ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 6560-50

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0544; FRL-]

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, heavy-duty 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 [Insert date 30 

days from the date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-

0544 for this action. The index to the docket is available 
2

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

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 
3

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 On-Road DieselFueled 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 
4

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

 

1 Recently, 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 
5

Truck and Bus Regulation

CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation (i.e., 13 CCR section 2025) 

requires fleet2 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 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 

 

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).
6

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 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
7

Existing Engine

Model Year

Compliance Date as 

of January 1

Requirement

1995 and older

1996

1997

1998

1999

2003 and older

2004-2006

All engines

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2023

2010 model year 

emission equivalent

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
8

Engine Model Year

Compliance Date

Install PM Filter by 

January 1

Compliance Date 

2010 Engine by 

January 1

1993 and older

1994-1995

1996-1999

2000-2004

2005-2006

2007 or newer

No Requirement

No Requirement

2012

2013

2014

2014 if not OEM 

equipped

2015

2016

2020

2021

2022

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 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
9

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 non-compliance [13 CCR section 2025(z)]. The 

reader is directed to the proposed rule (page 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 
10

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 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 
11

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 the Drayage Truck Regulation but rather would 

be subject to the provisions of the Truck and Bus Regulation in 
12

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 

 

3 CAA 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.
13

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
14

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;

 

4 These 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.
15

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 
16

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 
17

Drayage Truck Regulation, as set forth in our July 11, 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 
18

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 CARB-verified 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 
19

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 
20

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 EPAor 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 
21

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 
22

technological infeasibility, unfairness relative to non-drayage 

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 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 
23

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 
24

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 In-Use 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 On-Road Diesel-Fueled HeavyDuty 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 
25

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 (Public Law 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 
26

(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. 
27

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 [FEDERAL 

REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication of 

this document in the Federal Register]. 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).)
28

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.

January 26, 2012 /S/________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

Region IX.
29

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 

Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks”).

(410) New regulation was submitted on December 15, 2011, by the 

Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.
30

(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”).

* * * * *