40652 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

accommodations to attend a public 

hearing, contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We 

will arrange the location and time of the 

hearing with those persons requesting 

the hearing. If no one requests an 

opportunity to speak, we will not hold 

a hearing. 

To assist the transcriber and ensure an 

accurate record, we request, if possible, 

that each person who speaks at the 

public hearing provide us with a written 

copy of his or her comments. The public 

hearing will continue on the specified 

date until everyone scheduled to speak 

has been given an opportunity to be 

heard. If you are in the audience and 

have not been scheduled to speak and 

wish to do so, you will be allowed to 

speak after those who have been 

scheduled. We will end the hearing after 

everyone scheduled to speak and others 

present in the audience who wish to 

speak, have been heard. 

Public Meeting 

If only one person requests an 

opportunity to speak, we may hold a 

public meeting rather than a public 

hearing. If you wish to meet with us to 

discuss the amendment, please request 

a meeting by contacting the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. All such meetings are open to 

the public. If possible, we will post 

notices of meetings at the locations 

listed under ADDRESSES. We will make 

a written summary of each meeting a 

part of the administrative record. 

IV. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866. 

Other Laws and Executive Orders 

Affecting Rulemaking 

When a State submits a program 

amendment to OSM for review, our 

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require 

us to publish a notice in the Federal 

Register indicating receipt of the 

proposed amendment, its text or a 

summary of its terms, and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

conclude our review of the proposed 

amendment after the close of the public 

comment period and determine whether 

the amendment should be approved, 

approved in part, or not approved. At 

that time, we will also make the 

determinations and certifications 

required by the various laws and 

executive orders governing the 

rulemaking process and include them in 

the final rule. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: June 1, 2011. 

William L. Joseph, 

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent 

Region. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17297 Filed 7–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0544; FRL–9434–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California Air 

Resources Board—In-Use Heavy-Duty 

Diesel-Fueled Truck and Bus 

Regulation, Drayage Truck Regulation 

and Ocean-Going Vessels Clean Fuels 

Regulation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that EPA 

expects to be submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB 

or Board). These revisions concern three 

regulations that reduce emissions of 

diesel particulate matter (PM), oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

other pollutants from in-use, heavy-duty 

diesel-fueled trucks and buses and from 

ocean-going vessels (OGV) operating 

within California jurisdiction. This 

proposed approval is based on proposed 

regulations submitted by CARB and an 

accompanying request to proceed with 

SIP review while the State completes its 

public review and agency adoption 

process. EPA will not take final action 

on the regulations until California 

submits the final adopted versions to 

EPA as a revision to the California SIP. 

Final EPA approval of the regulations 

and incorporation of them into the 

California SIP would make them 

federally enforceable. We are providing 

a 30-day comment period for today’s 

proposal. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

August 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0544, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: 

R9truck_dray_OGVcomments 

3. Mail or deliver: Roxanne Johnson 

(Air U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roxanne Johnson, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4150, johnson.roxanne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What regulations did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these 

regulations? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

regulations? 

D. What requirements do the regulations 

establish? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations? 

B. CARB Regulations Meeting CAA SIP 

Evaluation Criteria 

1. Did the State provide adequate public 

notification and comment periods? 

2. Does the State have adequate legal 

authority to implement the regulations? 

3. Are the regulations enforceable as 

required under CAA section 110(a)(2)? 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 40653 

1Under EPA’s ‘‘parallel processing’’ procedure, 

EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with 

the State’s proposed rulemaking. If the State’s 

proposed rule is changed, EPA will evaluate that 

subsequent change and may publish another notice 

of proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is 

made, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the 

rule after responding to any submitted comments. 

Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only 

after the rule has been fully adopted by California 

and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation 

into the SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 

2Technically, the versions of the regulations 

submitted to EPA by CARB for parallel processing, 

and evaluated herein, represent proposed 

modifications and amendments to regulations 

previously adopted by CARB, but because the 

previously-adopted regulations were not submitted 

for incorporation into the SIP, i.e., the regulations 

would be new to the SIP, we refer to them as 

‘‘proposed regulations’’ rather than ‘‘proposed 

amendments’’ or ‘‘proposed modifications’’ in this 

document. To be clear, the versions of the truck, 

bus, and drayage truck regulations that we have 

evaluated herein are the versions released for public 

comment on May 19, 2011, and the version of the 

ocean-going vessel regulation that we have 

evaluated herein is the version released for public 

comment on April 26, 2011. 

3 In addition to the proposed version of 13 CCR 

section 2299.2, CARB also submitted the proposed 

version of 17 CCR section 93118.2. The two 

regulations are fundamentally identical and reflect 

the authorities granted to CARB in the California 

Health and Safety Code to regulate marine vessel 

emissions (section 2299.2, title 13, CCR) and to 

regulate sources of toxic air contaminants (section 

93118.2, title 17, CCR). We see no need for both 

regulations to be approved into the SIP and propose 

to approve only the title 13 regulation into the 

California SIP. 

4. Do the regulations interfere with 

reasonable further progress and 

attainment or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act? 

5. Will the State have adequate personnel 

and funding for the regulations? 

6. EPA’s Regulation Evaluation Conclusion 

C. Proposed Action, Public Comment and 

Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What regulations did the State 

submit? 

By letters dated May 11 and May 19, 

2011, CARB submitted to EPA three 

proposed regulations, with requests for 

parallel processing.1, 2 See May 11, and 

May 19, 2011 letters to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, from James N. Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB. 

Table 1 below, lists the regulations 

addressed by this proposal. These 

regulations include: (1) Regulation to 

Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate 

Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other 

Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use HeavyDuty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (‘‘Truck 

and Bus Regulation’’); (2) In-Use Onroad Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage 

Trucks (‘‘Drayage Truck Regulation’’); 

and (3) Fuel Sulfur and Other 

Operational Requirements for OceanGoing Vessels within California Waters 

and 24 Nautical Miles of the California 

Baseline (‘‘OGV Clean Fuels 

Regulation’’). 

TABLE 1—REGULATIONS SUBMITTED BY CALIFORNIA FOR PARALLEL PROCESSING

California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 13, 

section No. Regulation title 

Section 2025 ....................................................... Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other 

Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles. 

Section 2027 ....................................................... In-Use On-road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks. 

Section 2299.2 3 .................................................. Fuel Sulfur and Other Operational Requirements for Ocean-Going Vessels within California 

Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline. 

CARB’s May 11, 2011 parallel 

processing request includes the CARB 

notice of public hearing, held on June 

23, 2011 and the CARB Staff Report, 

‘‘Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Proposed Rulemaking: Proposed 

Amendments to the Regulations ‘Fuel 

Sulfur and Other Operational 

Requirements for Ocean-Going Vessels 

within California Waters and 24 

Nautical Miles of the California 

Baseline,’ ’’ May 2011. The proposed 

OGV Clean Fuels Regulation was 

submitted as appendix A to the CARB 

Staff Report, but since the version in 

appendix A only includes the 

subsections of the regulation that are 

proposed for amendment, and not the 

unchanged subsections, we have also 

reviewed the original regulation 

approved in 2008 together with the 

proposed amendments. 

CARB’s May 19, 2011 parallel 

processing request includes CARB’s 

notice of public availability of the 

proposed Truck and Bus Regulation and 

proposed Drayage Truck Regulation and 

the initiation of a 15-day comment 

period. CARB’s 15-day notice refers to 

two attachments, one of which shows 

the most recent modifications to the 

Truck and Bus Regulation and the 

second of which shows the most recent 

modifications to the Drayage Truck 

Regulation. Herein, we refer to these 

versions of the regulations as ‘‘proposed 

regulations.’’ The versions of the 

regulations referred to in the 15-day 

notice as ‘‘attachment 1’’ and 

‘‘attachment 2’’ are the versions of the 

regulations that we have evaluated 

herein. CARB’s May 19, 2011 request 

also includes: Two resolutions dated 

December 17, 2010 through which 

CARB approved amendments [to the 

Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage 

Truck Regulation] for adoption by the 

CARB Executive Officer (EO) once he 

makes further modifications to the 

regulations consistent with the 

resolutions, and the CARB staff report, 

‘‘Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Proposed Rulemaking: Proposed 

Amendments to the Truck and Bus 

Regulations, the Drayage Truck 

Regulation, the Tractor-Trailer 

Greenhouse Gas Regulation,’’ October 

2010. 

EPA is granting CARB’s request that 

EPA ‘‘parallel process’’ our review and 

propose action on the three regulations. 

All of the relevant documents are 

available for review in the docket for 

today’s proposed rulemaking. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

regulations? 

The Truck and Bus Regulation was 

initially approved by CARB in 

December 2008 and became effective 

(for State law purposes) in January 2010. 

In December 2010, CARB adopted 

Resolution 10–44 after considering 

amendments to the Truck and Bus 

Regulation as initially proposed by 

CARB staff and covered by the Notice of 

Public Hearing (‘‘45-day Public Notice’’) 

and Staff Report, which were initially 

published on October 19, 2010, and 

staff’s suggested modifications to the 

proposed amendments, which were 

made in response to comments received 

before the CARB public hearing 

regarding staff’s initial proposal. CARB 

directed staff to modify the initially 

proposed amendments consistent with 

the suggested modifications and CARB’s 

findings as set forth in the resolution. 

Resolution 10–44 further directed the 

CARB EO to make the modifications to 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
40654 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4SO2 belongs to a family of compounds referred 

to as sulfur oxide (SOX). PM2.5 precursors include 

SO2, NOX, volatile organic compounds, and 

ammonia. See 40 CFR 51.1000. CARB generally 

uses the term, sulfur oxides (SOX); herein, we use 

SO2 to refer to the same pollutant type. 

the initially proposed amendments to 

the Truck and Bus Regulation available 

for public comment for a period of 15 

days, and to take final action to adopt 

the proposed amendments, as modified 

in the publicly noticed 15-day changes, 

or return to the CARB Board for further 

consideration. The version of the 

regulation that is subject to CARB’s 15- 

day notice is the one we evaluate herein 

for eventual approval into the California 

SIP. CARB’s 15-day public comment 

period ended June 3, 2011. 

The Drayage Truck Regulation was 

initially approved by CARB in 

December 2007 and became effective 

(for State law purposes) in December 

2008. In December 2010, CARB adopted 

Resolution 10–45 after considering 

amendments to the Drayage Truck 

Regulation initially proposed by CARB 

staff and covered by the 45-Day Public 

Notice and Staff Report, and directed 

that the proposed amendments be 

modified consistent with the CARB 

Board’s findings therein and following 

the process outlined above for final 

adoption of amendments to the Truck 

and Bus Regulation. The version of the 

regulation that is subject to CARB’s 15- 

day notice, which covers both the Truck 

and Bus Regulation and the Drayage 

Truck Regulation, is the one we evaluate 

herein for eventual approval into the 

California SIP. 

The OGV Clean Fuels Regulation was 

initially approved by CARB in July 2008 

and became effective (for State law 

purposes) in July 2009. On May 4, 2011, 

CARB published a 45-day notice 

opening a public comment period and 

making available proposed amendments 

to the regulation. A public hearing for 

the CARB Board to consider adoption of 

the amendments was held on June 23, 

2011. Following the public hearing on 

June 23, 2011, the CARB Board adopted 

a resolution that directs the CARB 

Executive Officer to take final action to 

adopt the amendments that were the 

subject of the 45-day notice in a manner 

consistent with the requirements of the 

California Environmental Quality Act, 

and to further modify the OGV Clean 

Fuels Regulation to reduce the ‘‘Phase 

1’’ sulfur content limit for marine gas oil 

from 1.5% to 1.0% beginning on August 

1, 2012, subject to an additional 15-day 

notice to allow for public comment on 

the further modifications. The original 

regulation, along with the proposed 

amendments that was the subject of 

CARB’s 45-day notice, is the version we 

evaluate herein for eventual approval 

into the California SIP. For evaluative 

purposes herein, we also recognize the 

CARB Board’s action on June 23, 2011 

to direct the CARB Executive Officer to 

modify the regulation to reduce the 

‘‘Phase 1’’ sulfur content limit for 

marine gas oil from 1.5% to 1.0% 

beginning on August 1, 2012, as set 

forth in attachment B to CARB’s 

proposed Resolution 11–25 dated June 

23, 2011. 

As described above, there are 

previous versions of the three 

regulations, but none of the previous 

versions were submitted to EPA for 

incorporation into the SIP. For a more 

detailed discussion of CARB’s adoption 

process for these regulations and a 

discussion of the previous versions of 

these regulations adopted by the State 

but not submitted to EPA, please see the 

documentation submitted by CARB, 

included in the docket for today’s 

rulemaking. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

regulations? 

The purpose of the three regulations 

is to reduce NOX, SO2 and PM 

emissions from in-use heavy-duty 

diesel-fueled trucks and buses, drayage 

trucks, ocean-going vessels (OGV), and 

to meet CAA requirements. NOX is a 

precursor responsible for the formation 

of ozone, and NOX and SO2 are 

precursors for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5).4 At elevated levels, ozone and 

PM2.5 harm human health and the 

environment by contributing to 

premature mortality, aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease, 

decreased lung function, visibility 

impairment, and damage to vegetation 

and ecosystems. 

California has a number of 

nonattainment areas for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone and PM2.5, and the 

CAA requires states to submit SIP 

revisions that ensure reasonable further 

progress and that demonstrate 

attainment of the NAAQS within such 

areas. See, generally, part D of title I of 

the CAA. Reductions from these 

regulations play a critical role in 

assuring that areas such as the South 

Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin meet the NAAQS for 

ozone and PM2.5. 

D. What requirements do the regulations 

establish? 

Truck and Bus Regulation 

CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation 

(i.e., 13 CCR section 2025) requires fleet 

(defined as one or more vehicles) 

owners to upgrade their vehicles to meet 

specific performance standards for NOX

and PM. The regulation applies to 

diesel-fueled trucks and buses that are 

privately owned, federally owned, and 

to publicly and privately owned school 

buses, that have a manufacturer’s gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater 

than 14,000 pounds (lbs). (Local and 

state government owned diesel-fueled 

trucks are already subject to other CARB 

regulations.) Nearly all of the vehicles 

affected by the regulation are on-road 

vehicles, but the regulation also applies 

to yard trucks with off-road engines 

used for agricultural operations and 

two-engine street sweepers with such 

engines. The regulation exempts certain 

categories of trucks and buses, many of 

which, such as drayage trucks, are 

subject to different CARB regulations. 

Key concepts used in the Truck and 

Bus Regulation include ‘‘2010 Model 

Year Emissions Equivalent Engine,’’ 

‘‘PM BACT,’’ and ‘‘Verified Diesel 

Emission Control Strategy’’ (VDECS). As 

set forth in 13 CCR section 2025(d)(3), 

‘‘2010 Model Year Emissions Equivalent 

Engine’’ means emissions from: (A) An 

engine certified to the 2004 through 

2006 model year (MY) heavy-duty diesel 

engine emissions standard that is 

equipped with the highest level VDECS 

and that reduces NOX emissions by at 

least 85%; (B) An engine that was built 

to the 2004 engine emission standard 

and was not used in any manufacturer’s 

averaging, banking, or trading program 

that is equipped with the highest level 

VDECS and that reduces NOX exhaust 

emissions by at least 85%; (C) An 

engine certified to the 2007 MY heavyduty diesel engine emissions standard 

that meets PM BACT and that reduces 

NOx exhaust emissions by more than 

70%; (D) An engine certified to the 2010 

MY or newer heavy-duty certified to the 

2010 MY or newer heavy-duty diesel 

engine emissions standard that meets 

PM BACT; (E) A heavy-duty engine 

certified to 0.2 grams per brakehorsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) or less NOX

emissions level and 0.01 g/bhp-hr or 

less PM emissions level; or (F) An offroad engine certified Tier 4 engine 

emissions standard. 

‘‘PM BACT’’ means the technology 

employed on the highest level VDECS 

for PM or an engine that is equipped 

with an original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) diesel particulate 

filter and certified to meet the 0.01 g/ 

bhp-hr certification standard. See 13 

CCR section 2025(d)(48). ‘‘Verified 

Diesel Emission Control Strategy’’ 

(VDECS) means an emission control 

strategy, designed primarily for the 

reduction of diesel PM emissions, 

which has been verified pursuant to the 

Verification Procedures. VDECS can be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 40655 

verified to achieve Level 1 diesel PM 

reductions (25%), Level 2 diesel PM 

reduction (50%), or Level 3 diesel PM 

reductions (85%). VDECS may also be 

verified to achieve NOX reductions. See 

13 CCR section 2025(d) (60). 

The basic requirements of the 

regulation are set forth in subsections 

(e), (f), and (g). Under these subsections, 

different sets of requirements are 

established for subject vehicles with a 

GVWR 26,000 lbs or less [subsection (f)] 

and subject vehicles with a GVWR 

greater than 26,000 lbs [subsection (g)]. 

Under subsection (f), with certain 

exceptions, subject vehicles with a 

GVWR 26,000 lbs or less must, starting 

January 1, 2015, be equipped with a 

‘‘2010 model year emissions equivalent 

engine’’ pursuant to the schedule shown 

in table 2. School buses, that otherwise 

would be subject to subsection (f), are 

subject to a different set of requirements 

in subsection (k). Under subsection (k), 

with certain exceptions, all school buses 

must comply with PM BACT by 2014. 

TABLE 2—COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE UNDER SECTION 2025(f) BY ENGINE MODEL YEAR FOR LIGHTER HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS

Existing engine model year Compliance date 

as of January 1 Requirement 

1995 and older ........................................................................ 2015 2010 model year emission equivalent.

1996 ......................................................................................... 2016 

1997 ......................................................................................... 2017 

1998 ......................................................................................... 2018 

1999 ......................................................................................... 2019 

2003 and older ........................................................................ 2020 

2004–2006 ............................................................................... 2021 

All engines ............................................................................... 2023 

Under subsection (g), with certain 

exceptions, subject vehicles with a 

GVWR more than 26,000 lbs must, 

starting January 1, 2012, meet the PM 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) requirement and must upgrade 

to a 2010 MY emissions equivalent 

engine pursuant to the schedule shown 

in table 3. Fleets with vehicles 

otherwise subject to subsection (g) may 

opt for a different phase-in compliance 

schedule for PM BACT but must comply 

with section 2025(g) by 2023. See 13 

CCR section 2025, subsections (h) 

(‘‘Small Fleet Compliance Option’’) and 

(i)(‘‘Phase-in Option’’). 

TABLE 3—COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE UNDER SECTION 2025(G) BY ENGINE MODEL YEAR FOR HEAVIER HEAVY-DUTY

TRUCKS

Engine model year Compliance date install PM filter by January 1 

Compliance date 

2010 engine by 

January 1 

1993 and older ........................................................................ No Requirement ...................................................................... 2015 

1994–1995 ............................................................................... No Requirement ...................................................................... 2016 

1996–1999 ............................................................................... 2012 ......................................................................................... 2020 

2000–2004 ............................................................................... 2013 ......................................................................................... 2021 

2005–2006 ............................................................................... 2014 ......................................................................................... 2022 

2007 or newer ......................................................................... 2014 if not OEM equipped ...................................................... 2023 

Section 2025(j) allows credits for early 

PM retrofits, fleets that have downsized, 

early addition of newer vehicles, hybrid 

vehicles, alternative fueled vehicles and 

vehicles with heavy-duty pilot ignition 

engines that can allow delayed 

requirements for other heavier trucks in 

the fleet. Fleet owners are required to 

meet the reporting and record keeping 

requirements of subsections (r) and (s). 

Credits are not transferrable except with 

appropriate documentation of a change 

of business form approved by the EO. 

Subsection (l) provides requirements 

for drayage trucks and utility vehicles. 

Drayage trucks subject to the Drayage 

Truck Regulation may be included in 

the fleet to comply with the 

requirements of the Truck and Bus 

Regulation only if all drayage trucks are 

included. Starting January 1, 2023, all 

drayage truck owners must comply with 

the requirements summarized above in 

tables 2 and 3. Drayage trucks may not 

utilize any of the credits in subsection 

(j) or exemptions and extensions in 

subsection (p). Starting January 1, 2021, 

all private utility vehicle owners must 

comply with the requirements 

summarized above in tables 2 and 3. 

Subsection (m) provides exemptions 

for agricultural fleets that meet the 

conditions of this subsection and 

remain below annual mileage limits 

specified therein. Starting January 1, 

2017, all agricultural vehicles that have 

exceeded 10,000 miles in any calendar 

year since January 1, 2011, must comply 

with the requirements summarized 

above in tables 2 and 3. This subsection 

includes a provision, which allows the 

CARB EO to exempt vehicles as 

specialty agricultural vehicles as long as 

the vehicles meet the requirements of 

the subsection and the EO does not 

exceed the caps for the number of such 

vehicles in the San Joaquin Valley and 

Statewide. This section also provides an 

optional phase-in for log trucks. Starting 

January 1, 2014, 10 percent of the total 

log truck fleet must comply with 2010 

MY emissions or equivalent, and by 

January 1, 2023, 100 percent of the fleet 

must be 2010 MY emissions equivalent. 

Subsection (p) provides for 

exemptions, delays, and extensions. The 

categories of vehicles that may qualify 

for relief under subsection (p) include 

vehicles used exclusively in NOX

exempt areas (which include no 

counties within the South Coast Air 

Basin or San Joaquin Valley), lowmileage construction trucks, unique 

vehicles, low-use vehicles, vehicles 

operating with a three-day pass, 

vehicles awaiting sale, and vehicles 

used solely on San Nicholas or San 

Clemente Islands. Extensions in 

compliance deadlines are also provided 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
40656 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5 ‘‘Roadstead’’ means any facility that is used for 

the loading, unloading, and anchoring of ships. See 

13 CCR section 2299.2(d)(31). 

6 In 2008, the International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI 

(International Convention for the Prevention of Air 

Pollution From Ships) to further reduce air 

emissions from ships. Among other provisions, the 

2008 amendments to MARPOL Annex VI allowed 

for the creation of Emission Control Areas (ECA) by 

member states allowing them to implement more 

stringent requirements than otherwise provided for 

in Annex VI upon approval by the IMO. In 2010, 

the IMO approved a joint application by the U.S. 

and Canada for the creation of an ECA, referred to 

for in subsection (p) for emission 

control device manufacturer delays or 

unavailability of highest level VDECS. 

Subsection (r) includes detailed 

reporting requirements. Generally, the 

reporting requirements apply to owners 

who have elected to use the compliance 

options or credits provided for in the 

regulation or who rely on the special 

provisions in the regulation, such as 

those for agricultural provisions, street 

sweeper provisions, NOX exempt areas, 

and low-mileage construction trucks. 

Subsection (s) sets forth the record 

keeping requirements of the regulation, 

subsection (t) requires vehicle owners to 

make records available to CARB, and 

subsection (u) establishes record 

retention requirements. 

Subsections (v) through (z) include 

provisions that support compliance and 

enforcement of the regulation by, for 

example, establishing a right of entry for 

CARB agents [subsection (v)] and by 

requiring sellers to provide a specific 

disclosure concerning the regulation to 

buyers [subsection (w)]. Subsection (z) 

establishes the penalties for noncompliance. Under this subsection, any 

person who fails to comply with the 

Truck and Bus Regulation may be 

subject to civil or criminal penalties 

under the California Health and Safety 

Code sections 39674, 39675, 42400, 

42400.1, 42400.2, 42402.2, and 43016. 

Drayage Truck Regulation 

CARB’s Drayage Truck Regulation (13 

CCR section 2027) applies to owners 

and operators of certain in-use, on-road, 

diesel-fueled, heavy-duty drayage 

vehicles with a GVWR greater than 

26,000 pounds defined as ‘‘drayage 

trucks.’’ Drayage trucks are those that 

are used for transporting cargo, such as 

containerized, bulk, or break-bulk goods 

and that operate on or transgress 

through port or intermodal rail yard 

property for the purpose of loading, 

unloading or transporting cargo, 

including transporting empty containers 

and chassis; or that operate off port or 

intermodal railyard property 

transporting cargo or empty containers 

or chassis that originated from or is 

destined to a port or intermodal rail 

yard property. The regulation also 

applies to owner and operators of motor 

carriers that dispatch drayage trucks 

that operate in California, marine or port 

terminals, intermodal rail yards, and rail 

yard and port authorities. Owners and 

operators are subject to the Drayage 

Truck Regulation through December 31, 

2022. Starting January 1, 2023, drayage 

trucks will be subject to the Truck and 

Bus Regulation. 

Section 2027(d) of the Drayage Truck 

Regulation includes the requirements 

and compliance deadlines, grouped into 

two phases. Phase 1 of the regulation 

[section 2027(d)(1)] required that, by 

December 31, 2009, all drayage trucks 

with a GVWR greater than 33,000 

pounds to be equipped with a 1994– 

2003 MY engine certified standards to 

California or federal emission standards 

and a level 3 VDECS for PM emissions; 

or, 2004 or newer MY engine certified 

to California or federal emission 

standards. Drayage trucks with GVWR 

greater than 33,000 pounds but with 

2004 or 2005 engines are allowed extra 

time to be equipped with a level 3 

VDECS (by January 1, 2012 for subject 

vehicles with MY 2004 engines and by 

January 1, 2013 for vehicles with MY 

2005 engines). Under Phase 1, by 

January 1, 2012, all drayage trucks with 

a GVWR of 26,001 lbs to 33,000 pounds 

must be equipped with a level 3 VDECS 

for PM emissions. Phase 2 [section 

2027(d)(2)] requires all drayage trucks to 

be equipped with a 1994 or newer MY 

engine that meets or exceeds 2007 MY 

California or federal emissions 

standards. 

Drayage truck owners must register 

with the CARB Drayage Truck Registry, 

a database that contains information on 

all trucks that conduct business at 

California ports and intermodal rail 

yards. See section 2027(e). Sections 

2027(d)(3), (4), (5) and (6) include 

additional requirements for drayage 

truck owners, drayage truck operators, 

motor carriers and marine or port 

terminals and intermodal rail yards, to 

ensure that the various parties 

coordinate their activities to ensure 

compliance with the emissions 

standards and compliance deadlines in 

Phases 1 and 2. 

The Drayage Truck Regulation 

provides for the same types of penalties 

for non-compliance as described above 

for the Truck and Bus Regulation. 

Sections 2027(h) (‘‘Right of Entry’’) and 

2027(i) (‘‘Enforcement’’) authorize and 

support efforts by CARB and other 

officials to ensure compliance with the 

regulation. Section 2023(j) is a sunset 

clause that provides that, starting 

January 2, 2023, drayage truck would no 

longer be subject to the provisions of the 

Drayage Truck Regulation but rather 

would be subject to the provisions of the 

Truck and Bus Regulation in 13 CCR 

section 2025. 

OGV Clean Fuels Regulation 

CARB’s OGV Clean Fuels Regulation 

(13 CCR section 2299.2) requires the use 

of low sulfur marine distillate fuels 

(instead of heavy fuel oil) to reduce PM, 

NOX, and SO2 emissions from the use of 

auxiliary diesel and diesel-electric 

engines, main propulsion engines, and 

auxiliary boilers on ocean-going vessels 

(OGVs). The regulation applies to 

owners and operators of OGVs that 

operate in any of the Regulated 

California Waters, which are defined in 

the regulation to include, among other 

areas, all waters within 24 miles of the 

California baseline (except a specific 

area off Point Conception. Unless 

specifically exempted, the regulation 

applies to both U.S.-flagged and foreignflagged OGVs. Exemptions in the 

regulation include, among other vessels, 

OGVs that pass through Regulated 

California Waters but do not enter 

California internal or estuarine waters or 

call at a port, roadstead 5 or terminal 

facility; OGVs owned or operated by any 

governmental entity (unless used for 

commercial purposes); and OGVs when 

compliance with the regulation is 

reasonably determined by the master of 

the vessel to endanger the safety of the 

vessel, its crew, its cargo or its 

passengers because of severe weather 

conditions, equipment failure, fuel 

contamination or other extraordinary 

reasons beyond the master’s reasonable 

control. See 13 CCR 2299.2(c)(1), (3) and 

(5). 

Section 2299.2(e)(1) specifies 

allowable fuels and fuel sulfur content 

limits for auxiliary diesel engines, main 

engines and auxiliary boilers that must 

be met while the OGV is operating in 

Regulated California Waters. In the first 

phase, beginning July 1, 2009, auxiliary 

diesel engines, main engines and 

auxiliary boilers on subject OGVs must 

use either marine gas oil (MGO), with a 

maximum of 1.5 percent sulfur by 

weight, or marine diesel oil (MDO), with 

a maximum of 0.5 percent sulfur by 

weight. The ‘‘Phase 1’’ sulfur content 

limit for MGO would be reduced from 

1.5% to 1.0% beginning on August 1, 

2012. Phase 2, beginning January 1, 

2014, requires use of either MGO with 

a maximum of 0.1% sulfur by weight or 

MDO with a maximum of 0.1% sulfur 

by weight. As such, the OGV Clean 

Fuels Regulation establishes more 

stringent requirements than otherwise 

required under Federal law, at least 

until January 1, 2015.6


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 40657 

as the North American ECA. Under the North 

American ECA, OGVs traveling within a 200 

nautical mile zone of the North American coastline 

are required to use fuels with no more than 1% 

sulfur beginning in August 2012 and no more than 

0.1% sulfur beginning in January 2015. EPA is 

implementing the provisions of MARPOL Annex VI 

through its ocean-going vessel rule (75 FR 22895). 

Under these regulations, both U.S.- and foreignflagged ships subject to the engine and fuel 

standards of MARPOL Annex VI must comply with 

the applicable Annex VI provisions when they enter 

U.S. ports or operate in most internal U.S. waters 

including the Great Lakes, excluding steamships. 

7CAA section 193, which prohibits any pre-1990 

SIP control requirement relating to nonattainment 

pollutants in nonattainment areas from being 

modified unless the SIP is revised to insure 

equivalent or greater emission reductions of such 

air pollutants, does not apply to these regulations 

because they do not represent pre-1990 SIP control 

requirements. 

8For example, all three regulations were 

originally developed through a series of public 

workshops and adopted following 45-day public 

comment periods. The significant amendments to 

the Truck and Bus Regulation and the Drayage 

Truck Regulation proposed in October 2010 

followed a similar process as have the 2011 

amendments to the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation. 

The modifications to the 2010 amendments 

proposed in 2011 for the Truck and Bus Regulation 

Continued 

Section 2299.2(e)(2) establishes 

recordkeeping, reporting, and 

monitoring requirements including the 

requirement to retain and maintain 

records that document vessel entry to 

and departure from Regulated California 

Waters, completion of any fuel 

switching procedures used to comply 

with the regulations, and types and 

sulfur content of fuel used in each 

auxiliary engine, main engine, and 

auxiliary boiler operated in Regulated 

California Waters. Under subsection (e) 

(2), any person subject to the regulation 

must provide CARB with access to the 

OGV for the purpose of determining 

compliance with the regulation. 

Under section 2299.2(f), the OGV 

Clean Fuels Regulation provides for the 

same types of penalties for noncompliance as described above for the 

Truck and Bus Regulation. 

Section 2299.2(g) allows the EO to 

exempt, in whole or in part, vessels 

from compliance with the fuel and fuel 

sulfur content requirements in 

subsection (e) based on the need for 

essential modifications. Essential 

modifications refer to the addition of 

new equipment, or the replacement of 

existing components with modified 

components, that can be demonstrated 

to be necessary to comply with the 

regulation. See 13 CCR 2299.2(d)(10). 

Eligibility for relief under subsection (g) 

is generally cleared in advance by CARB 

through approval of an Essential 

Modification Report that demonstrates 

the need for essential modification and 

that is submitted by the vessel owner or 

operator to CARB 45 days prior to entry 

into Regulated California Waters. 

Section 2299.2(h) allows CARB, under 

certain circumstances, to permit an 

owner or operator of an OGV to pay 

noncompliance fees in lieu of meeting 

the fuel and fuel sulfur content 

requirements in subsection (e) if specific 

notification requirements are met under 

subsection (h)(1). CARB may consider 

noncompliance fees in lieu of 

compliance for any owner or operator of 

an OGV that demonstrates that 

noncompliance is beyond the person’s 

reasonable control under circumstances 

where the OGV was, while en route 

from its last port of call, redirected to a 

California port, where the supply of 

complying fuel is inadequate, or where 

the person made an inadvertent 

purchase of defective fuel. In-lieu fees 

may also be assessed for noncompliance 

by OGVs to be taken out of service for 

modifications or based on infrequent 

visits and need for vessel modifications. 

Applicable noncompliance (in-lieu) fees 

are shown below in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—NONCOMPLIANCE FEE

SCHEDULE UNDER THE OGC CLEAN

FUELS REGULATION, PER VESSEL

Port visit Per-port 

visit fee 

1st Port Visited ......................... $45,500 

2nd Port Visited ........................ 45,500 

3rd Port Visited ......................... 91,000 

4th Port Visited ......................... 136,500 

5th or more Port Visited ........... 182,000 

Under subsection (h), CARB assesses 

the fees at the time of the port visit, and 

the fees must be paid prior to leaving 

the California port or by a later date 

approved by CARB. Section 

2299.2(h)(5)(D) allows CARB to enter 

into enforceable agreements with each 

port that will receive the fees. Fees must 

be used by the ports only to fund 

projects reducing PM, NOX, and SO2

within two miles of port boundaries, or 

OGVs operated in Regulated California 

Waters. 

Section 2299.2(i) establishes the test 

methods that must be used to determine 

compliance with 13 CCR section 2299.2. 

Subsection (i) allows the CARB EO to 

approve alternative test methods if they 

are demonstrated to be equally or more 

accurate than the listed methods. 

Lastly, under section 2299.2(j), the 

requirements of OGV Clean Fuels 

Regulation will cease to apply if and 

when the CARB EO issues written 

findings that Federal requirements are 

in place that will achieve equivalent 

emissions reductions within the 

Regulated California Waters and are 

being enforced within the Regulated 

California Waters. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the 

regulations? 

EPA has evaluated the three 

regulations described in the previous 

section of this document against the 

applicable procedural and substantive 

requirements of the Clean Air Act for 

SIPs and SIP revisions and has 

concluded that they meet all of the 

applicable requirements. Generally, SIPs 

must include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques, as well as 

schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary to 

meet the requirements of the Act [see 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)]; must provide 

necessary assurances that the State will 

have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under State law to carry out 

such SIP (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of Federal to State law from 

carrying out such SIP) [see CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)]; must be adopted by a State 

after reasonable notice and public 

hearing [see CAA section 110(l)], and 

must not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act [see 

CAA section 110(l)].7

B. CARB Regulations Meeting CAA SIP 

Evaluation Criteria 

1. Did the State provide aadequate 

public notice and comment periods? 

Under CAA section 110(l), SIP 

revisions must be adopted by the State, 

and the State must provide for 

reasonable public notice and hearing 

prior to adoption. In 40 CFR 51.102(d), 

we specify that reasonable public notice 

in this context refers to at least 30 days. 

As described previously, the three 

subject regulations were submitted to 

EPA by California with requests to 

‘‘parallel process’’ them pending final 

adoption (of the most recent 

amendments) by CARB. We recognize 

the extensive public process that CARB 

conducted prior to the adoption of the 

original versions of the three regulations 

and the extensive public process that 

CARB conducted for the recent 

amendments and modifications and 

expect to determine that CARB will 

have met the applicable procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions upon 

submittal by CARB of the final adopted 

regulations as a SIP revision with the 

necessary public process 

documentation.8


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
40658 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

and Drayage Truck Regulation were subject to a 

supplemental 15-day public comment period. 

9These concepts are discussed in detail in an 

EPA memorandum from J. Craig Potter, EPA 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et 

al., titled ‘‘Review of State Implementation Plans 

and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal 

Sufficiency,’’ dated September 23, 1987. 

2. Does the State have adequate legal 

authority to implement the regulations? 

CARB has been granted both general 

and specific authority under the 

California Health and Safety Code 

(H&SC) to adopt and implement these 

regulations. California H&SC sections 

39600 (‘‘Acts required’’) and 39601 

(‘‘Adoption of regulation; Conformance 

to federal law’’) confer on CARB the 

general authority and obligation to 

adopt regulations and measures 

necessary to execute CARB’s powers 

and duties imposed by State law. 

California H&SC sections 43013(a) and 

43018 provide broad authority to 

achieve the maximum feasible and costeffective emission reductions from all 

mobile source categories, including both 

on-road and off-road diesel engines. 

Regarding in-use motor vehicles, 

California H&SC sections 43600 and 

43701(b), respectively, grant CARB 

authority to adopt emission standards 

and emission control equipment 

requirements. Further, California H&SC 

section 39666 gives CARB authority to 

adopt airborne toxic control measures to 

reduce emissions of toxic air 

contaminants from new and in-use 

nonvehicular sources, including marine 

vessels. 

Moreover, we know of no obstacle 

under Federal or State law in CARB’s 

ability to implement the regulations. As 

a general matter, the CAA assigns 

mobile source regulation to EPA 

through title II of the Act and assigns 

stationary source regulation and SIP 

development responsibilities to the 

States through title I of the Act. In so 

doing, the CAA preempts various types 

of State regulation of mobile sources as 

set forth in section 209(a) (preemption 

of State emissions standards for new 

motor vehicles and engines), section 

209(e) (preemption of State emissions 

standards for nonroad vehicles and 

engines) and section 211(c)(4)(A) 

[preemption of State fuel requirements 

for motor vehicles, i.e., other than 

California’s motor vehicle fuel 

requirements—see section 211(c)(4)(B)]. 

For certain types of mobile source 

standards, the State of California may 

request a waiver or authorization for 

state emissions standards. See CAA 

sections 209(b) (new motor vehicles) 

and 209(e)(2) (most categories of new 

and non-new nonroad vehicles). 

Notwithstanding the preemption 

provisions of the CAA, however, we do 

not believe that preemption represents 

an obstacle to implementation by 

California with respect to these three 

particular regulations. First, the Truck 

and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation establish emissions 

standards for in-use trucks and buses. 

Because the requirements do not apply 

to new motor vehicles or engines and 

because the burden for retrofits or 

replacements does not fall on original 

equipment manufacturers, we believe 

that the preemption under CAA section 

209(a) does not apply and California 

need not secure a waiver to enforce the 

Truck and Bus Regulation or the 

Drayage Truck Regulation. See Allway 

Taxi Inc. v. City of New York, 340 F. 

Supp. 1120 (S.D.N.Y) (interpreting CAA 

section 209(a) motor vehicle 

preemption), aff’d, 468 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 

1972). 

To the extent that the Truck and Bus 

Regulation affects nonroad vehicles or 

engines, we take note of CARB’s 

authorization request under CAA 

section 209(e)(2) for CARB’s emissions 

standards for in-use off-road dieselfueled equipment with engines 25 

horsepower and greater and EPA’s 

related notice of opportunity for public 

hearing and comment concerning 

CARB’s request. See 75 FR 11880 

(March 12, 2010) for the most recent 

related EPA announcement concerning 

CARB’s authorization request for the 

relevant in-use nonroad emissions 

standards. Assuming that EPA issues 

the relevant authorization requested by 

CARB, there will be no obstacle to 

CARB’s enforcement of the provisions of 

the Truck and Bus Regulation that apply 

to nonroad vehicles and engines. 

With respect to the OGV Clean Fuels 

Regulation, we first note that Stateadopted fuel requirements for nonroad 

vehicles are generally not preempted 

under the CAA. However, there are 

provisions of Federal law, other than the 

CAA, that might be relied upon to 

challenge State fuel requirements as 

preempted. In this instance, we 

recognize that the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals recently issued an opinion in 

which the court upheld CARB’s OGV 

Clean Fuels Regulation against a 

challenge grounded in preemption 

principles. See Pacific Merchant 

Shipping Ass’n. v. Goldstene, No. 09– 

17765 (9th Cir. March 28, 2011). The 

petitioners in the Pacific Merchant case 

may yet appeal the decision to the U.S. 

Supreme Court, but at this time, we 

have no reason to believe that the case 

will ultimately be resolved in a manner 

that takes away CARB’s ability to 

implement and enforce the OGV Clean 

Fuels Regulation. 

3. Are the regulations enforceable as 

required under CAA section 110(a)(2)? 

We have evaluated the enforceability 

of the three subject proposed regulations 

with respect to applicability and 

exemptions; standard of conduct and 

compliance dates; sunset provisions; 

discretionary provisions; and test 

methods, recordkeeping and reporting,9

and have concluded for the reasons 

given below that the proposed 

regulations would be enforceable for the 

purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2). 

First, with respect to applicability, we 

find the proposed regulations would be 

sufficiently clear as to which persons 

and which vehicles or engines are 

affected by the regulations. For instance, 

with respect to the Truck and Bus 

Regulation, subsections (b) define the 

scope and applicability of the regulation 

in terms of, among other parameters, 

type of fuel used and manufacturer’s 

GVWR. Subsection (c) of the Truck and 

Bus Regulation clearly identifies 

categories of vehicles that are exempt 

from the regulation, and subsection (d) 

provides additional detail on the types 

of owners and operators and vehicles 

covered by the regulation by defining 

key terms including ‘‘person’’ and 

‘‘agricultural operations,’’ among others. 

Similar types of provisions are also 

found in the Drayage Truck Regulation 

[see 13 CCR section 2027(b) and (c)] and 

the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation [see 13 

CCR sections 2299.2(b), (c), and (d)]. 

Second, we find that the proposed 

regulations would be sufficiently 

specific so that the persons affected by 

the regulations would be fairly on notice 

as to what the requirements and related 

compliance dates are. To a large extent, 

we have already described the 

substantive requirements and 

compliance dates set forth in the 

proposed regulations in section I.D of 

this document. We recognize that CARB 

intends to extend certain compliance 

dates in the latest amendments to the 

original regulations but, as discussed in 

section II.B.4 of this document, we find 

that extending the compliance dates 

would not interfere reasonable further 

progress and attainment requirements 

for California nonattainment areas with 

respect to the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone 

NAAQS. See section II.B.4 of this 

document. No compliance date in any of 

the regulations extends past January 1, 

2023, which is consistent with the 

attainment needs for California with 

respect to the attainment deadline for 

the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley 

‘‘extreme’’ nonattainment areas for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 40659 

Third, both the Drayage Truck 

Regulation and OGV Clean Fuels 

Regulation contain sunset provisions. In 

the case of the Drayage Truck 

Regulation, the regulation would sunset 

on December 31, 2022, but after that 

date, the requirements of the Truck and 

Bus Regulation would apply. See 13 

CCR section 2027(j). Thus, regulation of 

drayage trucks would continue 

indefinitely under the terms of the 

Truck and Bus Regulation. Under 

subsection (j) of the OGV Clean Fuels 

Regulation, once the CARB EO makes a 

finding that federal requirements are in 

place that will achieve equivalent 

emissions reduction within California 

Regulated Waters and that are being 

enforced within California Regulated 

Waters, the regulation would no longer 

be in effect. The CARB EO is expected 

to make the necessary finding under 

subsection (j) sometime after January 1, 

2015 when the 0.1% marine fuel sulfur 

content limit (applicable within the 

North American ECA) will become 

enforceable by EPA and the U.S. Coast 

Guard. Given that the 0.1% marine fuel 

sulfur content limit will continue to be 

federally enforceable after the CARB EO 

invokes the sunset clause, we find the 

sunset clause in the OGC Clean Fuels 

Regulation to be acceptable. 

Fourth, all three regulations would 

contain provisions that allow for 

discretion on the part of CARB’s EO. 

Such ‘‘director’s discretion’’ provisions 

can undermine enforceability of a SIP 

regulation, and thus prevent full 

approval by EPA, but in the instances of 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ in the three 

subject regulations, the discretion that 

can be exercised by the CARB EO is 

limited both in scope and application. 

As such, we do not find that the 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ provisions in the 

proposed regulations would preclude 

our approval of them for the purposes 

of the SIP. 

Lastly, each of the proposed 

regulations identifies appropriate test 

methods and includes adequate 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements sufficient to ensure 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements. 

4. Do the regulations interfere with 

reasonable further progress and 

attainment or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act? 

The State’s 2007 State Strategy to 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS 

relies on these three regulations to help 

achieve needed emissions reductions in 

various nonattainment areas in 

California, particularly the South Coast 

Air Basin and San Joaquin Valley. A 

summary of the latest emissions 

reductions estimates from these rules in 

the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley 

1997 PM2.5 and ozone attainment plans 

can be found in the State’s 2007 State 

Strategy, the 2009 Status Report on the 

State Strategy and the ‘‘Progress Report 

on Implementation of PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plans (SIP) for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basins and Proposed SIP revisions,’’ 

dated March 29, 2011. In separate 

rulemakings, EPA is evaluating the 

approvability of the reasonable further 

progress (RFP) and attainment 

demonstrations (and other provisions) 

for areas that rely on these three 

regulations. In general, these rules 

provide much needed NOX, direct PM 

and SO2 reductions, however, the 

attainment plans do not require specific 

reductions from any particular rule. 

Thus, EPA believes that the approval of 

these three regulations, which have 

never been approved into the SIP, does 

not interfere with RFP, attainment or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

Act. 

5. Will the State have adequate 

personnel and funding for the 

regulations? 

Chapter XIII of CARB’s ‘‘Initial 

Statement of Reasons for Proposed 

Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to 

the Truck and Bus Regulation, the 

Drayage Truck Regulation and the 

Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas 

Regulation,’’ dated October 2010, 

addresses implementation and 

enforcement of the regulations. As 

described therein, CARB intends to 

conduct enforcement of the Truck and 

Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation similarly to enforcement of 

CARB’s commercial vehicle and school 

bus idling regulations. CARB’s 

enforcement staff intends to use the 

inspection and audit methods that they 

have developed during the many years 

of experience enforcing the Heavy-Duty 

Vehicle Inspection Program (adopted 

into law in 1988) and the Periodic 

Smoke Inspection Program (adopted 

into law in 1990). 

CARB indicates that enforcement 

activities will include inspections at 

border crossings, California Highway 

Patrol (CHP) weigh stations, fleet 

facilities, and randomly selected 

roadside locations and audits of records. 

See appendix H to CARB’s initial 

statement of reasons for proposed 

rulemaking, dated October 2010, cited 

above. These activities could result in 

corrective actions and substantial civil 

penalties for non-compliance with the 

regulations. CARB’s enforcement 

activities are summarized in annual 

reports. See, e.g., CARB’s 2009 Annual 

Enforcement Report (August 2010). 

We recognize the general effectiveness 

of CARB’s motor vehicle enforcement 

program and expect CARB’s approach to 

enforcement of the Truck and Bus and 

Drayage Truck regulations, as described 

above, to be equally effective; however, 

none of the information we have 

received or were able to download from 

CARB’s Web site has identified the 

specific additional resources and 

personnel that CARB has allocated to 

the Truck and Bus Regulation. We 

expect such information to be submitted 

to EPA as part of the SIP submittal 

package contained the final adopted 

versions of the regulations. 

Since the original OGV Clean Fuels 

Regulation became effective, CARB 

enforcement staff has conducted over 

450 vessel inspections and the 

compliance rate, as determined by 

CARB enforcement staff, is 

approximately 95%. See page ES–2 of 

CARB’s Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed 

Amendments to the Regulations ‘‘Fuel 

Sulfur and Other Operational 

Requirements for Ocean-Going Vessels 

within California Waters and 24 

Nautical Miles of the California 

Baseline,’’ dated May 2011. Based on 

CARB’s enforcement activities since the 

effective date of the original OGV Clean 

Fuels Regulation, we believe that CARB 

has allocated adequate funding and 

personnel for the regulation. 

6. EPA’s Regulation Evaluation 

Conclusion 

Based on the above discussion, we 

believe these regulations are consistent 

with the relevant CAA requirements, 

policies and guidance. 

C. Proposed Action, Public Comment 

and Final Action 

For the reasons given above, we 

believe CARB’s Truck and Bus 

Regulation, Drayage Truck Regulation, 

and OGV Clean Fuels Regulation fulfill 

all relevant requirements, and thus, EPA 

is proposing to approve these 

regulations under section 110(k)(3) of 

the CAA once we receive the final 

adopted versions as a revision to the 

California SIP. If the State substantially 

revises these submitted regulations from 

the versions proposed by the State and 

submitted for ‘‘parallel processing,’’ this 

will result in the need for additional 

proposed rulemaking on these 

regulations. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
40660 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

action that will incorporate these 

regulations into the federally 

enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: June 29, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17232 Filed 7–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0547; FRL–9435–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), and particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from open burning. We are 

approving a local rule that regulates 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

August 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0547, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4118, wells.joanne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule and rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule and portion of 

District Staff Report addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that they were 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1