

Specification & Requirements, and Graphics 

Standards & Usage Guide for Tractor & Trailer 

Manufacturers, ’’ at 7 (publication available at 

http://www.epa.gov/smartway/documents/

technology/get-designated/420-B11-013.pdf). 

92Compare OOIDA, at 4, and ISOR, at 33–42, 60– 

62; see also CARB’s Supplemental Comment, at 14. 

93California Waiver Request Support Document, 

at 24–25; ISOR, at 33–42, 60–62. 

94OOIDA, at 4. 

compliance within that time.79

California’s accompanying enforcement 

procedures would also be inconsistent 

with section 202(a) if the federal and 

California test procedures conflicted, 

i.e., if manufacturers would be unable to 

meet both the California and federal test 

requirements with the same test 

vehicle.80

EPA has reviewed the information 

submitted to the record to determine 

whether the parties opposing this 

waiver request have met their burden to 

demonstrate that the HD GHG 

Regulations subject to the waiver 

request are not consistent with section 

202(a). Regarding test procedure 

conflict, as CARB notes, there is no 

issue of test procedure inconsistency 

because there are no analogous federal 

standards or associated test procedures 

applicable to new 2011 through 2013 

MY sleeper tractors and new 2011 and 

subsequent MY dry-van and 

refrigerated-van trailers that are pulled 

by such tractors.81 EPA has received no 

adverse comment or evidence of test 

procedure inconsistency. Therefore, 

EPA cannot deny the waiver on the 

grounds of test procedure inconsistency. 

EPA did not receive comments 

arguing that the HD GHG Regulations 

were infeasible when reviewed purely 

as a matter of technology. The Agency 

did, however, receive comment arguing 

that the cost of compliance is excessive. 

In its comment, OOIDA states that the 

HD GHG Regulations impose large 

expenses on thousands of small and 

financially struggling carriers.82

Regarding cost of compliance 

arguments such as OOIDA’s, EPA’s 

previous waiver decisions indicate that 

cost of compliance as it relates to lead 

time must be shown to be excessive in 

order to find that California’s standards 

are inconsistent with section 202(a).83 In 

MEMA I, the court addressed the cost of 

compliance issue in reviewing a waiver 

decision. According to the court: 

Section 202’s cost of compliance concern, 

juxtaposed as it is with the requirement that 

the Administrator provide the requisite lead 

time to allow technological developments, 

refers to the economic costs of motor vehicle 

emission standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures. See S. Rep. No. 192, 

89th Cong., 1st Sass. 5–8 (1965); H.R. Rep. 

No. 728 90th Cong., 1st Sass. 23 (1967), 

reprinted in U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 

1967, p. 1938. It relates to the timing of a 

particular emission control regulation rather 

than to its social implications. Congress 

wanted to avoid undue economic disruption 

in the automotive manufacturing industry 

and also sought to avoid doubling or tripling 

the cost of motor vehicles to purchasers. It, 

therefore, requires that the emission control 

regulations be technologically feasible within 

economic parameters. Therein lies the intent 

of the cost of compliance requirement 

(emphasis added). 

OIDA does not submit sufficient 

evidence to meet the opponents’ burden 

of proof to show that the costs of 

compliance with the HD GHG 

Regulations are so excessive as to 

constitute technological infeasibility. 

For tractors, CARB estimated the 

average incremental capital cost of 

compliance in 2008 to be $2,100 per 

tractor, which could be recovered 

within 1.0 to 1.5 years through fuel 

savings.84 OOIDA does not submit any 

evidence contrary to these estimates for 

tractors, and no evidence in the record 

refutes these estimates. Therefore, EPA 

cannot find that the costs of compliance 

have been shown to be excessive for 

tractors. 

For trailers, OOIDA disagrees with 

CARB’s estimate of total average cost of 

compliance. CARB calculated the 

average incremental cost of trailer 

compliance as $2,900 per trailer, plus an 

additional $125 annually for 

maintenance and reporting costs.85

CARB estimated that the additional cost 

could be recovered within 18 months 

through reduced fuel consumption (or, 

alternatively, through commanding 

higher rates from freight carriers due to 

the improved fuel efficiency provided 

by the aerodynamic trailers).86 CARB’s 

cost estimate has since decreased to an 

estimated $1,250 per trailer, which is 

expected to be recovered in 11 months, 

on average, through fuel savings.87

OOIDA, on the other hand, portrays the 

cost as $7,520–$9,325 per trailer,88 and 

says that CARB’s projected payback is 

greatly overstated.89

OOIDA does not provide evidence or 

data to support its higher cost estimates 

for trailers. Instead, OOIDA relies upon 

an incorrect portrayal of CARB’s 

original estimates. OOIDA misstates 

CARB’s cost estimates in two ways. 

First, OOIDA’s estimate incorrectly 

assumes that a company must install all 

available types of trailer aerodynamic 

devices (i.e., front, side, and rear 

fairings) simultaneously to achieve 

compliance.90 However, this 

assumption overestimates likely costs 

since the CARB-mandated levels of 

performance can be attained with single 

devices or with paired combinations 

(e.g., front with side fairing, rear with 

side fairing, or front and large rear 

fairing).91 Second, OOIDA incorrectly 

counts a $2,800 incremental cost for a 

‘‘SmartWay certified trailer’’ as a 

separate and additional cost above the 

cost of the aerodynamic technologies 

used, when instead the cost is 

duplicative (i.e., the incremental cost for 

a SmartWay certified trailer includes the 

cost of the aerodynamic technologies).92

Adjusted for these differences, OOIDA’s 

cost figures are in relative agreement 

with CARB’s original cost projections 

(which CARB now estimates are even 

lower). Therefore, there is no evidence 

showing CARB’s estimated cost of 

compliance for trailers to be excessive 

or infeasible.93

OOIDA also submits various 

arguments about cost-effectiveness of 

the HD GHG Regulations, asserting that 

the costs of the HD GHG Regulations 

outweigh the emission benefits that 

CARB seeks to attain.94 OOIDA argues 

that the HD GHG Regulations are 

especially not cost-effective for trailers, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Notices 

95OOIDA, at 5, 14. 

96OOIDA, at 9–10. 

97 Id. 

98CARB’s Supplemental Comment, at 15–16. 

99CARB’s Supplemental Comment, at 16. 

100See 78 FR 2134 (Jan. 9, 2013). 

101 Id. 

102CCTA, at 3–5; OOIDA, at 3, 10–17. 

103CCTA, at 4–5; OOIDA, at 6–8. A 

disproportionate impact on out-of-state carriers is 

supported by CARB’s data as well. See, e.g., ISOR, 

at 12–15 (projecting only 37,009 impacted MY 2010 

tractors and 92,523 impacted MY 2010 trailers in 

California, versus 398,677 impacted MY 2010 

tractors and 996,693 impacted MY 2010 trailers 

outside of California, Thus, over 90% of the cost 

impact of California’s Regulations is expected to 

occur outside of California.). 

104OOIDA, at 3, 8. 

105 MEMA I, supra, 627 F.2d at 1114–1120; See 

also Motor & Equipment Mfrs Ass’n v. Nichols, 142 

F.3d 449, 462–463, 466–467 (D.C. Cir. 1998). 

106See 78 FR 2112, 2145 (January 9, 2013) and 

74 FR 3030 (January 16, 2009). 107 Motor & Equipment Mfrs Ass’n v. Nichols, 142 

F.3d 449 at 463. 

108CCTA, at 3; OOIDA, at 17. 

109CCTA, at 3. 

110CCTA, at 2–3. Presumably, CTA is arguing that 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 

preempts the California HD GHG Regulations to the 

extent that they regulate fuel economy. 

111 74 FR 32744, 32782–83 (July 8, 2009) (‘‘As 

EPA has stated on numerous occasions, section 

209(b) of the Clean Air Act limits our authority to 

deny California’s requests for waivers to the three 

criteria therein, and EPA has refrained from 

denying California’s request for waivers based on 

any other criteria.’’). 

which OOIDA estimates are on the road 

only one-third as often as tractors, and 

for motor carriers who only occasionally 

make trips into California.95 OOIDA also 

notes that compliance with the HD GHG 

Regulations will have negative side 

effects. For example, OOIDA states that 

the required low-rolling-resistance 

(LRR) tires will have a shorter life span 

and be less safe than regular tires, 

causing increased traffic backups or use 

of tire chains (and thus increased fuel 

usage) in inclement weather. OOIDA 

also argues that the HD GHG 

Regulations will cause reduced freight 

capacity and revenue due to the added 

weight of the required aerodynamic 

equipment.96 OOIDA does not provide 

any supporting evidence to verify or 

quantify these potential additional 

costs. Finally, OOIDA and other 

commenters suggest that many tractors 

do not obtain the expected fuel savings 

due to application-specific factors such 

as typical speeds and miles travelled.97

However, they have not provided any 

evidence supporting a significantly 

different average cost or payback time. 

CARB disputes OOIDA’s assertions 

about shorter life spans or difficulties in 

inclement weather with LRR tires, 

stating that there is no evidence to 

support OOIDA’s claims.98 CARB 

additionally states that reduced freight 

capacity due to weight of the 

aerodynamic equipment would be 

relatively insignificant for a heavy duty 

vehicle, with the average weight of a set 

of side skirts being between 150 and 350 

lbs.99

In the context of a section 209(b) 

waiver review, EPA generally does not 

consider arguments that a regulation 

will result in only marginal air quality 

improvements, or that the expected air 

quality benefits will be outweighed by 

the costs, to be legally pertinent in 

evaluating cost-of-compliance.100 EPA 

has stated that ‘‘[t]he appropriate level 

of cost-effectiveness is a policy decision 

of California,’’ and EPA has historically 

deferred to California on these policy 

decisions.101 In addition, the costs of 

compliance with the HD Regulations are 

expected to be quickly recovered 

through fuel savings, as stated above. 

In summary, the evidence that has 

been presented is insufficient to show 

that the HD GHG Regulations are 

technologically infeasible, considering 

costs of compliance. Indeed, such a 

finding is particularly unlikely where 

the average lifetime fuel savings created 

by compliance with the trailer 

regulations are expected to exceed the 

projected cost of compliance. In 

addition, no evidence has been 

presented showing that California’s test 

procedures impose requirements 

inconsistent with federal test 

procedures. Therefore, the waiver 

opponents have presented no evidence 

demonstrating that the HD GHG 

Regulations are not consistent with 

Section 202(a). 

E. Other Issues Raised Outside of the 

Scope of This Review 

a. Constitutional Issues 

Some of the commenters, including 

the CCTA and OOIDA, argue that the 

HD GHG Regulations violate the 

commerce clause of the U.S. 

Constitution in that the HD GHG 

Regulations will have the effect of 

disproportionately and unfairly 

burdening out-of-state carriers.102 For 

example, CCTA argues that exemptions 

in the HD GHG Regulations for localhaul, drayage, and short-haul tractors 

and trailers will result in the exemption 

of most California in-state motor 

carriers, but virtually no out-of-state 

motor carriers. The comments further 

point out that the uneven impact does 

not correlate closely, if at all, with 

expected GHG emissions from the 

respective vehicles.103 OOIDA argues 

that the HD GHG Regulations unfairly 

burden out-of-state carriers who 

contribute less in emissions than 

exempted in-state motor carriers.104

However, commerce clause issues are 

beyond the scope of this review. As 

stated in MEMA I, ‘‘[t]he waiver 

proceeding produces a forum ill-suited 

to the resolution of constitutional 

claims.’’ 105 Constitutional challenges to 

the HD GHG Regulations are more 

appropriately addressed by a legal 

challenge directly against the state. 

Moreover, EPA has consistently 

refrained from reviewing California’s 

requests for waivers based on criteria 

that extend beyond those set forth in 

section 209(b) of the CAA,106 and courts 

have confirmed that EPA could not 

deny a waiver based on such additional 

criteria. ‘‘If EPA concludes that 

California’s standards [meet section 

209(b)], it is obligated to approve 

California’s waiver application.’’ 107

Therefore, EPA cannot find this issue to 

be a proper ground for denial of 

California’s waiver request. 

b. Conflict With the Federal Aviation 

Administration Authorization Act 

CCTA and OOIDA also argue that the 

HD GHG Regulations violate the Federal 

Aviation Administration Authorization 

Act (FAAAA) 108 on grounds that the 

requirements directly affect the prices, 

routes, and services of motor carriers.109

However, as discussed above, the 

criteria EPA must apply in deciding 

whether to grant or deny a waiver are 

specifically prescribed in section 209(b). 

Conflict with the FAAAA is not one of 

those criteria. Thus, questions about 

whether California’s HD GHG 

Regulations comply with the FAAAA 

are outside of the proper scope of 

review under section 209(b) and EPA 

cannot deny a waiver request under 

section 209(b) based on this issue. 

Therefore, EPA cannot find this issue to 

be a proper ground for denial of 

California’s waiver request. 

c. Whether the HD GHG Regulations 

Improperly Regulate Fuel Economy 

CCTA argues that the California HD 

GHG Regulations impermissibly 

regulate fuel economy, and that the 

authority to regulate fuel economy 

resides solely with the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA).110 Again, however, as with 

the commerce clause and FAAAA 

issues, the Agency has previously 

determined that this issue is outside of 

the proper scope of review since it is not 

among the criteria listed under section 

209(b).111 As a result, EPA cannot deny 

a waiver request based on whether 

California’s HD GHG Regulations 

regulate fuel economy. Therefore, EPA 

cannot find this issue to be a proper 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Notices 46265 

112ATA, at 6; CTA, at 2. 

113ATA, at 6. 

114CARB’s Supplemental Comment, at 20. 

115ATA, at 6. 

ground for denial of California’s waiver 

request. 

d. Effects of Delay and Previous NonEnforcement of the Regulations 

Some commenters, including the ATA 

and CTA, criticize California for not 

enforcing the HD GHG Regulations for 

nearly four years after implementation. 

They argue that the non-enforcement 

has increased carrier costs and has 

disadvantaged carriers who attempted to 

comply with the HD GHG Regulations 

on time.112 ATA further asks EPA to 

consider in its waiver decisions whether 

California has adequate enforcement 

resources to actually achieve the 

projected levels of compliance and 

emissions benefits that CARB projects 

when it makes its waiver requests.113

California responds that CTA’s and 

ATA’s assertions on enforcement issues 

are not issues properly considered in 

this decision.114

As discussed above, EPA may only 

deny waiver requests that are based on 

criteria listed under section 209(b), and 

both delayed enforcement and previous 

non-enforcement of prior regulations are 

not among them. Thus, these issues are 

outside of the proper scope of review 

because they are not among the criteria 

listed under section 209(b). Therefore, 

EPA cannot find these issues to be a 

proper ground for denial of California’s 

waiver request. 

e. Applicability of the Regulations to 

Already-Purchased Equipment 

Finally, ATA expresses concern about 

delays in the submission and approval 

of California waivers and 

authorizations, and ATA asks EPA to 

determine whether it is ‘‘valid’’ for the 

HD GHG Regulations to apply to 

equipment that has already been 

purchased and is in operation.’’ 115

However, ATA does not show how this 

concern is relevant to the criteria that 

EPA must evaluate related to 

California’s request for a waiver under 

section 209(b). 

As previously explained, EPA may 

only deny waiver requests that are based 

on criteria listed under section 209(b), 

and EPA has consistently refrained from 

reviewing California’s requests for 

waivers and authorizations based on 

criteria that extend beyond the criteria 

of section 209(b) of the CAA. Therefore, 

EPA cannot find this issue to be a 

proper ground for denial of California’s 

waiver request. 

IV. Decision 

The Administrator has delegated the 

authority to grant California section 

209(b) waivers to the Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation. 

After evaluating CARB’s amendments to 

the HD GHG Regulations described 

above and CARB’s submissions for EPA 

review, EPA is hereby granting a waiver 

for California’s Tractor-Trailer 

Greenhouse Gas Regulations (‘‘HD GHG 

Regulations’’) for new 2011 through 

2013 MY Class 8 tractors equipped with 

integrated sleeper berths (sleeper-cab 

tractors) and to new 2011 and 

subsequent MY dry-van and 

refrigerated-van trailers that are pulled 

by such tractors on California highways. 

This decision will affect not only 

persons in California, but also 

manufacturers and operators nationwide 

who must comply with California’s 

requirements. In addition, because other 

states may adopt California’s standards 

for which a section 209(b) waiver has 

been granted under section 177 of the 

Act if certain criteria are met, this 

decision would also affect those states 

and those persons in such states. For 

these reasons, EPA determines and finds 

that this is a final action of national 

applicability, and also a final action of 

nationwide scope or effect for purposes 

of section 307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant 

to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial 

review of this final action may be sought 

only in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. Petitions for review must be 

filed by October 6, 2014. Judicial review 

of this final action may not be obtained 

in subsequent enforcement proceedings, 

pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

As with past waiver and authorization 

decisions, this action is not a rule as 

defined by Executive Order 12866. 

Therefore, it is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget as 

required for rules and regulations by 

Executive Order 12866. 

In addition, this action is not a rule 

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has 

not prepared a supporting regulatory 

flexibility analysis addressing the 

impact of this action on small business 

entities. 

Further, the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does 

not apply because this action is not a 

rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

Dated: July 30, 2014. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 

and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18742 Filed 8–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

Farm Credit Administration Board; 

Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, 

pursuant to the Government in the 

Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of 

the Farm Credit Administration Board 

(Board). 

DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of 

the Board will be held at the offices of 

the Farm Credit Administration in 

McLean, Virginia, on August 14, 2014, 

from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the 

Board concludes its business. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm 

Credit Administration Board, (703) 883– 

4009, TTY (703) 883–4056. 

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit 

Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, 

McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. Submit 

attendance requests via email to 

VisitorRequest@FCA.gov. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further 

information about attendance requests. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of 

this meeting of the Board will be open 

to the public (limited space available), 

and parts will be closed to the public. 

Please send an email to VisitorRequest@

FCA.gov at least 24 hours before the 

meeting. In your email include: Name, 

postal address, entity you are 

representing (if applicable), and 

telephone number. You will receive an 

email confirmation from us. Please be 

prepared to show a photo identification 

when you arrive. If you need assistance 

for accessibility reasons, or if you have 

any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, 

Secretary to the Farm Credit 

Administration Board, at (703) 883– 

4009. The matters to be considered at 

the meeting are: 

Open Session 

A. Approval of Minutes 

• July 10, 2014 

B. New Business 

• Institution Stockholder Voting 

Procedures—Proposed Rule 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES