[Senate Report 110-407]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 861
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     110-407

======================================================================

 
     A BILL TO PERMIT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES TO 
 EFFECTIVELY CONTROL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR VEHICLES, AND 
                           FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

                 June 27, 2008.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mrs. Boxer, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 2555]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 2555) to permit California and other 
States to effectively control greenhouse gas emissions from 
motor vehicles, and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                       Purpose of the Legislation

    S. 2555 amends the Clean Air Act to permit the State of 
California and other States to immediately proceed with the 
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles by 
implementing the regulation for such purposes for which 
California requested a waiver of preemption under the Clean Air 
Act. This will allow the States to avoid the burden of 
litigating for what could be several years, while climate 
change continues to threaten public health and the environment. 
The bill would also provide certainty to automakers, the 
States, and the public about future regulatory requirements for 
greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.

                    General Statement and Background

    Title II of the Clean Air Act (Title 42, Chapter 85, 
Subchapter II, United States Code) establishes a program for 
controlling emissions of air pollutants from new motor vehicles 
and other mobile sources of air pollution. In accordance with 
section 202 of the Act, the Administrator of EPA is required to 
prescribe standards applicable to the emission of any air 
pollutant from new motor vehicles which, in the judgment of the 
Administrator, cause or contribute to air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
    Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act generally preempts 
States and local jurisdictions from setting their own emission 
standards for new motor vehicles. However, section 209(b) of 
the Act requires the Administrator to waive preemption with 
respect to a State that meets specified criteria if the State 
determines that its motor vehicle standards will be, in the 
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare 
as applicable Federal standards.
    Section 209(b) further provides that a waiver of preemption 
will not be granted if the Administrator makes any of three 
specified findings. The Administrator may act on a waiver 
request only after providing notice and an opportunity for a 
public hearing.
    California is the only state in the nation that can meet 
the criteria set forth in section 209(b) to waive federal 
preemption. The Clean Air Act gives California the unique 
opportunity to set its own vehicle emission standards in 
recognition of California's early leadership in setting such 
standards and the State's particularly severe air pollution 
problems. However, section 177 of the Act authorizes any other 
State that has an EPA-approved plan for areas in non-attainment 
of a federal air quality standard to adopt and enforce emission 
standards that have been granted a waiver under section 209(b).
    California has used these provisions of the Clean Air Act 
to develop or use a host of forward-looking pollution control 
technologies, including catalytic converters, cleaner fuels, 
advanced electronic engine management and on-board diagnostic 
systems, and many other such advances. For example, California 
currently has waivers for their Zero Emissions Vehicle Program 
and Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle Program, which has promoted 
the manufacture and sale of electric and hybrid vehicles.
    EPA recognizes the benefits of these pollution control 
technologies to protecting human health. The Agency 
acknowledges that use of the first generation of catalytic 
converters ``significantly reduced hydrocarbon and carbon 
monoxide emissions'' and ``resulted in dramatic reductions in 
ambient lead levels . . .'' EPA, ``Automobile Emissions: An 
Overview,'' EPA 400-F-92-007 (1994).
    EPA's long history of granting California requests for a 
waiver of federal preemption under section 209(b) is based on 
its assessment of the merits of these requests. A December 27, 
2007 Congressional Research Service report found that since 
1967, in 40 years, EPA has granted California 53 waiver 
requests in whole or in part. CongressionalResearch Service, 
``California's Waiver Request to Control Greenhouse Gases Under the 
Clean Air Act,'' at 2 (Dec. 2007).
    A 2006 report by the National Research Council of the 
National Academies of Science concluded that ``California has 
used its authority as Congress envisioned: to implement more 
aggressive measures than the rest of the country and to serve 
as a laboratory for technological innovation.'' National 
Research Council, ``State and Federal Standards for Mobile-
Source Emissions,'' National Academies Press, at 4 (2006).
    In 2002, California enacted AB 1493, the nation's first 
legislation requiring a reduction of greenhouse gases from 
motor vehicles. The law required the California Air Resources 
Board to ``adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible 
and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from 
motor vehicles.'' Among other things, the law prohibited the 
Board from creating regulations that would require: ``A 
reduction in vehicle weight . . . A limitation on, or reduction 
of, the speed limit on any street or highway in the state . . . 
[or] A limitation on, or reduction of, vehicle miles 
traveled.''
    In 2005, California adopted the first standards in the 
nation for reducing vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases from 
two classes of automobiles. The State's standards provide 
tremendous flexibility. Passenger cars, light duty trucks and 
SUVs weighing 3,750 pounds or less had to gradually reduce 
their emissions by an average of 36.5 percent between 2009 and 
2016. Light trucks and passenger vehicles weighing more than 
3,750 pounds had to gradually reduce their emissions by 24.4 
percent over the same time period. By the 2016 model year, the 
standards would cut greenhouse gas emissions from all of these 
vehicles by almost 30 percent.
    California submitted to EPA a request for a waiver of 
preemption for its greenhouse gas standards on December 21, 
2005. However, EPA did not begin acting on the request until 16 
months later, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 
Massachusetts v. EPA that if EPA makes a finding of 
endangerment for greenhouse gas, ``the Clean Air Act requires 
the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant 
from new motor vehicles.'' 127 S. Ct., 1438, 1462 (2007). In 
that decision, the Supreme Court clearly stated that the Agency 
can regulate greenhouse gases:

          The Clean Air Act's sweeping definition of ``air 
        pollutant'' includes ``any air pollution agency or 
        combination of such agency, including any physical, 
        chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted 
        into or otherwise enters the ambient air . . .'' . . . 
        Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and 
        hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt ``physical [and] 
        chemical . . . substances which [are] emitted into . . 
        . the ambient air.'' The statute is unambiguous. 
        Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. at 1460 (emphasis in 
        original)

    After the Supreme Court decision, EPA said that it would 
consider California's waiver request. According to legal papers 
filed by the California Attorney General, of the approximately 
98,000 comments in the EPA's docket for the waiver request, 
more than 99.9 percent supported the request.
    On December 19, 2007, the EPA Administrator denied 
California's request for a waiver, but explained that he was 
having EPA staff ``draft appropriate documents setting forth 
the rationale for this denial in further detail.''
    Press reports indicated that Administrator Johnson overrode 
his expert staff's recommendation to grant California's waiver 
request. See, e.g., J. Eilperin, ``EPA Chief Denies Calif. 
Limit on Auto Emissions; Rules Would Target Greenhouse Gases,'' 
The Washington Post, page A1, December 20, 2007 
(``Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. 
Johnson yesterday denied California's petition to limit 
greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the 
unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical 
staffs.'') The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 
conducted an investigation of the Administrator's denial of 
California's request, which confirmed that the Administrator 
has gone against the opinion of the Agency's experts in denying 
the waiver request. A later investigation by the House 
Committee on Government Oversight and Reform also confirmed 
that the Administrator had gone against his experts' 
recommendation, and that the Administrator made the decision to 
ignore this recommendation after meeting with the White House.
    As of June 2008, the following 14 States have adopted or 
have committed to adopt California's greenhouse gas emission 
standards, and are awaiting EPA's action on California's waiver 
request: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Vermont and Washington. Together with California, these 
states represent 44 percent of the U.S. population and more 
than 30 percent of the national vehicle fleet. At least 4 other 
states are moving towards adopting California's standards, 
including Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, and Utah.
    A bi-partisan group of Governors from 14 states, including 
California, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington wrote a 
letter to EPA objecting to the Agency's denial of California's 
waiver request. The Governors stated:

          [EPA's] decision to deny California its waiver 
        ignores federal law and the reality of climate change. 
        It also ignores the clear intent of Congress in the 
        Clean Air Act to enable California to adopt regulations 
        to control emissions from new motor vehicles that are 
        at least as stringent as those of the federal 
        government, and to allow other states to follow.

    Under section 209(b), the EPA Administrator ``shall . . . 
waive'' the preemption of state emissions standards if 
California ``determines that the State standards will be, in 
the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and 
welfare as applicable Federal standards.'' California made this 
determination in its waiver request application to EPA.
    Once California makes this determination, the Clean Air Act 
provides very limited discretion for the Administrator to 
reject the request. Under section 209, the Administrator can 
reject such a request if he or she finds that the determination 
is ``arbitrary and capricious''; that California ``does not 
need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary 
conditions,'' or if California's ``standards and accompanying 
enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) . 
. .'', which establishes baseline requirements for federal 
motor vehicle emissions standards.
    The Committee notes that the lack of any federal standards 
regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars makes it all but 
impossible for the Administrator to claim that California's 
regulations are arbitrary and capricious. Granting California's 
waiver request could only establish one set of current 
standards: California's standards.
    The Committee also notes that EPA and California have 
traditionally and correctly interpreted the ``State standards'' 
to be California's program--as a whole--to address automobile 
emissions. E.g. 49 Fed.Reg. 18889-18890 (May 3, 1984) and 40 
Fed.Reg. 23103 (May 28, 1975). This interpretation is clearly 
supported in the Act's legislative history. U.S. House of 
Representatives, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, H.Rept. 95-294, May 12, 1977, 
pp. 301-302. EPA must determine if all of the requirements in 
California's program to address such emissions are as 
protective of public health and welfare as federal standards. 
If so, then California has met the ``compelling and 
extraordinary conditions'' threshold.
    The Committee strongly disagrees with the Administrator's 
assertion that the global nature of the greenhouse gas problem 
weighs in favor of finding that no ``compelling and 
extraordinary conditions'' exist. First, the Committee's 
hearing and the record before the Agency when considering the 
wavier request is replete with examples of the public health, 
economic, and environmental harm projected as a result of 
global warming.
    California need not develop a plan to address all pollution 
emissions everywhere that are contributing to a problem before 
it can regulate such emissions within its borders. The 
Committee agrees with the Supreme Court's statement in 
Massachusetts v. EPA, in which it spoke about the importance of 
beginning to address a serious problem, like global warming:

          Agencies, 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. Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 1455 
        (2007).

    Nationally, EPA estimates that transportation accounts for 
30 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas pollution. The nation 
must begin to address this segment of emissions. Failing to do 
so will limit the effectiveness of other efforts to reduce 
dangerous greenhouse gas emissions in other sectors.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

            Summary
    Section 1 describes the title of the bill, ``Reducing 
Global Warming Pollution from Vehicles Act of 2008.''

Section 2. Findings

    Section 2 describes the findings that necessitate passage 
of S. 2555.

Section 3. Waiver of preemption for California greenhouse gas emissions 
        regulation for vehicles

    Section 3 would overturn the EPA's denial of California's 
request for a waiver of preemption, dated December 21, 2005, 
and approve the request.
            Description
    This section would approve California's request for a 
waiver of preemption to control the emissions of greenhouse 
gases from certain automobiles and allow other states to adopt 
those standards.

                          Legislative History

    On January 24, 2008, the Senator Boxer of California 
introduced S. 2555, joined by original cosponsors Senators 
Feinstein, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Cardin, Whitehouse, Sanders, 
Clinton, Leahy, Kerry, Obama, Nelson, Dodd, Kennedy, Mikulski, 
Collins, Snowe, and Menendez. They were later joined by 
Senators Schumer, Reed, Klobuchar, Biden, Durbin, Wyden, 
Murray, Cantwell, and Warner as cosponsors. The bill was read 
twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works. The committee met on May 21, 2008, to consider 
the bill. S. 2555 was ordered favorably reported without 
amendment by a vote of 10-9.

                                Hearings

    The Committee held three hearings on EPA's handling of 
California's request for a waiver for its greenhouse gas 
vehicles standards. At a May 22, 2007 hearing on ``The Case for 
the California Waiver,'' the Committee heard testimony from 
Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of California; Alexander B. 
Grannis, Commissioner of Department of Environmental 
Conservation of the State of New York; and Jonathan H. Adler, 
Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case 
Western Reserve University School of Law. At a July 26, 2007, 
the Committee heard from EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson as 
the sole witness at a hearing entitled, ``Examining the Case 
for the California Waiver: An Update from EPA.'' Then again on 
January 24, 2008, the Committee heard from EPA Administrator 
Stephen Johnson, as well as from Governor Martin O'Malley of 
Maryland, Governor Jim Douglas of Vermont, Governor Edward 
Rendell of Pennsylvania, Attorney General Mike Cox of Michigan, 
Doug Haaland, a staff member of the Republican Caucus of the 
California State Assembly, David Doniger of the Natural 
Resources Defense Council, and Jeffrey Holmstead of Bracewell 
and Giuliani, at a hearing titled, ``Oversight of EPA's 
Decision to Deny the California Waiver.''

                             Rollcall Votes

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to 
consider S. 2555 on May 21, 2008. The bill was approved without 
amendment by rollcall vote, 10-9. (Ayes--Baucus, Cardin, 
Clinton, Klobuchar, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Sanders, Warner, 
Whitehouse, Boxer. Nays--Alexander, Barrasso, Bond, Carper, 
Craig, Inhofe, Isakson, Vitter, Voinovich).

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee finds, consistent 
with the findings of the Congressional Budget Office, that S. 
2555 does not create any new private sector mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, nor will it cause any 
adverse impact on the personal privacy of individuals.

                          Mandates Assessment

    In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4), the committee finds, in accordance with the 
findings of the Congressional Budget Office noted below, that 
S. 2555 would impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded 
mandates on State, local or tribal governments, and that the 
bill contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate


S. 2555--Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Vehicles Act of 2008

    S. 2555 would allow California to establish standards that 
are stricter than those of the federal government for emissions 
from motor vehicles. The Clean Air Act allows California to 
establish emissions standards that are stricter than the 
federal government's if granted a waiver by the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA). This bill would overturn a recent 
decision by the agency to deny that waiver.
    CBO estimates that EPA would incur additional costs to 
monitor and enforce the alternative regulations. We expect, 
however, that the costs would not be significant because states 
that adopt the alternative standards would be solely 
responsible for overseeing their motor vehicle emissions. 
Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or 
revenues.
    S. 2555 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susanne S. 
Mehlman and Jeffrey LaFave. This estimate was approved by 
Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

 MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR INHOFE, SENATOR VOINOVICH AND SENATOR CRAIG

    S. 2555, a bill to permit the State of California and other 
States to control greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, 
should be opposed and returned to the Environment and Public 
Works Committee by the full Senate because the legislation is 
unnecessary, duplicative, and disruptive to interstate 
commerce.
    This legislation would overturn the recent decision of the 
EPA Administrator denying California's request for a waiver to 
regulate carbon dioxide tailpipe emissions from automobiles. By 
affirmatively granting this waiver to California, S. 2555 would 
allow California and other states to proceed immediately to 
implement their programs regulating carbon dioxide tailpipe 
emissions.
    Generally, the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a uniform, 
federal standard for the regulation of emissions from motor 
vehicles. Section 209 of the CAA does allow California to adopt 
and enforce air quality emission standards for new motor 
vehicles if the State finds that those standards will be at 
least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable 
federal standards. However, federal preemption will not be 
waived if EPA determines: (1) the State's decision is arbitrary 
and capricious; (2) the standards are not needed to meet 
compelling or extraordinary conditions; or (3) the State's 
regulations do not comport to Act's requirements. If EPA grants 
California's waiver request, other states may adopt its 
requirements.
    In late 2005, California requested a waiver of federal 
preemption for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new motor 
vehicles. But EPA's decision was held in abeyance pending the 
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that 
case, the court held that EPA has authority, under the existing 
Clean Air Act framework, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. 
Subsequent to that decision, EPA issued a decision denying 
California's waiver request.
    In his decision denying the waiver request, the EPA 
Administrator found that California does not need its 
greenhouse gas standards for new motor vehicles to meet 
compelling and extraordinary conditions. Indeed, when Congress 
created the special exception for California, they did so 
because the state had a unique smog problem. All of the waiver 
requests EPA has received from California relate to smog or to 
closely related pollution problems that had specific localized 
effects within the state. However, the climate change issue is 
different because it affects all states, and in fact all 
nations in the same general way. In this light, a patchwork of 
state-level greenhouse gas regulations as is now proposed by 
California is both an unnecessary and inefficient policy 
approach to the issue of climate change.
    The Administrator stated:

          In contrast to local or regional air pollution 
        problems, the atmospheric concentrations of these 
        greenhouse gases is basically uniform across the globe, 
        based on their long atmospheric life and the resulting 
        mixing in the atmosphere. The factors looked at in the 
        past--the geography and climate of California, and the 
        large motor vehicle population in California, which 
        were considered the fundamental causes of the air 
        pollution levels found in California--no longer perform 
        the same causal function.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Federal Register: March 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 45) Pg. 
12160

    The Administrator also correctly refuted the argument that 
increased temperatures associated with climate change would 
increase ozone levels in California. As discussed above, the 
Administrator found that greenhouse gas emissions from 
California cars are not a causal factor for local ozone levels 
any more than emissions from any other source of greenhouse gas 
emissions in the world, and it is not the impact on ozone 
levels that is the key question, but the nature of the causal 
factors.
    Besides the factors outlined by the Administrator in his 
denial of the waiver, there are numerous additional reasons 
this legislation should be opposed.
    First, we are in the midst of a national debate concerning 
how climate change is to be addressed. While there are 
differences of opinion concerning the type of policy the U.S. 
ultimately adopts, most recognize that effectively addressing 
climate change will require a coordinated, global effort. In 
addition, most states and industries agree that a single, 
uniform, national policy for addressing U.S. GHG emissions is 
preferable to a patchwork of state requirements. The reasons 
for this include regulatory certainty and harmony in 
requirements as well as economic considerations associated with 
those requirements. At the very least, prudence demands that 
Congress first decide whether and how to regulate on the 
federal level. EPA may then address how California's program 
compares to the federal regulatory regime, and whether that 
program is consistent with the federal approach selected.
    Second, the only feasible way to reduce the amount of GHG 
emissions from automobiles is to reduce the amount of fuel a 
vehicle uses. But this is currently being done through the 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which is being 
administered by the National Highway Transportation Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) for the Department of Transportation. 
However, the Supreme Court's decision has blurred the lines 
over regulatory authority--effectively empowering two federal 
agencies with the ability to set CAFE standards. At the same 
time, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) explicitly 
prohibits any state from regulating automobile fuel economy.
    In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court did not consider 
the issue of whether state regulations regarding carbon dioxide 
tailpipe emissions from automobiles are preempted by the EPCA, 
which establishes the nation's CAFE program. EPCA expressly 
preempts state standards that are ``related to'' the federal 
CAFE standards. (29 U.S.C. 32919) Even proponents of the 
California greenhouse gas tailpipe regulations do not dispute 
that the only way to significantly reduce carbon dioxide 
tailpipe emissions is to substantially increase fuel economy 
through the adoption of engine, transmission and other vehicle 
technologies that increase fuel economy. This issue remains 
subject to ongoing judicial review. This legislation would 
directly interfere with the ongoing litigation in the federal 
courts over whether state carbon dioxide tailpipe emissions 
regulations are preempted.
    Third, as the United Auto Workers (UAW) correctly pointed 
out in their letter to the Committee dated May 19th, 2008 in 
opposition to S 2555, the California tailpipe emission 
standards that would be authorized by this legislation directly 
conflict with the newly reformed CAFE program enacted by 
Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 
According to the UAW, the California tailpipe emissions 
standard is not based on an attribute-based system like the 
reformed CAFE program, it does not maintain separate standards 
for passenger cars and light trucks, and it exempts auto 
manufacturers whose production is below a certain threshold, 
giving a major competitive advantage to newer entrants into the 
auto market.
    Fourth, granting a waiver to California will not simply 
result in two standards for vehicles, contrary to the 
``finding'' in paragraph fourteen of S 2555. According to the 
UAW, auto manufacturers would have to make sure that the 
vehicles they sell in each state satisfy this new stringent 
standard and because of product mix differences in different 
states, it would be virtually impossible for the auto 
manufacturers to satisfy this compliance burden. The National 
Automobile Dealers Association also point out that the 
California greenhouse gas tailpipe regulation will discourage 
new car sales and create a cross-border loophole because 
vehicles in California and other states who adopt the 
regulation will be more expensive. By the California Air 
Resources Board's own admission, the price of a new vehicle 
will increase over $1,000 due to this regulation.
    In conclusion, this legislation would authorize an 
untested, state-by-state regulatory program that could 
undermine the national CAFE standard, thus creating a patchwork 
of regulatory compliance obligations that would provide 
marginal, if any, benefit from a greenhouse gas reduction 
standpoint, but would tremendously increase costs and burdens 
on interstate commerce. It is a political bill that attempts to 
address a global problem with a statewide solution that 
undermines a carefully crafted and newly revised national fuel 
economy standard that raises fuel economy by at least 40%, 
resulting in an estimated 30% reduction in greenhouse gases.

                                   James M. Inhofe.
                                   George V. Voinovich.
                                   Larry E. Craig.
                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill 
as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in [black brackets], new matter is printed 
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown 
in roman:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CLEAN AIR ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    Sec. 101. (a) The Congress finds--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            STATE STANDARDS

    Sec. 209. (a) 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.
    (b)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Nonroad Engines or Vehicles.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Waiver.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) or any other 
provision of law; the application for a waiver of preemption 
dated December 21, 2005, submitted to the Administrator 
pursuant to subsection (b) by the State of California for the 
regulation of that State to control greenhouse gas emissions 
from motor vehicles shall be considered to be approved.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *