20308 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

applicable to manufacturers, importers, 

and processors of this substance. 

(2) Limitations or revocation of 

certain notification requirements. The 

provisions of § 721.185 apply to this 

section. 

■ 17. Add new § 721.10295 to subpart E 

to read as follows: 

§ 721.10295 IPDI modified isophthalic acid, 

neopentyl glycol and adipic acid (generic). 

(a) Chemical substances and 

significant new uses subject to reporting. 

(1) The chemical substance identified 

generically as IPDI modified isophthalic 

acid, neopentyl glycol and adipic acid 

(PMN P–11–591) is subject to reporting 

under this section for the significant 

new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) 

of this section. 

(2) The significant new uses are: 

(i) Industrial, commercial, and 

consumer activities. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.80(o) and (s) (15,000 

kilograms). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(b) Specific requirements. The 

provisions of subpart A of this part 

apply to this section except as modified 

by this paragraph. 

(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping 

requirements as specified in 

§ 721.125(a), (b), (c), and (i) are 

applicable to manufacturers, importers, 

and processors of this substance. 

(2) Limitations or revocation of 

certain notification requirements. The 

provisions of § 721.185 apply to this 

section. 

■ 18. Add new § 721.10296 to subpart E 

to read as follows: 

§ 721.10296 1,3-Benzenediol, 4-[1-[[3-(lHimidazol-1-yl)propyl]imino] ethyl]-. 

(a) Chemical substance and 

significant new uses subject to reporting. 

(1) The chemical substance identified as 

1,3-benzenediol, 4-[ 1-[[3-(lH-imidazol1-yl)propyl]imino[ethyl]- (PMN P–11– 

608; CAS No. 1313999–39–1) is subject 

to reporting under this section for the 

significant new uses described in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(2) The significant new uses are: 

(i) Release to water. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and 

(c)(4) (N = 1 ppb). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(b) Specific requirements. The 

provisions of subpart A of this part 

apply to this section except as modified 

by this paragraph. 

(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping 

requirements as specified in 

§ 721.125(a), (b), (c), and (k) are 

applicable to manufacturers, importers, 

and processors of this substance. 

(2) Limitations or revocation of 

certain notification requirements. The 

provisions of § 721.185 apply to this 

section. 

■ 19. Add new § 721.10297 to subpart E 

to read as follows: 

§ 721.10297 Tin, C16-18 and C18-unsatd. 

fatty acids castor-oil fatty acids complexes. 

(a) Chemical substances and 

significant new uses subject to reporting. 

(1) The chemical substance identified as 

tin, C16-18 and C18-unsatd. fatty acids 

castor-oil fatty acids complexes (PMN 

P–11–637; CAS No. 1315588–63–6) is 

subject to reporting under this section 

for the significant new uses described in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(2) The significant new uses are: 

(i) Industrial, commercial, and 

consumer activities. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.80(f) and (o). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(b) Specific requirements. The 

provisions of subpart A of this part 

apply to this section except as modified 

by this paragraph. 

(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping 

requirements as specified in 

§ 721.125(a), (b), (c), and (i) are 

applicable to manufacturers, importers, 

and processors of this substance. 

(2) Limitations or revocation of 

certain notification requirements. The 

provisions of § 721.185 apply to this 

section. 

■ 20. Add new § 721.10298 to subpart E 

to read as follows: 

§ 721.10298 MDI terminated polyester 

polyurethane polymer (generic). 

(a) Chemical substances and 

significant new uses subject to reporting. 

(1) The chemical substance identified 

generically as MDI terminated polyester 

polyurethane polymer (P–11–662) is 

subject to reporting under this section 

for the significant new uses described in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(2) The significant new uses are: 

(i) Industrial, commercial, and 

consumer activities. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.80(o). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(b) Specific requirements. The 

provisions of subpart A of this part 

apply to this section except as modified 

by this paragraph. 

(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping 

requirements as specified in 

§ 721.125(a), (b), (c), and (i) are 

applicable to manufacturers, importers, 

and processors of this substance. 

(2) Limitations or revocation of 

certain notification requirements. The 

provisions of § 721.185 apply to this 

section. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8092 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0544; FRL–9633–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementations Plans; California Air 

Resources Board—In-Use Heavy-Duty 

Diesel-Fueled Truck and Bus 

Regulation, and Drayage Truck 

Regulation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB or Board). This 

revision concerns two regulations that 

reduce emissions of diesel particulate 

matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 

and other pollutants from in-use, heavyduty diesel-fueled trucks and buses, and 

drayage trucks. EPA is approving this 

SIP revision because the Agency has 

determined that the regulations are 

consistent with the relevant Clean Air 

Act requirements, policies and 

guidance. Final approval of the two 

regulations and incorporation of them 

into the California SIP makes them 

federally enforceable. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on May 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0544 for 

this action. The index to the docket 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., Confidential 

Business Information). 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. EPA’s Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20309 

1Recently, EPA concurred with the State’s 

determinations that sulfur dioxide, NOX and VOC 

are significant PM2.5 precursors for attainment 

planning purposes in the South Coast [76 FR 69928, 

at 69952 (Nov. 9, 2011)], and that sulfur dioxide 

and NOX are significant PM2.5 precursors for 

attainment planning purposes in San Joaquin Valley 

[76 FR 69896, at 69924 (Nov. 9, 2011)]. 

2 In CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation, ‘‘fleet’’ is 

defined as one or more vehicles, owned by a 

person, business, or government agency, traveling 

in California and subject to the regulation. See 13 

CCR section 2025(d)(28). 

I. EPA’s Proposed Action 

On July 11, 2011 (76 FR 40652), EPA 

proposed to approve title 13, California 

Code of Regulations (CCR), 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’’) (referred to herein as the 

California Air Resources Board’s 

(CARB’s) ‘‘Truck and Bus Regulation’’ 

and 13 CCR section 2027 (‘‘In-Use OnRoad Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage 

Trucks’’) (referred to herein as CARB’s 

‘‘Drayage Truck Regulation’’) as 

revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). We 

proposed to approve CARB’s regulations 

under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’). In today’s action, 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation and 

Drayage Truck Regulation. 

EPA proposed to approve the Truck 

and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation based on the versions of the 

amended regulations released for public 

comment on May 19, 2011 and 

submitted by CARB to EPA in 

connection with a request to ‘‘parallel 

process’’ the regulations for SIP 

approval purposes. Our July 11, 2011 

proposed rule provides detailed 

information on the State’s procedural 

steps culminating in the public release 

of the proposed Truck and Bus 

Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation that formed the basis for 

EPA’s proposed approval, on the 

amendments to the original versions of 

the Truck and Bus Regulation and 

Drayage Truck Regulation (which had 

been originally adopted by CARB in 

December 2008 and December 2007, 

respectively), and on EPA’s ‘‘parallel 

process’’ procedure used to evaluate and 

propose action on proposed SIP 

revisions prior to final adoption and 

submittal to EPA. The reader is directed 

to the July 11, 2011 proposed rule for 

this detailed information. See 76 FR at 

40653–40654. 

The regulations were developed by 

CARB to reduce NOX, and PM emissions 

from in-use, heavy-duty diesel-fueled 

trucks and buses and to meet CAA 

requirements. NOX and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) are precursors 

responsible for the formation of ozone; 

and NOX, VOC, ammonia, and sulfur 

dioxide are precursors for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). 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 (RFP) and that demonstrate 

attainment of the NAAQS within such 

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

the CAA. Reductions from the two 

regulations play a critical role in 

assuring that areas such as the South 

Coast Air Basin (which includes the Los 

Angeles metropolitan area and Orange 

County) and the San Joaquin Valley 

meet the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5.1

Truck and Bus Regulation 

CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation 

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

fleet 2 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 dieselfueled 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 solid waste 

collection vehicles, are subject to 

different CARB regulations. See 13 CCR 

section 2025(c). 

Key concepts used in the Truck and 

Bus Regulation include ‘‘2010 Model 

Year (MY) Emissions Equivalent 

Engine,’’ ‘‘PM Best Available Control 

Technology’’ (BACT), and ‘‘Verified 

Diesel Emission Control Strategy’’ 

(VDECS). These concepts are described 

in detail in our July 11, 2011 proposed 

rule on pages 40654 and 40655 and the 

reader is directed there for more 

information on these concepts. 

As described in our July 11, 2011 

proposed rule, the basic requirements of 

the regulation are set forth in 

subsections (e), (f), and (g) of the 

regulation. Under these subsections, 

different sets of requirements are 

established for subject vehicles with a 

GVWR of 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 of 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 1. 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 schools 

buses must comply with PM BACT by 

2014. 

TABLE 1—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 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
20310 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 2. 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 2—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 recordkeeping 

requirements of subsections (r) and (s). 

Credits are not transferrable except with 

appropriate documentation of a change 

of business form approved by the CARB 

Executive Officer (EO). 

Subsection (l) of the Truck and Bus 

Regulation 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 of the Truck and Bus 

Regulation. 

Other provisions in the Truck and Bus 

Regulation include certain requirements 

and exemptions for agricultural fleets 

[13 CCR 2025(m)]; requirements for 

single-engine and two-engine sweepers 

[13 CCR 2025(n)]; requirements for a 

new fleet and changes in an existing 

fleet [13 CCR 2025(o)]; certain 

exemptions, delays, and extensions [13 

CCR 2025(p)]; special provisions for 

VDECS and experimental diesel 

emission control strategies [13 CCR 

2025(q)]; detailed reporting 

requirements [13 CCR 2025(r)]; 

recordkeeping requirements [13 CCR 

2025(s)]; provisions for auditing of 

records [13 CCR section 2025(t)]; 

provisions for record retention [13 CCR 

2025(u)]; provisions establishing 

CARB’s right of entry [13 CCR 2025(v)]; 

provisions requiring disclosures by 

sellers [13 CCR 2025(w)]; compliance 

requirements [13 CCR 2025(x)]; 

provisions for CARB issuance of 

certificates of reported compliance [13 

CCR 2025(y)]; and penalties for noncompliance [13 CCR section 2025(z)]. 

The reader is directed to the proposed 

rule (pages 40654–40656) for additional 

information on the content of the Truck 

and Bus Regulation. 

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 rail yard 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 owners 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. 

As described in our July 11, 2011 

proposed rule, section 2027(d) of the 

Drayage Truck Regulation establishes 

the requirements and compliance 

deadlines, grouped into two phases, for 

drayage trucks. Phase 1 of the regulation 

[section 2027(d)(1)] required, 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 to California 

or federal emission standards and a 

level 3 VDECS for PM emissions; or a 

2004 or newer MY engine certified to 

California or federal emission standards. 

Drayage trucks with GVWR greater than 

33,000 pounds but with 2004–2006 MY 

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 2005–2006 

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 while operating in the South 

Coast Air Basin. Phase 2 [section 

2027(d)(2)] requires that, beginning on 

January 1, 2014, all drayage trucks must 

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). The Drayage 

Truck Regulation provides for the same 

types of penalties for non-compliance as 

described above for the Truck and Bus 

Regulation. See section 2027(g). 

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 1, 2023, drayage trucks would 

no longer be subject to the provisions of 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20311 

3CAA 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 the Truck and Bus 

Regulation or the Drayage Truck Regulation because 

they do not constitute pre-1990 SIP control 

requirements. 

4These 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. 

the Drayage Truck Regulation but rather 

would be subject to the provisions of the 

Truck and Bus Regulation in 13 CCR 

section 2025. The reader is directed to 

the July 11, 2011 proposed rule (page 

40656) for additional information on the 

content of the Drayage Truck 

Regulation. 

Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Regulations in Proposed Rule 

In our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we 

described the basis for our evaluation of 

the two regulations. Specifically, we 

noted that 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 (RFP), or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act [see 

CAA section 110(l)].3

In our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we 

proposed approval of the Truck and Bus 

Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation based on our conclusion that 

the regulation would meet the 

applicable procedural and substantive 

requirements of the Clean Air Act for 

SIPs and SIP revisions described in the 

previous paragraph. The following 

paragraphs summarize our findings in 

this regard from our proposed rule. 

First, with respect to the procedural 

requirements of CAA section 110(l), we 

noted the extensive public process that 

CARB conducted prior to the adoption 

of the original versions of the Truck and 

Bus Regulation in December 2008 and 

the Drayage Truck Regulation in 

December 2007 and the extensive public 

process that CARB conducted for the 

recent amendments to the two 

regulations. We anticipated that we 

would conclude that CARB had 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. 

On September 21, 2011, CARB 

submitted the final adopted versions of 

the Truck and Bus Regulation and the 

Drayage Truck Regulation to EPA as a 

revision to the California SIP, and on 

December 9 and 15, 2011, CARB 

supplemented the September 21, 2011 

submittal with evidence of approval of 

the regulations by the California Office 

of Administrative Law. CARB’s 

September 21, 2011 submittal, as 

supplemented on December 9 and 15, 

2011, includes the documentation of the 

adoption and public process for the 

amendments to the two regulations that 

we had anticipated in our July 11, 2011 

proposed rule. Thus, we conclude that 

CARB has met the procedural 

requirements under CAA section 110(l) 

for reasonable public notice and hearing 

prior to adoption of SIPs and SIP 

revisions. 

Second, in our July 11, 2011 proposed 

rule, we described the general and 

specific authority granted to CARB 

under the California Health and Safety 

Code (H&SC) to adopt and implement 

the two regulations. 

Third, in our July 11, 2011 proposed 

rule, we evaluated the enforceability of 

both regulations with respect to 

applicability and exemptions; standard 

of conduct and compliance dates; sunset 

provisions; discretionary provisions; 

and test methods, recordkeeping and 

reporting,4 and concluded that the two 

regulations would be enforceable for the 

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

the following reasons: 

• The regulations would be 

sufficiently clear as to which persons 

and which vehicles or engines are 

affected by the regulations; 

• The 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; 

• The sunset clause in the Drayage 

Truck Regulation would be acceptable 

because it merely transfers CARB’s 

regulatory authority over drayage trucks 

from the Drayage Truck Regulation to 

the Truck and Bus Regulation; 

• The ‘‘director’s discretion’’ 

provisions in the two regulations would 

be sufficiently limited in scope and 

application; and 

• The regulations would require use 

of appropriate test methods and would 

include adequate recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements sufficient to 

ensure compliance with the applicable 

requirements. 

Fourth, in our July 11, 2011 proposed 

rule, we noted that the State’s 2007 

State Strategy to attain the 1997 PM2.5

and ozone NAAQS in areas like the 

South Coast Air Basin and the San 

Joaquin Valley are relying on the Truck 

and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation, among other CARB 

regulations, to help achieve needed 

emissions reductions and thereby meet 

the aggregated State emissions reduction 

commitments made by CARB in 

connection with the regional air quality 

plans. As such, we concluded that the 

Truck and Bus Regulation and the 

Drayage Truck Regulation would not 

interfere with RFP, attainment or any 

other applicable requirement of the Act 

in accordance with CAA section 110(l). 

Based on the evaluation summarized 

above, we concluded in our July 11, 

2011 proposal that the Truck and Bus 

Regulation and the Drayage Truck 

Regulation would be consistent with the 

relevant CAA requirements, policies 

and guidance. The reader is directed to 

our July 11, 2011 proposed rule (pages 

40657–40659) for a more detailed 

discussion of our evaluation of the 

Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage 

Truck Regulation. 

Lastly, we indicated in our July 11, 

2011 proposed rule that if the State 

substantially revises the version of the 

Truck and Bus Regulation or the 

Drayage Truck Regulation that was 

released for public comment by the 

State and that was submitted for 

‘‘parallel processing,’’ this would result 

in the need for additional proposed 

rulemaking on the regulations by EPA. 

On September 21, 2011, CARB 

submitted the final versions of the 

Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage 

Truck Regulation, which were adopted 

by the CARB Executive Officer on 

September 19, 2011, to EPA as a 

revision to the California SIP. 

The two final adopted regulations 

essentially mirror the versions of the 

regulations that had been released for 

public comment and that had been 

submitted to EPA for parallel 

processing, and on which EPA had 

based the Agency’s proposed approval. 

Because the two final adopted 

regulations are essentially the same as 

the versions of the rules on which the 

proposed approval was based, we can 

rely on our evaluation of the proposed 

versions of the Truck and Bus 

Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation, as set forth in our July 11, 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
20312 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2011 proposed rule and summarized 

above, in taking today’s final action to 

approve the final adopted versions of 

the regulations. 

Under California law, once adopted, a 

regulation must still be approved by the 

California Office of Administrative Law 

(OAL) to take effect. CARB’s Truck and 

Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation, as amended, were approved 

by OAL on December 14, 2011 and 

November 9, 2011, respectively, and 

became effective under State law on the 

same days as their OAL approvals. On 

December 9, 2011 and December 15, 

2011, CARB submitted evidence of 

approval of the final, adopted Drayage 

Truck Regulation and Truck and Bus 

Regulation, respectively, by the 

California OAL to EPA as supplements 

to CARB’s September 21, 2011 SIP 

revision, and therefore, CARB has now 

provided EPA with all of the 

documentation necessary for EPA to 

take this final action on the two subject 

regulations. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

Our July 11, 2011 proposed rule 

provided a 30-day comment period. 

During this period, we did not receive 

any comments on our proposed action 

on CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation. 

However, we received three comment 

letters in connection with our proposed 

action on CARB’s Drayage Truck 

Regulation. The comments and our 

responses are provided below. 

Individual Trucking Company: An 

Individual Trucking Company requests 

that EPA prevent Phase 2 of CARB’s 

Drayage Truck Regulation from being 

implemented on the schedule set forth 

in the regulation due to social and 

economic impacts that the Individual 

Trucking Company believes will result, 

in part due to the absence of a CARBverified filter available to allow truck 

owners and operators to comply with 

Phase 2 requirements. The Individual 

Trucking Company notes that 

development of such a filter is unlikely 

now that the schedule for Phase 2 

compliance by non-drayage trucks has 

been extended to dates later than for 

drayage trucks. 

EPA Response: Under Phase 2 of 

CARB’s Drayage Truck Regulation, 

beginning January 1, 2014, all drayage 

trucks must be equipped with a 1994 or 

newer model year engine that meets or 

exceeds 2007 MY California or federal 

emission standards. See 13 CCR 

2027(d)(2). In our July 11, 2011 

proposed rule, we evaluated the Drayage 

Truck Regulation against the procedural 

and substantive requirements of the 

CAA for SIPs and SIP revisions and 

determined that the regulation meet all 

of the applicable requirements. See 

pages 40657–40659 of the proposed 

rule. 

Under the CAA, EPA is required to 

approve a SIP submission that complies 

with the provisions of the Act and 

applicable Federal requirements. See 

section 110(k) of the CAA and 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. The 

above comments from the Individual 

Trucking Company do not challenge 

EPA’s conclusion that the Drayage 

Truck Regulation meets all applicable 

CAA requirements but rather contend, 

for various reasons, that Phase 2 of 

CARB’s Drayage Truck Regulation is too 

costly and may not be economically or 

technologically feasible. However, such 

considerations cannot form the basis for 

EPA disapproval of a rule submitted by 

a state as part of a SIP [see Union 

Electric Company v. EPA; 427 U.S. 246, 

265 (1976)]. Moreover, EPA disapproval 

of CARB’s regulation would not prevent 

the implementation of Phase 2 because 

the Phase 2 requirements would still 

apply, and would still be enforceable, 

under State law, regardless of EPA’s 

action to approve or disapprove the 

regulation as a revision to the California 

SIP. 

Anonymous Oakland Trucker: The 

Oakland trucker objects to CARB’s 

decision not to delay Phase 2 of the 

Drayage Truck Regulation consistent 

with the delay adopted for non-drayage 

truckers under the Truck and Bus 

Regulation and contends that, due to the 

lack of a filter to allow 2004–2006 MY 

trucks to remain compliant with the 

regulation through 2020, certain social 

and economic consequences will result. 

EPA Response: As explained above in 

our response to the Individual Trucking 

Company, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act, and 

that objections to a State rule grounded 

in economic or technological feasibility 

cannot form the basis for EPA 

disapproval of the rule submitted by a 

state as part of a SIP. 

West State Alliance: West State 

Alliance (WSA), an association of 

truckers and ancillary goods movement 

industries servicing the Port of Oakland, 

generally requests that EPA disapprove 

the Drayage Truck Regulation as a 

revision of the California SIP based on 

the contents of seven documents 

attached to their general comment 

requesting disapproval. The seven 

documents include the following: 

• A letter from WSA to CARB, dated 

December 28, 2010, objecting to CARB’s 

December 17, 2010 decision not to delay 

the Phase 2 requirements under the 

Drayage Truck Regulation. 

• A letter from Horizon Freight 

System, Inc. to CARB, dated December 

29, 2010, objecting to CARB’s December 

17, 2010 decision not to delay the Phase 

2 requirements under the Drayage Truck 

Regulation. 

• A letter from Diesel Emissions 

Service to WSA, dated December 29, 

2010, discussing the lack of an available 

EPA- or CARB-verified retrofit system 

that would allow the operator of a 1994– 

2006 model year engine to meet the 

requirements of Phase 2 of CARB’s 

Drayage Truck Regulation. 

• An undated letter from an Oakland 

City Councilmember to CARB objecting 

to CARB’s failure to extend the Phase 2 

compliance dates in the Drayage Truck 

Regulation consistent with the 

compliance date extensions adopted by 

CARB in the Truck and Bus Regulation. 

• An undated WSA fact sheet 

concerning CARB’s Drayage Truck 

Regulation that was circulated after 

CARB’s December 17, 2010 decision not 

to delay the Phase 2 requirements under 

the Drayage Truck Regulation. 

• A WSA request to CARB submitted 

May 16, 2011 requesting that CARB 

reconsider the Proposed Amendments 

to the Drayage Truck Regulation of 

October 2010 that would have aligned 

scheduled upgrades for drayage trucks 

with other diesel trucks under CARB’s 

Truck and Bus Regulation. 

• A letter to CARB dated August 3, 

2011 from an attorney retained by WSA 

concerning the costs of implementation 

of Phase 2 of CARB’s Drayage Truck 

Regulation as well as CARB’s purported 

failure to prepare a study on the 

economic impacts on business under 

California Government Code 11346, et 

seq., in connection with CARB’s 

decision not to delay implementation of 

Phase 2 of the Drayage Truck 

Regulation. 

EPA Response: EPA has reviewed the 

seven documents and finds that, with 

one exception, the comments contained 

therein object to the compliance date for 

Phase 2 requirements under CARB’s 

Drayage Truck Regulation based on 

purported economic or technological 

infeasibility, unfairness relative to nondrayage truckers, and unavailability of 

funding, and that the comments also 

denounce the purported adverse social 

impacts that will result, particularly to 

the West Oakland community. However, 

as discussed above in responses to 

comments from the Individual Trucking 

Company and the Anonymous Oakland 

Trucker, such considerations cannot 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20313 

form the basis for EPA disapproval of 

the rule submitted by a state as part of 

a SIP. 

The one specific comment that does 

relate to EPA’s action is directed to 

CARB, rather than EPA, but it 

challenges CARB’s decision not to 

extend Phase 2 compliance dates on 

state law grounds. SIP rules must be 

adopted by states in compliance with 

their own laws because a state must 

provide necessary assurances that it has 

adequate legal authority to carry out the 

SIP revision and, where a state has not 

followed its own laws in adopting a rule 

subsequently submitted as a SIP 

revision, such assurances generally 

cannot be provided. See CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E). 

In this instance, the commenter 

accuses CARB of failing to follow the 

mandates of state law proscribed by 

California Government Code section 

11346, et seq., which generally 

establishes procedures for state 

departments and agencies for adoption, 

amendment, or repeal of administrative 

regulations. Among the requirements 

are the duty to assess the potential for 

adverse economic impact on California 

businesses and individuals and to 

identify and evaluate alternatives that 

are less burdensome but equally 

effective. See Cal. Government Code 

§§ 11346.2 and 11346.3. However, we 

note that CARB specifically addressed 

the issue of adverse economic impacts 

related to CARB’s decision not to extend 

Phase 2 compliance dates under the 

Drayage Truck Regulation in CARB’s 

Final Statement of Reasons for 

Rulemaking (for the Drayage Truck 

Regulation) (‘‘FSOR’’), which was 

submitted by CARB in its SIP submittal 

dated September 21, 2011. In the FSOR, 

CARB explains that CARB staff 

performed the required economic 

analysis of the impacts to drayage 

businesses for compliance with the 

Phase 2 requirements as part of the 

rulemaking decision in 2007, and that 

no new economic analysis is required 

for CARB’s decision to retain those 

requirements. See CARB’s FSOR, page 

46. We find that CARB’s response 

adequately addresses this issue and 

provides us with the necessary 

assurances that CARB has complied 

with state law in adopting the Drayage 

Truck Regulation and will be able to 

carry out this SIP revision. 

III. Final Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the Truck 

and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation comply with the relevant 

CAA requirements. Therefore, pursuant 

to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA and for 

the reasons given above and in our July 

11, 2011 proposed rule, EPA is taking 

final action to approve the Truck and 

Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation into the California SIP. The 

specific rules approved into the SIP in 

today’s action are: 

• 13 CCR section 2025 (‘‘Regulation 

to Reduce Emissions of Diesel 

Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen 

and Other Criteria Pollutants, from InUse Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled 

Vehicles’’), as adopted by the CARB 

Executive Officer on September 19, 

2011, submitted on September 21, 2011, 

and made effective under State law on 

December 14, 2011; and 

• 13 CCR section 2027 (‘‘In-Use OnRoad Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage 

Trucks’’), as adopted by the CARB 

Executive Officer on September 19, 

2011, submitted on September 21, 2011, 

and made effective under State law on 

November 9, 2011. 

Final approval of the regulations and 

incorporation of them into the 

California SIP makes them federally 

enforceable. 

IV. 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 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 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 4, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
20314 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: January 26, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(409) and (c)(410) 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(409) New regulation was submitted 

on December 9, 2011, by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) State of California Office of 

Administrative Law, ‘‘Notice of 

Approval of Regulatory Action,’’ Title 

13, California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), section 2027, effective on 

November 9, 2011. 

(2) Final Regulation Order, 13 CCR 

section 2027 (‘‘In-Use On-Road DieselFueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks’’). 

(410) New regulation was submitted 

on December 15, 2011, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) State of California Office of 

Administrative Law, ‘‘Notice of 

Approval of Regulatory Action,’’ Title 

13, California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), section 2025, effective on 

December 14, 2011. 

(2) Final Regulation Order, 13 CCR 

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’’). 

[FR Doc. 2012–7023 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0975; FRL–9339–9] 

2-Propenoic Acid, 2-Methyl-, 2- 

Ethylhexyl Ester, Telomer With 1- 

Dodecanethiol, Ethenylbenzene and 2- 

Methyloxirane Polymer With Oxirane 

Monoether With 1,2-Propanediol 

Mono(2-Methyl-2-Propenoate), 

Hydrogen 2-Sulfobutanedioate, 

Sodium Salt, 2, 2′-(1,2- 

Diazenediyl)Bis[2- 

Methylpropanenitrile]-Initiated; 

Tolerance Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of 2-Propenoic 

acid, 2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl ester, 

telomer with 1-dodecanethiol, 

ethenylbenzene and 2-methyloxirane 

polymer with oxirane monoether with 

1,2-propanediol mono(2-methyl-2- 

propenoate), hydrogen 2- 

sulfobutanedioate, sodium salt, 2, 2′- 

(1,2-diazenediyl)bis[2- 

methylpropanenitrile]-initiated, CAS 

Reg. No. 1283712–50–4; when used as 

an inert ingredient in a pesticide 

chemical formulation. Clariant 

Corporation submitted a petition to EPA 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of 2- 

Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl 

ester, telomer with 1-dodecanethiol, 

ethenylbenzene and 2-methyloxirane 

polymer with oxirane monoether with 

1,2-propanediol mono(2-methyl-2- 

propenoate), hydrogen 2- 

sulfobutanedioate, sodium salt, 2, 2′- 

(1,2-diazenediyl)bis[2- 

methylpropanenitrile]-initiated on food 

or feed commodities. 

DATES: This regulation is effective April 

4, 2012. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

June 4, 2012, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2011–0975. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

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 in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alganesh Debesai, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–8353; email address: 

debesai.alganesh@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http:// 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES