ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

Approval and Promulgation of Implementations Plans; California 

Air Resources Board – Ocean-Going Vessels Clean Fuel 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 a regulation that reduces emissions of diesel 

particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and other pollutants from ocean-going vessels (OGV) 

operating within 24 miles of the California baseline. In a 

proposed rule published on July 11, 2011, EPA proposed to 

approve CARB’s OGV Clean Fuel Regulation in addition to two CARB 

regulations related to in-use heavy-duty diesel-fueled trucks

and buses and drayage trucks. In today’s action, EPA is taking 

final action on CARB’s OGV Clean Fuel Regulation and will take 

final action on CARB’s truck and bus, and drayage truck 

regulations in a separate document. Final approval of the 

regulation and incorporation of it into the California SIP makes

it federally enforceable.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on [Insert date 30
2

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 

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
3

On July 11, 2011 (76 FR 40652), EPA proposed to approve the 

title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 2299.2

(“Fuel Sulfur and Other Operational Requirements for Ocean-Going 

Vessels within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the 

California Baseline”) (referred to herein as the California Air 

Resources Board’s (CARB’s) “Ocean-Going Vessel (OGV) Clean Fuel 

Regulation,” or simply, “OGV Regulation”) as a revision to the 

California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We proposed to 

approve CARB’s OGV Regulation under section 110(k)(3) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”).

In our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, EPA proposed to approve 

two other CARB regulations in addition to CARB’s OGV Regulation. 

The two other rules apply to certain in-use heavy-duty dieselfueled trucks and buses and drayage trucks. In today’s action, 

EPA is taking final action on CARB’s OGV Regulation and will 

take final action on CARB’s truck and bus, and drayage truck 

regulations in a separate document.

EPA proposed to approve the OGV Regulation based on the 

version of the amended regulation released for public comment on 

April 26, 2011 and submitted by CARB to EPA in connection with a 

request to “parallel process” the regulation for SIP approval 

purposes on May 11, 2011, and for which a public hearing was 

scheduled by CARB for June 23, 2011. Our July 11, 2011 proposed 
4

rule provides detailed information on the State’s procedural 

steps culminating in the public release of the proposed OGV 

Regulation that formed the basis for EPA’s proposed approval, on 

the amendments to the original OGV Regulation (which had been 

adopted by CARB in 2008), 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 pages 40653-40654 of EPA’s July 11, 

2011 proposed rule. 

The OGV Regulation was developed by CARB to reduce oxides 

of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and PM emissions from 

ocean-going vessels 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).1 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 

 

1 SO2 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 (S0x); herein, we use 

SO2 to refer to the same pollutant type. 
5

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 the OGV Regulation 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) meet the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5.

CARB’s OGV Regulation (13 CCR section 2299.2) requires the 

use of low sulfur marine distillate fuels (instead of heavy fuel 

oil or residual fuel) to reduce PM, NOx, and SO2 exhaust 

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, among other areas, all waters 

within 24 miles of the California baseline (except a specific 

area off Point Conception). The regulation does not include, 

among other vessels, OGVs that pass through waters impacted by 

the OGV Regulation but do not enter California internal or 

estuarine waters or call at a port, roadstead2 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 

 

2 “Roadstead” means any facility that is used for the loading, unloading, and 

anchoring of ships. See 13 CCR section 2299.2(d)(31).
6

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). Unless specifically exempted, the 

regulation applies to both U.S.-flagged and foreign-flagged 

OGVs.

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 the areas impacted by the OGV Regulation. 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 is lowered 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 Regulation 

establishes more stringent requirements than otherwise required 
7

under Federal law, at least until January 1, 2015.3

Other provisions in the OGV Regulation include 

recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements [13 CCR 

section 2299.2(e)(2)]; penalties for non-compliance [13 CCR 

section 2299.2(f)]; exemptions based on the need for essential 

modifications [13 CCR section 2299.2(g)]; in-lieu noncompliance 

fees under certain circumstances [13 CCR section 2299.2(h)]; 

test methods [13 CCR section 2299.2(i)]; and a sunset clause 

upon issuance of written findings by the CARB Executive Officer 

that Federal requirements are in place that will achieve 

equivalent emissions reductions within the waters impacted by 

the OGV Regulation and are being enforced within those waters 

[13 CCR section 2299.2(j)]. The reader is directed to the 

proposed rule (page 40656-40657) for additional information on 

the content of the OGV Regulation.

 

3 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 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 foreign-flagged 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. 
8

In our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we described the basis 

for our evaluation of the OGV Regulation. 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, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act [see CAA section 110(l)].4 

In our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we proposed approval of 

the OGV 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. 

 

4 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 OGV Regulation 

because it does not represent pre-1990 SIP control requirements.
9

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 version of the 

OGV Regulation in 2008 and the extensive public process that 

CARB conducted for the recent amendments to the regulation. 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 regulation as a SIP 

revision with the necessary public process documentation.

On September 21, 2011, CARB submitted the final adopted 

version of the OGV Regulation to EPA as a revision to the 

California SIP, and on November 2, 2011, supplemented the 

September 21, 2011 submittal with evidence of approval of the 

regulation by the California Office of Administrative Law. 

CARB’s September 21, 2011 submittal includes the documentation 

of the adoption and public process for the amendments to the OGV 

Regulation 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 
10

the OGV Regulation. Moreover, we indicated that we knew of no 

obstacle under Federal or State law in CARB’s ability to 

implement the regulation. In this regard, we recognized that a 

challenge on preemption grounds had been brought against the OGV 

Regulation, but we also recognized that CARB’s ability to adopt 

and enforce the OGV Regulation had been upheld by the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass’n. v. 

Goldstene, No. 09-17765 (9th Cir. March 28, 2011), and based on 

that decision, we concluded that CARB had the ability to 

implement and enforce the OGV Regulation.

Third, in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we evaluated the 

enforceability of the OGV Regulation with respect to 

applicability and exemptions; standard of conduct and compliance 

dates; sunset provisions; discretionary provisions; and test 

methods, recordkeeping and reporting,

5 and concluded that the 

regulation would be enforceable for the purposes of CAA section 

110(a)(2) for the following reasons:

The regulation would be sufficiently clear as to which 

persons and which vehicles or engines are affected by the 

regulations;

The regulation would be sufficiently specific so that the 

 

5 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.
11

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 OGV Regulation would be acceptable 

because it would not be triggered unless and until the CARB 

Executive Officer makes a finding that federal requirements 

are in place that will achieve equivalent emissions 

reduction within waters impacted by the OGV Regulation and 

that are being enforced within those waters;

The “director’s discretion” provisions in the regulation

would be sufficiently limited in scope and application; and 

The regulation 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 was relying

on the OGV 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 OGV Regulation would not interfere with RFP, 
12

attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act in 

accordance with CAA section 110(l).

Fifth, we took note of CARB information that states that, 

over the course of the first 20 months since the first phase of 

the OGV Regulation became effective (July 2009) (i.e., July 2009 

through March 2011), CARB enforcement staff had conducted over 

450 vessel inspections and that the compliance rate, as 

determined by CARB enforcement staff, is approximately 95%.

6 In 

our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we concluded, based on CARB’s 

enforcement activities since the effective date of the first 

phase of the OGV Regulation, that CARB has allocated adequate 

funding and personnel for the regulation.

Based on the evaluation summarized above, we concluded in 

our July 11, 2011 proposal that the OGV 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 OGV Regulation. 

Lastly, we indicated in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule 

that if the State substantially revises the OGV Regulation from 

the version that was released for public comment by the State 

 

6 See page ES-2 in 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, May 2011.
13

and that was submitted for “parallel processing,” this would

result in the need for additional proposed rulemaking on the 

regulation by EPA. On September 21, 2011, CARB submitted the 

final OGV Regulation, that the CARB Executive Officer had 

adopted on September 13, 2011, to EPA as a revision to the 

California SIP. The final adopted version essentially mirrors 

the version of the regulation 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. Under California law, once adopted, a regulation must 

still be approved by the California Office of Administrative Law 

(OAL) to take effect. CARB’s OGV Regulation, as amended, was

approved by OAL on October 27, 2011, and became effective under 

State law that same day. On November 2, 2011, CARB submitted 

evidence of approval of the final adopted regulation by the 

California OAL to EPA as a supplement to CARB’s September 21, 

2011 SIP revision.

Because the final adopted OGV Regulation is essentially the 

same as the version of the regulation on which the proposed 

approval was based, we can rely on our evaluation of the 

proposed version of the regulation in taking today’s final 

action on the final adopted version of the regulation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
14

Our July 11, 2011 proposed rule provided a 30-day comment 

period. During this period, we received one comment letter in 

connection with our proposed action on CARB’s OGV Regulation: a 

one-page summary letter (dated August 10, 2011) from the Pacific 

Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA), an association 

representing ocean carriers servicing regular trade routes into 

California ports. The comment and our response are provided 

below.

PMSA Comment: PSMA indicates that it has consistently objected 

to the OGV Regulation and subsequent amendments on 

jurisdictional, legal and technical grounds and that it is 

opposed to their inclusion in the California SIP. PMSA requests 

that EPA disapprove the OGV Regulation in light of the need for 

uniform and consistent regulation in solving vessel emission 

problems. PMSA notes that PMSA has endorsed the proposed 

amendments to Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78, approved in October 

2008, and the creation of the joint U.S./Canada Emission Control 

Area (ECA), approved in March 2010.

EPA Response: EPA’s July 11, 2011 proposed rule recognizes the 

potential issue of preemption of CARB’s OGV Regulation. See 76 

FR at 40658. However, in our proposed rule, we also recognize 

that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the 

preemption arguments raised by PMSA in connection with PMSA’s
15

direct challenge to CARB’s OGV Regulation. See Pacific Merchant 

Shipping Ass’n v. Goldstene, 639 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2011).

Thus, in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we concluded that CARB 

has the requisite ability to implement and enforce the OGV 

Regulation, and PMSA’s summary comments do not change the 

controlling decision of the court. Thus, we are taking final 

action today to approve CARB’s OGV Regulation into the 

California SIP.7

We do recognize the beneficial impacts of the emissions 

reductions that will occur due to the creation of the joint 

U.S./Canada Emission Control Area (ECA) and implementation of a 

fuel sulfur content limit of 0.1% sulfur beginning on January 1, 

2015. However, due to attainment needs and timing of attainment 

requirements in the South Coast Air Basin, the State of 

California is relying on the OGV Regulation, which, unlike the 

corresponding requirement in the ECA, applies the 0.1% fuel 

sulfur content limit beginning on January 1, 2014. 

The significance of the one-year difference between the 

implementation date of the OGV Regulation and the ECA 

 

7 At the time of our proposal, we did not know whether PMSA would appeal the 

decision by the Ninth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. PMSA did file a 

petition for writ for certiorari with the Supreme Court, and, by notice dated 

October 3, 2011, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a 

brief in the case expressing the views of the United States. The Solicitor 

General has not yet filed a brief, and no further action has occurred 

regarding the petition.
16

requirement is that the SO2 emissions reductions associated with 

the OGV Regulation must occur no later than January 1, 2014, to 

meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations in the South Coast Air Basin with respect to 

demonstrating attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 2015 pursuant 

to 40 CFR 51.1007(b).

8 If the same reductions in emissions were 

to be delayed until 2015, they would not occur soon enough for 

attainment purposes in the South Coast Air Basin. Thus, while we 

recognize in general the benefit of uniform and consistent 

regulation in solving vessel emission problems, the specific 

needs for attainment of the NAAQS in coastal areas must also be 

considered. In the case of the OGV Regulation, CARB has adopted 

a regulation that provides the necessary emissions reductions 

from OGV when they are needed for attainment purposes but that 

also provides, through the sunset clause in 13 CCR section 

2299.2(j), a process for deferring to the more uniform and 

 

8 The attainment demonstration in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP establishes that 

total SO2 emission in the South Coast in 2014 must be reduced from 

approximately 61 tons per day (baseline conditions) to an attainment target 

level for SO2 of 20 tons per day, and the OGV Regulation is expected to reduce 

SO2 emissions by 37 tons per day, i.e., approximately 90% of the total 41 tons 

per day of needed reduction. See appendix E, pages 2 and 3 of CARB’s Progress 

Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions 

(release date: March 29, 2011); table 3 in EPA’s final rule approving in 

relevant part the South Coast PM2.5 SIP (76 Fed. Reg. 69,928, at 69,950, 

November 9, 2011); and Figure IV-6 on page IV-9 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,” 

May 2011.
17

consistent requirements established through adoption of the 

joint U.S./Canada ECA when the latter achieves equivalent 

emissions reductions. Based on the compliance schedule for the 

standards applicable within the joint U.S./Canada ECA, the 

sunset clause of the OGV Regulation could be triggered in 2015. 

III. Final Action

No comments were submitted that change our assessment that 

the OGV Clean Fuel Regulation complies 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 OGV 

Clean Fuel Regulation into the California SIP. The specific rule 

approved into the SIP in today’s action is 13 CCR section 2299.2 

(“Fuel Sulfur and Other Operational Requirements for Ocean-Going 

Vessels Within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the 

California Baseline”), as adopted by the CARB Executive Officer 

on September 13, 2011, submitted on September 21, 2011, and made

effective under State law on October 27, 2011. Final approval of 

the regulation and incorporation of it into the California SIP 

makes it 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 
18

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 (Public Law 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
19

• 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 
20

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 [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).)
21

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, Sulfur dioxide.

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

November 9, 2011 _____/S/______________________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

Region IX.
22

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 paragraph (c)(403) to 

read as follows: 

§52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(403) New regulation was submitted on November 2, 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,” including title 13, California 

Code of Regulations (CCR), section 2299.2, effective on October 

27, 2011.

(2) Final Regulation Order, 13 CCR section 2299.2 (“Fuel Sulfur 

and Other Operational Requirements for Ocean-Going Vessels 

Within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California 
23

Baseline.”)

*****