[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49556-49594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19153]



[[Page 49555]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Chapter 1



EPA's Denial of the Petitions To Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause 
or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the 
Clean Air Act; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 156 / Friday, August 13, 2010 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 49556]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Chapter 1

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171; FRL-9184-8]


EPA's Denial of the Petitions To Reconsider the Endangerment and 
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) 
of the Clean Air Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice, denial of petitions to reconsider.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is denying the 
petitions to reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 
Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air 
Act. The Findings were signed by the Administrator on December 7, 2009. 
EPA has carefully reviewed all of the petitions and revisited both the 
scientific record and the Administrator's decision process underlying 
the Findings in light of these petitions. EPA's analysis of the 
petitions reveals that the petitioners have provided inadequate and 
generally unscientific arguments and evidence that the underlying 
science supporting the Findings is flawed, misinterpreted or 
inappropriately applied by EPA. The petitioners' arguments fail to meet 
the criteria for reconsideration under the Clean Air Act. The science 
supporting the Administrator's finding that elevated concentrations of 
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger the public health and welfare of current and future U.S. 
generations is robust, voluminous, and compelling, and has been 
strongly affirmed by the recent science assessment of the U.S. National 
Academy of Sciences.

DATES: This denial is effective July 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA's docket for this action is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0171: All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket 
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is 
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Martinich, Climate Change 
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 343-9927; fax number: (202) 343-2202; e-mail 
address: [email protected]. For additional information regarding 
this Notice, please go to the Web site http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
abbreviations are used in this Decision.

ACUS Administrative Conference of the United States
ANPR Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
APA Administrative Procedure Act
CAA Clean Air Act
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAIT Climate Analysis Indicators Tool
CBI confidential business information
CCSP Climate Change Science Program
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
CRU Climatic Research Unit
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FR Federal Register
GHG greenhouse gas
HadCRUT Climatic Research Unit (CRU) temperature record
ICTA International Center For Technology Assessment
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MWP Medieval Warm Period
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx nitrogen oxide
NRC National Research Council
NSPS new source performance standards
PM particulate matter
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
TSD technical support document
U.S. United States
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program
WMO World Meteorological Organization

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Summary
    B. Background
    1. The ICTA Petition and Massachusetts v. EPA
    2. Post-Massachusetts v. EPA
    3. Proposed and Final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 
Findings
    4. Petitions for Reconsideration and Stay Requests
II. Standard for Reconsideration
III. Science Related Issues
    A. General Summary of Petitioners' Arguments
    B. Summary of the Science Underlying the Administrator's 
Endangerment Finding in Light of the Petitioners' Claims
    1. What effects do greenhouse gases have on the environment and 
on climate in particular?
    2. How are human activities changing the amount of greenhouse 
gases in our atmosphere?
    3. What is the evidence indicating that average temperatures are 
increasing and climate change is occurring consistent with the 
direction one would expect with increasing greenhouse gases in our 
atmosphere?
    4. What is the evidence linking observed temperature changes and 
climate change to the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases?
    5. How are public health and welfare threatened by these changes 
to climate and the environment, now and in the future?
    C. Review of the Administrator's Findings
    D. General Response to the Petitioners' Scientific Arguments in 
Light of the Full Body of Scientific Evidence
    E. Specific Responses to the Claims and Arguments Raised by 
Petitioners
    1. Climate Science and Data Issues Raised by the Petitioners
    2. Issues Raised by EPA's Use of the IPCC AR4 Assessment
    3. Process and Other Issues Raised by the Petitioners
    F. Petitioners' Arguments Do Not Meet the Standard for 
Reconsideration
IV. Other Issues
    A. The Tailoring Rule/Impacts of PSD and Title V Permitting Are 
Not of Central Relevance to the Findings
    B. NHTSA Rule
    C. Other Issues
    1. Effects of the Findings and Subsequent Rulemakings on States 
and Businesses
    2. A Formal Rulemaking Process Is Not Required
    3. Discretion in Making an Endangerment Finding
V. Conclusion

[[Page 49557]]

I. Introduction

A. Summary

    This is EPA's response denying the petitions to reconsider the 
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases 
under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (``Findings'' or the 
``Endangerment Finding'') (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009). EPA has 
considered all 10 petitions, including the arguments presented therein 
and the supplemental information provided by the petitioners as 
supporting evidence of their claims. EPA has evaluated the merit of the 
petitioners' arguments in the context of the entire body of scientific 
and other evidence before the Agency. This response (hereafter 
``Denial'' or ``Decision'') provides EPA's scientific and legal 
justification for denying these petitions. This Denial is accompanied 
by a 3-volume, roughly 360-page Response to Petitions (RTP) document 
(http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html), containing 
further responses and technical detail concerning every significant 
claim and assertion made by the petitioners. Section III of this 
Decision summarizes many of the responses provided in the RTP document.
    After a comprehensive, careful review and analysis of the 
petitions, EPA has determined that the petitioners' arguments and 
evidence are inadequate, generally unscientific, and do not show that 
the underlying science supporting the Endangerment Finding is flawed, 
misinterpreted by EPA, or inappropriately applied by EPA. The science 
supporting the Administrator's finding that elevated concentrations of 
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger the public health and welfare of current and future U.S. 
generations is robust, voluminous, and compelling. The most recent 
science assessment by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences strongly 
affirms this view. In addition, the approach and procedures used by EPA 
to evaluate the underlying science demonstrate that the Findings remain 
robust and appropriate.
    Petitioners generally argue that recent revelations show that the 
science supporting EPA's Endangerment Finding was flawed or 
questionable, and that EPA should therefore reconsider the Endangerment 
Finding. The petitioners' arguments and claims are based largely on 
disclosed private communications among various scientists, a limited 
number of errors and claimed errors in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4),\1\ and 
submissions of a limited number of additional studies not previously 
considered as part of the scientific record of the Endangerment 
Finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ IPCC (2007). Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 
NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in detail throughout this Decision and in fuller 
detail in the RTP document, petitioners' claims and the information 
they submit do not change or undermine our understanding of how 
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases cause climate change and 
how human-induced climate change generates risks and impacts to public 
health and welfare. This understanding has been decades in the making 
and has become more clear over time with the accumulation of evidence. 
The information provided by petitioners does not change any of the 
scientific conclusions that underlie the Administrator's Findings, nor 
do the petitions lower the degrees of confidence associated with each 
of these major scientific conclusions.
    More specifically, the petitions do not change EPA's proper 
characterization of the current body of knowledge and our ability to 
state with confidence our conclusions in the following key areas of 
greenhouse gas and climate change science: (1) That anthropogenic 
emissions of greenhouse gases are causing atmospheric levels of 
greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to rise to essentially unprecedented 
levels in human history; (2) that the accumulation of greenhouse gases 
in our atmosphere is exerting a warming effect on the global climate; 
(3) that there are multiple lines of evidence, including increasing 
average global surface temperatures, rising ocean temperatures and sea 
levels, and shrinking Arctic ice, all showing that climate change is 
occurring, and that the observed rate of climate change stands out as 
significant compared to recent historical rates of climate change; (4) 
that there is compelling evidence that anthropogenic emissions of 
greenhouse gases are the primary driver of recent observed increases in 
average global temperature; (5) that atmospheric levels of greenhouse 
gases are expected to continue to rise for the foreseeable future; and 
(6) that risks and impacts to public health and welfare are expected to 
grow as climate change continues, and that climate change over this 
century is expected to be greater compared to observed climate change 
over the past century.
    The core defect in petitioners' arguments is that these arguments 
are not based on consideration of the body of scientific evidence. 
Petitioners fail to address the breadth and depth of the scientific 
evidence and instead rely on an assumption of inaccuracy in the science 
that they extend even to the body of science that is not directly 
addressed by information they provide or by arguments they make. This 
assumption of error is based on various statements and views expressed 
in some of the e-mail communications between scientists at the Climatic 
Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the United 
Kingdom and several other scientists (``the CRU e-mails'') \2\. As 
EPA's review and analysis shows, the petitioners routinely take these 
private e-mail communications out of context and assert they are 
``smoking gun'' evidence of wrongdoing and scientific manipulation of 
data. EPA's careful examination of the e-mails and their context shows 
that the petitioners' claims are exaggerated, are often contradicted by 
other evidence, and are not a material or reliable basis to question 
the validity and credibility of the body of science underlying the 
Administrator's Endangerment Finding or the Administrator's decision 
process articulated in the Findings themselves Petitioners' assumptions 
and subjective assertions regarding what the e-mails purport to show 
about the state of climate change science are clearly inadequate pieces 
of evidence to challenge the voluminous and well documented body of 
science that is the technical foundation of the Administrator's 
Endangerment Finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All of the disclosed CRU e-mails at issue in this Decision 
can be found in full in EPA's docket for the Endangerment Finding. 
See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, ``CRU E-mails 1996-2009.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Inquiries from the UK House of Commons, Science and Technology 
Committee, the University of East Anglia, Oxburgh Panel, the 
Pennsylvania State University, and the University of East Anglia, 
Russell Panel,\3\ all entirely independent from EPA, have examined the 
issues and many of the same allegations brought forward by the 
petitioners as a result of the disclosure of the private CRU e-mails. 
These inquiries are now complete. Their conclusions are in line with 
EPA's review and analysis of these same CRU e-mails. The inquiries have

[[Page 49558]]

found no evidence of scientific misconduct or intentional data 
manipulation on the part of the climate researchers associated with the 
CRU e-mails. The recommendation for more transparent procedures 
concerning availability of underlying data appears appropriate, but it 
has not cast doubt on the underlying body of science developed by these 
researchers. These inquiries lend further credence to EPA's conclusion 
that petitioners' claims that the CRU e-mails show the underlying 
science cannot or should not be trusted are exaggerated and 
unsupported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These inquires plus another addressing IPCC AR4 issues are 
referred to throughout this Decision and the RTP document. Every 
inquiry is provided in full in EPA's docket for the Endangerment 
Finding. See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, ``Recent Inquiries 
and Investigations of the CRU E-mails and the IPCC Fourth Assessment 
Report.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners' also point to a limited number of factual mistakes in 
IPCC AR4, some confirmed, some alleged, to argue that the climate 
science supporting the Administrator's Endangerment Finding is flawed. 
EPA's review confirmed two factual mistakes. These two confirmed 
instances of factual mistakes are tangential and minor and do not 
change the key IPCC AR4 conclusions that are central to the 
Administrator's Endangerment Finding. While it is unfortunate that 
IPCC's review process did not catch these errors, in the context of a 
report of this size and scope (almost 3,000 pages), it is an 
inappropriate and unfounded exaggeration to claim that these two 
confirmed mistakes delegitimize all of the scientific statements and 
findings contained in IPCC AR4. To the contrary, given the scrutiny to 
which IPCC AR4 has been subjected, the limited nature of these mistakes 
demonstrates that the IPCC review procedures have been highly effective 
and very robust.
    In a limited number of cases, the petitioners identify new 
scientific studies and data, published since the Endangerment Finding 
was finalized, which they claim require EPA to reconsider the 
Endangerment Finding. Some petitioners also argue that EPA ignored or 
misinterpreted scientific data that were significant and available when 
the Finding was made. EPA's review of these claims shows that in many 
cases the issues raised by the petitioners are not new, but were in 
fact considered prior to issuing the Endangerment Finding. In other 
cases, the petitioners have misinterpreted or misrepresented the 
meaning and significance of recent scientific literature, findings, and 
data. Finally, there are instances in which the petitioners have failed 
to acknowledge other new studies in making their arguments. The RTP 
document contains study-by-study analysis of these failed arguments on 
the part of petitioners.
    Finally, in May 2010, the National Research Council (NRC) of the 
U.S. National Academy of Sciences published its comprehensive 
assessment, ``Advancing the Science of Climate Change \4\'' (NRC, 
2010). It concluded that ``climate change is occurring, is caused 
largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in 
many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural 
systems.'' Furthermore, the NRC stated that this conclusion is based on 
findings that are ``consistent with the conclusions of recent 
assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report, 
and other assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on climate 
change.'' These are the same assessments that served as the primary 
scientific references underlying the Administrator's Endangerment 
Finding. Importantly, this recent NRC assessment represents another 
independent and critical inquiry of the state of climate change 
science, separate and apart from the previous IPCC and U.S. Global 
Change Research Program (USGCRP) assessments. The NRC assessment is a 
clear affirmation that the scientific underpinnings of the 
Administrator's Endangerment Finding are robust, credible, and 
appropriately characterized by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ National Research Council (NRC) (2010). Advancing the 
Science of Climate Change. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The endangerment to public health and welfare from atmospheric 
concentrations of greenhouse gases and associated climate change is too 
important an issue to be decided on any grounds other than a close and 
comprehensive scrutiny of the entire body of the scientific evidence. 
This principle calls for an outright rejection of the petitioners' 
arguments. The petitioners' arguments amount to a request that EPA 
ignore the deep body of science that has been built up over several 
decades and the direction it points in, and to do so based not on a 
careful and comprehensive analysis of the science, but instead on what 
amount to assertions and leaps in logic, unsupported by a rigorous 
examination of the science itself. The petitioners do not provide any 
substantial support for the argument that the Endangerment Finding 
should be revised. Therefore, none of the petitioners' objections are 
of central relevance to the considerations that led to the final 
Endangerment Finding. In addition, in many cases these arguments by the 
petitioners either were or could have been raised during the comment 
period on the Endangerment Finding. In summary, EPA's thorough review 
of petitioners' arguments shows that the petitioners have not met the 
criteria for reconsideration under section 307(d) the Clean Air Act 
(CAA).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Some petitioners also raise objections to EPA's Endangerment 
Finding based on legal arguments related to other EPA or National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration actions. For the reasons 
discussed in Section IV of this Decision, those objections also fail 
to meet the standard for reconsideration and are denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background

    The Findings were signed by the Administrator on December 7, 2009, 
were published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2009, and became 
effective January 14, 2010. The Administrator's Endangerment Finding 
concluded that atmospheric concentrations of the group of six 
greenhouse gases are reasonably anticipated to endanger both the public 
health and public welfare of current and future U.S. generations. The 
Administrator also decided that the combined emissions of greenhouse 
gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute 
to the greenhouse gas air pollution that endangers both public health 
and public welfare (i.e., the second finding or ``cause or contribute'' 
finding). These Findings were made under CAA section 202(a). The 
Findings were also supported by a Technical Support Document (TSD) 
(Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-11645), containing the underlying 
greenhouse gas emissions data and a synthesis of climate change 
science, as well as an 11-volume RTC document (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0171) that provides EPA's responses to all significant public comments 
that had been received during the 60-day public comment period 
following the Administrator's proposed Findings, signed April 17, 2009.
    Since finalization of the Findings in December 2009, EPA has 
received 10 petitions and supplements thereto requesting that EPA 
reconsider the Findings. The general bases of the petitions are the 
following: (1) Recent disclosure of private e-mail communications among 
some scientists who were involved in constructing one of the global 
temperature records and were involved in certain sections of IPCC AR4; 
(2) alleged and confirmed mistakes or alleged unsupported statements in 
the IPCC AR4; and (3) some new scientific studies not previously 
considered as part of the scientific record of the Endangerment 
Finding. Petitioners claim these pieces of evidence show that the 
science underlying the Administrator's Endangerment Finding is 
potentially

[[Page 49559]]

flawed, and that therefore EPA should reopen the process and reconsider 
the Endangerment Finding. For reasons stated above and throughout this 
Decision and accompanying RTP document, EPA is denying the request to 
reconsider the Findings.
    As discussed further in sections III and IV of this Decision, some 
of the objections raised in the petitions fail to demonstrate that it 
was impracticable to raise the objections during the comment period 
following the proposed Findings, or that the grounds for the objections 
arose after the period for judicial review. For all issues and 
arguments presented by the petitioners, the objections are not of 
central relevance to the outcome of the Findings, as explained in 
detail below. Thus, none of the objections meet the criteria for 
reconsideration under the CAA. EPA is also denying two requests to stay 
the Findings pending reconsideration.
1. The ICTA Petition and Massachusetts v. EPA
a. ICTA Petition
    In October 1999, the International Center for Technology Assessment 
(ICTA) and 18 other organizations filed a petition with EPA, requesting 
that EPA issue emission standards for emissions of carbon dioxide, 
methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons from motor vehicles 
under CAA section 202(a) (ICTA Petition). The ICTA Petition alleged 
that emissions of these four greenhouse gases--CO2, 
CH4, N2O, and HFCs--constituted emissions of 
``air pollutants'' under section 302(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7602(g). 
The ICTA Petition further argued that emissions of these gases from 
motor vehicles fully met the criteria for regulation under CAA section 
202(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1), and claimed that it would be feasible 
for EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources.
    After soliciting and considering approximately 50,000 public 
comments on the ICTA Petition, see 66 FR 7486, January 23, 2001), the 
Agency ultimately denied it on several independent grounds. EPA first 
explained that Congress did not intend in the CAA to provide the Agency 
with authority to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases to 
address global climate change (68 FR 52925-29). For a variety of 
reasons, EPA determined that it was unreasonable to read the Act as 
providing the Agency with authority to regulate emissions of 
CO2 and other greenhouse gases to address global climate 
change. Id. at 52928. Based on this conclusion, the Agency also 
determined that greenhouse gases could not be considered air pollutants 
for purposes of the CAA's regulatory provisions for any contribution 
they may make to climate change. Id.
    The Agency also explained why, even if it had the authority to 
issue such regulations, it still believed that the ICTA Petition should 
be denied. To begin with, EPA found that requiring passenger cars and 
light trucks to emit less CO2, the predominant greenhouse 
gas, would be tantamount to imposing more stringent fuel economy 
standards on those vehicles. Id. at 52929. The Agency pointed out, 
however, that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) authorizes 
only the Department of Transportation (DOT) to increase the stringency 
of motor vehicle fuel economy standards, and specifies a detailed 
regulatory regime that an EPA requirement to significantly reduce motor 
vehicle CO2 emissions would unavoidably abrogate. Id.; see 
also 49 U.S.C. 32902 (relevant provision of EPCA).
    EPA also disagreed with the petitioners' view that, assuming the 
Act gives EPA authority to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse 
gases to address global climate change, the Agency had already made 
statements that triggered a mandatory duty to issue motor vehicle 
standards for CO2 and other greenhouse gases (68 FR 52929, 
September 8, 2003). After summarizing the findings of a 2001 report on 
global climate change by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the 
Agency concluded that ``[u]ntil more is understood about the causes, 
extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for 
addressing it, EPA believes it is inappropriate to regulate [greenhouse 
gas] emissions from motor vehicles.'' Id. at 52,931.
b. Massachusetts v. EPA
    EPA's initial denial of the ICTA petition (68 FR 52922, September 
8, 2003) was the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). In Massachusetts v. EPA, the 
Supreme Court held that EPA had improperly denied the petition. The 
Court held that greenhouse gases meet the definition of air pollutant 
in the CAA, and that the grounds EPA gave for denying the petition were 
``divorced from the statutory text'' and hence improper. Specifically, 
the Court held that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and 
hydrofluorocarbons fit the CAA's ``sweeping definition of `air 
pollutant' '' since they are ``without a doubt `physical [and] chemical 
* * * substances which [are] emitted into * * * the ambient air.' The 
statute is unambiguous.'' Id. at 529. The Court also rejected the 
argument that EPA could not regulate motor vehicle emissions of the 
chief greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, because doing so would 
essentially require control of vehicle fuel economy, and Congress 
delegated that authority to the Department of Transportation in the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The Court held that the fact ``that 
DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk its 
environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with protecting 
the public's `health' and `welfare,' 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1), a statutory 
obligation wholly independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy 
efficiency.'' Id. at 532 (citation omitted). The two obligations may 
overlap ``but there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both 
administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.'' Id.
    Turning to EPA's alternative grounds for denial, the Court held 
that EPA's decision on whether or not to grant the petition must relate 
to ``whether an air pollutant `causes, or contributes to, air pollution 
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 
welfare.' '' Id. at 532-33. Thus, ``[u]nder the clear terms of the 
Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it 
determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or 
if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will 
not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.'' Id. at 533. 
The Court held that three of the four reasons EPA advanced as 
alternative grounds for denying the petition were unrelated to whether 
greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to 
air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public 
health or welfare. Thus, EPA had failed to offer a reasoned explanation 
for its action. The Court further held that EPA's generalized concerns 
about scientific uncertainty were likewise insufficient unless ``the 
scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making 
a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global 
warming,'' in which case EPA must so find. Id. at 534.
    The Supreme Court was careful to note that it was not dictating 
EPA's action on remand, and was not deciding whether or not EPA must 
find that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare. Nor did 
the Court rule on ``whether policy concerns can inform EPA's actions in 
the event that it makes such a finding.'' Id. at 534-35. The Court also 
observed that under CAA section 202(a), ``EPA no doubt has significant 
latitude as to the manner, timing,

[[Page 49560]]

content, and coordination of its regulations with those of other 
agencies.'' Id. at 533. Nonetheless, any EPA decisions concerning the 
endangerment and cause or contribute criteria must be grounded in the 
requirements of CAA section 202(a).
    On September 17, 2007, EPA's denial of the ICTA petition was 
vacated and remanded to EPA for further proceedings consistent with the 
Supreme Court's opinion.
2. Post-Massachusetts v. EPA
    In response to a May 2007 Executive Order (EO 13432) and 
instructions from then-President Bush, EPA began working closely with 
the Departments of Transportation, Energy and Agriculture to develop, 
under the CAA, proposals for greenhouse gas standards for motor 
vehicles and renewable and alternative fuel requirements for gasoline.
    However, after enactment of the Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2007 (EISA) in late December 2007, work in response to the 
Supreme Court's decision shifted. Rather than moving forward with the 
proposed endangerment determination and attendant greenhouse gas 
vehicle standards under the CAA, EPA developed an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on ``Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
under the Clean Air Act,'' which was published on July 30, 2008 (73 FR 
44354). The ANPR presented information relevant to, and solicited 
public comment on, a wide variety of issues regarding the potential 
regulation of greenhouse gases under the CAA, including EPA's response 
to the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Section V of 
the ANPR contained an earlier version of much of the material in the 
Findings, including the legal framework, a summary of the science of 
climate change, and an illustration of how the Administrator could 
analyze the cause or contribute element using information regarding the 
greenhouse gas emissions of the portion of the U.S. transportation 
sector covered by CAA section 202(a). A July 2008 version of the TSD 
for the endangerment finding was also in the docket for the ANPR (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0318).
    The comment period for the ANPR was 120 days, and it provided an 
opportunity for EPA to hear from the public with regard to the issues 
involved in endangerment and cause or contribute findings, as well as 
the supporting science. EPA received, reviewed, and considered numerous 
comments at that time and this public input was reflected in the 
Findings that the Administrator proposed in April 2009. In addition, 
many comments were received on the TSD released with the ANPR. These 
comments are reflected in revisions to the TSD that was released in 
April 2009 to accompany the Administrator's proposal.
3. Proposed and Final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
    In April 2009, the Administrator proposed to find under CAA section 
202(a) that the mix of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. 
Specifically, the Administrator proposed to define the ``air 
pollution'' referred to in CAA section 202(a) to be the mix of six key 
directly emitted and long-lived greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, 
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and 
sulfur hexafluoride (74 FR 18886, April 24, 2009). The Administrator 
further proposed to find that combined greenhouse gas emissions from 
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to this air 
pollution that endangers public health and welfare.
    The Administrator's proposal was subject to a 60-day public comment 
period, which ended June 23, 2009, and also included two public 
hearings. Over 380,000 public comments were received on the 
Administrator's proposed endangerment and cause or contribute findings, 
including comments on the elements of the Administrator's April 2009 
proposal, the legal issues pertaining to the Administrator's decisions, 
and the underlying TSD containing the scientific and technical 
information.
    After carefully reviewing the public comments and all the 
information before her, on December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed 
the final Findings (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009). Specifically, she 
found under CAA section 202(a) that atmospheric concentrations of the 
six greenhouse gases taken in combination may reasonably be anticipated 
to endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current 
and future generations. The Administrator also found that the combined 
emissions of these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new 
motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas air pollution 
that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 202(a).
    The July 2008 ANPR and the April 2009 proposed Findings were 
accompanied by draft versions of the TSD and the Findings were 
supported by the final TSD. The TSD provided an overview of all the 
major scientific assessments available at the time of each action, and 
greenhouse gas emission inventory data relevant to the contribution 
finding. Each of these three versions of the TSD were subject to review 
by Federal climate experts to ensure that they represented an accurate 
summary of the major scientific assessments. Moreover, the July 2008 
and the April 2009 versions of the TSD were subject to public review as 
part of the public comment periods for the ANPR and proposed Findings.
4. Petitions for Reconsideration and Stay Requests
    Between December 2009 and March 2010, EPA received 10 petitions 
(and supplements thereto) to reconsider the Findings.\6\ Nine of these 
petitions base their requests on allegations that developments since 
the close of the comment period on the proposed Findings call into 
question the science underlying the Findings. One petition focuses on 
statements since the close of the comment period regarding the impact 
of regulating stationary sources under the CAA, and the relationship 
between EPA's proposed Light-Duty Vehicle Rule (see below) and the 
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's (NHTSA) 
proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rule as a basis for 
their request that EPA reconsider the Findings. Each significant 
objection in the petitions is discussed in detail below and the 
accompanying RTP document. Note that when more than one petitioner 
raised an objection, our response to that objection is provided only 
once.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The West Virginia Coal Association also filed a letter in 
support of the existing petitions for reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA received two requests to administratively stay the 
final Findings. One administrative stay request under CAA section 
307(d)(7)(b) was tied to a petition to reconsider the findings based on 
concerns about the science and requested that EPA stay the final 
Findings for three months. The other administrative stay request was 
filed under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA) section 705, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 18(a)(1) as 
part of the petition for reconsideration relating to stationary source 
concerns, and requested a stay pending EPA's completion of its 
reconsideration of the final Findings.

II. Standard for Reconsideration

    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA strictly limits petitions for

[[Page 49561]]

reconsideration both in time and scope. It states that: ``Only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. If the person raising an 
objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within such time or if the 
grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment 
(but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such 
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, the 
Administrator shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the 
rule and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded 
had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed. 
If the Administrator refuses to convene such a proceeding, such person 
may seek review of such refusal in the United States court of appeals 
for the appropriate circuit (as provided in subsection (b)). Such 
reconsideration shall not postpone the effectiveness of the rule. The 
effectiveness of the rule may be stayed during such reconsideration, 
however, by the Administrator or the court for a period not to exceed 
three months.''
    Thus the requirement to convene a proceeding to reconsider a rule 
is based on the petitioner demonstrating to EPA: (1) That it was 
impracticable to raise the objection during the comment period, or that 
the grounds for such objection arose after the comment period but 
within the time specified for judicial review (i.e., within 60 days 
after publication of the final rulemaking notice in the Federal 
Register, see CAA section 307(b)(1); and (2) that the objection is of 
central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
    As to the first procedural criterion for reconsideration, a 
petitioner must show why the issue could not have been presented during 
the comment period, either because it was impracticable to raise the 
issue during that time or because the grounds for the issue arose after 
the period for public comment (but within 60 days of publication of the 
final action). Thus, CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) does not provide a forum 
to request EPA to reconsider issues that actually were raised, or could 
have been raised, prior to promulgation of the final rule.
    In EPA's view, an objection is of central relevance to the outcome 
of the rule only if it provides substantial support for the argument 
that the regulation should be revised. See Denial of Petition to 
Reconsider, 68 FR 63021 (November 7, 2003), Technical Support Document 
for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New 
Source Review (NSR): Reconsideration at 5 (Oct. 30, 2003) (EPA-456/R-
03-005) (available at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/petitionresponses10-30-03.pdf); Denial of Petition to Reconsider NAAQS 
for PM, 53 FR 52698, 52700 (December 29, 1988), citing Denial of 
Petition to Revise NSPS for Stationary Gas Turbines, 45 FR 81653-54 
(December 11, 1980), and decisions cited therein.
    This interpretation is clearly appropriate in light of the criteria 
adopted by Congress in this and other provisions in section 307(d). 
Section 307(d)(4)(B)(i) provides that ``[a]ll documents which become 
available after the proposed rule has been published and which the 
Administrator determines are of central relevance to the rulemaking 
shall be placed in the docket as soon as possible after their 
availability.'' This provision draws a distinction between comments and 
other information submitted during the comment period, and other 
documents which become available after publication of the proposed 
rule. The former are docketed irrespective of their relevance or merit, 
while the latter must be docketed only if a higher hurdle of central 
relevance to the rulemaking is met. Congress also used the phrase 
``central relevance'' in sections 307(d)(7)(B) and (d)(8), and in both 
cases Congress set a more stringent hurdle than in section 307(d)(4). 
Under section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator is required to reconsider 
a rule only if the objection is ``of central relevance to the outcome 
of the rule.'' Likewise, section 307(d)(8) authorizes a court to 
invalidate a rule for procedural errors only if the errors were ``so 
serious and related to matters of such central relevance to the rule 
that there is a substantial likelihood that the rule would have been 
substantially changed if such errors had not been made.'' In both of 
these provisions, it is not enough that the objection or error be of 
central relevance to the issues involved in the rulemaking, as in 
section 307(d)(4). Instead, the objection has to be of central 
relevance ``to the outcome of the rule'' itself, and the procedural 
error has to be of such central relevance that it presents a 
``substantial likelihood that the rule would have been substantially 
changed.'' Central relevance to the issues involved in the rulemaking 
is not enough to meet the criteria Congress set under sections 
307(d)(7) or (d)(8). Both of those provisions require that the 
objection or error be central to the substantive decision that is the 
outcome of the rulemaking. This difference is significant, and 
indicates that Congress set a much higher hurdle for disturbing a final 
rule that has already been issued, as compared to the less stringent 
criteria for docketing of documents before a decision has been made and 
a rule has been issued.
    In this context, EPA's interpretation of section 307(d)(7)(B) gives 
full and appropriate meaning to the criteria adopted by Congress. An 
objection is considered of central relevance to the outcome of the rule 
only if it provides substantial support for the argument that the 
regulation should be revised. This properly links the criteria to the 
outcome of the rulemaking, not just the issues in the rulemaking. It 
requires that the objection be of such substance and merit that it can 
be considered central to the outcome of the rulemaking. This 
interpretation is consistent with section 307(d)(8), which also ties 
central relevance to the outcome of the rulemaking, in terms of a 
``substantial likelihood'' that the rule would be ``substantially 
changed.'' This interpretation gives proper weight to the approach 
throughout section 307(b) and (d) of the importance Congress attributed 
to preserving the finality of agency rulemaking decisions. This 
interpretation is also consistent with the case law, as discussed 
below.
    As discussed in this Decision, EPA is denying the petitions because 
they fail to meet these criteria. In many cases, the objections raised 
in the petitions to reconsider were or could have been raised during 
the comment period of the proposed Findings. In all cases, the 
objections are not of central relevance to the outcome of the rule 
because they do not provide substantial support for the argument that 
the Endangerment Finding should be revised.
    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) argues that its objections are of 
central relevance because the CRU documents and e-mails ``cast 
substantial uncertainty over'' the final Endangerment Finding, and that 
EPA is required to grant the petition or reconsider ``if information 
not available in the rulemaking record for public comment casts 
substantial uncertainty over the final regulation.'' PLF Pet at 8-9. 
They argue that this is the case even if one does not assume or even 
argue that the statements in the CRU documents and e-mails are true. 
PLF Pet. at 6. They base this claim on Kennecott Corp. v. EPA, 684 F.2d 
1007, 1017-20 (DC Cir. 1982).
    PLF's view of Kennecott fails to account for the specific 
procedural issues that were central to that case. In Kennecott, 
petitioners objected that EPA had not provided adequate notice and

[[Page 49562]]

an opportunity for comment in the underlying rulemaking, in violation 
of various CAA section 307(d) provisions. Petitioners had two different 
notice and comment objections. First, they objected to EPA's failure to 
include certain documents in the docket at the time of the proposal, 
including various EPA financial analyses performed prior to the 
proposal. The court found that these documents were part of the basis 
for the proposed regulations and needed to be docketed so comment could 
be taken on them during the comment period. The court found that the 
failure to submit these documents to the docket at the time of the 
proposal was a procedural violation of CAA section 307(d)'s notice and 
comment requirements, because the documents EPA failed to docket made 
impossible any meaningful comment on the merits of EPA's proposal. The 
missing documents led to uncertainty over EPA's basis for the proposal, 
which the documents could clarify. This procedural violation met the 
test under CAA section 307(d)(9) for reversible error, because it 
indicated a ``substantial likelihood'' that the regulations would 
``have been significantly changed.'' Kennecott, 684 F.2d at 1018-
1019.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ It is this discussion of uncertainty that is cited by PLF. 
However this concerns the criteria for reversible error under CAA 
section 307(d)(9)(D)(iii) for a procedural violation. The court did 
not address this as the test for CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), and 
certainly did not do so for cases where there is no procedural 
violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners in Kennecott also objected to EPA's submission to the 
docket, one week prior to promulgation of the final rule, of certain 
economic forecast data upon which EPA relied for the final rule, where 
the forecast data differed significantly from the forecast data 
provided during the pubic comment period. The court found that this 
late submission of important information relied on by EPA, without an 
opportunity to comment, also violated the notice and comment 
requirements of CAA section 307(d). Id. at 1019.
    Given these two violations of the notice and comment requirements 
of CAA section 307(d), the court determined that consideration of a 
petition to reconsider after promulgation of the final rule was not an 
adequate substitute for the statutory required notice and opportunity 
to comment prior to promulgation of the rule. EPA failed to provide 
adequate notice and an opportunity to comment during the rulemaking 
process, and could not cure that by later considering the merits of the 
petitioner's comments post-promulgation, through a petition to 
reconsider, where the issues involved were critical to the central 
issues involved in the rule. Id. at 1019.
    EPA's failure to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to 
comment in violation of CAA section 307(d) was the critical 
underpinning for the court's determination that in that case 
consideration of the merits of the objections through a post-
promulgation petition to reconsider was not an adequate substitute for 
providing the required procedural rights prior to promulgation. That, 
however, is not the case here. Petitioners are not claiming that the 
CRU e-mails or other documents show that EPA failed to provide adequate 
notice and an opportunity to comment because EPA failed to docket any 
documents or EPA docketed late any documents used to support EPA's 
final Endangerment Finding. Instead, petitioners are claiming that EPA 
should reopen the rulemaking and reconsider the Endangerment Finding 
based on new documents and arguments that petitioners bring to EPA, 
which they claim undermine the basis for EPA's Endangerment Finding.\8\ 
There is no basis for treating the court's decision in Kennecott as 
precedent here, where there is no comparable procedural notice and 
comment violation by EPA. There is no reason to limit EPA's ability to 
consider the merits of the petitioners' objections through a post-
promulgation petition to reconsider, whereas in this case there is no 
violation of a statutory right to notice and comment and EPA's 
consideration of the merits of the petitioners' objections is not being 
used as an improper substitute or cure for an EPA failure to provide 
adequate notice and an opportunity to comment prior to promulgation of 
the final rule. Unlike the situation in Kennecott, EPA's consideration 
of the petitions to reconsider is focused on whether the claimed new 
evidence and arguments warrant a reopening of a prior, properly noticed 
rulemaking. Absent a demonstration that the objections raised by 
petitioners provide substantial support for the argument that the 
regulation should be revised, such reopening is not warranted. Nothing 
in Kennecott holds otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. (SLF) inappropriately 
points to the docketing requirements under CAA section 307(d)(3) 
related to a proposed rule, SLF at 3-5. However, the documents SLF 
refers to are not EPA documents, were not part of the basis for 
EPA's proposal, and arose after the comment period, not prior to 
proposal. The provisions for a petition to reconsider under CAA 
section 307(d)(7), not the provisions of CAA section 307(d)(3), 
apply to the concerns raised by SLF with respect to the arguments 
and documents submitted to the agency after the end of the comment 
period, in the petitions to reconsider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appalachian Power Company et al. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 
2001) clearly supports this view. In that case, petitioners presented 
comments to EPA requesting that EPA consider various materials 
concerning the issue of substantial contribution under section 126. 
Because EPA had already promulgated a rule that addressed the issue of 
significant contribution, EPA properly treated the request as a 
petition to reconsider the prior rule. EPA evaluated the evidence and 
its relevance to the section 126 rule and for a variety of reasons 
rejected it on the merits as a basis for reopening the rule. The court 
upheld EPA's decision, stating that ``[g]iven the deferential standard 
employed in this context, the EPA's refusal to reopen and reconsider 
its significant contribution findings must be upheld.'' Id. at 1060.
    Part III of this Decision explains why EPA is denying the petitions 
with respect to the objections set forth in these petitions for 
reconsideration. With respect to some of these issues, the petitioners 
clearly have not met the procedural predicate for reconsideration. That 
is, the petitioners have not demonstrated that it was impracticable to 
raise these objections during the comment period, or that the grounds 
for these objections arose after the close of the comment period but 
within 60 days after publication of the final rule. As such, they do 
not meet the statutory criteria for administrative reconsideration 
under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).\9\ For all of the objections, whether 
or not the petitions might be considered to meet the procedural 
criterion for reconsideration, the petitioners' objections and 
arguments in terms of substance are not ``of central relevance'' to the 
outcome of the rulemaking. Thus, none of the objections meet the 
criteria for reconsideration under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Chamber of Commerce's petition was based on grounds that 
it claims arose after the time period for seeking judicial review of 
the underlying rulemaking. The Chamber argues that EPA should grant 
reconsideration in its discretion, even if it is not required to do 
so under section 307(d). The failure of the Chamber to file timely 
objections or to demonstrate that the objections it raises provide 
substantial support for the argument that the regulation should be 
revised are a fully adequate basis for EPA to deny the Chamber's 
petition. In any case, even if the petition were timely, EPA has 
considered the objections raised by the Chamber and is denying their 
petition as discussed in more detail herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Section I.B.4 of this Decision, EPA also received two 
requests to administratively stay the final Findings. Two petitioners 
requested an administrative stay under

[[Page 49563]]

CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), tied to the petitions to reconsider the 
findings, requesting that EPA stay the Findings for three months. 
Southeastern Legal Foundation at 8, Chamber of Commerce at 1. EPA has 
authority to issue a stay for up to 3 months if it grants a petition to 
reconsider under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). As described below, EPA is 
denying the petitions to reconsider, hence there is no basis for 
issuance of an administrative stay under this provision.
    One of the administrative stay requests was filed under section 705 
of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as part of the petition for 
reconsideration relating to stationary source concerns, and requested a 
stay pending EPA's completion of its reconsideration of the final 
Findings. Chamber at 23-34. 5 U.S.C. 705 authorizes an agency to 
postpone the effective date of an agency action pending judicial review 
when the agency finds that justice so requires. In this case, the 
Endangerment Finding was effective as of January 14, 2010. The request 
for an administrative stay was submitted by petition dated March 15, 
2010, after the Endangerment Finding was effective. Even if EPA 
believed that an administrative stay was warranted, which it does not, 
it is not clear whether EPA would have the authority under APA section 
705 to stay an agency action that has already gone into effect. 
Postponing an effective date implies acting before the effective date 
occurs.
    In any case, an administrative stay of the Endangerment Finding is 
not warranted. In response to the arguments raised by the Chamber, (1) 
the Chamber has not made a strong showing on the merits, for all of the 
reasons upon which EPA is denying the petitions to reconsider; (2) the 
Chamber's arguments concerning irreparable harm fail to adequately 
account for the proposed or recently issued Final Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 
Rule (75 FR 31518, 31579-84; June 3, 2010) (Final Tailoring Rule), and 
present general, unspecific, and unsupported arguments; (3) the 
Chamber's arguments that EPA's standards for emissions of GHGs from 
light-duty vehicles would have no important benefit because of the 
related NHTSA CAFE rule are rejected for the reasons discussed in 
Section IV.B of this Notice, and (4) the Chamber's arguments concerning 
the public interest, which repeat its prior arguments, are rejected for 
the same reasons.

III. Science Related Issues

A. General Summary of Petitioners' Arguments

    The petitioners generally claim that the science underlying the 
Administrator's Endangerment Finding is flawed and/or that EPA did not 
follow an appropriate or robust process in evaluating the underlying 
science for purposes of making an endangerment finding for greenhouse 
gases. Many of the 10 petitions present similar arguments. Some of the 
petitioners' arguments were raised during the 60-day public comment 
period following the proposed Findings (74 FR 18886, April 24, 2009).
    Many of the petitioners critique specific elements of the 
underlying science that support the Findings, primarily the HadCRUT 
temperature record showing increases in global surface temperatures. 
There are many elements of the underlying science that support the 
Administrator's Endangerment Finding that are not addressed by the 
petitioners. Petitioners assert that the global temperature record is 
so central to all greenhouse gas and climate change science that the 
problems with a global surface temperature record essentially mean all 
scientific knowledge linking greenhouse gases and climate change, and 
by extension all public health and welfare risks associated with human-
induced climate change, must also be called into question. Petitioners 
also question the credibility of the IPCC and, by extension, EPA's use 
of IPCC AR4 as a significant reference document supporting the 
Findings.
    The primary information provided by the petitioners to back their 
arguments are:
    (1) A set of disclosed private e-mail communications among some 
scientists associated with the HadCRUT temperature record and 
associated with certain sections of IPCC AR4.
    (2) A small number of factual mistakes and claimed factual mistakes 
and alleged unsupported statements in the voluminous, 2,927-page IPCC 
AR4.
    (3) A limited number of new studies for EPA to consider.
    EPA's responses to the petitioners' evidence, arguments, and claims 
are summarized in this section of this Decision and provided in fuller 
technical detail in the accompanying three-volume RTP document. More 
specifically, the petitioners' arguments can generally be grouped into 
three broad categories:
     Climate science and data issues, including (1) the 
validity of the reconstructed surface temperature record from the 
distant past and whether or not recent observations of global warming 
are unusual; (2) the validity of the more recent surface temperature 
record and whether recent temperature changes can be attributed to 
human emissions of greenhouse gases; (3) the validity of the HadCRUT 
surface temperature record of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU); (4) the 
validity of the recent surface temperature records constructed by the 
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and (5) the 
implications of new studies not previously considered.
     Issues raised by EPA's use of IPCC reports, including: (1) 
Claims that recently found errors and claimed errors in IPCC AR4 
undermine IPCC's credibility and therefore EPA's use of IPCC AR4 as a 
primary reference document; and (2) claims that IPCC has a policy 
agenda and is not an objective scientific body.
     Process and other issues, including claims that: (1) The 
USGCRP and the NRC are not separate and independent assessments from 
IPCC; (2) EPA's process to develop the scientific support for the 
Findings was inappropriate; (3) there are improper peer-review 
processes in the underlying scientific literature used by the major 
assessments; and (4) certain scientists did not adhere to UK and U.S. 
Freedom of Information Act Requests.

B. Summary of the Science Underlying the Administrator's Endangerment 
Finding in Light of the Petitioners' Claims

    Before addressing the petitioners' general and specific assertions, 
this section briefly describes the major scientific conclusions and 
data that support the Administrator's Endangerment Finding that 
elevated atmospheric concentrations of the group of six key greenhouse 
gases are reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health and 
public welfare of current and future generations. As noted above, the 
petitioners do not take issue with the large body of scientific 
evidence. Rather, they focus most of their attention on questioning the 
validity of the global surface temperature record--specifically the 
HadCRUT temperature record, one of the three major global surface 
temperature records used by climate researchers--which show that 
temperatures are increasing. This section puts the global temperature 
record in the broader context of greenhouse gas and climate change

[[Page 49564]]

science, and demonstrates the limited scope of the petitioners' 
arguments.
    There is a causal chain linking atmospheric concentrations of 
greenhouse gases to impacts and risks to public health and welfare. The 
elements of this causal chain are:
     What effects do greenhouse gases have on the environment 
and on climate in particular?
     Are human activities changing the amount of greenhouse 
gases in our atmosphere?
     What is the evidence indicating that average temperatures 
are increasing and that climate change is occurring, consistent with 
the direction one would expect from increasing greenhouse gases in our 
atmosphere?
     What is the evidence linking observed temperature changes 
and climate change to the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases?
     How are public health and welfare threatened by these 
changes to climate and the environment, now and in the future?
    Each element of the causal chain is discussed below. Evidence 
related to each element is based on the underlying scientific 
assessments (e.g., IPCC and USGCRP) that EPA relied on to develop the 
TSD to support the Administrator's Endangerment Finding, and, where 
noted, is also based on the most recent scientific assessment, 
published in May 2010, of the NRC.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ National Research Council (2010) Advancing the Science of 
Climate Change: America's Climate Choices, National Academies Press, 
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. What effects do greenhouse gases have on the environment and on 
climate in particular?
    The physical effect of greenhouse gases on climate and the 
environment remains a basic scientific fact--greenhouse gases slow the 
loss of Earth's heat, which would otherwise escape to space. Much like 
a blanket keeps a person warm by preventing heat loss, greenhouse gases 
blanket the planet and warm the Earth by trapping in heat that would 
otherwise escape to space. This is the Earth's natural greenhouse 
effect. An increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere 
intensifies the natural greenhouse effect and thus exerts a warming 
effect on the global climate. These are well-established physical 
properties of greenhouse gases. The six greenhouse gases grouped 
together in the Administrator's Endangerment Finding are long-lived in 
the atmosphere and, once emitted, can remain in the atmosphere for 
decades to centuries. Carbon dioxide has other non-climate effects as 
well. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can affect 
oceanic acidity and the growth rates of crops, weeds, and trees. 
Petitioners have not presented information challenging the basic 
physical properties of how the six greenhouse gases affect the climate 
and the environment.
2. How are human activities changing the amount of greenhouse gases in 
our atmosphere?
    It is a well-documented and straightforward observation that levels 
of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing in our 
atmosphere. The six key greenhouse gases included in the 
Administrator's Findings are at essentially unprecedented levels 
compared to the recent and distant past. Their concentrations are 
climbing, and this is projected to continue well into this century. The 
two most important directly emitted greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide 
and methane, are well above the natural range of atmospheric 
concentrations compared to at least the last 650,000 years (see TSD 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-11645). The most recent report of the NRC states 
that carbon dioxide levels are now at 388 parts per million and 
increasing by almost two parts per million per year.
    The fact that greenhouse concentrations are now at such high levels 
is absolutely central to the Administrator's Endangerment Finding. 
Without such a large and ever-increasing buildup of atmospheric levels 
of greenhouse gases there would be less concern about the potential 
future warming caused by human activities. Greenhouse gases are at such 
high levels in our atmosphere and continue to climb because human 
activities are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in larger 
quantities and more quickly than the environment can handle. Our annual 
emissions from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and other sources 
are overwhelming the natural removal systems in the ocean, atmosphere, 
and terrestrial biosphere (e.g., trees and other vegetation).
    Furthermore, human activities are unambiguously the driver of the 
increase in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. The EPA TSD states: 
``The global atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased 
about 38% from pre-industrial levels to 2009, and almost all of the 
increase is due to anthropogenic emissions.'' This is supported by the 
most recent NRC report, which states that, ``We know that this increase 
is largely the result of human activities because the chemical 
signature of excess CO2 in the atmosphere can be linked to 
the composition of the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel 
burning. Moreover, analyses of bubbles trapped in ice cores from 
Greenland and Antarctica reveal that atmospheric CO2 levels 
have been rising steadily since the start of the Industrial 
Revolution.'' Petitioners do not provide any evidence that cause EPA to 
question this scientific conclusion.
3. What is the evidence indicating that average temperatures are 
increasing and climate change is occurring consistent with the 
direction one would expect with increasing greenhouse gases in our 
atmosphere?
    The scientific literature is clear that the heating effect caused 
by the buildup of greenhouse gases is warming the climate system. As 
summarized in the TSD:
     The global average net effect of the increase in 
atmospheric GHG concentrations, plus other human activities (e.g., 
land-use change and aerosol emissions), on the global energy balance 
since 1750 has been one of warming. This total net heating effect, 
referred to as forcing, is estimated to be +1.6 (+0.6 to +2.4) watts 
per square meter (W/m\2\), with much of the range surrounding this 
estimate due to uncertainties about the cooling and warming effects of 
aerosols.
     Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now 
evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean 
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global 
average sea level. Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 1.3 
 0.32 [deg]F (0.74 [deg]C  0.18 [deg]C) over 
the last 100 years. Eight of the 10 warmest years on record have 
occurred since 2001. Global mean surface temperature was higher during 
the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable 
period during the preceding four centuries.
     U.S. temperatures also warmed during the 20th and into the 
21st century; temperatures are now approximately 1.3 [deg]F (0.7 
[deg]C) warmer than at the start of the 20th century, with an increased 
rate of warming over the past 30 years. Both the IPCC and the USGCRP 
\11\ reports attributed recent North American warming to elevated GHG 
concentrations. In the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 
(2008) \12\ report, the authors find that for

[[Page 49565]]

North America, ``more than half of this warming [for the period 1951-
2006] is likely the result of human-caused GHG forcing of climate 
change.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ USGCRP now encompasses the former Climate Change Science 
Program (CCSP) under the previous Administration.
    \12\ CCSP (2008). Reanalysis of Historical Climate Data for Key 
Atmospheric Features: Implications for Attribution of Causes of 
Observed Change. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program 
and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Randall Dole, Martin 
Hoerling, and Siegfried Schubert (eds.)]. Asheville, NC: National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data 
Center. 156 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been 
observed in the last 50 years across all world regions, including the 
United States. Cold days, cold nights, and frost have become less 
frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more 
frequent.
     There is strong evidence that global sea level gradually 
rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate.
     Satellite data since 1979 show that annual average Arctic 
sea ice extent has shrunk by 4.1% per decade.
     Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans 
shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate 
change, particularly temperature increases.
     Observations show that climate change is currently 
affecting U.S. physical and biological systems in significant ways.
     Ocean CO2 uptake has lowered the average ocean 
pH (increased acidity) level by approximately 0.1 since 1750.
    These conclusions are consistent with, or strengthened by, the most 
recent NRC report which states the following: ``Earth is warming. 
Detailed observations of surface temperature assembled and analyzed by 
several different research groups show that the planet's average 
surface temperature was 1.4 [deg]F (0.8 [deg]C) warmer during the first 
decade of the 21st century than during the first decade of the 20th 
century, with the most pronounced warming over the last three decades. 
These data are corroborated by a variety of independent observations 
that indicate warming in other parts of the Earth system, including the 
cryosphere (snow and ice covered regions), the lower atmosphere, and 
the oceans.''
    These multiple lines of evidence highlight a number of things. 
First, there is well-documented evidence that the buildup of greenhouse 
gases in our atmosphere is exerting, as expected, a significant heating 
effect called radiative forcing. This is not to be confused with 
temperature change or the temperature data that is the subject of many 
of the petitions. This heating effect or radiative forcing refers to a 
change in the energy balance of the planet, and is thus the driver of 
temperature change.
    The magnitude of this heating effect caused by the buildup in 
atmospheric greenhouse gases has been quantified in the scientific 
literature. The petitioners do not challenge these estimates and do not 
challenge the fact that the observed buildup of greenhouse gases is 
having a clear and quantifiable heating effect on the planet. This is a 
fundamental pillar of climate change science, and is a fundamental 
piece of supporting evidence for the Administrator's Endangerment 
Finding.
    Second, the underlying science indicates that there is significant 
and unambiguous warming for the Earth and for North America. This is 
the first place along the causal chain where the petitioners question 
the science. Many petitioners question the validity of the global 
temperature evidence by pointing to the CRU e-mails and their impact on 
the scientific assessment reports used by EPA. This particular critique 
is addressed below and in fuller detail in Volume 1 of the RTP 
document.
    Third, the evidence of climate change caused by human activities 
goes beyond average increases in global and continental temperatures. 
There are well-documented increases in sea level, declines in sea ice, 
and changes to physical and biological systems, all primarily driven 
by, and therefore showing further evidence of, increases in average 
temperatures. These changes are documented by datasets other than 
temperature datasets, and bear no relation to the particular CRU 
temperature dataset that is the primary focus of many of the 
petitioners.
    Similarly, the observation that elevated levels of carbon dioxide 
are increasing the acidity of the world's oceans is direct evidence of 
a large-scale and significant environmental effect that does not depend 
on any evidence from a temperature dataset. This particular effect was 
considered supporting evidence by the Administrator in the Endangerment 
Finding. This documented effect is not challenged by any of the 
petitioners.
4. What is the evidence linking observed temperature changes and 
climate change to the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases?
    The underlying science has clearly attributed the observed warming 
to the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Summarized here 
is the underlying science that shows that increases in average global 
and continental temperatures, as well as other climatic changes, can 
confidently be attributed to the increases in greenhouse gas emissions 
from human activities. The extent to which observed warming can be 
attributed to the human-induced buildup of greenhouse gases in the 
atmosphere is the second area of the causal chain where some 
petitioners question the science.
    IPCC statements on the linkage between greenhouse gases and 
temperatures have strengthened since the organization's early 
assessments (Solomon et al., 2007).\13\ The IPCC's First Assessment 
Report in 1990 contained little observational evidence of a detectable 
anthropogenic influence on climate (IPCC, 1990).\14\ In its Second 
Assessment Report in 1995, the IPCC stated that the balance of evidence 
suggests a discernible human influence on the climate of the 20th 
century (IPCC, 1996).\15\ The Third Assessment Report in 2001 concluded 
that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to 
have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations (IPCC, 
2001b).\16\ The conclusion in IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report 
(2007b) \17\ is the strongest yet: ``Most of the observed increase in 
global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely 
\18\ due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG 
concentrations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, 
N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, J.M. Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, 
M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. 
Kattsov, U. Lohmann, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. 
Overpeck, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, R. 
Somerville, T.F. Stocker, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood and D. Wratt (2007). 
Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, 
S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, 
and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.
    \14\ IPCC (1990). First Assessment Report: Climate Change 1990. 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 
NY, USA.
    \15\ IPCC (1996). Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate 
Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [J.T. Houghton, 
L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. 
Maskell (eds)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United 
Kingdom.
    \16\ IPCC (2001b). Summary for Policymakers. In. Climate Change 
2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 
Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change [J.T. Houghton et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
    \17\ IPCC (2007b). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. 
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth 
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
[Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, 
Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.
    \18\ According to IPCC terminology, ``very likely'' conveys a 90 
to 99% probability of occurrence. See Box 1.2 of the TSD for a full 
description of IPCC's uncertainty terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The strength of this statement reflects our current, much better 
understanding

[[Page 49566]]

of all the factors, not just greenhouse gases, that influence 
temperature fluctuations and other climatic changes. On this point, 
EPA's TSD (citing Hegerl et al., 2007) \19\ listed the major scientific 
advances between the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports of the IPCC 
that led to this increased confidence in the ability to attribute 
observed temperature and other climate changes to anthropogenic 
greenhouse gases:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Hegerl, G.C., et al. (2007). Understanding and Attributing 
Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, 
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. 
Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An expanded and improved range of observations allowing 
attribution of warming to be more fully addressed jointly with other 
changes in the climate system.
     Improvements in the simulation of many aspects of present 
mean climate and its variability on seasonal to inter-decadal time 
scales.
     More detailed representations of processes related to 
aerosol and other forcings (i.e., heating and cooling effects) in 
models.
     Simulations of 20th-century climate change that use many 
more models and much more complete anthropogenic and natural forcings.
     Multi-model ensembles that increase confidence in 
attribution results by providing an improved representation of model 
uncertainty.
    Climate model simulations suggest that natural heating factors 
alone cannot explain the observed warming for the entire globe, the 
global land, or the global ocean. The observed warming can only be 
reproduced with models that contain both natural and anthropogenic 
heating and cooling influences.
    EPA's TSD, based on the underlying assessment literature, states 
that if the additional heating effect of elevated levels of greenhouse 
gases were the only external influence on the global climate, this 
likely would have resulted in warming greater than observed. This 
statement is made because our understanding of the climate system is 
sophisticated enough to consider and model multiple and simultaneous 
influences on the global climate. For example, there are known and 
quantifiable cooling effects from human emissions of aerosols and 
natural forcings (e.g., volcanic eruptions and solar variability) that 
have offset some of the greenhouse gas-induced warming during the past 
half century.
    The sophistication of climate models that examine the influence of 
human emissions of greenhouse gases has increased. Confidence in these 
models comes from their foundation in accepted physical principles and 
from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate 
and past climate changes (IPCC, 2007a).\20\ One petitioner questions 
the reliability of the models by pointing to certain CRU e-mails. 
Questions regarding the reliability of climate models are addressed in 
Volume 4 of the RTC document and in Volume 1 of the RTP document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ IPCC (2007a) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Solomon, 
S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, 
and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, warming of the climate system has been detected in 
changes of surface and atmospheric temperatures, in the upper several 
hundred meters of the ocean (as evident by the observed increase in 
ocean heat content), and in contributions to sea level rise. The 
scientific assessments have established human contributions to all of 
these changes.
    Not only has an anthropogenic warming signal been detected for the 
surface temperatures, but evidence has also accumulated of an 
anthropogenic influence throughout different layers of the atmosphere. 
Some petitioners have raised one potential inconsistency between 
observed warming and modeled warming higher in the atmosphere over the 
tropics. Karl et al. (2009) \21\ state that when uncertainties in 
models and observations are properly accounted for, newer observational 
datasets are in agreement with climate model results. A detailed 
discussion of this issue is contained in Volume 1, section 1.2 of the 
RTP document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson (Eds.) (2009) Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University 
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, evidence from climates in the geologic past, going back 
millions of years, also supports the conclusion that elevated levels of 
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are expected to lead to warmer 
climates. Measurements show that climates from the geologic past have 
been both warmer and colder than present, and that warmer periods have 
generally coincided with high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. 
Analyses of these paleoclimate data have increased confidence in the 
role of external influences on climate. Climate models for predicting 
future climate have been used to reproduce key features of past 
climates using conditions and radiative forcing for those periods.
    Here too, these conclusions are reinforced by the most recent NRC 
report, which states:

    ``Global warming can be attributed to human activities. Many 
lines of evidence support the conclusion that most of the observed 
warming since the start of the 20th century, and especially the last 
several decades, can be attributed to human activities, including 
the following:
     Earth's surface temperature has clearly risen over the 
past 100 years, at the same time that human activities have resulted 
in sharp increases in CO2 and other GHGs.
     Both the physics of the greenhouse effect and more 
detailed calculations dictate that increases in atmospheric GHGs 
should lead to warming of Earth's surface and lower atmosphere.
     The vertical pattern of observed warming--with warming 
in the bottommost layer of the atmosphere and cooling immediately 
above--is consistent with warming caused by GHG increases, and 
inconsistent with other possible causes.
     Detailed simulations with state-of-the-art computer-
based models of the climate system are able to reproduce the 
observed warming tend and patterns only when human-induced GHG 
emissions are included.
    Based on these and other lines of evidence, the Panel on 
Advancing the Science of Climate Change--along with an overwhelming 
majority of scientists (Rosenberg et al., 2010)--conclude that much 
of the observed warming since the start of the 20th century, and 
most of the warming over the last several decades, can be attributed 
to human activities'' [NRC at 29].

    The clear conclusion from all of this evidence is that the human-
induced buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is primarily 
responsible for most of the observed warming and other climate changes 
occurring now. The information petitioners present to challenge this 
part of the scientific record is clearly inadequate.
     Petitioners provide no credible evidence to question the 
clear observation that greenhouse gases are increasing in our 
atmosphere to significant levels.
     The petitioners provide no information to question the 
quantified radiative forcing (heating effect) caused by this greenhouse 
gas buildup.
     Petitioners' objections about paleoclimate temperature 
reconstructions focus on one type of reconstruction (tree ring 
analysis). The objections, addressed in Volume 1 of the RTP document, 
do not withstand scrutiny, nor do they undermine our confidence in the 
conclusions of the studies. These conclusions, and the accompanying 
limitations and uncertainties, have been properly characterized in the 
assessment reports

[[Page 49567]]

and the Endangerment Finding. Petitioners do not contest or address the 
variety of other aspects of paleoclimate research supporting the 
attribution of recent warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
     With respect to the variety of evidence on observed 
temperature change, the petitioners focus their criticism on the 
validity of one of three global surface temperature records, the 
HadCRUT temperature record. Petitioners' objections are addressed in 
detail below and in Volume 1 of the RTP document, as are the 
petitioners' related criticisms of the NOAA and NASA temperature 
datasets. Their objections do not withstand scrutiny, nor do they 
reduce our confidence in these temperature records, which have been 
properly characterized in the assessment reports and the Endangerment 
Finding. In addition, the petitioners ignore and do not address the 
clear information and observations showing that other elements of the 
climate system are undergoing changes consistent with these average 
temperature increases (e.g., ocean heating, sea level rise, Arctic ice 
loss). Petitioners do not show that these observations are in error or 
are the result of some other, unidentified mechanism.
     Petitioners focus their criticism on a possible 
discrepancy between model predictions and the vertical temperature 
structure of the atmosphere in the tropics; this criticism is not 
substantively supported, as discussed below and in Volume 1 of the RTP 
document.
     The petitioners do not attempt to provide an alternative 
explanation of the compellingly strong match between the observed 
magnitude and pattern of warming and the modeled simulations, which 
include all known factors, including the greenhouse gas buildup, the 
offsetting cooling influence of aerosols, and variability in solar 
output.
     Petitioners' arguments that a possible slowdown in the 
rate of warming over the last 10 years should weaken confidence in the 
fact that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary driver of 
recent warming are not valid. EPA addresses this issue more fully below 
and in Volume 1 of the RTP document.
5. How are public health and welfare threatened by these changes to 
climate and the environment, now and in the future?
    The TSD summarizes a number of conclusions from the underlying 
science on this issue. In addition to documenting many of the key 
observed changes to atmospheric composition and climate, such as those 
outlined above, the TSD summarizes key findings about projected 
increases in greenhouse gas emissions and the future climate change 
associated with these future scenarios:
     Most future scenarios that assume no explicit greenhouse 
gas mitigation actions (beyond those already enacted) project 
increasing global greenhouse gas emissions over the century, with 
climbing greenhouse gas concentrations.
     Future warming over the course of the 21st century, even 
under scenarios of low-emission growth, is very likely to be greater 
than observed warming over the past century.
     All of the United States is very likely to warm during 
this century, and most areas of the United States are expected to warm 
by more than the global average.
     It is very likely that heat waves will become more 
intense, more frequent, and longer-lasting in a future warm climate, 
whereas cold episodes are projected to decrease significantly.
     Increases in the amount of precipitation are very likely 
in higher latitudes, while decreases are likely in most subtropical 
latitudes and in the southwestern United States, continuing observed 
patterns.
     Intensity of precipitation events is projected to increase 
in the United States and other regions of the world.
     It is likely that hurricanes will become more intense, 
with stronger peak winds and more heavy precipitation associated with 
ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. Frequency 
changes in hurricanes are currently too uncertain for confident 
projections.
     By the end of the century, global average sea level is 
projected by the IPCC to rise between 7.1 and 23 inches (18 and 59 
centimeter [cm]), relative to around 1990, in the absence of increased 
dynamic ice sheet loss.
     Sea ice extent is projected to shrink in the Arctic under 
all IPCC emission scenarios.
    The validity of these future climate change projections is not 
addressed by the petitioners, although some of the petitioners do call 
into question the climate models that are used to conduct these climate 
change projections. The petitioners claim that some of the models must 
be calibrated with the current temperature record, which in turn they 
assert appears to be flawed. EPA addresses this faulty critique of the 
models in Volume 1, section 1.2.3 of the RTP document, and had 
previously addressed similar critiques of climate models in Volume 4 of 
the RTC document.
    It is important to note that none of the petitioners question the 
conclusion that atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases are expected to 
continue climbing for the foreseeable future, given the long-lived 
physical properties of the greenhouse gases themselves and the 
plausible pathways of human-emitting activities over the next few 
decades. Climate models aside, it is difficult to imagine a world where 
the heating effect of climbing greenhouse gas concentrations does not 
increase for the foreseeable future.
    With regard to the impacts and risks to public health and welfare, 
the TSD and the Administrator's Findings stated the following:
     Severe heat waves are projected to intensify in magnitude 
and duration over the portions of the United States where these events 
already occur, with potential increases in mortality and morbidity, 
especially among the elderly, young, and frail.
     Some reduction in the risk of death related to extreme 
cold is expected. It is not clear whether reduced mortality from cold 
will be greater or less than increased heat-related mortality in the 
United States due to climate change. In addition, the latest USGCRP 
report refers to a study that analyzed daily mortality and weather data 
in 50 U.S. cities from 1989 to 2000 and found that, on average, cold 
snaps in the United States increased death rates by 1.6 percent, while 
heat waves triggered a 5.7 percent increase in death rates. The study 
concludes that increases in heat-related mortality due to global 
warming in the United States are unlikely to be compensated for by 
decreases in cold-related mortality.
     Increases in regional ozone pollution relative to ozone 
levels without climate change are expected due to higher temperatures 
and weaker circulation in the United States and other world cities 
relative to air quality levels without climate change.
     CCSP concludes that, with increased CO2 and 
temperature, the life cycle of grain and oilseed crops will likely 
progress more rapidly. But, as temperature rises, these crops will 
increasingly begin to experience failure, especially if climate 
variability increases and precipitation lessens or becomes more 
variable.
     Higher temperatures will very likely reduce livestock 
production during the summer season in some areas, but these losses 
will very likely be partially offset by warmer temperatures during the 
winter season.
     Cold-water fisheries will likely be negatively affected; 
warm-water fisheries will generally benefit; and the

[[Page 49568]]

results for cool-water fisheries will be mixed, with gains in the 
northern and losses in the southern portions of ranges.
     Climate change has very likely increased the size and 
number of forest fires, insect outbreaks, and tree mortality in the 
interior West, the Southwest, and Alaska, and will continue to do so.
     Coastal communities and habitats will be increasingly 
stressed by climate change impacts interacting with development and 
pollution.
     Climate change will likely further constrain already 
overallocated water resources in some regions of the United States, 
increasing competition among agricultural, municipal, industrial, and 
ecological uses.
     Higher water temperatures, increased precipitation 
intensity, and longer periods of low flows will exacerbate many forms 
of water pollution, potentially making attainment of water quality 
goals more difficult.
     Ocean acidification is projected to continue, resulting in 
the reduced biological production of marine calcifiers, including 
corals.
     Climate change is likely to affect U.S. energy use and 
energy production and physical and institutional infrastructures.
    Furthermore, the most recent NRC report from 2010 states that: 
``Global warming is closely associated with a broad spectrum of other 
climate changes, such as increases in the frequency of intense 
rainfall, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more and increasingly 
intense heat waves, rising sea levels, and widespread ocean 
acidification. Individually and collectively, and in combination with 
the effects of other human activities, these changes pose risks for a 
wide range of human and environmental systems, including freshwater 
resources, the coastal environment, ecosystems, agriculture, fisheries, 
human health, and national security, among others.''
    The petitioners have not raised any objections to EPA's analysis 
and judgments concerning these risks and impacts to public health and 
welfare, which were the foundation of the Administrator's Endangerment 
Finding.

C. Review of the Administrator's Findings

    Throughout this Decision, EPA explains why the petitioners' 
arguments and information fail to show that the scientific 
underpinnings of the Endangerment Finding are flawed. EPA remains 
convinced that the underlying science is robust, and that the 
Administrator appropriately interpreted the science to make the 
Endangerment Finding. This section summarizes the Administrator's 
December 2009 rationale and judgment based on the underlying science.
    The Administrator exercised her judgment under CAA section 202(a) 
by evaluating what the body of scientific evidence indicates with 
respect to how greenhouse gases affect the climate, and the degree of 
scientific consensus about the appropriate conclusions to draw from 
this evidence. Based on this consideration, the Administrator proposed 
and took comment on her preliminary judgment of endangerment to public 
health and welfare. The Administrator found the case to be compelling 
that greenhouse gas air pollution endangers both public health and 
welfare within the United States. The underlying science that EPA 
relied on included careful qualifications and characterizations about 
the degree of certainty regarding the scientific conclusions that were 
germane to the Administrator's Findings. The Administrator's reasoning 
and decision-making process to reach the Findings make clear that there 
was full acknowledgement that certain elements of the science are known 
with virtual certainty and others are currently more uncertain.
    A robust and comprehensive opportunity for comment allowed any and 
all objections regarding her judgment to be raised. After carefully 
reviewing the comments, the Administrator confirmed her judgment on 
endangerment and provided responses to the scientific, legal, and 
policy issues raised by commenters. The final rule explains in detail 
the basis for the Administrator's Endangerment Finding. Key elements of 
the Administrator's justification and decision process are summarized 
in the following 10 paragraphs from the December 15, 2009 Findings (74 
FR 66523-24).

    ``As described in Section II of these Findings, the endangerment 
test under CAA section 202(a) does not require the Administrator to 
identify a bright line, quantitative threshold above which a 
positive endangerment finding can be made. The statutory language 
explicitly calls upon the Administrator to use her judgment. This 
section describes the general approach used by the Administrator in 
reaching the judgment that a positive endangerment finding should be 
made, as well as the specific rationale for finding that the 
greenhouse gas air pollution may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger both public health and welfare.
    First, the Administrator finds the scientific evidence linking 
human emissions and resulting elevated atmospheric concentrations of 
the six well-mixed greenhouse gases to observed global and regional 
temperature increases and other climate changes to be sufficiently 
robust and compelling. This evidence is briefly explained in more 
detail in Section V of these Findings. The Administrator recognizes 
that the climate change associated with elevated atmospheric 
concentrations of carbon dioxide and the other well-mixed greenhouse 
gases have the potential to affect essentially every aspect of human 
health, society, and the natural environment.
    The Administrator is therefore not limiting her consideration of 
potential risks and impacts associated with human emissions of 
greenhouse gases to any one particular element of human health, 
sector of the economy, region of the country, or to any one 
particular aspect of the natural environment. Rather, the 
Administrator is basing her finding on the total weight of 
scientific evidence, and what the science has to say regarding the 
nature and potential magnitude of the risks and impacts across all 
climate-sensitive elements of public health and welfare, now and 
projected out into the foreseeable future. The Administrator has 
considered the state of the science on how human emissions and the 
resulting elevated atmospheric concentrations of well-mixed 
greenhouse gases may affect each of the major risk categories, i.e., 
those that are described in the TSD, which include human health, air 
quality, food production and agriculture, forestry, water resources, 
sea level rise and coastal areas, the energy sector, infrastructure 
and settlements, and ecosystems and wildlife. The Administrator 
understands that the nature and potential severity of impacts can 
vary across these different elements of public health and welfare, 
and that they can vary by region, as well as over time.
    The Administrator is therefore aware that, because human-induced 
climate change has the potential to be far-reaching and multi-
dimensional, not all risks and potential impacts can be 
characterized with a uniform level of quantification or 
understanding, nor can they be characterized with uniform metrics. 
Given this variety in not only the nature and potential magnitude of 
risks and impacts, but also in our ability to characterize, quantify 
and project into the future such impacts, the Administrator must use 
her judgment to weigh the threat in each of the risk categories, 
weigh the potential benefits where relevant, and ultimately judge 
whether these risks and benefits, when viewed in total, are judged 
to be endangerment to public health and/or welfare.
    This has a number of implications for the Administrator's 
approach in assessing the nature and magnitude of risk and impacts 
across each of the risk categories. First, the Administrator has not 
established a specific threshold metric for each category of risk 
and impacts. Also, the Administrator is not necessarily placing the 
greatest weight on those risks and impacts, which have been the 
subject of the most study or quantification.
    Part of the variation in risks and impacts is the fact that 
climbing atmospheric

[[Page 49569]]

concentrations of greenhouse gases and associated temperature 
increases can bring about some potential benefits to public health 
and welfare in addition to adverse risks. The current understanding 
of any potential benefits associated with human-induced climate 
change is described in the TSD and is taken into consideration here. 
The potential for both adverse and beneficial effects are 
considered, as well as the relative magnitude of such effects, to 
the extent that the relative magnitudes can be quantified or 
characterized. Furthermore, given the multiple ways in which the 
buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases can cause effects (e.g., via 
elevated carbon dioxide concentrations, via temperature increases, 
via precipitation increases, via sea level rise, and via changes in 
extreme events), these multiple pathways are considered. For 
example, elevated carbon dioxide concentrations may be beneficial to 
crop yields, but changes in temperature and precipitation may be 
adverse and must also be considered. Likewise, modest temperature 
increases may have some public health benefits as well as harms, and 
other pathways such as changes in air quality and extreme events 
must also be considered.
    The Administrator has balanced and weighed the varying risks and 
effects for each sector. She has judged whether there is a pattern 
across the sector that supports or does not support an endangerment 
finding, and if so, whether the support is of more or less weight. 
In cases where there is both a potential for benefits and risks of 
harm, the Administrator has balanced these factors by determining 
whether there appears to be any directional trend in the overall 
evidence that would support placing more weight on one than the 
other, taking into consideration all that is known about the 
likelihood of the various risks and effects and their seriousness. 
In all of these cases, the judgment is largely qualitative in 
nature, and is not reducible to precise metrics or quantification.
    Regarding the timeframe for the endangerment test, it is the 
Administrator's view that both current and future conditions must be 
considered. The Administrator is thus taking the view that the 
endangerment period of analysis extend from the current time to the 
next several decades, and in some cases to the end of this century. 
This consideration is also consistent with the timeframes used in 
the underlying scientific assessments. The future timeframe under 
consideration is consistent with the atmospheric lifetime and 
climate effects of the six well-mixed greenhouse gases, and also 
with our ability to make reasonable and plausible projections of 
future conditions.
    The Administrator acknowledges that some aspects of climate 
change science and the projected impacts are more certain than 
others. Our state of knowledge is strongest for recently observed, 
large-scale changes. Uncertainty tends to increase in characterizing 
changes at smaller (regional) scales relative to large (global) 
scales. Uncertainty also increases as the temporal scales move away 
from present, either backward, but more importantly, forward in 
time. Nonetheless, the current state of knowledge of observed and 
past climate changes and their causes enables projections of 
plausible future changes under different scenarios of anthropogenic 
forcing for a range of spatial and temporal scales.
    In some cases, where the level of sensitivity to climate of a 
particular sector has been extensively studied, future impacts can 
be quantified whereas in other instances only a qualitative 
description of a directional change, if that, may be possible. The 
inherent uncertainty in the direction, magnitude, and/or rate of 
certain future climate change impacts opens up the possibility that 
some changes could be more or less severe than expected, and the 
possibility of unanticipated outcomes. In some cases, low 
probability, high impact outcomes (i.e., known unknowns) are 
possibilities but cannot be explicitly assessed.''

    The Findings show that the Administrator took a measured, balanced 
and systematic approach in judging the body of scientific evidence for 
the Endangerment Finding. The Administrator did not take a narrow view 
of the science, nor consider only those pieces of evidence that would 
support a positive endangerment finding.
    In taking this approach, the Administrator determined that the body 
of scientific evidence compellingly supports a positive endangerment 
finding. The major assessments by the USGCRP, IPCC, and the NRC 
(published before 2010) served as the primary scientific basis 
supporting the Administrator's endangerment finding. The Administrator 
reached her determination by considering both observed and projected 
effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their effect on climate, 
and the public health and welfare risks and impacts associated with 
such climate change. The Administrator's assessment focused on public 
health and public welfare impacts within the United States. She also 
examined the evidence with respect to impacts in other world regions, 
and she concluded that these impacts strengthen the case for 
endangerment to public health and welfare because impacts in other 
world regions can in turn adversely affect the United States.
    The Administrator considered how elevated concentrations of the 
well-mixed greenhouse gases and associated climate change affect public 
health by evaluating the risks associated with changes in air quality, 
increases in temperatures, changes in extreme weather events, increases 
in food- and water-borne pathogens, and changes in aeroallergens. The 
Administrator placed weight on the fact that certain groups, including 
children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to these 
climate-related health effects.
    The Administrator considered how elevated concentrations of the 
well-mixed greenhouse gases and associated climate change affect public 
welfare by evaluating numerous and far-ranging risks to food production 
and agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea level rise and coastal 
areas, energy, infrastructure, and settlements, and ecosystems and 
wildlife. For each of these sectors, the evidence provides support for 
a finding of endangerment to public welfare. The evidence concerning 
adverse impacts in the areas of water resources and sea level rise and 
coastal areas provides the clearest and strongest support for an 
endangerment finding, both for current and future generations. Strong 
support is also found in the evidence concerning infrastructure and 
settlements, as well as ecosystems and wildlife. Across the sectors, 
the potential serious adverse impacts of extreme events, such as 
wildfires, flooding, drought, and extreme weather conditions, provide 
strong support for such a finding.
    The petitioners have not provided information that would lead EPA 
to believe that the Administrator's approach, briefly summarized here 
and explained in full in the December 2009 Findings, was flawed, should 
have been carried out differently, or should have led to a different 
conclusion.

D. General Response to the Petitioners' Scientific Arguments in Light 
of the Full Body of Scientific Evidence

    EPA's overarching conclusion is that there is no material or 
reliable basis to question the validity and credibility of the body of 
science underlying the Administrator's Endangerment Finding or the 
Administrator's decision process articulated in the Findings 
themselves. The large body of scientific evidence and the 
Administrator's conclusions drawn from this evidence, including the 
appropriate characterizations as to the degrees of certainty and 
uncertainty in the underlying science, has not been changed by the 
arguments presented by the petitioners. While the petitioners largely 
rely on making broad assertions about the science based on private 
communications, EPA's focus is on the actual science itself, and the 
petitioners have not presented a valid basis supporting the view that 
the credibility or reliability of either the science or the scientific 
conclusions that petitioners contest have been undermined or changed in 
any material way.
    The petitioners present very little scientific evidence or 
scientific arguments to support their views. As demonstrated above, 
they do not rely on an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the 
science and make arguments on

[[Page 49570]]

that basis. Instead they largely rely on a small number of statements 
from the CRU e-mails in which certain scientists expressed various 
thoughts and feelings, such as frustration and disrespect for other 
scientists, along with strong views on scientific issues and what 
constitutes good science. From this evidence, the petitioners conclude 
that the scientists acted together to distort the review and 
presentation of the body of science, and presented false, inaccurate, 
or misleading conclusions about what the body of scientific studies 
tells us about various aspects of climate change.
    Petitioners do not argue their case by marshalling and synthesizing 
the breadth of the body of scientific evidence and demonstrating why it 
leads to a different conclusion than that presented in the underlying 
science supporting the Findings. Instead, they largely argue that the 
state of mind of these scientists and their private remarks must lead 
to the conclusions drawn by the petitioners. They also conclude, based 
on a selective reading of the CRU e-mails, that the state of the 
science must be much more uncertain than how it is characterized in the 
underlying assessment reports used by EPA and the Endangerment Finding. 
Other than the conduct of sending e-mails that evidence strong emotions 
or unprofessional language, the petitioners present almost no evidence 
of any actual conduct by the scientists that support their conclusion 
that the science was assessed inaccurately. Most of the conduct that is 
identified, such as statements about the professional challenges of 
working as an IPCC lead author or the discussion with a journal editor 
to delay the paper publication (but not the online publication) of a 
study, is of no relevance to the evaluation of the science involved in 
the assessment reports and the EPA rulemaking.
    Petitioners' claims of distortion of data, withholding of 
temperature data, or abuses in data analysis also do not withstand 
scrutiny. These issues are addressed in fuller detail in volumes 1 and 
3 of the RTP document. In addition, some of these issues were raised 
and addressed by EPA during the public comment period, and thus fail to 
meet the test in CAA 307(d). Petitioners have shown no evidence that 
the HadCRUT temperature record based on the underlying raw temperature 
data was flawed in any way, or that CRU's lack of possession of a small 
portion of the raw temperature data impedes the ability of other 
researchers to check the publically available data, or that it changes 
the scientific validity of the analyses performed by CRU. The HadCRUT 
temperature record remains consistent with all of the other evidence of 
warming, including other surface temperature analyses as well as other 
evidence of warming, such as satellite data, ocean temperature data, 
and physical and biological evidence of the effects of warming.
    The petitioners ask EPA to reject the comprehensive and well-
documented views reflecting a synthesis of the body of scientific 
evidence produced by the U.S. and the world's climate science 
community, and instead accept assertions and three profound leaps in 
logic, based on a very limited discussion of the underlying science. 
The first leap is that petitioners' objections to the HadCRUT surface 
temperature record and objections to reconstructions of past global 
temperatures are correct, and that as a result all other elements of 
greenhouse gas and climate change science indicating temperatures are 
increasing and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the primary 
driver should be called into question. The second leap is that some 
errors found in the IPCC AR4--errors that are both minor and tangential 
to EPA's Endangerment Finding--mean that any and all information from 
that report should be called into question. The third is that any other 
assessment report that relies on or references the IPCC AR4 in any way 
is also suspect and cannot serve as a foundation for the Endangerment 
Finding. EPA's review, discussed in the following sections and in 
fuller detail in the three volumes of the RTP document, plus the latest 
conclusions of the May 2010 NRC scientific assessment, lead us to the 
firm conclusion that the petitioners' specific arguments and broad 
claims must be rejected for their lack of supporting evidence and 
absence of comprehensive and clear scientific reasoning.
    As stated in one of the findings of the Independent Climate Change 
E-mails Review, ``In particular, we did not find any evidence of 
behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC 
assessments.'' EPA's review and analysis leads to this same conclusion.

E. Specific Responses to the Claims and Arguments Raised by Petitioners

    EPA's responses to the petitioners' specific claims and arguments 
are summarized here, and provided in more detail in the RTP document. 
The more general conclusions provided in this Decision, articulated 
above, are based on EPA's detailed analysis of and responses to the 
petitioners' issues contained in the RTP document. As stated 
previously, the science-based objections raised by petitioners fall 
into three categories: Climate science and data issues; issues raised 
by EPA's use of IPCC AR4; and process issues. This section and the 
three volumes of the RTP document are organized around these three 
categories.
1. Climate Science and Data Issues Raised by the Petitioners
    The climate science and data issues raised by the petitioners 
include (a) the validity of the temperature record from the distant 
past and whether or not recent observations of global warming are 
unusual; (b) the validity of the more recent surface temperature 
record; (c) the validity of the HadCRUT surface temperature record and 
other CRU datasets; (d) the validity of the recent surface temperature 
record as constructed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA); and (e) the implications of new studies not previously 
considered. Each of these issues is addressed in general here and in 
fuller detail in the Volume 1 of the RTP document.
a. Validity of Paleoclimate Temperature Reconstructions and Attribution 
of Observed Temperature Trends to Greenhouse Gases
    Petitioners raise various claims about the comparisons of current 
temperatures with historic temperatures of the distant past (called 
paleoclimate temperature reconstructions). Petitioners use these claims 
to contest the view that current warming is unusual and argue that EPA 
should not rely on this evidence to support the statement in the 
Endangerment Finding that recent warming can be primarily attributed to 
increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases caused by 
human emissions. EPA addresses these claims in Volume 1, section 1.1 of 
the RTP document, and summarizes the responses here.
    As background, surface temperature records based on observation 
have global coverage over approximately the last 150 years. To 
determine temperatures in time periods before the instrumental record, 
climate scientists use indirect methods called ``proxies.'' These 
indirect methods include examining tree rings, pollen, plankton records 
in sediment cores, and other proxies such as atomic isotope ratios in 
corals and other marine organisms. The statistical relationships found 
between the proxy and regional temperatures over the past 150 years 
(i.e., the period when the datasets overlap) are then used to 
extrapolate over the hundreds or thousands of years before instrumental

[[Page 49571]]

records. Researchers combine a number of different proxies from around 
the world to develop their temperature reconstructions of the past. The 
further back in the past, the fewer proxies that exist and the greater 
the uncertainty becomes about estimating past temperatures. These 
reconstructions contribute to our understanding of historical 
temperatures and variability and enable comparison of present changes 
to changes in the past. They also allow testing of climate models and 
our understanding of how the climate system responded to historical 
conditions. The term ``divergence'' refers to a certain subset of the 
tree ring records whose growth in recent decades no longer correlates 
with (i.e., it ``diverges'' from) temperature change in recent decades.
    Petitioners claim the CRU e-mails provide new reason to highlight 
this divergence issue as it may undermine the use of historical 
temperature reconstructions. EPA disagrees, and finds that the CRU e-
mails demonstrate that the scientists were well aware of the divergence 
issue and addressed it appropriately in their research and 
publications. A cursory examination of this literature and the 
assessment reports makes clear that the science community has long been 
aware of the tree ring divergence issue, as well as other issues 
concerning the certainty of proxy reconstructions. The uncertainties in 
the proxy reconstructions were fully presented in the assessment 
literature, and were considered by EPA in making the Endangerment 
Finding. In fact, during public comment on the proposed Finding, EPA 
evaluated and responded to these issues (See EPA RTC, Volume 2, 
comments 2-64 and 2-67). A recent NRC assessment (2006) \22\ focused 
specifically on surface temperature reconstructions and it found that 
divergence is not an issue with all tree ring proxies, much less the 
many non-tree ring proxies used in the temperature reconstructions. The 
petitioners cite some studies \23\ in support of their views that the 
divergence issue was hidden and not appropriately acknowledged. These 
studies do not support the petitioners' arguments, instead stating that 
the divergence problem is neither new nor hidden, that it is actually 
``widely perceived'' and that the ``potential consequences [are] 
discussed (e.g., IPCC, 2007).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ National Research Council (NRC) (2006). Surface Temperature 
Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press. 
Washington, DC.
    \23\ D'Arrigo, R. et al. (2008). On the ``divergence problem'' 
in northern forests: a review of the tree-ring evidence and possible 
causes, 60 Glob. Planet. Chng. 289. Esper, J. and D. Frank (2009). 
Divergence pitfalls in tree-ring research. Clim. Chng. 94: 261, 262.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, petitioners allege that a number of the CRU e-mails 
suggest that these temperature reconstructions were manipulated and 
that data has been hidden. Several petitioners refer to an e-mail 
including the phrase ``Mike's Nature trick'', claiming that this quote 
is evidence of deception. However, this e-mail about how to connect 
tree ring data and thermometer data was written in 1999, prior to the 
publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001. The e-mail 
refers to a graph prepared for the front cover of World Meteorological 
Organization (WMO) report, unrelated to IPCC, published in 2000. This 
graph and underlying analysis that is being objected to by petitioners 
has no relevance to the discussion in either IPCC AR4 or EPA's TSD, and 
therefore did not enter into the Administrator's consideration for the 
Endangerment Finding. The IPCC AR4 and other assessment literature very 
transparently document, illustrate, and discuss the divergence issue, 
as did EPA in the TSD and RTC document. See Figure 4.3, TSD. Other 
quotes provided by the petitioners do not support a claim of 
``deliberate manipulation'' or ``artificial adjustments'' when 
considered in context. This issue of historic temperature 
reconstructions is discussed in detail in Volume 1 of the RTP document. 
The UK Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review reached a similar 
conclusion to EPA's, stating that they ``do not find that the way that 
data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and 
shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading'' and regarding the phenomenon 
of divergence that they ``are satisfied that it is not hidden and that 
the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, 
including CRU papers.''
    Petitioners also claim that the Medieval Warming Period may have 
been warmer than present temperatures, undermining the conclusion that 
greenhouse gases are a primary cause of current warming. Issues 
involving the Medieval Warming Period were addressed during the public 
comment period (see Response 2-62 of the RTC document). Petitioners 
raise this issue again because of their assertion that the CRU e-mails 
indicate that the current temperature record may be faulty, which to 
them gives the Medieval Warming Period new significance. In making 
their case, petitioners cite a temperature reconstruction without tree 
rings, notably a study that could have been submitted during the public 
comment period.\24\ However, that paper uses an improper methodology, a 
straight average of 18 proxies, apparently without weighting them to 
account for geographic distribution or the strength of the data to 
detect temperature changes. In contrast, another study using a more 
sophisticated methodology \25\ found that recent Northern Hemispheric 
warmth was anomalous regardless of whether tree ring data were 
included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Loehle, C. and J. H. McCulloch, 2008. Correction to: A 200-
year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree proxies. 
Energy & Environment. 19(1): 93-100.
    \25\ Mann, M.E. et al. (2008). Proxy-based reconstructions of 
hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past 
two millennia. PNAS. 105:36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners argue that if the current warming is not 
``unprecedented,'' our ability to attribute the current warming to 
greenhouse gases is undermined, and that EPA has not provided 
``compelling'' evidence that the current temperatures are unusual 
compared to the last 1,000 years. Petitioners misstate EPA's 
conclusions and overstate the role of this line of evidence. EPA has 
not claimed that current warming is ``unprecedented''; the 
Administrator's Endangerment Finding stated that ``The second line of 
evidence arises from indirect, historical estimates of past climate 
changes that suggest that the changes in global surface temperature 
over the last several decades are unusual.'' (74 FR 66518) EPA found 
the scientific evidence ``supports'' this conclusion (see for example 
section 4 of the TSD), not that it compels it, as petitioners 
incorrectly assert. EPA clearly characterized the uncertainty in this 
line of the evidence, properly stating that there is significant 
uncertainty in the temperature record prior to 1600 A.D. (see section 
4(b) of the TSD).
    This comparison to past temperature estimates is also only one part 
of the paleoclimate evidence. Other parts, not contested by 
petitioners, include (1) the correlation and interactions over time 
between periods of higher greenhouse gas concentrations and higher 
temperatures, and (2) the use of temperature reconstructions to 
evaluate and improve climate models. Overall, this comparison of 
current to past temperatures is but one part of one line of evidence in 
attributing current warming to greenhouse gases; it is not the primary 
line of evidence. The petitioners have not shown that EPA failed to 
properly characterize this evidence, and the petitioners' assertions 
regarding EPA's treatment and reliance

[[Page 49572]]

on this evidence are inaccurate and misleading.
    Petitioners claim that characteristics of trends in the vertical 
temperature profile of the atmosphere should present a ``fingerprint'' 
of human-induced warming, and that this expected fingerprint has not 
been observed in the tropics, and that therefore the attribution of 
recent warming to human causes is placed into doubt. However, EPA 
recognized and already addressed this issue in the TSD (see section 
5(a) of the TSD) which notes newer data sets are in general agreement 
with climate models in the tropics and therefore there is no longer an 
inconsistency. In addition, petitioners do not contest any of the other 
important pieces of evidence that link current warming to greenhouse 
gases, such as rates of sea level rise and Arctic ice loss.
    Petitioners claim that the projections from climate models do not 
support attribution to greenhouse gases because the models have not 
explained why there may have been a slowdown in the rate of warming 
over the last 10 or so years. First, according to the latest NOAA 
(2010) data,\26\ the decade spanning 2000-2009 was substantially warmer 
than the prior decade (1990-1999) (see also the figure in Response 1-22 
in Volume 1 of the RTP document). The exact rate of warming in the past 
decade depends on one's choice of temperature record and the start and 
stop date chosen for computing a trend in that record. Second, whether 
models can reproduce a short-term slowdown in the warming in no way 
invalidates their use for attributing or projecting long-term changes 
in global climate from anthropogenic forcing of the climate system. The 
latter long-term projections are their primary purpose, not year-to-
year projections of changes over a period of around a decade or less. 
In addition, recent studies indicate that short-term trends can run 
counter to overall long term trends, and the climate models can 
reproduce this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report#gtemp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IPCC, NRC, and EPA's TSD appropriately reflect the state of the 
science and discussed the areas of uncertainty in temperature 
reconstructions. They fully considered the entire body of evidence, 
including the kinds of evidence and arguments presented by petitioners. 
In contrast, petitioners generally have not considered the breadth of 
evidence on these issues, and they fail to acknowledge the 
comprehensive treatment of these issues in the assessment reports. They 
have instead relied upon a limited selection of information that does 
not warrant the broad conclusions they draw.
    Petitioners' evidence does not materially change or warrant any 
less reliance on the other important lines of evidence linking 
greenhouse gases and climate change: Our basic physical understanding 
of the effects of changing greenhouse gas concentrations and other 
factors; the broad, qualitative consistency between observed changes in 
climate and the computer model simulations of how climate would be 
expected to change in response to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse 
gases (and aerosols); as well as other important evidence of an 
anthropogenic fingerprint in the observed warming.
b. Validity of the HadCRUT Surface Temperature Record
    Petitioners present five major arguments regarding the validity and 
use of the HadCRUT temperature record. In particular, they claim that: 
(1) Alleged destruction of raw data for the HadCRUT temperature record 
renders the scientific data on surface temperature worthless and makes 
replication of temperature trends impossible; (2) comments within code 
and log files are evidence of manipulation that ``undercuts the 
credibility of CRU databases;'' (3) a report allegedly claims to show 
that the Russian stations used in the HadCRUT temperature record were 
selectively chosen to show increased warming; (4) the IPCC improperly 
relied on Jones et al. (1990) \27\ for its conclusions about the 
magnitude of the urban heat island effect; and (5) the allegedly faulty 
HadCRUT temperature record is the primary basis for the conclusion of 
``unprecedented'' warming and the foundation of anthropogenic global 
warming analyses. In effect petitioners use these claims to contest the 
existence or amount of recent warming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Jones, P.D., P.Y. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W.-C. 
Wang, and T.R. Karl (1990). Assessment of urbanization effects in 
time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 347:169-
172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As background, monitoring the changes in the Earth's surface 
temperature is only one of several key components of studying climate 
change. Other indicators of climate change include receding glaciers, 
shrinking Arctic sea ice, and sea level rise, as well as a number of 
other temperature-sensitive physical and biological changes, such as 
bird migration patterns and changes in the length of the growing 
season.
    Surface temperature records are built on data collected from 
thousands of weather stations around the world, as well as sea surface 
temperature records taken by ships crossing the ocean on different 
routes, with some data going back more than 100 years. Because the data 
originates from many international sources, some quality control is 
required such as checking for and deleting data that are shown to be 
duplicate, or adjusting to account for inconsistent reporting 
methodologies. Additionally, these weather stations and their data were 
not originally intended to be used for long-term climate monitoring, 
and sometimes adjustments are necessary to avoid confusing a local 
artificial temperature change (e.g., due to a shift in the elevation of 
a monitoring station) with large-scale or global temperature patterns.
    The three major temperature record developers, CRU, NOAA, and NASA, 
all use different approaches for these adjustments. The approach by CRU 
is the only one of the three that relies on a substantial set of manual 
adjustments globally. NOAA uses an automated algorithm to adjust for 
discontinuities such as might be expected from station moves, with 
additional corrections in the U.S. because a large number of stations 
changed measurement instrumentation as well as the time of day of 
temperature readings. NASA uses NOAA's adjustments for the U.S. as an 
input, but uses an algorithm that identifies urban centers based on 
satellite observations and adjusts those urban centers to have trends 
that are consistent with nearby rural stations. In addition, the data 
are not evenly situated around the planet, and need to be extrapolated 
and averaged so that areas with many stations are not overrepresented 
and areas with few stations are not underrepresented. The kinds of 
adjustments made to the underlying raw data are designed so that the 
surface temperature analyses reflect as much as possible the actual 
direction and magnitude of any change in surface temperature and do not 
reflect other changes, such as changes in measurement devices.
    The temperature reconstructions generally do not evaluate the 
average actual surface temperature, but rather determine the changes in 
temperature, both regionally and globally. The emphasis on changes in 
temperature is important, because they are better correlated with large 
regional changes. For example, two nearby stations--one on top of a 
mountain and one in the valley--will likely have different absolute 
temperatures, but are likely to

[[Page 49573]]

have similar changes in temperature over time.
    CRU also maintains a dataset known as TS3.0, with TS2.1 as an older 
version. This dataset is different from HadCRUT, and includes various 
climate metrics and data information not in HadCRUT. TS2.1 is referred 
to in IPCC AR4 only twice in relation to historical precipitation data. 
Almost all of the references to global temperatures over time that 
refer to CRU data refer to the HadCRUT temperature record, and not the 
TS3.0 or 2.1 datasets.
    (i) Raw Data.
    Several petitioners claim that CRU has not kept all of the raw data 
from the surface weather stations, only the adjusted data, e.g. 
corrected for station moves and measurement changes, and therefore the 
evidence for warming in the past century is questionable and cannot be 
independently replicated.
    CRU acknowledges that it did not keep a small percent of the raw 
weather station data collected since the 1980s and that it cannot 
release other raw data because of agreements with national 
meteorological organizations. CRU has provided a detailed explanation 
for its handling of the data, and EPA already addressed this issue at 
length in Response 2-39 of the RTC. Not retaining a small amount of the 
raw data does not interfere in a material way with replication or 
development of independent estimates of global or regional surface 
temperature history. The vast majority of the raw weather station data 
is indeed publicly available from the Global Historical Climate Network 
(GHCN) and other public data sources, contrary to the petitioners' 
assertions. An independent estimate of global temperatures can be 
generated, as NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC, and other groups have done. The 
separate NASA and NOAA analyses of global surface temperature records 
find similar temperature increases and strongly support the conclusion 
that the HadCRUT surface temperature record accurately reflects the 
changes in temperature. The UK Independent Climate Change E-Mails 
Review was able to download raw data and produce global temperature 
trend results similar to the other analyses in less than two days. In 
addition, the major conclusions about warming based on the HadCRUT 
temperature record have remained robust, even as CRU integrated more 
data and refined its methodologies over two decades.
    The petitioners do not provide any global analysis of the available 
data from temperature stations that yields a different result. Further, 
they have provided no evidence that an additional or different analysis 
using the publicly available temperature data would yield a different 
result from the warming reflected in the HadCRUT, NOAA and NASA 
analyses of global surface temperature. It is an unwarranted leap in 
logic to assume these analyses have no merit because a small percentage 
of the underlying raw data is no longer in CRU's possession.
    (ii) Biased Methods.
    Petitioners claim the various methods that CRU used to integrate 
and adjust the surface temperature data introduce biases in the 
temperature record that were designed to support the view that global 
surface temperatures are increasing faster than they actually are. The 
petitioners refer to this as ``manipulation'' and cite several CRU e-
mails and other documents as support. A couple of fragments of code and 
a debugging log (HARRY--READ--ME.txt) are quoted extensively as support 
for these claims.
    EPA has thoroughly reviewed all of the disclosed CRU e-mails in 
light of the petitioners' claims, and EPA responds to all of the 
petitioners arguments in detail in Volume 1 of the RTP document. Here, 
EPA focuses on two of the most well-known CRU documents: BRIFFA--
SEPT98--.PRO and HARRY--READ--ME.txt.
    The code fragment BRIFFA--SEPT98--E.PRO that includes a comment in 
the header for the code that states that the code ``APPLIES A VERY 
ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE'' is over a decade old and appears to 
be provisional test code. The comments in capital letters are to remind 
the programmer to replace the temporary fudge factors with more valid 
adjustments before the code is used for public products. It further 
appears that the ``fudge'' factor highlighted by petitioners is not 
related to the HadCRUT temperature record, but instead refers to the 
divergence issue discussed above and the unrelated WMO report. The 
petitioners do not show that the BRIFFA--SEPT98--E.PRO code has any 
relationship to the HadCRUT temperature record or that it was actually 
used for any public final product.
    The HARRY--READ--ME.txt debugging notes are a record of attempts to 
update the CRU TS product by merging six years of additional data to an 
old data set and migrating the code to a new computer system at the 
same time. The petitioners fail to acknowledge that the CRU TS products 
are different from the HadCRUT temperature record that is referred to 
in the assessment reports and the EPA TSD, and they improperly assert 
that issues with the TS products directly call into question the 
HadCRUT temperature record. The file referred to by petitioners does 
indicate that there were a number of difficult quality control issues 
that had to be addressed concerning new data, the code written for the 
updating process, and the old code for producing TS2.1. The full 
debugging log demonstrates that a number of the identified problems 
were successfully fixed. Many of the quotes highlighted by petitioners 
were expressions of frustration that were not related to the quality of 
the product. A number of the problems were related to inconsistencies 
involving reported WMO codes used to identify weather stations. These 
inconsistencies have previously been highlighted in the literature, and 
the approach to address them as related in the log file was similar to 
the approaches detailed in previous papers. In sum, the HARRY--READ--
ME.txt file is focused on issues that do not relate to the HadCRUT 
temperature record and contains no evidence of any attempts to bias any 
output data.
    (iii) Biased Dataset.
    Petitioners claim that CRU scientists selectively chose Russian 
data stations to create a biased dataset that would show more warming 
than would the full dataset. To support this argument, they provide a 
link to a translation (hosted at a blog) of a report written in Russian 
by the Institute for Economic Analysis in Moscow (Pivovarova, 
2009).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Pivovarova, N. (2009). Institute for Economic Analysis 
(IEA): How warming is made. The case of Russia. (December 15, 2009). 
Available at: http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf; 
translation at: http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/iea1.pdf. Last accessed on April 26, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examination of this document indicates that the Moscow Institute 
for Economic Analysis temperature record using the full set of Russian 
stations agrees well after 1955 with the temperature record that the 
Institute derived from the set of stations used in the HadCRUT 
temperature record, and that the difference between temperature records 
derived from the two datasets is mainly in the 1850 to 1950 portion. 
However, the method used by the Institute for Economic Analysis to 
compare the two temperature datasets was an improper comparison of 
apples and oranges (i.e., the HadCRUT temperature record uses a 
different geographic weighting approach than did the Institute for 
Economic Analysis, which is more important when the data is sparse as 
it is before 1955).
    Petitioners also do not support their claim that CRU selectively 
picked stations. EPA has found no evidence in

[[Page 49574]]

the CRU e-mails or the information provided by petitioners to indicate 
that stations were chosen by CRU scientists. CRU uses a number of data 
sources and the petitioners did not assess whether these data sources 
included the missing Russian stations, or whether the stations met 
criteria discussed in published papers (see volume 1 of the RTP 
document).
    (iv) Urban Heat Island Corrections.
    Petitioners criticize the urban heat island corrections as another 
alleged example of temperature data manipulation.
    This issue is not new. EPA addressed urban heat island issues in 
responses 2-28 through 2-30 of the RTC document. Referencing Jones et 
al. (1990) \29\ and other studies, IPCC AR4 concludes that ``urban heat 
island effects are real but local, and have not biased the large-scale 
trends.'' In addition, satellite records are not susceptible to urban 
heat island effects and globally show similar trends to land-based 
measurements over their overlapping time period. EPA summarized this 
information in the TSD. EPA's specific responses to the petitioners' 
arguments are provided in Volume 1 of the RTP document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Jones, P.D., P.Y. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W.-C. 
Wang, and T.R. Karl (1990). Assessment of urbanization effects in 
time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 347:169-
172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (v) Faulty Temperature Record Used by IPCC.
    Petitioners claim the allegedly faulty HadCRUT temperature record 
is the primary or core support for IPCC conclusions on current warming, 
attribution, and projections of future warming, thus calling into 
question the fundamental conclusions of IPCC AR4 and EPA's use of IPCC 
AR4 as a primary reference to support the Endangerment Finding.
    First, for reasons stated above and detailed further in Volume 1 of 
the RTP document, EPA disagrees with the petitioners' claims that the 
HadCRUT temperature record is faulty. Second, as noted previously, 
multiple independent assessments of climate change science by not only 
the IPCC but also USGCRP and NRC have concluded that warming of the 
climate system in recent decades is ``unequivocal.'' This conclusion is 
not drawn from any one source of data, but is based on a review of 
multiple sources of data and information, which includes the HadCRUT 
temperature record, additional temperature records from other sources, 
and numerous other independent indicators of global warming (see 
section 4 of EPA's TSD).
    NOAA and NASA surface temperature records show nearly identical 
warming trends to the HadCRUT temperature record, despite different 
analysis methodologies. Moreover, entirely independent records of lower 
tropospheric temperature measured by both weather balloons and 
satellites demonstrate strong agreement with the surface temperature 
records of all three organizations. The TSD also discussed the 
following additional indicators of global warming:
     Increasing global ocean heat content (Section 4(f) of the 
TSD).
     Rising global sea levels (Section 4(f) of the TSD).
     Shrinking glaciers worldwide (Section 4(i) of the TSD).
    Changes in biological systems, including poleward and elevational 
range shifts of flora and fauna; the earlier onset of spring events, 
migration, and lengthening of the growing season; and changes in 
abundance of certain species (Section 4(i) of the TSD).
    It is this entire body of evidence that supports the conclusion 
that there is an unambiguous warming trend over the last 100 years, 
with the greatest warming occurring over the past 30 years. Contrary to 
petitioners' claims, the models used to generate projections of future 
warming described in IPCC AR4 do not directly rely on the HadCRUT or 
other surface temperature records. These models are driven by physical 
equations describing the radiative properties and dynamics of the 
atmosphere and oceans and parameterizations of small-scale processes, 
not observed temperature data.
    In summary, EPA disagrees with the premise of this claim--that the 
HadCRUT temperature record is faulty--and therefore disagrees that use 
of the HadCRUT temperature record within IPCC AR4 has somehow corrupted 
the IPCC's conclusions. In addition, the petitioners' claim that the 
HadCRUT temperature record is such a central thread to the entire IPCC 
AR4 that this would then invalidate all IPCC AR4 conclusions is 
unsupported and exaggerated.
c. Validity of NOAA and NASA Temperature Records
    A number of petitioners question the validity of NOAA and NASA 
surface temperature records, raising claims concerning station ``drop-
out,'' flawed or manipulative adjustments to data, and a lack of 
independence between the three major surface temperature records. EPA's 
response clearly shows that (1) petitioners rely on a questionable, 
non-peer-reviewed source which contains a number of inaccurate 
statements and relies on a scientifically flawed analysis; (2) 
petitioners demonstrate a fundamental scientific misunderstanding of 
what issues actually would lead to either a warming or cooling bias in 
the temperature record; and (3) petitioners fail to acknowledge that 
climatic records other than land surface temperature records also show 
clear warming trends.
    As background, one of the sources of data for the HadCRUT 
temperature record is the GHCN, which was developed and is maintained 
by NOAA. The GCHN dataset is also used by both NOAA and NASA in their 
surface temperature records. NOAA, NASA, and CRU each calculate global 
surface temperature trends from a combination of GHCN data and other 
data sources. Each group performs different adjustments and corrections 
to the data, and in some cases uses different subsets of the GHCN data 
or includes other outside datasets.
    Petitioners contest certain individual aspects or details of the 
surface temperature evidence, and in general raise objections that fail 
to recognize the various approaches used to develop the global surface 
temperature record. Many of the issues raised by the petitioners are 
not new, and have been addressed previously within the TSD and RTC 
document. Some objections fail to recognize that the change in 
temperature is being evaluated, not the absolute temperature level. 
Other objections misconstrue the underlying studies cited by the 
petitioners. In several cases, petitioners object that various 
adjustments to the raw data have the effect of changing the data, but 
they fail to consider that adjustments are appropriately performed, for 
example, to account for circumstances that otherwise would interfere 
with accurately isolating and determining a real trend in surface 
temperature. Petitioners fail to address the reasons behind the 
adjustments and fail to explain or show that the types of adjustments 
made in developing such datasets from multiple sources of data are not 
appropriate. Likewise, petitioners fail to account for the valid data-
driven reasons that have led to a reduction over time in the number of 
weather stations used for the surface temperature analysis, fail to 
explain or show that the reductions have biased the temperature record, 
and overstate the magnitude of the temperature station reductions in 
some cases.
    Consistency between all three separate surface temperature records 
(NASA, NOAA, CRU), as well as consistency between the three surface 
temperature records and other evidence of warming, such as satellite 
data, ocean

[[Page 49575]]

temperature data, and physical evidence of the effects of warming, 
should be seen as confirmation of the evidence of warming. Petitioners 
appear to assume that all of this evidence must be wrong because they, 
incorrectly (see above), allege that some of it is.
    (i) Station Drop-out.
    Petitioners raise a number of issues regarding the alleged ``drop-
out'' of stations after 1990, and the extrapolation of data from 
``warmer'' areas to ``colder'' areas due to this drop-out or for other 
reasons. They claim this leads to bias in the global surface 
temperature record. Volume 1, section 1.4.3.1 of the RTP document 
addresses these claims in detail, and EPA's summary of the issue 
follows.
    Many of the petitioners' arguments rely on a non-peer-reviewed 
document by D'Aleo and Watts (2010).\30\ However, the study and the 
source upon which it relies do not support petitioners' claims and 
conclusions. D'Aleo and Watts (2010) provide no evidence that there was 
a systematic and purposeful ``weeding out'' process. Peterson and Vose 
(1997),\31\ the paper describing the GHCN dataset, describes the 
procedures for updating the GHCN database and explains that there are 
fewer measuring stations post-1992 than during the 1980s because only 
three of the data sources were being be updated on a regular basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ D'Aleo and Watts (2010). Surface Temperature Records: 
Policy Driven Deception? Available at: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html. 
Accessed: April 8, 2010.
    \31\ Peterson, T. C. and R. S. Vose (1997). An overview of the 
global historical climatology network temperature data base. Bull. 
Am. Met. Soc., 78: 2837-2849.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The D'Aleo and Watts study assumed that dropping stations at higher 
latitudes and in colder climates would result in a biased, warmer 
temperature trend. This unfounded assumption is a misunderstanding of 
the basic methodology used in analyzing surface temperature data. The 
surface temperature record sets evaluate the change in temperature over 
time at the various stations, not the absolute temperature level. The 
change in temperature over time is what indicates whether warming is 
occurring, not just the absolute temperature itself; for example, the 
Arctic region has been experiencing the highest rates of warming in the 
world, yet average Arctic temperatures are obviously still considerably 
colder than temperatures in most other world regions where average 
temperatures may not have increased as much. Petitioners incorrectly 
assume and do not explain why dropping these stations would bias the 
trend in the change in temperature toward greater warmth. In fact, 
petitioners fail to acknowledge that colder, high latitude areas are 
the regions of the world where the most warming is occurring, and is 
expected to continue occurring. If one were to accept this line of the 
petitioners' original argument, there should have been concern about a 
bias towards less warming, not more warming.
    Moreover, the D'Aleo and Watts study used simple averages of 
absolute temperatures at the stations--without, apparently, taking into 
account their geographic distribution, much less calculating the change 
in temperature at the stations. This improper methodology is a 
significant error that undermines the petitioners' critique of the 
temperature records.
    Furthermore, satellite data is available for the time periods of 
land-based station ``drop-out'', and the satellite temperature record 
is broadly consistent with surface temperature trends throughout the 
period when the ``drop out'' was occurring, confirming that the 
reduction in the number of data stations has not created a warming 
bias. Additionally, analyses using only stations with continuous 
records are almost identical to analyses using only stations which were 
``dropped'' over the decades before the ``drop-out'', further 
undermining the petitioners' claim that a warming bias was introduced 
by the station ``drop-out''.
    (ii) Improper Heat Island Adjustments.
    Petitioners assert that the urban heat island adjustments performed 
by NASA are insufficient or improperly applied, both globally and in 
the U.S. Southeastern Legal Foundation points to the study Long (2010) 
\32\ as support for this assertion. These assertions are addressed in 
detail in volume 1, section 1.4.3.2 of the RTP document, and EPA's 
general response is summarized here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Long, E.R. (2010). Contiguous U.S. Temperature Trends Using 
NCDC Raw and Adjusted Data for One-Per-State Rural and Urban Station 
Sets. Available at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Long (2010) study found that the net effect of NOAA adjustments 
to the raw data led to more warming in rural stations (the NOAA 
adjustments for the U.S. are also used in developing the NASA 
temperature record). Neither the petitioners nor Long show, however, 
that the adjustments to rural stations were inappropriate. (As stated 
above, adjustments are sometimes necessary to ensure a real, and not 
artificial, temperature change is being recorded when, for example, 
there might be a change in the elevation of the station or the daily 
timing of temperature readings.) Importantly, Long does not take into 
account either the changes in the time of observation or the changes in 
instrumentation at many rural stations, both of which led to 
temperature discontinuities that must be accounted for (e.g., through 
adjustments) in order to accurately portray the actual long-term 
temperature trend.
    With respect to the claimed failure to account for the urban heat 
island effect (where metropolitan areas tend to be warmer than 
surrounding areas due to built up land surfaces and building materials 
that retain heat), this issue was raised previously during the public 
comment period and EPA has addressed this in the RTC document. Response 
2-28 of the RTC document makes clear that all of the different surface 
temperature datasets shown or cited in the TSD account for the urban 
heat island effect, either directly and/or indirectly. The TSD, citing 
IPCC (Trenberth et al., 2007), summarized this issue as the following: 
`` * * * urban heat island effects are real but local, and have not 
biased the large-scale trends.'' Note also that the oceans are warming 
and that the most rapid land-based warming is occurring in the Arctic, 
two areas where urban heat island effects are obviously not an issue.
    (iii) Data Adjustments.
    Petitioners cite the records of some individual stations that they 
claim show inappropriate manipulation, referring to stations in 
Australia and New Zealand.
    The evidence and arguments about data adjustments in New Zealand do 
not support the claim that these adjustments were invalid, after taking 
into account station history and neighboring station records. While 
there is some evidence that the automated algorithm may have introduced 
a spurious trend in one station in Australia in the NOAA temperature 
record (but not in the CRU or NASA temperature records), there was at 
least one valid reason for adjustment, and there is no evidence that 
this error in one station biases the large-scale global temperature 
trends. There is certainly no evidence of ``chicanery'' involved in 
these adjustments, as one petitioner claimed.
    Petitioners focus on individual stations or limited areas. It is 
not surprising that data from one station or one region would show a 
large difference between adjusted and unadjusted data. The important 
point is that when the stations and regions are combined for a global 
analysis, these

[[Page 49576]]

kinds of effects are balanced out and do not produce a bias in the 
overall result. EPA addresses these issues for the specific station 
data at issue in New Zealand and Australia in greater detail in Volume 
1, section 1.4.3.4 of the RTP document.
    (iv) Independence of the NOAA and NASA Temperature Records. Some 
petitioners claim that the NOAA and NASA temperature records are not 
independent from the HadCRUT temperature record, developed by CRU, 
because they share some of the same raw data, and thus are assumed to 
also share some of the same alleged problems. EPA addresses these 
claims in volume 1, section 1.4.3.5 of the RTP document, and summarizes 
the response here.
    The three major temperature records do rely on a large amount of 
raw data obtained from GHCN, though the HadCRUT temperature record in 
particular integrates additional data obtained from other, independent 
sources. As discussed above and throughout volume 1 of the RTP 
document, petitioners have not demonstrated any major flaws in the raw 
data. In addition, the processing of the GHCN data by the three groups 
is carried out independently from one another; therefore the 
similarities of the final temperature trends among the three groups 
provide additional confidence in those independent processing 
methodologies, and additional confidence in the consistent result that 
average global temperatures are increasing.
d. Implications of New Studies and Data Submitted by the Petitioners
    Several petitioners identify scientific studies most (but not all) 
of which were published around the time of or shortly after the 
Administrator's December 2009 Endangerment Finding, as well as data not 
previously considered as part of the scientific record for the 
Endangerment Finding. Petitioners argue these studies and data have the 
potential to alter our understanding of key aspects of the science and 
therefore warrant reconsideration of the Findings. Petitioners also 
argue that EPA ignored or misinterpreted scientific data that were 
significant and available when the Finding was made. These studies and 
data issues involve:
     Implications of a new study on stratospheric water vapor.
     Implications of material concerning whether carbon dioxide 
is well-mixed in the atmosphere and whether the airborne fraction of 
carbon dioxide has changed.
     Implications of new tropical cyclone studies.
     Implications of new data on observational snow cover 
trends.
     A claim that EPA ignored a satellite dataset.
    Though some of these studies are new, they do not raise new issues 
that had not already been accounted for in the assessment literature 
used by EPA. Furthermore, petitioners misinterpret the findings of 
these new studies, make unsupportable claims, rely on incomplete and 
biased analyses, do not acknowledge important results, and, at times, 
ignore EPA's record. Contrary to the petitioners' claims, the new 
science cited by the petitioners does not undermine the key findings 
and conclusions that were reached in the assessment literature and the 
scientific foundation for the Administrator's Findings. EPA's study-by-
study responses to the petitioners' assertions can be found in volume 
1, section 1.5 of the RTP document.
2. Issues Raised by EPA's Use of the IPCC AR4 Assessment
    The objections raised by petitioners involving EPA's use of IPCC 
AR4 include (a) claims that recently found errors in IPCC AR4 undermine 
the IPCC's credibility and therefore EPA's use of IPCC AR4 as a primary 
reference document to support the Findings; and (b) claims that the 
IPCC has a policy agenda and is not an objective scientific body. These 
issues are addressed here and in greater detail in volume 2 of the RTP 
document.
a. Claims That Errors Undermine the IPCC AR4 Findings and Technical 
Support for Endangerment
    The petitioners allege certain errors and unsupported statements in 
IPCC AR4 show that the science EPA relied upon is uncertain and/or not 
credible. Petitioners focus on the errors found regarding the timing of 
future projected melting of Himalayan glaciers, the percentage of the 
Netherlands below sea level, and a few more minor issues highlighted in 
the petitions. Each of these identified and alleged errors in IPCC AR4 
has been examined in detail by EPA in Volume 2 of the RTP document; the 
general response is provided here.
    EPA has reviewed these IPCC AR4 issues in the context of the key 
IPCC AR4 conclusions that were germane to the Administrator's 
Endangerment Finding. The small number of errors and alleged errors in 
the IPCC AR4 report are not materially relevant for EPA's Endangerment 
Finding. Neither of the two errors that are verifiable (Netherlands sea 
level and Himalayan glaciers) are relevant to impacts in the United 
States and neither are part of the basis for the Endangerment Finding. 
Furthermore, there is no evidence that these two confirmed minor errors 
are an indication of a more serious problem with the quality and 
reliability of any other findings and conclusions from the IPCC AR4, 
including those that are relevant for the Endangerment Finding.
    The remaining alleged errors, taken from non-peer-reviewed 
(``gray'') literature, do not appear to be errors according to EPA's 
review. The IPCC provides guidance on how and when to use gray 
literature, and petitioners do not demonstrate that the guidance was 
not followed. Gray literature is not automatically incorrect or 
suspect, and an examination of the particular gray literature sources 
demonstrates that the petitioners' allegations regarding these alleged 
errors are unfounded. Furthermore, the IPCC AR4 statements at issue 
have no material relevance to EPA's Findings. Below are brief responses 
as to why the petitioners' assertions based on these known and alleged 
errors are unfounded and exaggerated. Additional detail on these issues 
is contained in Section 2.1, Volume 2 of the RTP document.
(i) Percent of the Netherlands Below Sea Level
    The IPCC AR4 erroneously stated that 55 percent of the Netherlands 
is below sea level, whereas the actual number is only 26 percent. The 
statistic quoted in the AR4 was inaccurate, and a correction was 
published by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. What 
should have been stated is that 55 percent of the Netherlands is at 
risk of flooding; 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and 29 
percent is susceptible to river flooding. The error originated with the 
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, not the IPCC. The IPCC 
published an official erratum (IPCC, 2010b) \33\ correcting the 
mistake, and noted ``The sea level statistic was used for background 
information only, and the updated information remains consistent with 
the overall conclusions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ IPCC (2010b). Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group II 
Erratum. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 26 Jan. 
2010. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/errataserrata-errata.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA does not refer to or rely on this statistic in the Findings and 
the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level does not pertain to 
the endangerment of public health and welfare in the United States. 
This error is very minor and has no impact on the

[[Page 49577]]

climate science and health and welfare impacts supporting EPA's 
Endangerment Finding. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this minor 
error is somehow, as the petitioner would allege, an indication of 
flawed science and poor quality control practices sweeping across all 
conclusions of IPCC AR4.
(ii) Himalayan Glacier Projection
    Several petitioners state that the IPCC AR4 erred in projecting 
that glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035, and that EPA 
relied on this projection.
    The IPCC did inaccurately state the year 2035 in that particular 
statement. The IPCC issued a correction concerning the melting of 
Himalayan glaciers (IPCC, 2010c) \34\ which also found that its general 
conclusion (provided below) on this issue remains robust and ``entirely 
consistent with the underlying science.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ IPCC, 2010c. IPCC Statement on the Melting of Himalayan 
Glaciers, January 20, 2010. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover 
over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st 
century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and 
changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from 
major mountain ranges (e.g., Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more 
than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.
    EPA did not refer to the original IPCC projection in either its TSD 
or in the Administrator's Endangerment Finding. It does not impact 
climate change science findings or have any meaningful implication for 
the issue of endangerment in the United States. Furthermore, Volume 2, 
section 2.1.3 of the RTP document shows that EPA reviewed the entire 
discussion of glacial effects in IPCC AR4 and concludes that this 
single faulty projection does not compromise the IPCC's overall 
assessment of observed glacier loss, projected glacier loss, and the 
impacts of glacier loss on water resources in the Himalayas.
(iii) Characterization of Climate Change and Disaster Losses
    The Southeastern Legal Foundation asserts that the IPCC AR4 
mischaracterized the findings of a study on climate change and historic 
disaster losses. EPA addresses the specific study at issue in Volume 2, 
section 2.1.4 of the RTP document and provides its more general 
response to this study and this issue here.
    First, EPA never cited or relied on the study at issue in its TSD. 
EPA did not discuss the link between climate change and the historic 
trends in the economic magnitude of disaster losses in the TSD. To 
support the Endangerment Finding, EPA cited the potential future 
impacts of climate change on the number and severity of extreme weather 
events, for which the Southeastern Legal Foundation levels no 
criticism. There are many different factors influencing the economic 
losses from a disaster, making it difficult to determine the impact of 
climate change from historic data on trends in economic disaster loss. 
Therefore, contrary to petitioners' claims, EPA did not rely on 
historic trends of economic disaster losses (the subject of the study 
at issue) to evaluate the likelihood that climate change would lead to 
an increase in the number or frequency of such weather events. EPA 
instead focused on the physical and environmental (not the economic) 
impacts associated with climate change. The Administrator's 
Endangerment Finding was clear that it was more forward-looking on this 
issue, stating:

    The evidence concerning how human-induced climate change may 
alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of 
endangerment, given the serious adverse impacts that can result from 
such events and the increase in risk, even if small, of the 
occurrence and intensity of events such as hurricanes and floods. 
(74 FR 66526)

    Furthermore, EPA's review of the particular study at issue in 
Volume 2, section 2.1.4 of the RTP document shows that IPCC did not 
mischaracterize this study (e.g., IPCC included the appropriate caveats 
that were also stated in the underlying study), and that there were 
valid reasons for IPCC to use the study (e.g., as the most recent study 
of its kind at the time).
(iv) Validity of Alps, Andes, and African Mountain Snow Impacts
    Several petitioners argue that IPCC claims of glacier melt in the 
Andes, the Alps, and parts of Africa arise from a magazine article and 
a Master's thesis, and thus should not be viewed as credible. This 
particular issue is addressed in Volume 2, section 2.1.5 of the RTP 
document, and EPA's response is summarized here.
    First, the extent to which snow and glaciers in the Andes, Alps and 
parts of Africa are melting or are projected to melt is an issue that 
is tangential to the Administrator's decision that public health and 
welfare are endangered within the United States. Second, the 
petitioners mischaracterize these references within IPCC AR4, as these 
are actually references to ``loss of ice climbs,'' not reductions in 
mountain glaciers. Loss of ice climbs is an indicator of warming over 
ice-covered areas. EPA acknowledges that these references come from 
gray literature but these citations are appropriate and within the 
IPCC's guidelines for use of gray literature. They provide additional 
evidence consistent with the peer-review-supported conclusion that in 
most places snowpack is declining and glaciers are melting worldwide. 
Furthermore, EPA did not rely on these references or refer to ``loss of 
ice climbs'' as an indicator of climate change.
(v) Validity of Amazon Rainforest Dieback Projection
    Petitioners challenge the IPCC's statement that ``[U]p to 40 
percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a 
slight reduction in precipitation,'' alleging that it is 
unsubstantiated gray literature. EPA reviews this issue in Volume 2, 
section 2.1.6 of the RTP document and provides its general response 
here.
    The IPCC AR4 statement in question about the Amazon appears to have 
been inadequately referenced but the content of the statement is 
correct according to the underlying literature. For this statement, the 
IPCC did cite gray literature \35\, which itself cited a peer-reviewed 
study \36\ and relied on other peer-reviewed literature. It is worth 
noting that a newspaper that originally reported this alleged problem 
with the IPCC's representation of this Amazon issue recently reversed 
itself and printed a correction on June 20, 2010.\37\ Morever, this 
issue is not discussed in the TSD and is of no relevance to the 
Findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore (2000). Global Review of Forest 
Fires. World Wildlife Federation and The World Conservation Union. 
available at: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2000-047.pdf. 
(last accessed April 12, 2010).
    \36\ Nepstad, D. C., et al. (1999). Large-scale impoverishment 
of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature 398:505-508.
    \37\ Sunday Times correction. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article322890.ece.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(vi) Validity of African Rain-Fed Agriculture Projection
    Some petitioners object that a statement in EPA's TSD based on a 
statement in IPCC AR4 concerning reduction of yields from rain-fed 
agriculture in some countries in Africa was from gray literature and is 
therefore not credible. EPA reviews this issue in Volume 2, section 
2.1.7 of the RTP document and provides its general response here.
    There is no evidence that the IPCC statement in question regarding 
African

[[Page 49578]]

rain-fed agricultural yields is not credible, based on the underlying 
studies, nor is there any evidence that IPCC authors acted 
inappropriately by citing the material on which this statement is 
based. The IPCC statement cites a report \38\ published by the 
International Institute for Sustainable Development funded by Canada, 
U.S. AID, and other public and private institutions. The percent 
reduction number was obtained from vulnerability studies prepared under 
the UN Environmental Programme Global Environment Fund and National 
Communications of three African countries to the UNFCCC. This study was 
included due to the paucity of peer-reviewed material relating to some 
parts of the world, particularly Africa. This is consistent with the 
IPCC's guidance on the use of gray literature. Furthermore, the 
statement relates to impacts outside the United States, and it did not 
materially impact the Administrator's determination of endangerment of 
public health and welfare in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Agoumi, A. (2003). Vulnerability of North African Countries 
to Climatic Changes. International Institute for Sustainable 
Development and the Climate Change Knowledge Network. (2003). 
Available at: http://www.cckn.net//pdf/north_africa.pdf. Accessed 
April 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Response to Claims That the IPCC Has a Policy Agenda and is Not 
Objective and Impartial
    Several petitioners raise various arguments to support their 
allegation that IPCC AR4 is advancing a policy agenda and is not an 
objective and impartial scientific body, thus questioning EPA's use of 
IPCC AR4 as a significant reference document to support the 
Administrator's Findings.
    EPA reviews and responds to each of these claims in Volume 2, 
section 2.2 of the RTP document, and provides the more general 
responses here. EPA also previously responded to public comments about 
IPCC's report development procedures in the RTC document (see Volume 1, 
section 1 and Appendix A, ``IPCC Principles and Procedures'').
    The petitioners submit four objections along with excerpts from the 
CRU e-mails related to: (1) Authorship and reviewer roles among IPCC 
personnel; (2) a CRU e-mail allegedly showing that IPCC authors were 
aware that citing their own papers could be seen as using the IPCC 
process to advance their own views rather than to present a neutral 
overview of the science; (3) allegations that the IPCC is a biased 
organization, including claims that IPCC lead authors encouraged other 
authors to focus on policy-prescriptive science; and (4) allegations 
that IPCC authors forced consensus and altered the contents of the 
assessment reports to eliminate any suggestion of non-consensus.
    After reviewing the petitioners' arguments, EPA finds that the 
evidence and arguments provided by petitioners do not support their 
serious allegation that the peer-review and assessment report processes 
employed by the IPCC were ``fundamentally corrupt'' and policy 
prescriptive. The petitioners' arguments, which heavily rely on the 
selective use and narrow reading of CRU e-mails, as well as some 
newspaper articles, do not demonstrate that the IPCC peer-review and 
report development processes were inadequately designed or that they 
were not properly implemented. These allegations by the petitioners are 
devoid of any scientific evidence or scientific argument that would 
cause EPA to find that the key conclusions of IPCC AR4 are inaccurate 
or that they do not appropriately reflect the degree of scientific 
consensus on the scientific issues germane to the Administrator's 
Endangerment Finding. Therefore, petitioners' evidence and arguments do 
not support changing EPA's position, as stated in the Endangerment 
Finding, that the assessment literature, including IPCC AR4, represents 
the ``best reference materials for determining the general state of 
knowledge on the scientific and technical issues before the agency in 
making an endangerment decision.''
    Volume 2, section 2.2.3.1 of the RTP document, for example, 
demonstrates that, contrary to petitioners' assertions, a few 
scientists that were not named as contributing authors for Chapter 6 of 
IPCC AR4, Working Group I \39\ did not contribute significantly to the 
writing and editorial decisions of that chapter. Given their very 
limited role in the chapter (e.g., providing input on a single figure), 
it is entirely reasonable that they were not named contributing 
authors, who are charged with writing parts of the report. Therefore, 
EPA finds that there is no basis for the claim that IPCC reviewer and 
author procedures were circumvented. EPA's review of this issue is 
consistent with the finding of the Independent Climate Change E-mails 
Review \40\ which stated, among other things, that ``There is no 
proscription in the IPCC rules to prevent the author team seeking 
expert advice when and where needed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Jansen et al., 2007.
    \40\ Russell, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners appear concerned about the contributing author 
designation because these few scientists were expert reviewers of the 
IPCC AR4, and the petitioners believe that the act of providing even a 
limited amount of information, in addition to their reviewer roles, 
would have given them undo power to shape the report. This argument is 
baseless. EPA notes that although the expert review comments are 
available to the public \41\, petitioners did not provide a single 
example from the comments of these individuals to support their claim 
of undo influence or abuse of their purported ``power'' over IPCC AR4 
conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Reviewer comments and author responses for draft chapters 
of IPCC AR4 Working Group I and II volumes (the primary volumes at 
issue for the Endangerment Finding) are publically available at the 
following Web sites, respectively: http://hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/ and http://ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/AR4/ar4review.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volume 2, section 2.2.3.2 of the RTP document examines the 
allegation by petitioners that the frequency with which IPCC authors 
cite their own studies should be viewed as unacceptable and seen as 
evidence that IPCC AR4 lacks objectivity. First, it should come as no 
surprise that for some of these fairly specialized fields of climate 
change science authors who publish the most on these topics would in 
turn be selected by IPCC to author chapters on those same topics. EPA 
finds the frequency with which IPCC authors cite their own peer-
reviewed studies to be entirely acceptable and reasonable. Again, 
petitioners completely fail to show why this underlying cited 
literature itself is flawed or why the IPCC AR4 conclusions, based on 
this underlying literature, are flawed. Importantly, one of the CRU e-
mails that petititioners use as purported evidence of IPCC authors 
engaged in foul play to cite their own work actually shows an IPCC 
coordinating lead author explicitly encouraging his IPCC co-authors to 
minimize citations to their own work, and to do so only ``unless they 
are absolutely needed.''
    Volume 2, section 2.2.3.3 of the RTP document examines the 
petitioners' assertion that IPCC is biased and that IPCC authors worked 
to produce policy-prescriptive science and to reach preconceived 
conclusions. Here too, the petitioners do not address any of the IPCC 
AR4 science directly. Rather, petitioners refer to a selection of CRU 
e-mails by IPCC authors who wrote to other IPCC co-authors to urge 
them, for example, to focus on ``policy relevant'' science. First, 
``policy relevant'' by no means implies ``policy prescriptive'' or 
scientifically biased. It is, in fact, policy informative and neutral, 
in direct contrast to the goal of policy

[[Page 49579]]

prescriptive statements. Second, petitioners do not identify how 
specific information in IPCC AR4 should be considered biased as a 
result of the private e-mail exchanges. Petitioners do not highlight 
the specific statements in the IPCC AR4 that are supposedly ``policy 
prescriptive,'' never explain what policy agenda was being advanced, 
and never describe how the CRU e-mails support their claim that the 
science was actually manipulated in service of this unspecified agenda. 
The IPCC's own guidelines \42\ state that its mission is to produce 
information that is ``policy relevant and policy neutral, never policy 
prescriptive.'' There is no evidence provided by petitioners that IPCC 
authors deviated from this practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ IPCC, 2010c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In another example in Volume 2, section 2.2.3.3 of the RTP 
document, petitioners claim that a CRU e-mail exchange demonstrates 
that IPCC authors were colluding to make a strong case about a certain 
scientific conclusion rather than working to produce neutral science. 
EPA's review shows that there is no support for this claim. EPA's 
review shows that the CRU e-mails, in their full context, speak for 
themselves and simply show a small group of scientists working on 
various alternative ways to present a figure that was comprehensive and 
offered key contextual information on temperature trends over the past 
several centuries. Petitioners do not show that these alternatives--
which are discussed in the e-mails--are biased, or explain why the 
option that was selected is not ``neutral.'' If fact, the e-mail record 
shows that the alternative selected was the most comprehensive and 
transparent of the options.
    In Volume 2, section 2.2.3.4 of the RTP document, EPA reviews 
petitioners' claim that certain IPCC authors kept out some studies with 
the goal of hiding any non-consensus on key issues. The CRU e-mail 
exchanges among some IPCC authors are the only pieces of evidence 
offered by petitioners to support this allegation. EPA's review of this 
issue demonstrates that the CRU e-mails simply do not show that the 
contents of the IPCC chapter in question, let alone the contents of the 
entire IPCC AR4, were altered to eliminate a suggestion of non-
consensus, or IPCC authors actively tried to suppress (or were 
successful in suppressing) external challenges to consensus. It is not 
uncommon for scientists to critique the work of others, and the e-mails 
do not provide evidence that the IPCC authors acted unethically. 
Section 2.2.3.4 of the RTP document also addresses the now oft-cited e-
mail where an IPCC author states, ``I tried hard to balance the needs 
of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.'' 
Petitioners claim this e-mail demonstrates a biased IPCC process. A 
simple reading of the entire e-mail exchange reveals a different story. 
In fact, this IPCC author gets complimented from another for his 
objectivity and even-handedness in handling the challenges of working 
on IPCC AR4. This IPCC author also expressed frustration with the time 
spent away from doing new science, which is not the primary job of an 
IPCC chapter author or of the IPCC in general; the primary role of the 
IPCC is to assess existing science already published in the literature, 
i.e., in this author's words, ``the needs of the science and the IPCC'' 
are not always the same. In context, it is clear that the needs of the 
IPCC in this case are the requirements of doing assessments of existing 
literature rather than producing ``original and substantive'' work. 
EPA's review demonstrates that when the e-mails are read in their full 
context, it is clear that the authors of these e-mails sought to convey 
the science accurately and address disagreements in a fair and even-
handed way. Again, petitioners have selectively picked excerpts from 
these e-mails to make assertions attacking the underlying science of 
the Endangerment Finding, but these assertions simply have no support.
3. Process and Other Issues Raised by the Petitioners
    The process and other issues raised by the petitioners include 
claims that (a) the USGCRP and the NRC are not separate and independent 
assessments from IPCC; (b) EPA's process to develop the scientific 
support for the Findings is flawed; (c) there are improper peer-review 
processes in the underlying scientific literature used by the major 
assessments; and (d) certain scientists did not adhere to Freedom of 
Information Act requests. Each of these issues is addressed below and 
in more detail in Volume 3 of the RTP document.
a. Claims That the Assessments by the USGCRP and NRC Are Not Separate 
and Independent Assessments
    Two petitioners argue that the assessment reports upon which EPA 
relied are not from three separate, independent groups. They claim that 
the USGCRP and NRC assessment reports are not separate and independent 
because they are based on the findings of IPCC AR4. Petitioners claim 
the USGCRP and NRC reports regularly cite and rely on data, resources, 
and conclusions in the IPCC reports, contradicting arguments that all 
three of the assessments are separate and independent. The petitioners 
argue that because of this the USGCRP and NRC assessments must be 
flawed in the same way that IPCC AR4 is purported to be flawed by the 
petitioners. Volume 3, section 3.2 of the RTP document addresses this 
claim and EPA summarizes its response here.
    EPA finds no merit to this argument. The organizational and 
personnel differences, and the detailed and robust report development 
procedures employed by the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC demonstrate that these 
assessment reports are separate and independent. Petitioners' claims to 
the contrary are insufficient and unsubstantiated.
    The similarity of the conclusions among the assessment reports from 
the three bodies, for example, provides evidence of the strength of the 
science in that it consistently points different scientific reviewers 
in the same direction. The fact that each of these bodies referenced 
many of the same studies and IPCC AR4 or arrived at consistent 
conclusions is not evidence that these reports are not independent 
assessments of the available science related to climate change. The 
test of separation and independence is not whether an assessment 
reaches a different result or conclusion, it is whether independent 
discretion and judgment were exercised. To assert, as the petitioners 
do, that consistency of results represents a weakness rather than a 
strength of the underlying science is an unwarranted argument that 
assumes fundamental flaws in the IPCC and a resulting grand ripple 
effect across all the major assessments used by EPA. EPA discusses 
above and further demonstrates throughout the RTP document that there 
is no material or reliable basis to question the validity and 
credibility of the body of science underlying the Administrator's 
Endangerment Finding, including the IPCC AR4 conclusions and its 
underlying studies, and therefore EPA rejects the premise of this 
argument.
    Furthermore, the USGCRP, the IPCC, and NRC have their own, separate 
report development procedures. These separate processes have already 
been described in the TSD and in the RTC document, Volume 1. The 
differences in the organizations, the groups of scientists who 
developed the assessments, and scope of the assessments produced by 
each body is discussed in detail in Volume 1 of the RTC document.

[[Page 49580]]

     The IPCC, created in 1988 by the United Nations 
Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 
is open to all member countries of the United Nations and the WMO. At 
regular intervals, the IPCC prepares comprehensive assessments of 
scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant for the 
understanding of human-induced climate change, potential impacts of 
climate change, and options for mitigation and adaptation all at global 
and regional scales. The most recent assessment--the AR4--included 
thousands of scientists from all over the world, who participated on a 
voluntary basis as authors, contributors, and reviewers (IPCC, 2007a). 
While many federal and nonfederal scientists from the United States 
were involved in the development of the AR4, the United States is just 
one of 194 countries that contribute to the assessments.
     The USGCRP is part of the United States Executive Branch. 
Thirteen departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP, including 
EPA. A critical role of the interagency program is to coordinate 
research and integrate and synthesize information to achieve results 
that no single agency, or small group of agencies, could attain. 
Between 2004 and 2009, the USGCRP produced 21 synthesis and assessment 
reports on a wide range of topics (e.g., temperature trends in the 
lower atmosphere; weather and climate extremes in a changing climate; 
and the effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water 
resources, and biodiversity). The USGCRP assessment reports are 
developed to enhance understanding of natural and human-induced changes 
in the Earth's global environmental system; to monitor, understand, and 
predict global change in the United States; and to provide a sound 
scientific basis for national and international decision-making. Each 
of these reports had a unique team of authors, drawn from relevant 
disciplines. Many authors were federal scientists, and in some cases, 
nonfederal scientists contributed their expertise to the process. While 
some of the USGCRP authors participated in the development of the IPCC 
AR4, most did not.
     The NRC is an independent scientific organization that is 
not affiliated with either the IPCC or USGCRP. As described in Appendix 
C of Volume 1 of the RTC document, the NRC:

    enlist(s) the nation's foremost scientists, engineers, health 
professionals, and other experts to address the scientific and 
technical aspects of society's most pressing problems. Each year, 
more than 6,000 of these experts are selected to serve on hundreds 
of study committees that are convened to answer specific sets of 
questions. All serve without pay. Federal agencies are the primary 
financial sponsors of the Academies' work. Additional studies are 
funded by state agencies, foundations, other private sponsors, and 
the National Academies endowment. The Academies provide independent 
advice; the external sponsors have no control over the conduct of a 
study once the statement of task and budget are finalized. Study 
committees gather information from many sources in public meetings 
but they carry out their deliberations in private in order to avoid 
political, special interest, and sponsor influence.

    Ten NRC reports are cited in the Endangerment Finding and TSD. Each 
of these reports has a unique author committee, selected based on their 
areas of expertise. While some of the NRC study committee members have 
participated in either the IPCC or USGCRP report development processes, 
many have not.
    The USGCRP and NRC reports on which EPA relied were the result of 
an objective review and assessment of the scientific literature 
available at the time of their development (including any previously 
published assessments), related to the effects of greenhouse gas 
emissions on the climate system and the impacts of these changes on 
ecosystems and society. The organizations conducting the reviews were 
distinct and separate, and neither organization had control or 
supervision over the other. The groups of scientists involved in the 
reviews overlapped to some degree, but significant numbers of 
scientists were involved with one but not other reports. In all cases, 
personnel at NRC who supervised the review and preparation of the final 
reports were different from those who performed these functions for 
USGCRP.
    Like the IPCC, the USGCRP and NRC provide public opportunities to 
provide input and comment during report development (see RTC document, 
Volume 1). In addition, the NRC reports undergo a rigorous, independent 
external review by experts whose comments are provided anonymously to 
the committee members.
    Separate and apart from the issue of the independence of these 
assessment reports, the petitioners provide no information to 
demonstrate that the key scientific conclusions of the IPCC, USGCRP, 
and NRC are wrong or that EPA erred in relying upon them. The specific 
science issues raised by petitioners are discussed throughout this 
Decision and in the RTP document. Thus, whether or not the various 
assessment reports are separate and independent, EPA reasonably relied 
upon them as reflecting the current state of the science and the degree 
of broad consensus within the science community on these issues.
    Bolstering the case that the IPCC, USGCRP and NRC assessments 
available at the time of the final Endangerment Finding in December 
2009 were robust and appropriate for EPA to use, the May 2010 
assessment of the NRC, ``Advancing the Science of Climate Change,'' 
states that its major scientific conclusion is ``consistent with the 
conclusions'' of those previous assessments. Note also that this May 
2010 NRC assessment was able to incorporate scientific literature 
published since EPA completed its scientific record to finalize the 
2009 Endangerment Finding.
b. Approaches and Processes Used To Develop the Scientific Support for 
the Findings
    Several petitioners object to the process and approach EPA used in 
developing the scientific support for the Endangerment Finding. One of 
these specific arguments is new whereby the petitioners allege that EPA 
ignored public concerns about the implications of the e-mails involving 
scientists at the CRU, and instead ``plowed ahead with compromised 
data, undermining its core conclusions in the process.'' EPA discusses 
and responds to this issue in section (i) below and in section 3.1.2 of 
the RTP document. The petitioners also raise issues that EPA already 
responded to in Volume 1 of the RTC document. Some of the concerns 
submitted are supported with ``new information'' and some are not. In 
(ii) below, EPA summarizes the response to the claim that EPA did not 
independently judge the underlying science, and in (iii) below EPA 
concludes that the Agency did not violate the Information Quality Act 
(IQA, or the Data Quality Act), as alleged by petitioners. Section 
3.1.3 of the RTP document more fully responds to these three 
allegations and other related concerns raised by the petitioners 
regarding the process and approach EPA used in developing the 
scientific support for the Endangerment Finding.
(i) Issues Regarding Consideration of the CRU E-mails
    The sole new argument raised by petitioners regarding the approach 
and process EPA used into develop the Findings is that EPA ignored 
public concerns about the implications of the e-mails involving 
scientists at CRU, and instead ``plowed ahead with compromised data, 
undermining its core

[[Page 49581]]

conclusions in the process.'' EPA responds to this issue in Volume 3, 
section 3.1.2 of the RTP document and summarizes its response here.
    Prior to finalizing the Endangerment Finding, EPA carefully 
reviewed many of the CRU e-mails, and determined that many of the 
issues raised therein had also been raised through the public comments 
on the proposed Findings. EPA reviewed the underlying scientific issues 
that were presented to EPA at the time (see, for example, RTC Volume 
2). Based on that initial review, EPA concluded that the fundamental 
conclusions of the assessment literature remained sound as to the state 
of the science on greenhouse gases and climate change. EPA did not 
inappropriately ``plow ahead;'' EPA assessed the issues raised by 
commenters and the CRU e-mails in light of our comprehensive review of 
climate science and all of the objections to the science raised by 
commenters, and concluded that our review of the science and the 
conclusions based on it were sound.
    Petitioners have now raised more specific concerns with respect to 
the CRU e-mails. EPA has reviewed all of the CRU e-mails, and our 
responses to the particular science issues raised by petitioners in 
light of these e-mails are provided in other sections of this Decision 
and in the RTP document. As discussed there, petitioners have routinely 
misunderstood or mischaracterized the scientific issues, drawn faulty 
scientific conclusions, resorted to hyperbole, impugned the ethics of 
climate scientists in general, characterized actions as 
``falsification'' and ``manipulation'' with no basis or support, and 
placed an inordinate reliance on blogs, news stories, and literature 
that is often neither peer reviewed nor accurately summarized in their 
petitions. Petitioners often ``cherry-pick'' language that creates the 
suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into 
the issues or providing corroborating evidence that improper action 
actually occurred.
(ii) Claims That EPA Did Not Independently Judge the Underlying Science
    Several petitioners argue that the Administrator did not 
independently judge the primary scientific literature and data. 
Instead, they claim that she improperly relied on summary scientific 
reports produced by third parties or ``foreign entities.'' This is not 
a new issue brought to EPA, but was raised and addressed during the 
public comment period. Section III.A of the Findings responds to 
comments that EPA should have conducted its own independent assessment 
of the primary scientific literature and not relied on scientific 
reports produced by third parties such as the USGCRP, NRC or IPCC. See 
also Volume 1 of RTC document, particularly Response 1-1.
    It is useful to describe the process EPA followed in exercising its 
scientific judgment in making the Endangerment Finding. EPA did not 
passively and uncritically accept a scientific judgment and finding of 
endangerment supplied to it by outsiders. Instead, EPA evaluated all of 
the scientific information before it, determined the current state of 
the science on greenhouse gases, the extent to which they cause climate 
change, how climate change can impact public health and public welfare, 
and the degree of scientific consensus on this science. EPA applied 
this science to the legal criteria for determining endangerment, i.e., 
whether greenhouses gases cause, or contribute to, air pollution that 
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA 
did this after presenting its scientific views before the public for 
comment and evaluating and considering all comments received, as well 
as documenting responses to all significant public comments (see 
volumes 1-11 of the RTC document). EPA properly and carefully exercised 
its own judgment in all matters related to the Endangerment Finding.
    The core of petitioners' objection is that they do not agree with 
important parts of the scientific information upon which EPA relied. 
They frame this as a failure of EPA to exercise its own judgment, or as 
EPA ceding to an outside body its responsibility to exercise 
independent judgment. It is clear from the record for the Findings that 
EPA exercised its own judgment and did not cede its authority or 
judgment to anyone. The fact that petitioners disagree with the 
information EPA relied upon and EPA's conclusions is not evidence of a 
lack of exercise of discretion or judgment.
    EPA relied on the existing assessment reports of the USGCRP, IPCC, 
and NRC as a primary source for determining the current state of the 
science relating to greenhouse gases and climate change, and for 
determining the degree of scientific consensus on these issues. EPA's 
view then and now is that these assessment reports represent the best 
primary references to provide the scientific underpinnings to inform 
the Administrator's judgment regarding endangerment. These assessment 
reports provide exactly the kind of information that is required, i.e., 
they demonstrate how greenhouse gases are affecting the climate now, 
are projected to affect climate in the future, and how these current 
and projected climate changes impact public health and welfare. These 
assessment reports also bring together and synthesize the numerous 
individual studies in the scientific literature to draw overarching 
conclusions about the state of the science. Finally, each of these 
assessment reports go through rigorous and transparent peer-review 
processes, such that the conclusions carry significant weight in a way 
that is typically not possible for one individual study in a scientific 
journal. EPA's review of the objections raised by petitioners to the 
process and the substance of the various assessment reports does not 
support changing this view.
    The petitioners appear to imply that EPA would have drawn different 
conclusions had it conducted its own separate assessment. After 
examining the breadth and quality of the USGCRP, IPCC, and NRC 
assessments, EPA disagrees. These reports already reflect the body of 
underlying scientific literature that EPA itself would have had to 
synthesize had it decided to conduct yet another assessment, 
independent from USGCRP, IPCC and NRC. These assessments have been 
reviewed and formally accepted by, commissioned by, and in some cases 
authored by U.S. government agencies and individual government 
scientists. By relying on the assessment literature, EPA is benefitting 
from the confidence and strength of an entire federal research 
enterprise. There is no reason to think that these assessments do not 
represent the best primary source material to determine the state of 
science on the relevant issues.
    Petitioners disagree with some of the conclusions of the assessment 
literature and believe that not all scientific points of view were 
fully considered therein. However, there was a robust public comment 
process on EPA's proposed Endangerment Finding, which provided an 
opportunity for the public to evaluate and comment on EPA's preliminary 
scientific conclusions. Many commenters provided literature and/or 
arguments to support their views and EPA reviewed such literature and 
arguments in the Agency's responses. EPA's final judgment was based on 
EPA's evaluation of both the assessment literature and the additional 
information and views provided through public comment. EPA has no 
reason to believe that putting this significant body of work aside and 
attempting to develop a new and separate assessment would

[[Page 49582]]

provide any better scientific basis for making the endangerment 
decision.
(iii) Claims That EPA Violated the Information Quality Act
    EPA already provided a detailed response to arguments of alleged 
IQA violations in RTC Volume 1. The petitioners now make essentially 
the same general argument that EPA's use of third-party assessment 
reports violates the IQA. EPA notes that the petitioners are re-raising 
this issue in the petitions for reconsideration because they believe 
that the CRU e-mails show that ``IPCC authors deleted information and 
hid behind foreign laws to avoid disclosure of key data'' and that EPA 
would not have been able to obtain the data anyway. EPA responds to 
allegations involving the behavior of CRU scientists, including the 
allegation that data was destroyed, in (c) below, Volume 1 of the RTP 
document and Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the RTP document. As stated in 
these sections, the evidence submitted by the petitioners in the form 
of the CRU e-mails does not support their allegation that data were 
destroyed. Therefore, the ``new'' information presented by the 
petitioners does not call into question the overall integrity of the 
science, nor does it call into question the process EPA used in 
developing the Findings. As noted in RTC Volume 1, the IQA requires 
that an agency issue guidelines regarding data quality and ensure their 
implementation. EPA complied with the IQA by issuing its Guidelines for 
Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility and Integrity 
of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency 
(U.S. EPA, 2002) \43\ and has acted consistently with these guidelines 
in developing the Findings. As stated in RTC Volume 1, EPA's use of the 
assessment literature ``is consistent with these guidelines because we 
thoroughly reviewed and evaluated the author selection, report 
preparation, expert review, public review, information quality, and 
approval procedures of IPCC, USGCRP/CCSP, and NRC to ensure the 
information adhered to a basic standard of quality, including 
objectivity, utility, and integrity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ U.S. EPA (2002). Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the 
Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information 
Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/260/R-02/008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CRU e-mails cited by the petitioners do not undermine this 
view. EPA's responses on the science issues raised by petitioners 
concerning these e-mails are discussed in detail in several other 
sections of this Decision as well as in the RTP document. As our 
detailed responses show, petitioners' science-based claims do not 
support the conclusion that the IPCC or other assessment reports were 
biased, inaccurate, or scientifically incorrect.
c. Freedom of Information Act Issues
    Several petitioners claim that the CRU e-mails provide evidence 
that leading climate scientists deliberately withheld key data and 
computer codes and attempted to obstruct or avoid UK Freedom of 
Information (FOI) and U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests 
from ``climate skeptics.'' These claims are addressed in Volume 3, 
section 3.4 of the RTP document and EPA's response is summarized here.
    EPA's review of the CRU e-mails indicates that in many cases, the 
data at issue were in fact released by the scientists, including data 
concerning a human ``fingerprint'' in the tropics, data underlying the 
HadCRUT temperature record, and data concerning historic temperature 
reconstructions. In addition, significant data were publicly available. 
Petitioners have not explained or shown why the amount of data and 
other information that was available was not adequate for researchers 
to replicate or otherwise evaluate key findings, or to conduct other 
research. In addition, there was a robust and public process to submit, 
review, and publicly respond to comments on the scientific issues 
involved in all parts of the IPCC AR4. Petitioners do not rely on 
science or science based arguments to support their claim that the 
assessment report resulting from this robust process should not be 
relied upon by EPA. Instead, they rely on unsupported conclusions drawn 
from e-mails concerning a FOI request for personal communications 
between various scientists, where it appears that the appropriate 
University FOI officers had determined that these e-mails were exempt 
from release. This evidence does not support petitioners' claims that 
the IPCC AR4 should not be considered as part of the scientific basis 
for the Endangerment Finding.
    EPA agrees with the results of the various investigations, which 
found that the scientists at issue conducted their research with 
scientific integrity and rigor, the research utilized methods which are 
fair and satisfactory, and that their actions were consistent with the 
common practice in climate research at that time. EPA also agrees with 
the recommendations of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review 
supporting greater transparency in the future in this area of climate 
research. Petitioners' evidence, however, does not support their 
conclusions that the research produced by these scientists was suspect, 
flawed, or biased, or that IPCC AR4 or other assessment reports were 
suspect, flawed, or biased. Their evidence does not support the 
conclusion that the science at issue should not be relied upon by EPA.
    EPA has reviewed the petitioners' claims and the e-mails and finds 
that in many cases, the petitioners make overly broad generalizations 
based on suggestions of inappropriate actions that are not supported by 
the evidence provided by the petitioners. Regarding the quote from the 
UK Information Commissioner's Office, the recent inquiry by the UK 
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2010) \44\ concluded 
that this statement was the personal opinion of the Deputy Information 
Commissioner and was not based on the results of a formal government 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ UK Parliamentary (2010). House of Commons, Science and 
Technology Memoranda. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finds that most of the language in the CRU e-mails that 
petitioners allege shows impropriety is taken out of context. 
Petitioners do not provide corroborating evidence that improper action 
actually occurred, let alone evidence that any alleged improper action 
led to biased or inaccurate science that was ultimately used by EPA to 
support the Findings. Based on our review of the e-mails, the authors 
were dismayed at what they viewed as frivolous requests that were 
wasting their time, not that the requestors were going to uncover 
``fraud'' or ``wrongdoing'' with regard to their research, as has been 
alleged by the petitioners.
    EPA finds from its review that the e-mail authors expressed 
significant frustration at repeated requests for specific explanations 
and computer codes when the basic data had already been made available 
and the methodology for replicating particular studies had already been 
published in the literature. This type of approach was considered to be 
common practice at the time, as the UK House of Commons Science and 
Technology Committee (2010) \45\ also found in their analysis of the 
CRU e-mails: ``In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, 
we consider that Professor Jones's actions

[[Page 49583]]

were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It 
is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and 
the computer code in academic papers.'' EPA finds that the petitioners' 
evidence does not provide a basis to question the scientific integrity 
or conclusions of the climate change research conducted by CRU 
researchers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ UK Parliamentary (2010). House of Commons, Science and 
Technology Memoranda. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Integrity of Peer-Reviewed Literature
    Several petitioners claim that the CRU e-mails provide evidence 
that leading climate scientists engaged in actions to suppress 
dissenting views about anthropogenic global warming. Specifically, 
petitioners claim that these scientists unfairly gave favorable reviews 
of each other's manuscripts while providing negative reviews of 
manuscripts authored by ``climate skeptics,'' made efforts to unfairly 
expedite publication of their responses to papers by ``climate 
skeptics,'' conspired to remove editors of prominent journals that had 
published dissenting views of climate change, and boycotted the 
journals in reprisal. The petitioners argue that the cumulative effect 
of these alleged actions with regard to peer-reviewed literature has 
been to create an artificial consensus about anthropogenic climate 
change that has ``tainted [climate change literature] in favor of 
desired papers.'' Some petitioners conclude that EPA has lost the basis 
for its Findings because the Agency assumed a ``legitimate, objective 
`consensus' regarding anthropogenic global warming'' existed among 
scientists and disregarded any contrary views or contrary evidence. EPA 
responds to these claims in Volume 3, section 3.3 and summarizes its 
response here.
    Petitioners' claims are not based on scientific analysis or 
arguments, and their evidence does not support changing or revising 
EPA's use of the major assessments of peer-reviewed literature or the 
overall scientific conclusions about climate change reached from the 
thousands of papers considered in the assessments. The objections 
raised by the petitioners have not called into question or changed 
EPA's conclusion that the science supporting the Endangerment Findings 
is robust, compelling, and has been appropriately characterized by EPA.
    EPA disagrees with the petitioners' argument that the Findings were 
based on a false consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change, and 
that EPA disregarded contrary views or evidence including those not 
represented in the peer-reviewed literature. For reasons stated 
throughout this Decision and section 3.3 of the RTP document, EPA's 
view is that the state of the science has been carefully and 
appropriately characterized by EPA and properly interpreted by the 
Administrator in the Endangerment Finding.
    Many diverging viewpoints and a variety of findings are represented 
in the scientific literature on climate change. The assessment reports 
routinely identified the degree of certainty around any conclusion and 
recognized the existence of ongoing debate within the scientific 
community on all of these issues, as is the norm in all science 
endeavors. The Administrator's Endangerment Finding relied on a careful 
consideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a thorough 
review of hundreds of thousands of public comments, which contained 
many different opinions and interpretations of the science. Therefore, 
to claim, as the petitioners do, that these e-mails demonstrate that 
EPA did not take into account any dissenting views on the subject of 
climate change science is a gross mischaracterization of the total 
record that supports the Administrator's Findings.
    The petitioners rely upon some CRU e-mails (typically taken out of 
context), a small number of papers, and both actual and alleged events 
regarding scientific journals to claim that leading climate scientists 
conspired to keep dissenting views of climate change out of the broad 
body of peer-reviewed literature and create an artificial consensus 
about anthropogenic climate change. In all cases presented by the 
petitioners it appears the scientists involved were making their 
scientific objections known, and were basing their objections on the 
science and not on assumptions or speculation. The evidence presented 
by petitioners does not support their claims of bias, either for the 
specific papers and individuals at issue, or for the much broader and 
sweeping challenges made concerning the integrity of all peer-reviewed 
climate literature.
    For the few papers at issue, the petitioners do not argue based on 
scientific merits, and instead assume that the few papers they cite 
received unjustified unfavorable reviews and were unfairly rejected for 
publication without providing supporting evidence. Petitioners do not 
address the possibility that these papers were scientifically 
inadequate and that the scientists were justified in recommending that 
they not be published. EPA notes that there is no evidence presented 
beyond these few papers of the claimed general effort to manipulate the 
peer-reviewed journal publication process.
    The evidence provided by the petitioners also does not show that 
the scientists engaged in improper behavior or sabotage of the two 
journals that are discussed in the e-mails, or their editors, nor is 
there evidence to conclude that any action on the part of these 
scientists involved in the e-mail correspondence resulted in the 
replacement of the journal editors. Our review of the full discussion 
of the e-mails indicates, again, that petitioners have exaggerated the 
significance of actual or purported events in an attempt to cast doubt 
on the underlying science and the processes relied upon to produce the 
science.

F. Petitioners' Arguments Do Not Meet the Standard for Reconsideration

    As discussed above, petitioners must demonstrate that their 
objections are of central relevance to the outcome of the underlying 
decision, and must demonstrate either that it was impracticable to 
raise the objections during the public comment period or that the 
grounds for raising such objections arose after the close of the 
comment period (but within the time specified for judicial review). The 
above analysis shows that science-based and other objections discussed 
in this Section III and the accompanying support document are not of 
central relevance to the Administrator's decision on endangerment and 
thus reconsideration is properly denied.
    An objection is of central relevance if it provides substantial 
support for the argument that the underlying decision should be 
revised. As shown above, none of the petitioners' arguments related to 
climate science and data issues, issues raised by EPA's use of IPCC 
AR4, and process issues provide substantial support for the argument 
that the Administrator's Endangerment Finding should be revised. The 
petitioners' arguments and evidence are inadequate, generally 
unscientific, and do not show that the underlying science supporting 
the Endangerment Finding is flawed, misinterpreted by EPA, or 
inappropriately applied by EPA. Importantly, petitioners' claims and 
the information they submit do not change or undermine our 
understanding of how human emissions of greenhouse gases cause climate 
change and how human-induced climate change generates risks and impacts 
to public health and welfare. The information provided by petitioners 
does not change any of the scientific conclusions that underlie the 
Administrator's Findings, nor do the petitions lower the degrees of

[[Page 49584]]

confidence associated with each of these major scientific conclusions.
    A petition for reconsideration cannot merely cite to new 
information and claim that is sufficient to require initiating a 
reconsideration process, attendant with the same procedures as the 
original decision. Mere allegations that information is of central 
relevance will not suffice. New information, even new information 
related to an agency decision, does not by itself warrant undermining 
the finality of agency decision making. To justify reconsideration a 
petitioner must show why the new information demonstrates that the 
agency's decision should be changed.
    Petitioners fail to do this. The core defect in petitioners' 
arguments is that these arguments are not based on consideration of the 
body of scientific evidence. Petitioners fail to address the breadth 
and depth of the scientific evidence and instead rely on an assumption 
of inaccuracy in the science that they extend even to the body of 
science that is not directly addressed by information they provide or 
by arguments they make. Petitioners routinely take private e-mail 
communications out of context and assert they are ``smoking gun'' 
evidence of wrongdoing and scientific manipulation of data. In 
contrast, EPA's careful examination of the e-mails and their full 
context shows that the petitioners' claims are exaggerated and are not 
a material or reliable basis to question the validity and credibility 
of the body of science underlying the Administrator's Endangerment 
Finding or the Administrator's decision process articulated in the 
Findings themselves. Petitioners' assumptions and subjective assertions 
regarding what the e-mails purport to show about the state of climate 
change science are woefully inadequate pieces of evidence to challenge 
the voluminous and well documented body of science that is the 
technical foundation of the Administrator's Endangerment Finding.
    Petitioners' objections that a limited number of factual mistakes 
now identified in the IPCC AR4, as well as other claimed mistakes, call 
into question the climate science supporting the Administrator's 
Endangerment Finding, are similarly flawed. The two factual mistakes in 
IPCC AR4 confirmed by EPA's review are tangential and minor and do not 
change the key IPCC AR4 conclusions that are central to the 
Administrator's Endangerment Finding.
    Finally, as shown above, regarding objections based on allegedly 
new scientific studies and data, EPA's review of these claims shows 
that in many cases the issues raised by the petitioners are not new, 
but were in fact considered prior to issuing the Endangerment Finding. 
In other cases, the petitioners have misinterpreted or misrepresented 
the meaning and significance of recent scientific literature, findings, 
and data. Finally, there are instances where the petitioners have 
failed to acknowledge other new studies in making their arguments. 
Thus, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that their objections 
related to climate science and data issues, issues raised by EPA's use 
of IPCC AR4, and process issues provide substantial support for the 
argument that the Administrator's decision on endangerment should be 
revised.
    Moreover, regarding many of their objections, petitioners also fail 
to demonstrate that it was impracticable to raise the objections during 
the public comment period or that the grounds for raising such 
objections arose after the close of the comment period (but within the 
time specified for judicial review). In many but not all cases EPA has 
identified instances where petitioners fail to base an objection on 
such new information. Given the volume of individualized comments and 
objections, EPA is identifying some of the types of situations where 
the objection, or grounds for the objection, raised by a petitioner 
does not satisfy this requirement for reconsideration. Several types of 
objections are premised on studies and other information that were 
available before the close of the comment period. In some cases 
petitioners basically repeat or raise the same arguments that were 
raised and responded to in the rulemaking. In other cases, petitioners 
raise allegedly new grounds, such as CRU e-mails, that they claim 
should cause EPA to reconsider a prior comment, or that justifies 
petitioners' raising a new issue for the first time in the 
reconsideration petition. But as explained above and throughout this 
Denial and supporting documents, the allegedly new information is not 
of central relevance, and therefore, EPA essentially is left with 
arguments that either were made previously during the comment period, 
or could have been raised during the comment period. Thus, many of the 
petitioners' objections not only are not of central relevance, but they 
also fail to meet the temporal requirement for a petition for 
reconsideration.

IV. Other Issues

    In this section, EPA responds to various objections to the 
Endangerment Finding based on concerns raised with respect to the 
impact of stationary source permitting requirements, the relationship 
of the Findings to NHTSA's recent CAFE rule, the effects of the 
Findings and subsequent rulemakings on states and businesses, the need 
for a Formal Rulemaking Process, and EPA's justification for its 
exercise of discretion in making the Endangerment Finding.

A. The Tailoring Rule/Impacts of PSD and Title V Permitting Are Not of 
Central Relevance to the Findings

    Several petitioners raise objections based on EPA's proposed rule 
to tailor the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V 
permit programs for greenhouse gases. Proposed Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 
Rule, 74 FR 55292 (Oct. 27, 2009) (Proposed Tailoring Rule).\46\ 
Specifically, petitioners argue that EPA's statements in the Proposed 
Tailoring Rule demonstrate that the Findings are contrary to law and/or 
arbitrary and capricious. Because the Proposed Tailoring Rule was 
issued after the close of the comment period, but before the period for 
judicial review ran, petitioners argue that it presents reasons for EPA 
to reconsider the Findings in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The Final Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule was signed on May 13, 2010, 
and published June 3, 2010. 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners argue that the Proposed Tailoring Rule is of central 
relevance to the Findings because it involves the PSD and title V 
permitting requirements that flow as an inevitable result of the 
Findings, and the impacts of such permitting are relevant to the 
Findings. e.g., SLF 5th Supp. at 15; Ohio Coal Assn. at 4. They point 
to the fact that the Tailoring Rule was proposed, and comments thereon 
were received, after the close of the comment period for the Findings, 
and request that EPA grant reconsideration and re-open the Findings 
docket ``to allow the public to comment on the implications of the 
Tailoring Rule[sic] to the form and content of the Endangerment 
Finding,'' SLF 5th Supp. at 15, and to ``further explore the extent to 
which implementation of the Endangerment Finding is practically 
impossible * * * since impossibility calls into question all 
justification for the Endangerment Finding.'' Ohio Coal Assn. at 4.
    At least one petitioner points to the alleged implementation 
problems identified in the Proposed Tailoring Rule and comments 
received thereon as a basis for reconsidering the appropriateness of 
the Findings. Ohio Coal Assn. at 6-9. The petitioner argues

[[Page 49585]]

that despite statements in the final Findings that EPA did not 
consider, and indeed could not have considered, policy concerns about 
the repercussions of impact of the finding when making the endangerment 
finding, EPA did ``give credence and expression'' and ``did in fact 
consider the widespread and economically crippling'' PSD permitting 
implementation issues. Ohio Coal Supp. at 15, 18. Therefore, the 
petitioner continues, new information about EPA's ability to tailor the 
PSD program justifies granting reconsideration. Specifically, the 
petitioner cites to comments filed by state permitting authorities that 
they allege call into question the approach EPA proposed in the 
Tailoring Rule to address the negative impacts that EPA acknowledges 
``would inexorably flow from the Endangerment Finding--that is, 
triggering the PSD and Title V permitting requirements at the low 
applicability levels provided under the Clean Air Act.'' Ohio Coal 
Supp. at 16-18. They claim that statements made by state permitting 
agencies about the ability of the proposal to address state law 
concerns, and the remaining burden even at the higher thresholds all 
undermine EPA's claim that it can fashion a reasonable and common-sense 
solution to the perceived problem. Thus, petitioners conclude, the 
``most viable and sensible option'' would be instead for EPA to 
withdraw the Findings until the impacts of the PSD and title V 
permitting programs can be fully assessed and resolved. Ohio Coal Assn. 
at 8; Ohio Coal Supp. at 22.
    Another petitioner provides slightly different reasons for claiming 
the Proposed Tailoring Rule necessitates granting reconsideration and 
re-opening the Findings for comment.\47\ This petitioner argues that 
the Proposed Tailoring Rule reflects an acknowledgement by EPA that 
regulating GHG under the CAA is absurd. Chamber at 3. The petitioner 
also argues that new information demonstrates that some of the public 
health and welfare effects from stationary source emission reductions 
that EPA expected when issuing the Findings will be legally 
unavailable. Id. at 9-10. The petitioner alleges that EPA recognized 
the ``ill-fit'' between pollutants like greenhouse gases, which become 
well-mixed in the atmosphere and cause global problems, and the 
existing structure of the CAA. The petitioner further claims that it 
was because of this ill-fit that EPA crafted the Tailoring Rule in 
order to avoid the absurd result of trying to regulate GHGs under part 
of the CAA. Petitioner's suggested solution is for EPA to reconsider 
the Findings in light of EPA's recognition that regulation of GHGs 
under the CAA is ``absurd.'' In so doing, the petitioner reiterates 
comments it, and others, submitted during the public comment period 
arguing that EPA retains discretion under Massachusetts to consider, 
among other things, the impacts of an endangerment finding when 
deciding whether to issue an endangerment findings. Chamber at 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ This petitioner also stated in its petition that if EPA had 
neither ``granted the petition nor contacted the [petitioner] to 
establish a mutually agreeable schedule for reconsideration by April 
14, 2010, such inaction will be deemed a denial of the petition.'' 
Chamber at 1. No EPA action, or inaction, other than this Decision 
and supporting material constitutes a denial of the petitions. See, 
e.g., Final LDVR, 75 FR at 25402; EPA's Combined Opposition to 
Remand (filed April 29, 2010 in DC Cir. No. 09-1322).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the petitioners argue that the Supreme Court 
decision did not address the issue of whether GHGs could be regulated 
under the CAA consistent with Congress' intent and without triggering 
absurd results. Chamber at 11. Rather, they contend, the Supreme Court 
decision was about the narrow issue of whether GHGs were air pollutants 
under CAA section 202(a). Chamber at 11. Some petitioners argue that 
EPA should have informed the Supreme Court of the impact of a positive 
endangerment finding under CAA section 202(a) on stationary source 
permitting, and the fact that it may require EPA to resort to the 
absurdity doctrine; if EPA had, they continue, the Court may have 
issued a different opinion. CEI Supp. at 4-5. Another petitioner argues 
that the Supreme Court left open the option of EPA declining to make an 
endangerment finding, and that in making its decision EPA must adhere 
to the customary mode of statutory interpretation in Chevron v. NRDC, 
467 U.S. 837 (1984), considering all relevant statutory language, 
legislative history and absurd results that may apply when regulating 
GHGs under the CAA. Chamber at 12.
    Based on this alleged premise, the petition then turns to EPA's 
statements in the Proposed Tailoring Rule concerning the potential 
absurd results that could result from applying the statutory permitting 
thresholds of 100 and 250 tons per year (tpy) to GHGs, and the 
additional administrative impossibility that would result from applying 
these statutory thresholds immediately when GHGs are regulated under 
CAA section 202(a). Petitioner submits additional evidence it alleges 
demonstrates the absurdity of regulating GHGs from stationary sources: 
(1) The PSD program is designed to address pollutants with localized 
impacts in specific geographic areas (e.g., the NAAQS), and not global 
pollutants like GHGs; (2) the statutory thresholds would require 
burdensome, expensive, individualized emissions controls at hundreds of 
thousands of small emissions sources, contrary to Congressional intent; 
and (3) the application of permitting to GHGs would jeopardize economic 
growth, which would be particularly absurd in the current economic 
situation. Chamber at 15-17.
    Thus, according to this and other petitioners, EPA must reconsider 
the Findings in light of the absurd results that would result from GHGs 
being regulated pollutants under the PSD and title V permitting 
programs. See, e.g., Chamber at 18; CEI Supp. at 5. Specifically, 
petitioners argue that the absurdity doctrine demands that EPA consider 
whether regulating GHGs under the CAA as a whole is absurd or not, but 
that EPA completely ignored this possibility when developing the 
Findings. Rather than relying on the absurd results doctrine to merely 
``tailor'' the PSD and title V permitting programs, petitioners argue 
that EPA should rely on it to avoid creating the permitting program 
dilemma in the first place, or at the very least take comment on that 
option. Chamber at 18-19; CEI Supp. at 5. At least one petitioner 
contends that case law regarding the absurd results doctrine requires 
adopting the narrowest, most restrictive interpretation of the statute, 
and that there may be an interpretation that authorizes EPA to avoid 
making the endangerment finding in the first place, not one that merely 
addresses the PSD and title V statutory thresholds (e.g., by 
interpreting ``emissions'' or ``major emitting facility'' narrowly). 
Chamber at 18-19. Petitioners argue that given EPA's failure to 
consider this alternative, coupled with the alleged acknowledgement 
that the CAA motor vehicle rules are not necessary to achieve public 
health and welfare advantages in light of the NHTSA CAFE rule (see 
below), EPA must reconsider the Findings. See, e.g., Chamber at 23.
    Finally, other petitioners argue that the Proposed Tailoring Rule 
itself is illegal, pointing to numerous industry comments filed on the 
proposal. They contend that since the Tailoring Rule is illegal, it is 
``a patently unconstitutional attempt by the Executive Branch to 
unilaterally amend a statute.'' SLF 5th Supp. at 16. In summary, they 
conclude that since EPA cannot regulate GHGs under the CAA without 
ignoring part of the statute, it cannot regulate GHGs in a manner 
consistent with the CAA and

[[Page 49586]]

any attempt to do so is beyond EPA's legal authority, arbitrary and 
capricious, and an abuse of discretion. Id. at 17-19. The petitioners 
also contend that EPA's Endangerment Finding is arbitrary and 
capricious and an abuse of discretion because, they allege, it is 
climatically pointless as well. They state that rather than undertake a 
course of illegal action, especially one that they allege does not have 
any detectable effect, EPA should start over and reconsider the 
Findings. Id.
    EPA is denying the petitions for reconsideration that raise 
objections based on the Proposed Tailoring Rule because these 
objections are not of central relevance to the outcome of the final 
Findings and/or could have been raised during the public comment 
period.
    These objections are not of central relevance to the Findings for 
three primary reasons discussed in more detail below. First, as EPA 
noted in the Findings, the impact of regulations that may flow from a 
positive endangerment finding, even if absurd, is not a relevant 
consideration to the science based question of whether air pollution 
may reasonably be anticipated to endangerment public health or welfare. 
See, 74 FR at 66501, 66515-16; RTC volume 11 at 4-5. Thus, EPA 
disagrees with a fundamental basis for petitioners' objections based on 
the Proposed Tailoring Rule--i.e., that EPA could or must decline to 
issue an endangerment finding under CAA section 202(a), regardless of 
the scientific evidence relevant to determining endangerment, based on 
concerns with implementing stationary source permitting. Second, even 
if the absurd results doctrine could influence EPA's interpretation of 
CAA section 202(a) after the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts, 
EPA's approach to resolving the absurdity is reasonable because it 
focuses narrowly on that part of the CAA where the absurdity originates 
while giving effect to other statutory provisions, in order to balance 
the goal of improving public health and the environment with the goal 
of avoiding absurd results. Third, EPA disagrees with the petitioners 
who argue that because EPA is relying on the absurd results doctrine as 
a result of the Findings, the Findings themselves must therefore be 
illegal. Reliance on a doctrine of administrative law when interpreting 
a statute is not an indication of the illegality of agency action; 
indeed, it shows just the opposite. By applying, inter alia, the 
doctrines of absurd results and administrative necessity, EPA has been 
able to issue effective regulations addressing greenhouse gases while 
avoiding the absurd results that could arise from immediately applying 
the statutory thresholds for PSD and title V to greenhouse gases. Thus, 
petitioners' objections do not provide substantial support for the 
argument that the final Findings should be revised.
    More specifically, EPA stated the following in the Findings in 
response to comments urging EPA to delay making an endangerment finding 
based on, among other things, concerns about the impact of the PSD 
program:

    ``EPA agrees with the commenters who argue that the Supreme 
Court decision held that EPA is limited to consideration of science 
when undertaking an endangerment finding, and that EPA cannot delay 
issuing a finding due to policy concerns if the science is 
sufficiently certain (as it is here). The Supreme Court stated that 
``EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that 
greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it 
provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not 
exercise its discretion to determine whether they do'' 549 U.S. at 
533. Some commenters point to this last provision, arguing that the 
policy reasons they provide are a ``reasonable explanation'' for not 
moving forward at this time. However, this ignores other language in 
the decision that clearly indicates that the Court interprets the 
statute to allow for the consideration only of science. For example, 
in rejecting the policy concerns expressed by EPA in its 2003 denial 
of the rulemaking petition, the Court noted that ``it is evident 
[the policy considerations] have nothing to do with whether 
greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do 
they amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a 
scientific judgment. Id. at 533-34 (emphasis added).

    Moreover, the Court also held that ``[t]he statutory question is 
whether sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding'' 
Id. at 534. Taken as a whole, the Supreme Court's decision clearly 
indicates that policy reasons do not justify the Administrator avoiding 
taking further action on the question here'' (74 FR 66501, December 15, 
2009).
    Furthermore, EPA noted the following when responding to comments 
arguing that EPA should consider the impact of regulating GHGs when 
determining whether they endanger public health and welfare:

    ``At their core, these comments are not about whether commenters 
believe greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 
public health or welfare, but rather about commenters' 
dissatisfaction with the decisions that Congress made regarding the 
response to any endangerment finding that EPA makes under CAA 
section 202(a). * * *
    What these comments object to is that Congress has already made 
some decisions about next steps after a finding of endangerment, and 
the commenters are displeased with the results. But if this is the 
case, commenters should take up their concerns with Congress, not 
EPA. EPA's charge is to issue new motor vehicle standards under CAA 
section 202(a) applicable to emissions of air pollutants that cause 
or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated 
to endanger public health or welfare. It is not to find that there 
is no endangerment in order to avoid issuing those standards, and 
dealing with any additional regulatory impact.
    Indeed, commenters' argument would insert policy considerations 
into the endangerment decision, an approach already rejected by the 
Supreme Court. First, as discussed in Section I.B of these Findings, 
in Massachusetts v. EPA, the court clearly indicated that the 
Administrator's decision must be a ``scientific judgment.'' 549 U.S. 
at 534. She must base her decision about endangerment on the 
science, and not on policy considerations about the repercussions or 
impact of such a finding''

74 FR at 66515; December 15, 2009).

    Thus, petitioners are wrong in their claim that either EPA 
statements in the Proposed Tailoring Rule, or comments received 
thereon, regarding potential implementation difficulties in the PSD or 
title V permitting programs are legally relevant at all, let alone of 
central relevance, to EPA's Endangerment Findings.\48\ The agency's 
statements in the Findings that it ``does not believe that the impact 
of regulation under the CAA as a whole * * * will lead to the panoply 
of adverse consequences that commenters predict,'' and that ``EPA has 
and will continue to take a measured approach to address greenhouse gas 
emissions'' do not mean that EPA gave ``credence and expression to one 
key negative impact'' as one petitioner alleges. Ohio Coal Supp. at 15. 
These statements, which immediately follow EPA's explanation of how the 
Administrator must look at the science and not policy consideration, 
are merely EPA's response to the dire predictions submitted by 
commenters. EPA did not and could not consider such impacts in making 
its science based judgment on endangerment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ We note that EPA has addressed the concerns about the 
approach set forth in the Proposed Tailoring Rule raised by state 
permitting authorities. In response to the very comments raised by 
petitioners here, as well as other comments, EPA revised its 
approach for implementing its tailoring rule approach to allow for 
faster state adoption of the solution. Final Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 
Rule 75 FR at 31518, 31579-84 (June 3, 2010) (Final Tailoring Rule). 
Moreover, EPA also finalized applicability thresholds that are 
higher than those proposed, and otherwise refined the phase-in of 
permitting for GHGs to better accommodate the workload. Id. at 
31523-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA further disagrees with the arguments that it must grant

[[Page 49587]]

reconsideration and reopen the Findings because since the close of the 
comment period EPA has recognized that the Findings would lead to the 
LDVR, which triggers the PSD and title V requirements, which in turn 
would give rise to ``absurd results'' in the permitting provisions 
applicable to some stationary sources. The fact that the impacts from 
PSD and title V permitting may be absurd does not mean that EPA can 
reinterpret section 202(a) to allow the consideration of those absurd 
results, and then find no endangerment or avoid making a determination 
on endangerment.
    What petitioners fail to analyze is how, given the overwhelming 
science supporting the endangerment finding (see above), EPA could 
decline to issue the Findings because of policy/implementation concerns 
unrelated to the science and unrelated to the question of whether there 
is endangerment, and not violate the Supreme Court's decision in 
Massachusetts v. EPA. As discussed above, EPA disagrees with 
petitioners who argue that ``Massachusetts requires EPA to carefully 
consider [the absurdity doctrine] implications for the Agency's overall 
statutory interpretation.'' Chamber at 13. The Supreme Court was clear 
that GHG fit within the definition of ``air pollutant'' under the CAA, 
and that when considering the question of endangerment the 
Administrator may consider only the science. EPA ``must ground its 
reasons for action or inaction in the statute,'' and the statutory 
endangerment provision in section 202(a) required that EPA's ``exercise 
of judgment must relate to whether an air pollutant `cause[s], or 
contribute[s] to, endangerment.'' This was a ``direction to exercise 
discretion within defined statutory limits,'' and the Court explicitly 
rejected EPA's authority to exercise its judgment for policy reasons 
not related to ``compl[iance] with this clear statutory command.'' 
Massachusetts at 532-533. Petitioners would have us ignore the clear 
mandate of the Court's decision on the premise that if the case had 
been argued differently, the Court would have rendered a different 
opinion. EPA reasonably followed the instructions from the Supreme 
Court as provided in Massachusetts.
    Even if EPA had the authority and could reconsider its statutory 
authority under CAA section 202(a) in light of the absurdity doctrine, 
rather than follow petitioners' implied approach, EPA would follow the 
approach set out in the Final Tailoring Rule--a narrow solution that 
focuses on that part of the CAA where the absurdity originates. EPA's 
approach balances the goal of improving public health and the 
environment by tackling air pollution problems with the goal of 
avoiding absurd results.\49\ Petitioners would apply the absurd results 
doctrine too broadly, undertaking a sweeping approach that negates any 
and all regulation of GHGs under the CAA in order to avoid problems 
that have arisen in specific programs. EPA's targeted use of the absurd 
results doctrine in the Tailoring Rule is the better approach to 
reconciling all its obligations under the CAA. EPA has interpreted the 
statute as a whole, and interpreted it in a manner that does not allow 
difficulties in one program to nullify the various other Congressional 
provisions that may be relevant to climate change under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ In response to objections which are based in part on 
allegations that EPA must reconsider its final decision because new 
evidence allegedly shows that the LDVR will not get meaningful 
reductions, EPA has already stated in the final Findings that it 
does not need to find that any attendant regulations flowing from an 
endangerment finding would ``fruitfully attack'' or prevent at least 
a substantial part of the danger in order to find endangerment. 74 
FR at 66507-08.
    Moreover, contrary to one petitioner's implied allegation, EPA 
did not consider the benefits resulting from stationary source 
emissions reductions when issuing the Findings, and the petitioner 
did not point to any evidence that EPA did base the Findings on such 
considerations. Finally, to the extent petitioners are arguing that 
EPA should reevaluate its approach to absurd results because there 
is little environment or public health benefit from the LDVR which 
followed the Findings, EPA disagrees. See Section IV.B responding to 
comments regarding NHTSA rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying the Chevron two step test, EPA must, at Step 1, determine 
Congressional intent. Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 
Under the absurd results doctrine ``the literal meaning of statutory 
requirements should not be considered to indicate Congressional intent 
if that literal meaning would produce a result that is senseless or 
that is otherwise inconsistent with--and especially one that 
undermines--underlying congressional purpose.'' Final Tailoring Rule, 
75 FR at 31517. Looking at section 202(a) of the CAA, congressional 
intent appears clear, under Chevron Step 1, that Congress intended the 
Administrator to regulate emissions of air pollutants from new motor 
vehicles if the Administrator found that such emissions cause or 
contribute to air pollution which endangered public health or welfare. 
The Supreme Court stated that ``[i]f EPA makes a finding of 
endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate 
emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.'' 
Massachusetts at 533. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that when 
making the endangerment finding the Administrator must look only at the 
science. There are no absurd results in the specific actions under 
section 202(a) of either issuing an endangerment finding itself or in 
issuing standards applicable to GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. 
The absurd results stem from the contents of other statutory 
provisions, the PSD and Title V provisions discussed in the Tailoring 
Rule, not section 202(a). Even for those provisions, in the Final 
Tailoring Rule EPA specifically determined that the PSD and title V 
provisions indicate a clear congressional intent to cover at least the 
largest sources of GHGs under these programs. Id. at 31517. Taking all 
of these facts together, EPA's approach to utilization of the absurdity 
doctrine gives the greatest effect to the various provisions of the CAA 
and the overall congressional intent under the CAA, by minimizing the 
scope of limitation on statutory provisions in the application of the 
absurd results doctrine.
    As EPA discussed in the Tailoring Rule:

    ``[i]n determining and implementing congressional intent, it is 
important that the statutory provisions at issue be considered 
together--(1) The obligation to make a determination on endangerment 
and contribution under CAA section 202(a); (2) if affirmative 
endangerment/cause or contribute findings are made, the obligation 
to promulgate standards applicable to the emissions of any such air 
pollutant from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines under 
CAA section 202(a); and (3) the PSD and title V applicability 
provisions. The most appropriate reading, and certainly a reasonable 
reading, is that we are required to take the action we have taken, 
that is to issue the findings, promulgate the LDVR, and promulgate 
the Tailoring Rule. Our approach gives effect to as much of 
Congress's intent for each of these provisions, and the CAA as 
whole, as possible.
    With respect to the endangerment/cause or contribute findings 
under CAA section 202(a), congressional intent is clear that, as we 
stated in making the Findings and the Supreme Court held in 
Massachusetts v. EPA, we are precluded from considering factors 
other than the science based factors relevant to determining the 
health and welfare effects of the air pollution in question. 
Accordingly, as discussed above, EPA determined that the Agency was 
precluded from deferring or foregoing the findings due to concern 
over impacts on stationary sources affected by PSD or title V 
requirements. See 74 FR at 66496, 66500-01 (``Taken as a whole, the 
Supreme Court's decision clearly indicates that policy reasons do 
not justify the Administrator avoiding taking further action on the 
questions here.''); see also Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 533; 
see also (74 FR 66515-16, December 9, 2009) (The Administrator 
``must base her decision about endangerment on the science,

[[Page 49588]]

and not on the policy considerations about the repercussions or 
impact of such a finding.''). Moreover, as EPA also noted, ``EPA has 
the ability to fashion a reasonable and common-sense approach to 
address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. 74 FR at 
66516.'' (75 FR 31574, June 3, 2010)(footnote omitted).\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ This reasonable and common-sense approach includes the kind 
of step by step approach that includes regulation of GHG emissions 
from new motor vehicles, as described by Justice Stevens in 
Massachusetts, when discussing the issue of standing. Id. at 524.

    The petitioners merely continue to disagree with EPA's 
interpretation of the Supreme Court decision and question EPA's ability 
to address permitting concerns, rather than provide anything new in 
their petitions on this topic.
    To the extent the petitioners are requesting that EPA reconsider 
and defer or forego issuance of the Findings to avoid causing an absurd 
result from implementation of the separate PSD and title V programs 
until such time as EPA could fully implement these programs without an 
absurd result, underlying this claim is the assumption that this 
approach would allow EPA to avoid the ``absurd results'' that are 
discussed in the Tailoring Rule, which states:

    ``* * * there is no basis at this point to determine that 
streamlining will ultimately allow full compliance with the PSD and 
title V requirements. Rather, it is possible that EPA may conclude 
that none of the available streamlining techniques will allow all 
GHG sources at the statutory thresholds to comply with PSD and title 
V requirements in a manner that does not impose undue costs on the 
sources or undue administrative burdens on the permitting 
authorities. Under these circumstances, EPA may then permanently 
exclude GHG source categories from PSD or title V applicability 
under the absurd results doctrine. Moreover, it may well take many 
years before EPA is in a position to come to a conclusion about the 
extent to which streamlining will be effective and therefore be able 
to come to a conclusion as to whether any source categories should 
be permanently excluded from PSD or title V applicability. In our 
rulemaking today, we describe what actions we expect to take in the 
first 6 years after PSD and title V are triggered for GHG sources, 
and we may well be in a situation in which we continue to evaluate 
streamlining measures and PSD and title V applicability to GHG 
sources after this 6-year period.
    Accordingly, deferring the endangerment/cause or contribute 
findings and LDVR until such time that PSD and title V streamlining 
would allow full implementation of these programs at the statutory 
limits would serve only to delay the benefits of the LDVR, as well 
as the benefits that come from phasing in implementation of the PSD 
program to cover larger sources first. It would rely on an 
assumption that is unfounded at this point, that is, that such full 
compliance will be required at some point in the future. Delaying 
the emissions benefits of the LDVR and the related emissions 
benefits from partial implementation of the PSD program fails to 
implement Congress' intent that the endangerment/cause or contribute 
findings ``shall'' lead to emissions standards for new motor 
vehicles contributing to the endangerment, and related emissions 
controls for the same air pollutant under the PSD program. EPA need 
not determine at this time what approach would be appropriate if 
there was a determination that full compliance with PSD and title V 
would in fact occur at some point in the future. In this case, 
absent such a determination, it would be improper to rely on 
speculation of such a future possibility as a basis under section 
202(a) to defer or forego issuance of the LDVR on the grounds that 
EPA should defer or forego the LDVR to avoid causing an absurd 
result. Likewise there is no basis to defer proceeding at this time 
with the streamlining of the PSD and title V programs.
    With respect to the PSD and title V applicability requirements, 
as we discuss elsewhere, we believe that Congress expressed a clear 
intent to apply PSD and title V to GHG sources and that the phase-in 
approach incorporated in the Tailoring Rule is fully appropriate. 
Proceeding now with the endangerment/contribution findings and LDVR, 
even if phasing-in of the PSD and title V programs is required, is 
consistent with our interpretation of the PSD and title V 
applicability requirements. Delaying the endangerment/contribution 
findings or LDVR, and thereby delaying the triggering of PSD and 
title V requirements for GHG sources, would lead to the loss of a 
practicable opportunity to implement the PSD and title V 
requirements in important part, and thereby lead to the loss of 
important benefits. As discussed elsewhere, promulgating the LDVR 
and applying the PSD and title V requirements to the largest GHG 
sources, as we do in this Tailoring Rule, is practicable because the 
sources that would be affected by the initial implementation steps 
we promulgate in this rule are able to bear the costs and the 
permitting authorities are able to bear the associated 
administrative burdens. Promulgating the LDVR now provides important 
advantages because the sources that would be affected by the initial 
steps are responsible for most of the GHG emissions from stationary 
sources.
    It should also be noted that as discussed elsewhere in this 
rulemaking, our ability to develop appropriate streamlining 
techniques for PSD and title V requirements is best done within the 
context of actual implementation of the permitting programs, and not 
in isolation of them. That is, because the great majority of GHG 
sources have not been subject to PSD and title V requirements, we 
will need to rely on the early experience in implementing the 
permitting requirements for the very large sources that initially 
will be subject to those requirements in order to develop 
streamlining techniques for smaller sources. It is the real world 
experience gained from this initial phase that will allow EPA to 
develop any further modifications that might be necessary. This 
would not and could not occur if the LDVR were delayed indefinitely 
or permanently, so that PSD and title V requirements were not 
triggered. It is unrealistic to expect that delaying action until a 
future tailoring rule could resolve all of the problems identified 
in this rulemaking, absent any real world implementation experience.
    At its core, commenters' argument is that EPA should delay (if 
not forego altogether) doing anything to address GHG emissions and 
the problems they cause until it can do so in a way that does not 
cause any implementation challenges, even if that delay results in 
continued endangerment to public health and welfare. EPA does not 
take such a myopic view of its duties and responsibilities under the 
CAA. Congress wrote the CAA to, among other things, promote the 
public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the 
population. CAA Sec.  101(b)(1). EPA's path forward does just this. 
Thus, proceeding with the endangerment/cause or contribute findings, 
the LDVR, and with PSD and title V through the phase-in approach of 
the Tailoring Rule maximizes the ability of EPA to achieve the 
Congressional goals underlying CAA sections 202(a) and the PSD and 
title V provisions, and the overarching CAA goal of protecting 
public health and welfare. Congress called for EPA (1) to determine 
whether emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to air 
pollution that endangers, (2) if that the determination is 
affirmative, to issue emissions standards for new motor vehicles to 
address the endangerment, and (3) to implement the PSD and Title V 
program to address similar emissions in their permitting program as 
another tool to address the air pollutant at issue. Delaying both 
the LDVR and PSD/title V implementation, as commenters have called 
for, would run directly counter to these Congressional expectations. 
Commenters' calls for deferral or foregoing of the findings or LDVR 
are generally phrased in a conclusory fashion, and do not 
demonstrate how EPA could take the required CAA actions concerning 
GHGs while remaining within the requirements of each of the various 
CAA provisions, and achieving the overall goals of the CAA. As such 
the comments do not provide a valid basis for the deferral of agency 
action they suggest.'' (75 FR 31575-56; June 3, 2010).

    As explained above, EPA is resolving the absurdity caused by the 
statutory thresholds in the PSD and title V permitting programs not by 
avoiding an endangerment finding or avoiding all regulation under the 
CAA, but rather by interpreting the statute in a way that gives effect 
to the greatest extent possible to both section 202(a) and the 
applicable permitting provisions. This gives the greatest effect 
possible to the congressional intent about addressing air pollutant 
problems that endanger public health and welfare, while also focusing 
the permitting programs, at least initially, on large stationary 
sources. EPA's targeted use of the absurd results doctrine in the 
Tailoring Rule is a reasonable approach to reconcile the various 
statutory obligations under the CAA at issue here.

[[Page 49589]]

    EPA also disagrees with petitioners who argue either implicitly or 
explicitly that EPA has admitted, through its invocation of the absurd 
results doctrine in the Proposed Tailoring Rule, that it cannot 
regulate GHGs under the CAA without violating the statute. While, in 
the Tailoring Rule, EPA has noted that applying the statutory 
thresholds in the PSD and title V programs to greenhouse gases 
immediately for all sources would present problems, and may indeed lead 
to absurd results even in the long run, EPA did not and does not take 
the position that all regulation of GHGs under the CAA leads to absurd 
results or is illegal. In fact, just the opposite is true. EPA has 
issued reasonable, effective GHG emissions standards for light duty 
vehicles, and has announced plans for further GHG emissions standards 
for later model year light-duty vehicles. EPA also plans to propose the 
same for heavy-duty motor vehicles. Moreover, by applying, inter alia, 
the doctrines of absurd results and administrative necessity, EPA has 
been able to avoid the absurd results that could arise from applying 
the statutory thresholds for PSD and title V to greenhouse gases.\51\ 
The concept behind the absurd results doctrine is that an agency can 
(if not must) ignore the literal meaning of a statute in order to 
effectuate congressional intent. That is exactly what EPA's approach 
does--ignore only the statutory thresholds for PSD and title V in order 
to effectuate congressional intent under the CAA as a whole. EPA's 
reliance on one or more doctrines of administrative law when 
interpreting the statute is not evidence of the illegality of EPA's 
actions; rather it is evidence of the reasonable approach EPA took to 
interpreting and implementing the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Contrary to one petitioner's argument, EPA did not craft 
the Tailoring Rule in response to the global nature of greenhouse 
gas concentrations and climate change. Rather, it is the much higher 
amounts at which greenhouse gases are emitted by stationary sources, 
compared to existing criteria and other regulated air pollutants, 
that necessitated EPA's reasonable approach to permitting. The 
absurdity that EPA was trying to avoid was permitting stationary 
sources much smaller than Congress intended when writing the 
permitting provisions of the CAA. The global nature of greenhouse 
gases and climate change was not the reason for the Tailoring Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA is also denying the petitions because, while the 
Tailoring Rule was proposed after the close of the comment period for 
the Findings, EPA discussed the impact of applying the PSD and title V 
statutory thresholds to GHGs, and the potential need to tailor those 
programs as appropriate, in the July 2008 ANPR. 73 FR 44354, 44497-514, 
44503 (``we have identified two legal doctrines that may provide EPA 
with discretion to tailor the PSD program to GHGs: Absurd results and 
administrative necessity.''), 44512 (discussing same legal theories in 
context of title V). Indeed, EPA received comments from some of the 
same entities that are petitioning for reconsideration now regarding 
the Agency's position about its ability to craft a reasonable approach 
to addressing GHGs under the CAA, including the CAA permitting 
programs. See, e.g., Comments submitted by Marlo Lewis for the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-2898.1). Thus, 
while EPA itself may have elaborated regarding the potential for absurd 
results from GHG permitting at the statutory thresholds in the Proposed 
Tailoring Rule, the issue was not raised for the first time in the 
Tailoring Rule; it had already been raised in the ANPR, and there was 
nothing preventing petitioners from commenting on the issue in their 
comments on the proposed Findings (as indeed some did). Commenters on 
the proposed Findings also argued that the Supreme Court was unaware of 
the impacts of the permitting programs when deciding Massachusetts. RTC 
Volume 11 at 5. Thus, objections based on the need to apply the absurd 
results doctrine to the PSD and title V programs, and on arguments 
related to how EPA defended its actions in Massachusetts, could have 
been (and indeed were) raised during the comment period on the Findings 
and are not appropriately raised in petitions for reconsideration.

B. NHTSA Rule

    The Chamber of Commerce raised objections based on the authority of 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for new motor vehicles. 
Specifically, the Chamber argued that the federal government must 
choose between two alternative regulatory approaches: Seeking to 
regulate GHG emissions using NHTSA's authority, under EPCA as revised 
by EISA or, alternatively, regulating such emissions on authority of 
Title II of the CAA. According to the Chamber, NHTSA has recently 
acknowledged it has adequate legal authority under EPCA and EISA to 
regulate greenhouse gas emissions, independent from EPA's authority 
under CAA section 202(a), therefore EPA must reconsider the 
Endangerment Finding because it cannot claim to generate the public 
health benefits from CAA mobile source GHG emissions reductions. The 
Chamber argues that according to EPA, the Endangerment Finding, 
standing alone, produces no current public health or welfare benefits 
but will instead produce such benefits in the future, but only if it 
effectively serves as a precondition for the regulation of GHG 
emissions from new motor vehicles or some other category of emission 
sources. Thus, the Chamber concludes, EPA has justified the 
Endangerment Finding as a means to the end of new motor vehicle 
regulation.
    The Chamber claims that this core rationale for EPA's Endangerment 
Finding and regulatory program can no longer bear scrutiny. It argues 
that if EPA affirmatively wishes to pursue an Endangerment Finding to 
regulate emissions from new motor vehicles, it must explain what it can 
add to a NHTSA-only rulemaking. According to the Chamber, EPA may not 
rely on a presumed need for motor vehicle regulations that could be 
accomplished through NHTSA regulations alone. (Chamber, 19-23)
    Petitioner claims that EPA issued and justified the Endangerment 
Finding based on the need for emissions reductions from EPA regulation 
of new motor vehicles, and the expectation that such EPA regulation 
would achieve the expected emissions reductions. That argument 
mischaracterizes EPA's position.
    Consistent with the statutory language, legislative history and 
Supreme Court case law, EPA determined whether atmospheric 
concentrations of greenhouse gases are reasonably anticipated to 
endanger public health or welfare, and based that determination on the 
scientific and other evidence relevant to the issues of endangerment. 
As EPA made clear, CAA section 202(a) limited the issues EPA could 
consider in making a determination concerning endangerment, and they 
did not include consideration of the degree of reductions that would 
reasonably be achieved by regulations to control emissions from new 
motor vehicles. EPA clearly stated that:

    ``As the Supreme Court made clear in Massachusetts v. EPA, EPA's 
judgment in making the endangerment and contribution findings is 
constrained by the statute, and EPA is to decide these issues based 
solely on the scientific and other evidence relevant to that 
decision. EPA may not ``rest[] on reasoning divorced from the 
statutory text,'' and instead EPA's exercise of judgment must relate 
to whether an air pollutant causes or contributes to air pollution 
that endangers. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 532. As the 
Supreme Court noted, EPA must ``exercise discretion within defined 
statutory limits.'' Id. at 533. EPA's belief one way or

[[Page 49590]]

the other regarding whether regulation of greenhouse gases from new 
motor vehicles would be ``effective'' is irrelevant in making the 
endangerment and contribution decisions before EPA. Id. Instead 
``[t]he statutory question is whether sufficient information exists 
to make an endangerment finding'' Id. at 534.
    The effectiveness of a potential future control strategy is not 
relevant to deciding whether air pollution levels in the atmosphere 
endanger. It is also not relevant to deciding whether emissions of 
greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles contribute to such air 
pollution. Commenters argue that Congress implicitly imposed a third 
requirement, that the future control strategy have a certain degree 
of effectiveness in reducing the endangerment before EPA could make 
the affirmative findings that would authorize such regulation. There 
is no statutory text that supports such an interpretation, and the 
Supreme Court makes it clear that EPA has no discretion to read this 
kind of additional factor into CAA section 202(a)'s endangerment and 
contribution criteria. In fact, the Supreme Court rejected similar 
arguments that EPA had the discretion to consider various other 
factors besides endangerment and contribution in deciding whether to 
deny a petition. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 532-35.'' (74 FR 
66496, 66507-8; December 15, 2009).

    This excerpt was in response to comments arguing that EPA should 
take into account the emissions impacts of EPA's then upcoming rule to 
control emissions of greenhouse gases from light-duty vehicles and 
trucks, and consider that the CAFE standards issued by NHTSA would 
effectively achieve the same reductions. Id. at 66501, 66507. Just as 
the effectiveness of future motor vehicle regulations was not relevant 
to determining endangerment, EPA made it clear that CAA section 202(a) 
did not allow EPA to consider issues such as future adaptation and 
mitigation, which reflected how society responded to the issue of 
endangerment, not whether endangerment existed. Id. at 66512-514.
    Thus, it is clear that EPA did not justify or base its Endangerment 
Finding on either the need for emissions reductions from EPA 
regulations of new motor vehicles, or the expectation that such an EPA 
regulation would achieve emissions reductions. EPA rejected suggestions 
during the rulemaking that EPA refrain from issuing and Endangerment 
Finding because NHTSA has the authority to issue CAFE standards that 
also reduce greenhouse gases, as discussed above. The Chamber is 
raising basically the same issue raised in the rulemaking, and has 
presented no reason that would support any different response. EPA is 
rejecting Chamber's request for the same reasons it rejected these same 
kinds of requests in the rulemaking.
    It is also clear that it was eminently practicable for the Chamber 
to raise this issue in the comment period. As described above, various 
commenters pointed to NHTSA's separate authority, and argued that NHTSA 
would effectively achieve the same reductions as EPA, undermining the 
basis for EPA's Endangerment Finding. Id. at 66507. Also see 66544, in 
the context of the Contribution Finding. The Chamber raises the same 
kind of objection here, and could have raised it during the comment 
period. While they point to a subsequent statement by NHTSA indicating 
that NHTSA's statutory authority is separate from EPA's, that is not 
new or different information concerning NHTSA's authority and does not 
change the nature of the Chamber's objection. Their failure to raise 
their objection in a timely manner is another reason to reject their 
request to reconsider on these grounds.
    As part of their argument, the Chamber claims that EPA must explain 
what it can add to a NHTSA-only rulemaking. This is one part of the 
argument raised above, and is rejected for the same reasons. As with 
the arguments discussed above, the Chamber could have raised this 
argument during the comment period, and the failure to do so is another 
reason to reject their request to reconsider on these grounds.
    In any case, EPA has explained in detail how the recently issued 
regulations under CAA section 202(a) to control emission of greenhouse 
gases from light-duty vehicles and trucks differ from NHTSA's CAFE 
program for the same vehicles, and why it was important for EPA to 
issue its rule. In the final rule issuing greenhouse gas emissions 
standards for new motor vehicles, EPA responded to comments that it 
should delay issuance of the motor vehicle standards until a later 
time, to avoid concerns over stationary source permitting impacts. EPA 
stated:

    ``[The Supreme Court in Massachusetts] stated that under section 
202(a), ``[i]f EPA makes [the endangerment and cause or contribute 
findings], the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate 
emissions of the deleterious pollutant.'' 549 U.S. at 534. As 
discussed above, EPA has made the two findings on contribution and 
endangerment. 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009). Thus, EPA is required 
to issue standards applicable to emissions of this air pollutant 
from new motor vehicles.
    The Court properly noted that EPA retained ``significant 
latitude'' as to the ``timing * * * and coordination of its 
regulations with those of other agencies'' (id.). However it has now 
been nearly three years since the Court issued its opinion, and the 
time for delay has passed. In the absence of these final standards, 
there would be three separate Federal and State regimes 
independently regulating light-duty vehicles to increase fuel 
economy and reduce GHG emissions: NHTSA's CAFE standards, EPA's GHG 
standards, and the GHG standards applicable in California and other 
states adopting the California standards. This joint EPA-NHTSA 
program will allow automakers to meet all of these requirements with 
a single national fleet because California has indicated that it 
will accept compliance with EPA's GHG standards as compliance with 
California's GHG standards. 74 FR at 49460. California has not 
indicated that it would accept NHTSA's CAFE standards by themselves. 
Without EPA's vehicle GHG standards, the states will not offer the 
Federal program as an alternative compliance option to automakers 
and the benefits of a harmonized national program will be lost. 
California and several other states have expressed strong concern 
that, without comparable Federal vehicle GHG standards, the states 
will not offer the Federal program as an alternative compliance 
option to automakers. Letter dated February 23, 2010 from 
Commissioners of California, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon and 
Washington to Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell (Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11400). The automobile industry also strongly 
supports issuance of these rules to allow implementation of the 
national program and avoid ``a myriad of problems for the auto 
industry in terms of product planning, vehicle distribution, adverse 
economic impacts and, most importantly, adverse consequences for 
their dealers and customers.'' Letter dated March 17, 2010 from 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers to Senators Harry Reid and 
Mitch McConnell, and Representatives Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner 
(Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11368). Thus, without EPA's GHG 
standards as part of a Federal harmonized program, important GHG 
reductions as well as benefits to the automakers and to consumers 
would be lost. In addition, delaying the rule would impose 
significant burdens and uncertainty on automakers, who are already 
well into planning for production of MY 2012 vehicles, relying on 
the ability to produce a single national fleet. Delaying the 
issuance of this final rule would very seriously disrupt the 
industry's plans'' (75 FR 25314, 25402; May 7, 2010).

    EPA also noted that the greenhouse gas standards issued by EPA 
achieved greater overall reductions in greenhouse gases than NHTSA's 
CAFE standards. Id at n.165, 25402; also see 25397, 25549-50. Thus, EPA 
has explained in full the reasons for refusing to delay issuance of 
EPA's motor vehicle emissions standards, and what EPA's rule adds to 
NHTSA's CAFE rule. As noted above, these issues are not relevant to the 
issues EPA considers in making a determination on endangerment under 
CAA section 202(a).

[[Page 49591]]

C. Other Issues

1. Effects of the Findings and Subsequent Rulemakings on States and 
Businesses
    Many of the petitioners provide detailed information regarding the 
impact that they allege would flow from the Findings; these discussions 
are in addition to arguments based on the Proposed Tailoring Rule (see 
Section IV.A of this Notice for the response to the arguments based on 
the Proposed Tailoring Rule). For example, the State of Texas, in 
addition to providing information regarding efforts the State has made 
to address GHGs, details harm it predicted could occur to the State 
through allegedly adverse impacts to its farming and ranching, mineral 
interest revenue stream, and oil and gas sector. Texas at 5-7, 32-34. 
The State also discusses what it describes as the ``fallout'' from the 
Findings. Id. at 34-38. More specifically, the State of Texas discusses 
resolutions and bills that have been introduced in the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the U.S. Senate, comments from the Small Business 
Administration's Office of Advocacy on the Proposed Tailoring Rule,\52\ 
and various inquiries into, or statements about, the CRU e-mails and 
IPCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The State of Texas stated that this letter was provided to 
the endangerment docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171), but it was actually 
submitted to the docket for the Proposed Tailoring Rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0571).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Virginia, while not providing any additional 
information regarding the alleged impacts of the Findings, states that 
``EPA's remote finding of endangerment to health and welfare fail to 
consider and properly weigh the offsetting harms to health and welfare 
necessarily flowing from economically destructive regulation.'' 
Virginia at 3.
    The petitioners' information regarding the impact to petitioners 
and others often follows sections of the petitions in which petitioners 
raise allegedly new concerns with the science underlying the Findings. 
The information regarding the impact from the Findings is most often 
provided in order to emphasize to EPA the necessity of reconsidering 
the Findings based on those earlier concerns.\53\ See, e.g., Texas at 
35 (``In light of these * * * concerns * * * the Administrator's 
improper handling of the scientific assessment process takes on an even 
greater meaning.''); Letter from WV Coal Assn. at 1 (``EPA's findings 
would have a grave impact on our industry and the thousands of West 
Virginians who depend on the production and use of our high quality 
coal everyday * * *. This makes it all the more important that EPA 
suspend its decision and reconsider it in light of these important new 
developments.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Petitioners also provide this information in the context of 
requesting an administrative stay of the Findings from EPA. See 
Section II for a discussion of EPA's denial of these stay requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The objections based either explicitly or implicitly on EPA's 
decision to not consider the impacts of greenhouse gas regulations when 
making the Findings could have been, and indeed were, raised during the 
public comment period on the Findings. Thus, they are not properly 
raised in CAA section 307(d) petition for reconsideration and are 
therefore denied.
    Moreover, as discussed elsewhere in this Decision and supporting 
material, this information is essentially irrelevant to the scientific 
based questions before EPA when making the endangerment and 
contribution findings. EPA already explained in the Findings how the 
potential impacts from the regulations that may follow an endangerment 
finding are not proper considerations when determining whether GHGs may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. See 
generally, 74 FR at 66515-16; see also id. at 66515 (The Administrator 
``must base her decision about endangerment on the science, and not on 
policy considerations about the repercussions or impact of such a 
finding.''); id. at 66516 (``Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret 
the endangerment test as not requiring the consideration of the impacts 
of implementing the statute in the event of an endangerment finding as 
part of the endangerment finding itself.'').
    Finally, as detailed elsewhere in this Decision and RTP document, 
the CRU e-mails and other scientific information provided by the 
petitioners do not call into question the underlying science, EPA's 
reliance on it, or the Administrator's final determination.
2. A Formal Rulemaking Process Is Not Required
    One petitioner discusses why EPA should not only reconsider the 
Findings, but also utilize the formal rulemaking process in the 
reconsideration proceedings. Peabody Energy at IX-9 to IX-18. 
Essentially, the petitioner believes that the questions raised by the 
CRU e-mails and errors in IPCC AR4 are so serious that EPA's 
responsibilities to address them can be discharged only through 
granting reconsideration, and undertaking a formal rulemaking process. 
More specifically, the petitioner states that ``[a]n on-the-record 
proceeding is necessary to rectify the substantial flaws in the process 
that EPA has employed, flaws that stem from the abuses infecting the 
studies on which the Endangerment Finding is principally based.'' 
Peabody Energy at IX-9.
    In support of its argument, petitioner first notes that while EPA 
may not be required by the CAA to undertake an on-the-record 
proceeding, nothing prohibits EPA from undertaking more process than is 
required by statute. Id. at IX-9 to IX-10. The petitioner then argues 
that case law and ``other authoritative guidance,'' specifically 
guidance from the Administrative Conference of the United States 
(ACUS), ``make clear than an evidentiary hearing'' on the petitions for 
reconsideration is warranted. Id. at IX-10. The petitioner contends 
that a formal evidentiary hearing will fix EPA's record, which they 
claim is ``wholly inadequate'' and cannot justify finding endangerment 
to public health.\54\ More specifically, they claim that a ``responsive 
thrust and parry'' about the science underlying the Administrator's 
decision, including ``secondary sources'' such as the IPCC, should 
occur and that the informal rulemaking proceeding EPA undertook does 
not allow for this. Peabody Energy at IX-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ EPA responds to the argument regarding the public health 
finding in section IV.B.I of the Findings and Volume 5 of the RTC 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments suggesting that EPA undertake a formal rulemaking process, 
not only could have been raised, but were raised, during the comment 
period for the Findings. 74 FR at 66504-05, 66510-12. Thus, they are 
not appropriately raised in petitions for reconsideration. Please see 
the above portions of the Findings, RTC Volume 1, and Section III of 
this Decision for further discussion on why EPA's denial of the request 
for formal hearing in the Findings, and the agency's continued reliance 
on the assessment reports, is reasonable.
    To the extent that the petitioners are re-raising these comments in 
light of the CRU e-mails and IPCC developments, and asking for EPA to 
reconsider its prior denial of the request for a formal rulemaking 
hearing, for the reasons explained elsewhere in this Decision and 
supporting materials, these materials do not necessitate EPA granting 
reconsideration, let alone initiating the exceedingly rare process of a 
formal, on-the-record rulemaking. When all is said and done, the CRU e-
mails and IPCC errors do not call into question the science supporting 
the Administrator's decision. They surely do not rise to the level of 
``extremely

[[Page 49592]]

compelling circumstances'' that petitioner argues would justify a court 
dictating that EPA undertake formal rulemaking procedures. Peabody 
Energy at IX-10.
    Petitioner argues that while EPA is not required by the CAA to 
follow a formal rulemaking process, EPA has the authority to convene 
such a hearing and nothing in the CAA should be read to ``limit EPA's 
discretion in deciding whether to do so.'' Peabody Energy at IX-9. n. 
494. The petition also notes that EPA is equipped to undertake such a 
hearing, citing the existing procedures for adjudications, 40 CFR 
22.3(a). While EPA may have the discretion to provide more process than 
the minimum required by CAA section 307(d), EPA notes that the petition 
does not discuss how a formal on-the-record hearing process would fit 
within the informal rulemaking proceedings mandated by the CAA. See 74 
FR at 66505 (noting that original request also did not discuss how a 
formal hearing would fit with CAA requirements). Nor does it discuss 
how the 40 CFR part 22 regulations, which are entitled ``Consolidated 
Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil 
Penalties and Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits'' and 
cover administrative adjudicatory proceedings for specifically 
delineated civil penalty or permit actions, would authorize the type of 
hearing petitioner suggests, or even how they would work assuming EPA 
chose to apply them as suggested by petitioner.
    The cases cited by petitioner stand for the unsurprising 
proposition that some circumstances justify more or different 
procedures than others. But they do not, as petitioner alleges, lead to 
the inevitable conclusion that the only reasonable recourse for EPA is 
to undertake a formal rulemaking process.\55\ Indeed, that would be a 
departure ``from the very basic tenet of administrative law that 
agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure.'' 
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 544 (1978). 
In Vermont Yankee the Supreme Court rejected an argument similar to 
that being made by petitioner here--that the issues before the agency 
were so complex and important that they necessitated more process, 
including cross-examination, even if such procedures were beyond the 
minimum required. Id. at 539-49. Also see Kennecott, 684 F.2d at 1020 
fn 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The extremely compelling circumstances found by courts in 
the cases cited by petitioners do not exist here. See People of the 
State of Illinois v. United States, 666 F.2d 1066, 1082-83 (7th Cir. 
1981) (court relied upon a combination of unique factors including 
that the Interstate Commerce Commission had allowed cross-
examination on some information in an adjudicatory proceeding, but 
not other similar information, and the cross-examination had been 
found to be ``critical to achieving an accurate determination of the 
facts.''); National Wildlife Federation v. Marsh, 721 F.2d 767, 
(11th Cir. 1983) (the court merely required the Army Corps of 
Engineers to follow its own longstanding internal procedures when 
issuing a permit). EPA also notes that two of the cases the 
petitioner cites for the proposition that ``cross examination is the 
most effective way to ascertain the truth,'' Peabody at IX-15, are 
criminal cases, therefore it is not surprising that cross-
examination was at issue. The third, discussed above, involved a 
decision in which the agency had already decided to allow cross-
examination. People, 666 at 1083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that petitioner argues that EPA's record is 
inadequate if it does not include the ``thrust and parry'' of a formal 
rulemaking hearing, with cross examination, EPA disagrees. Congress 
clearly indicated that the robust informal rulemaking procedures of CAA 
section 307(d) are appropriate for the myriad complex issues that EPA 
must address when issuing particular CAA rules. Nothing that 
petitioners have provided call into question EPA's decision to follow 
the clear direction provided in section 307(d).
    Indeed, the robust informal rulemaking requirements of section 
307(d) of the CAA ensure adequate and appropriate notice and comment 
for CAA decisions. See generally 74 FR 66500-05 (discussing the public 
involvement in development of the Findings, including EPA's careful 
review and response to more than 380,000 public comments). Moreover, 
the section 307(d) reconsideration process provides ample opportunity 
for petitioners, and any other interested party, to submit to EPA for 
consideration new information which they believe is of central 
relevance to the Administrator's final decision, and hence necessitates 
reconsideration of that decision. Other than continuing to disagree 
with EPA's denial of the original request for a formal rulemaking, and 
continuing to state its opinion that the science and regulatory impact 
from an endangerment finding demands more process, petitioner has not 
demonstrated why the clearly applicable procedures of section 307(d) 
are inadequate, let alone why only the rarely-used formal rulemaking 
process is the only reasonable path forward. Petitioners have submitted 
over 500 pages of reconsideration petitions, as well as attachments 
consisting of hundreds of pages that contain information including 
dozens of studies, more than 300 pages of computer code, and more than 
1000 e-mails. Peabody Energy and other petitioners have had a full 
opportunity, both in the underlying rulemaking and in the 
reconsideration process, to submit whatever information or evidence 
they want concerning the variety of scientific and other issues of 
concern to them, such as those identified at Peabody IX-12. EPA's 
lengthy and detailed Denial, including this document and the RTP 
document, carefully examines each objection raised and explains why 
each objection is untimely and/or not of central relevance. The CAA 
reconsideration process provides ample opportunity for interested 
parties to present new information to EPA, and for EPA to examine that 
information. Petitioner has not identified what cross examination it 
thinks is required to ``ensure that results reached by EPA reflect 
scientific truths''. For example, do they envision cross examination of 
all of the authors of the thousands of studies discussed in the 
rulemaking, or discussed in an assessment report? Cross examination of 
every author and other participant in an assessment report? Cross 
examination of agency scientists? And for all of these, on what 
subjects and issues? The administrative record includes the assessment 
reports and their integration of the science within areas of climate 
research and across various areas of climate research, as well as EPA's 
TSD and additional reports and studies provided by commenters. The 
proposed and final Findings also included the Administrator's judgments 
and conclusions on all of this evidence. Petitioners have failed to 
explain what facts they would like cross examination on, what witnesses 
they envision cross examining, and how any such examination would add 
in any way, much less a practical way, to the ability they already 
have, through submission of comments and petitions to reconsider, to 
attack and contest at length any and all of these parts of the informal 
rulemaking record. They have failed to demonstrate how their broad, 
general assertions of a better process would actually work as a 
practical way to better ensure the scientific integrity of the record 
before the Agency. It is quite reasonable for EPA to rely on the robust 
and in-depth informal rulemaking procedures followed in this 
rulemaking, as mandated by Congress, rather than embark on the rarely-
used formal rulemaking pathway.
    As discussed in the final Findings, the ACUS guidelines are non-
binding recommendations regarding ``important circumstances tending to 
suggest the desirability of such procedural devices''. 1 U.S.C. 305.76-
3(1). EPA notes that the ACUS recommendations cited by petitioner are 
not specifically for the formal rulemaking proceedings

[[Page 49593]]

suggested by petitioner. Rather, they are more general, for ``[h]earing 
argument and other oral presentation, when the presiding agency 
official or officials may ask questions, including questions submitted 
by interested persons.'' 1 U.S.C. 305.76-3(1)(f). The CAA requires a 
hearing and opportunity for oral presentation, CAA section 307(d)(5), 
and EPA held two hearings during which interested parties could present 
their arguments and information and EPA could ask questions. Thus, EPA 
has already undertaken procedures similar to those recommended by the 
ACUS.
    Last, part of the recommendation of the ACUS not raised by 
petitioner is the following:

    An agency should employ any of the devices specified in 
paragraph 1 or permit cross-examination only to the extent that it 
believes that the anticipated costs (including those related to 
increasing the time involved and the deployment of additional agency 
resources) are offset by anticipated gains in the quality of the 
rule and the extent to which the rulemaking procedure will be 
perceived as having been fair.

1 U.S.C. 305.76-3(3).

    For all the reasons stated above, in the final Findings, and 
elsewhere in this document and supporting material, EPA does not 
believe that the potential for gains in the quality of the 
Administrator's decision, if any, would offset the costs, both in terms 
of agency resources and delay. Moreover, the section 307(d) rulemaking 
process is quite fair, providing adequate opportunity for everyone, and 
not just parties who could afford to participate in a formal hearing, 
to present their views. Contrary to petitioner's argument, it resulted 
in a record that is both scientifically sound and adequate.
    For all the foregoing reasons, the request to reconsider its prior 
decision and undertake a formal rulemaking, evidentiary hearing 
process, is denied.
3. Discretion in Making an Endangerment Finding
    Peabody Energy argues that whatever discretion EPA may have in 
making an Endangerment Finding, it must justify and defend the specific 
findings of endangerment it actually made. More specifically, Peabody 
Energy argues that EPA did not assess the danger as low risk/high 
magnitude. It found instead both a high risk and high magnitude of 
harm, citing the following quotes from the Findings--``[t]he scientific 
evidence is compelling that elevated concentrations of heat-trapping 
greenhouse gases are the root cause of recently observed climate 
change'' and ``[m]ost of the observed increase in global average 
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the 
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations,'' with ``very 
likely'' defined as 90-99% probability. Thus, they conclude, EPA must 
now defend its high risk/high harm conclusion, even if arguendo it had 
discretion to make a lower finding of endangerment.
    Peabody Energy argues that this distinction between the 
Endangerment Finding that EPA might be authorized to make and the 
Endangerment Finding it actually made is crucial in light of the CRU 
material. Peabody contends that even if EPA might still be able to make 
an Endangerment Finding of some kind (a fact that Peabody does not 
concede), that would not justify the Endangerment Finding that EPA 
actually made and would not form a sufficient basis to allow EPA to 
deny the petitions for reconsideration. Peabody argues that the 
regulation that EPA ultimately proposes must be guided by the nature 
and extent of the endangerment that EPA has found, because a high risk/
high magnitude endangerment finding might justify one level of 
regulation, while a different finding might justify a different level. 
Thus, Peabody Energy claims the question that EPA must answer at the 
endangerment phase is not just ``endangerment, yes or no?,'' but 
specifically what type of endangerment. In that context, Peabody Energy 
argues that the revelations in the CRU material mean that EPA must 
reconsider its Endangerment Finding no matter what level of legal 
discretion the Agency has. Peabody Energy at IX-6 to 9.
    Peabody Energy vastly oversimplifies the basis for EPA's 
Endangerment Finding, characterizing it as a simple ``high risk/high 
magnitude'' decision. With respect to existence of climate changes and 
attribution to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, the 
Administrator concluded that:

the scientific evidence linking human emissions and resulting 
elevated atmospheric concentrations of the six well-mixed greenhouse 
gases to observed global and regional temperature increases and 
other climate changes to be sufficiently robust and compelling.

74 FR at 66523.

    Based on this, the Administrator considered a wide variety of 
categories of public health and welfare that could be affected by the 
climate changes. The Administrator:

considered the state of the science on how human emissions and the 
resulting elevated atmospheric concentrations of well mixed 
greenhouse gases may affect each of the major risk categories, i.e., 
those that are described in the TSD, which include human health, air 
quality, food production and agriculture, forestry, water resources, 
sea level rise and coastal areas, the energy sector, infrastructure 
and settlements, and ecosystems and wildlife. The Administrator 
understands that the nature and potential severity of impacts can 
vary across these different elements of public health and welfare, 
and that they can vary by region, as well as over time.

Id at 66509.

    For each of these categories the Administrator took into account 
the varying degree of certainty of an impact as well as the potential 
magnitude of an impact. She considered both beneficial as well as 
adverse impacts. Id at 66524-537. There was no simple ``high risk/high 
magnitude'' paradigm. Instead, the Administrator was aware that:

because human-induced climate change has the potential to be far 
reaching and multi-dimensional, not all risks and potential impacts 
can be characterized with a uniform level of quantification or 
understanding, nor can they be characterized with uniform metrics. 
Given this variety in not only the nature and potential magnitude of 
risks and impacts, but also in our ability to characterize, quantify 
and project into the future such impacts, the Administrator must use 
her judgment to weigh the threat in each of the risk categories, 
weigh the potential benefits where relevant, and ultimately judge 
whether these risks and benefits, when viewed in total, are judged 
to be endangerment to public health and/or welfare.

Id at 66523-24.

    Instead of the simple approach described by Peabody Energy, the 
Administrator properly exercised her judgment by taking into 
consideration the complexity and breadth of the range of risks and 
harms presented by the evidence.
    In this context, Peabody Energy and other petitioners focus their 
arguments and claims almost exclusively on the question of the 
existence of climate change and its attribution to anthropogenic 
emissions of greenhouse gases. After considering their claims, EPA is 
denying the petitions to reconsider for the reasons described above. 
They have not provided substantial support for the argument that the 
Endangerment Finding should be revised, and EPA continues to find that 
the ``scientific evidence linking human emissions and resulting 
elevated atmospheric concentrations of the six well-mixed greenhouse 
gases to observed global and regional temperature increases and other 
climate changes to be sufficiently robust and compelling.''
    In sum, contrary to Peabody Energy's assertion EPA did not employ a 
simplified ``high risk/high magnitude'' paradigm in making the 
Endangerment Finding. Instead the Administrator

[[Page 49594]]

carefully and comprehensively considered the recognized broad range of 
varying risks and harms across multiple sectors of public health and 
welfare. In addition, EPA is not now changing its Endangerment Finding 
or using its discretion under section 202(a) to base it on a ``lower 
finding of endangerment''.

V. Conclusion

    For all of the reasons discussed above and in the accompanying RTP 
document, the petitions to reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or 
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the 
Clean Air Act are denied, as are the petitions for an administrative 
stay.

    Dated: July 29, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-19153 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P