ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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, Drayage Truck Regulation and Ocean-Going Vessels 

Clean Fuels Regulation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan (SIP) that EPA expects to 

be submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB or 

Board). These revisions concern three regulations that reduce

emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and other pollutants from in-use,

heavy-duty diesel-fueled trucks and buses and from ocean-going 

vessels (OGV) operating within California jurisdiction. This 

proposed approval is based on proposed regulations submitted by 

CARB and an accompanying request to proceed with SIP review 

while the State completes its public review and agency adoption 

process. EPA will not take final action on the regulations until 

California submits the final adopted versions to EPA as a 

revision to the California SIP. Final EPA approval of the 

regulations and incorporation of them into the California SIP 
would make them federally enforceable. We are providing a 30-day 

comment period for today‟s proposal. 

DATE: Any comments must arrive by [Insert date 30 days from the 

date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPAR09-OAR-2011-0544 , by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on

-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: R9truck_dray_OGVcomments

3. Mail or deliver: Roxanne Johnson (Air U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

CA 94105-3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically 
3

captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment.

Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be 

publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect 

the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during 

normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanne Johnson, EPA Region 

IX, (415) 947-4150, johnson.roxanne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” 

and “our” refer to EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. The State‟s Submittal

A. What regulations did the State submit?

B. Are there other versions of these regulations?

C. What is the purpose of the submitted regulations?
4

D. What requirements do the regulations establish?

II. EPA‟s Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?

B. CARB regulations meeting CAA SIP evaluation criteria.

1. Did the State provide adequate public notification 

and comment periods?

2. Does the State have adequate legal authority to 

implement the regulations?

3. Are the regulations enforceable as required under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)?

4. Do the regulations interfere with reasonable 

further progress and attainment or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act?

5. Will the State have adequate personnel and funding 

for the regulations?

6. EPA‟s Regulation Evaluation Conclusion

C. Proposed Action, Public Comment and Final Action

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What regulations did the State submit?

By letters dated May 11 and May 19, 2011, CARB submitted to 

EPA three proposed regulations, with requests for parallel
5

processing.

1,2 See May 11, and May 19, 2011 letters to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, from James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB.

Table 1 below, lists the regulations addressed by this 

proposal. These regulations include: 1) Regulation to Reduce 

Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and 

Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled 

Vehicles (“Truck and Bus Regulation”); 2) In-Use On-road DieselFueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks (“Drayage Truck Regulation”);

and 3) Fuel Sulfur and Other Operational Requirements for OceanGoing Vessels within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of 

the California Baseline (“OGV Clean Fuels Regulation”).

Table 1 - Regulations Submitted by California for Parallel 

Processing

 

1 Under EPA‟s “parallel processing” procedure, EPA proposes rulemaking action 

concurrently with the State‟s proposed rulemaking. If the State‟s proposed 

rule is changed, EPA will evaluate that subsequent change and may publish 

another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is made, EPA 

will publish a final rulemaking on the rule after responding to any submitted 

comments. Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the rule has 

been fully adopted by California and submitted formally to EPA for 

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

2 Technically, the versions of the regulations submitted to EPA by CARB for 

parallel processing, and evaluated herein, represent proposed modifications 

and amendments to regulations previously adopted by CARB, but because the 

previously-adopted regulations were not submitted for incorporation into the 

SIP, i.e., the regulations would be new to the SIP, we refer to them as 

“proposed regulations” rather than “proposed amendments” or “proposed 

modifications” in this document. To be clear, the versions of the truck, bus, 

and drayage truck regulations that we have evaluated herein are the versions 

released for public comment on May 19, 2011, and the version of the oceangoing vessel regulation that we have evaluated herein is the version released 

for public comment on April 26, 2011.
6

California Code 

of Regulations 

(CCR), title 13, 

Section #

Regulation Title

Section 2025 Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel 

Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and 

Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use HeavyDuty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles

Section 2027 In-Use On-road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty 

Drayage Trucks

Section 2299.23 Fuel Sulfur and Other Operational 

Requirements for Ocean-Going Vessels within 

California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of 

the California Baseline

CARB‟s May 11, 2011 parallel processing request includes 

the CARB notice of public hearing, held on June 23, 2011 and the 

CARB Staff Report, “Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed 

Rulemaking: Proposed Amendments to the Regulations „Fuel Sulfur 

and Other Operational Requirements for Ocean-Going Vessels 

within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California 

Baseline,‟” May 2011. The proposed OGV Clean Fuels Regulation 

was submitted as appendix A to the CARB Staff Report, but since 

 

3 In addition to the proposed version of 13 CCR section 2299.2, CARB also 

submitted the proposed version of 17 CCR section 93118.2. The two regulations 

are fundamentally identical and reflect the authorities granted to CARB in 

the California Health and Safety Code to regulate marine vessel emissions

(section 2299.2, title 13, CCR) and to regulate sources of toxic air 

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

regulations to be approved into the SIP and propose to approve only the title 

13 regulation into the California SIP. 
7

the version in appendix A only includes the subsections of the 

regulation that are proposed for amendment, and not the 

unchanged subsections, we have also reviewed the original 

regulation approved in 2008 together with the proposed 

amendments.

CARB‟s May 19, 2011 parallel processing request includes 

CARB‟s notice of public availability of the proposed Truck and 

Bus Regulation and proposed Drayage Truck Regulation and the 

initiation of a 15-day comment period. CARB‟s 15-day notice 

refers to two attachments, one of which shows the most recent 

modifications to the Truck and Bus Regulation and the second of 

which shows the most recent modifications to the Drayage Truck 

Regulation. Herein, we refer to these versions of the 

regulations as “proposed regulations.” The versions of the 

regulations referred to in the 15-day notice as “attachment 1” 

and “attachment 2” are the versions of the regulations that we 

have evaluated herein. CARB‟s May 19, 2011 request also 

includes: two resolutions dated December 17, 2010 through which 

CARB approved amendments [to the Truck and Bus Regulation and 

Drayage Truck Regulation] for adoption by the CARB Executive

Officer (EO) once he makes further modifications to the 

regulations consistent with the resolutions, and the CARB staff 

report, “Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking: 
8

Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulations, the 

Drayage Truck Regulation, the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas 

Regulation,” October 2010. 

EPA is granting CARB's request that EPA “parallel process”

our review and propose action on the three regulations. All of 

the relevant documents are available for review in the docket 

for today's proposed rulemaking.

B. Are there other versions of these regulations?

The Truck and Bus Regulation was initially approved by CARB 

in December 2008 and became effective (for State law purposes) 

in January 2010. In December 2010, CARB adopted Resolution 10-44 

after considering amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation as 

initially proposed by CARB staff and covered by the Notice of 

Public Hearing (“45-day Public Notice”) and Staff Report, which 

were initially published on October 19, 2010, and staff‟s 

suggested modifications to the proposed amendments, which were 

made in response to comments received before the CARB public 

hearing regarding staff‟s initial proposal. CARB directed staff 

to modify the initially proposed amendments consistent with the 

suggested modifications and CARB‟s findings as set forth in the 

resolution. Resolution 10-44 further directed the CARB EO to 

make the modifications to the initially proposed amendments to 

the Truck and Bus Regulation available for public comment for a 
9

period of 15 days, and to take final action to adopt the 

proposed amendments, as modified in the publicly noticed 15-day 

changes, or return to the CARB Board for further consideration. 

The version of the regulation that is subject to CARB‟s 15-day 

notice is the one we evaluate herein for eventual approval into 

the California SIP. CARB‟s 15-day public comment period ended 

June 3, 2011.

The Drayage Truck Regulation was initially approved by CARB 

in December 2007 and became effective (for State law purposes) 

in December 2008. In December 2010, CARB adopted Resolution 10-

45 after considering amendments to the Drayage Truck Regulation 

initially proposed by CARB staff and covered by the 45-Day 

Public Notice and Staff Report, and directed that the proposed 

amendments be modified consistent with the CARB Board‟s findings 

therein and following the process outlined above for final 

adoption of amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation. The 

version of the regulation that is subject to CARB‟s 15-day 

notice, which covers both the Truck and Bus Regulation and the 

Drayage Truck Regulation, is the one we evaluate herein for 

eventual approval into the California SIP.

The OGV Clean Fuels Regulation was initially approved by CARB in 

July 2008 and became effective (for State law purposes) in July

2009. On May 4, 2011, CARB published a 45-day notice opening a 
10

public comment period and making available proposed amendments 

to the regulation. A public hearing for the CARB Board to 

consider adoption of the amendments was held on June 23, 2011.

Following the public hearing on June 23, 2011, the CARB Board 

adopted a resolution that directs the CARB Executive Officer to 

take final action to adopt the amendments that were the subject

of the 45-day notice in a manner consistent with the 

requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and to 

further modify the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation to reduce the 

“Phase 1” sulfur content limit for marine gas oil from 1.5% to 

1.0% beginning on August 1, 2012, subject to an additional 15-

day notice to allow for public comment on the further 

modifications. The original regulation, along with the proposed 

amendments that was the subject of CARB‟s 45-day notice, is the 

version we evaluate herein for eventual approval into the 

California SIP. For evaluative purposes herein, we also 

recognize the CARB Board‟s action on June 23, 2011 to direct the 

CARB Executive Officer to modify the regulation to reduce the 

“Phase 1” sulfur content limit for marine gas oil from 1.5% to 

1.0% beginning on August 1, 2012, as set forth in attachment B 

to CARB‟s proposed Resolution 11-25 dated June 23, 2011.

As described above, there are previous versions of the 

three regulations, but none of the previous versions were 
11

submitted to EPA for incorporation into the SIP. For a more 

detailed discussion of CARB‟s adoption process for these 

regulations and a discussion of the previous versions of these 

regulations adopted by the State but not submitted to EPA, 

please see the documentation submitted by CARB, included in the 

docket for today‟s rulemaking.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted regulations?

The purpose of the three regulations is to reduce NOx, SO2

and PM emissions from in-use heavy-duty diesel-fueled trucks and 

buses, drayage trucks, ocean-going vessels (OGV), and to meet 

CAA requirements. NOx is a precursor responsible for the 

formation of ozone, and NOx and SO2 are precursors for fine 

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

harm human health and the environment by contributing to 

premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility 

impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. 

California has a number of nonattainment areas for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and 

PM2.5, and the CAA requires states to submit SIP revisions that 

ensure reasonable further progress and that demonstrate

 

4 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. 
12

attainment of the NAAQS within such areas. See, generally, part 

D of title I of the CAA. Reductions from these regulations play 

a critical role in assuring that areas such as the South Coast 

Air Basin and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin meet the NAAQS 

for ozone and PM2.5. 

D. What requirements do the regulations establish?

Truck and Bus Regulation

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

requires fleet (defined as one or more vehicles) owners to 

upgrade their vehicles to meet specific performance standards 

for NOx and PM. The regulation applies to diesel-fueled trucks 

and buses that are privately owned, federally owned, and to 

publicly and privately owned school buses, that have a 

manufacturer‟s gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 

14,000 pounds (lbs). (Local and state government owned dieselfueled trucks are already subject to other CARB regulations.) 

Nearly all of the vehicles affected by the regulation are onroad vehicles, but the regulation also applies to yard trucks 

with off-road engines used for agricultural operations and twoengine street sweepers with such engines. The regulation exempts

certain categories of trucks and buses, many of which, such as 

drayage trucks, are subject to different CARB regulations. 

Key concepts used in the Truck and Bus Regulation include 
13

“2010 Model Year Emissions Equivalent Engine,” “PM BACT,” and 

“Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy” (VDECS). As set 

forth in 13 CCR section 2025(d)(3), “2010 Model Year Emissions 

Equivalent Engine” means emissions from: (A) An engine certified 

to the 2004 through 2006 model year (MY) heavy-duty diesel 

engine emissions standard that is equipped with the highest 

level VDECS and that reduces NOx emissions by at least 85%; (B) 

An engine that was built to the 2004 engine emission standard 

and was not used in any manufacturer‟s averaging, banking, or 

trading program that is equipped with the highest level VDECS 

and that reduces NOx exhaust emissions by at least 85%; (C) An 

engine certified to the 2007 MY heavy-duty diesel engine 

emissions standard that meets PM BACT and that reduces NOx 

exhaust emissions by more than 70%; (D) An engine certified to 

the 2010 MY or newer heavy-duty certified to the 2010 MY or 

newer heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard that meets PM 

BACT; (E) A heavy-duty engine certified to 0.2 grams per brakehorsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) or less NOx emissions level and 0.01 

g/bhp-hr or less PM emissions level; or (F) An off-road engine 

certified Tier 4 engine emissions standard.

“PM BACT” means the technology employed on the highest 

level VDECS for PM or an engine that is equipped with an 

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) diesel particulate filter 
14

and certified to meet the 0.01 g/bhp-hr certification standard. 

See 13 CCR section 2025(d) (48). “Verified Diesel Emission 

Control Strategy” (VDECS) means an emission control strategy, 

designed primarily for the reduction of diesel PM emissions, 

which has been verified pursuant to the Verification Procedures. 

VDECS can be verified to achieve Level 1 diesel PM reductions 

(25%), Level 2 diesel PM reduction (50%), or Level 3 diesel PM 

reductions (85%). VDECS may also be verified to achieve NOx

reductions. See 13 CCR section 2025(d) (60).

The basic requirements of the regulation are set forth in 

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

different sets of requirements are established for subject 

vehicles with a GVWR 26,000 lbs or less [subsection (f)] and 

subject vehicles with a GVWR greater than 26,000 lbs [subsection 

(g)]. Under subsection (f), with certain exceptions, subject 

vehicles with a GVWR 26,000 lbs or less must, starting January 

1, 2015, be equipped with a “2010 model year emissions

equivalent engine” pursuant to the schedule shown in table 2. 

School buses, that otherwise would be subject to subsection (f), 

are subject to a different set of requirements in subsection 

(k). Under subsection (k), with certain exceptions, all schools 

buses must comply with PM BACT by 2014. 

Table 2 - Compliance Schedule under Section 2025(f) by Engine 
15

Model Year for Lighter Heavy-Duty Trucks

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 3. Fleets with 

vehicles otherwise subject to subsection (g) may opt for a 

different phase-in compliance schedule for PM BACT but must 

comply with section 2025(g) by 2023. See 13 CCR section 2025, 

subsections (h) (“Small Fleet Compliance Option”) and 

(i)(“Phase-in Option”). 

Table 3 - Compliance Schedule under Section 2025(g) by

Engine Model Year for Heavier Heavy-Duty Trucks

Engine Model Year

Compliance Date

Install PM Filter by 

January 1

Compliance Date 

2010 Engine by 

January 1
16

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 EO.

Subsection (l) provides requirements for drayage trucks and 

utility vehicles. Drayage trucks subject to the Drayage Truck 

Regulation may be included in the fleet to comply with the 

requirements of the Truck and Bus Regulation only if all drayage 

trucks are included. Starting January 1, 2023, all drayage truck 

owners must comply with the requirements summarized above in 

tables 2 and 3. Drayage trucks may not utilize any of the 
17

credits in subsection (j) or exemptions and extensions in 

subsection (p). Starting January 1, 2021, all private utility 

vehicle owners must comply with the requirements summarized 

above in tables 2 and 3.

Subsection (m) provides exemptions for agricultural fleets

that meet the conditions of this subsection and remain below 

annual mileage limits specified therein. Starting January 1, 

2017, all agricultural vehicles that have exceeded 10,000 miles 

in any calendar year since January 1, 2011, must comply with the 

requirements summarized above in tables 2 and 3. This subsection 

includes a provision, which allows the CARB EO to exempt 

vehicles as specialty agricultural vehicles as long as the 

vehicles meet the requirements of the subsection and the EO does 

not exceed the caps for the number of such vehicles in the San 

Joaquin Valley and Statewide. This section also provides an 

optional phase-in for log trucks. Starting January 1, 2014, 10 

percent of the total log truck fleet must comply with 2010 MY

emissions or equivalent, and by January 1, 2023, 100 percent of 

the fleet must be 2010 MY emissions equivalent.

Subsection (p) provides for exemptions, delays, and 

extensions. The categories of vehicles that may qualify for 

relief under subsection (p) include vehicles used exclusively in 

NOx exempt areas (which include no counties within the South 
18

Coast Air Basin or San Joaquin Valley), low-mileage construction 

trucks, unique vehicles, low-use vehicles, vehicles operating 

with a three-day pass, vehicles awaiting sale, and vehicles used 

solely on San Nicholas or San Clemente Islands. Extensions in 

compliance deadlines are also provided for in subsection (p) for 

emission control device manufacturer delays or unavailability of 

highest level VDECS. 

Subsection (r) includes detailed reporting requirements. 

Generally, the reporting requirements apply to owners who have 

elected to use the compliance options or credits provided for in 

the regulation or who rely on the special provisions in the 

regulation, such as those for agricultural provisions, street 

sweeper provisions, NOx exempt areas, and low-mileage 

construction trucks. Subsection (s) sets forth the record 

keeping requirements of the regulation, subsection (t) requires 

vehicle owners to make records available to CARB, and subsection 

(u) establishes record retention requirements.

Subsections (v) through (z) include provisions that support 

compliance and enforcement of the regulation by, for example, 

establishing a right of entry for CARB agents [subsection (v)] 

and by requiring sellers to provide a specific disclosure 

concerning the regulation to buyers [subsection (w)]. Subsection 

(z) establishes the penalties for non-compliance. Under this 
19

subsection, any person who fails to comply with the Truck and 

Bus Regulation may be subject to civil or criminal penalties 

under the California Health and Safety Code sections 39674, 

39675, 42400, 42400.1, 42400.2, 42402.2, and 43016.

Drayage Truck Regulation

CARB‟s Drayage Truck Regulation (13 CCR section 2027)

applies to owners and operators of certain in-use, on-road,

diesel-fueled, heavy-duty drayage vehicles with a GVWR greater 

than 26,000 pounds defined as “drayage trucks.” Drayage trucks 

are those that are used for transporting cargo, such as 

containerized, bulk, or break-bulk goods and that operate on or 

transgress through port or intermodal rail yard property for the 

purpose of loading, unloading or transporting cargo, including 

transporting empty containers and chassis; or that operate off 

port or intermodal railyard property transporting cargo or empty 

containers or chassis that originated from or is destined to a 

port or intermodal rail yard property. The regulation also 

applies to owner and operators of motor carriers that dispatch 

drayage trucks that operate in California, marine or port 

terminals, intermodal rail yards, and rail yard and port 

authorities. Owners and operators are subject to the Drayage 

Truck Regulation through December 31, 2022. Starting January 1, 

2023, drayage trucks will be subject to the Truck and Bus 
20

Regulation. 

Section 2027(d) of the Drayage Truck Regulation includes 

the requirements and compliance deadlines, grouped into two 

phases. Phase 1 of the regulation [section 2027(d)(1)] required

that, by December 31, 2009, all drayage trucks with a GVWR 

greater than 33,000 pounds to be equipped with a 1994-2003 MY

engine certified standards to California or federal emission 

standards and a level 3 VDECS for PM emissions; or, 2004 or 

newer MY engine certified to California or federal emission 

standards. Drayage trucks with GVWR greater than 33,000 pounds 

but with 2004 or 2005 engines are allowed extra time to be 

equipped with a level 3 VDECS (by January 1, 2012 for subject 

vehicles with MY 2004 engines and by January 1, 2013 for 

vehicles with MY 2005 engines). Under Phase 1, by January 1, 

2012, all drayage trucks with a GVWR of 26,001 lbs to 33,000 

pounds must be equipped with a level 3 VDECS for PM emissions.

Phase 2 [section 2027(d)(2)] requires all drayage trucks to be 

equipped with a 1994 or newer MY engine that meets or exceeds 

2007 MY California or federal emissions standards.

Drayage truck owners must register with the CARB Drayage 

Truck Registry, a database that contains information on all 

trucks that conduct business at California ports and intermodal 

rail yards. See section 2027(e). Sections 2027(d)(3), (4), (5) 
21

and (6) include additional requirements for drayage truck 

owners, drayage truck operators, motor carriers and marine or 

port terminals and intermodal rail yards, to ensure that the 

various parties coordinate their activities to ensure compliance 

with the emissions standards and compliance deadlines in Phases 

1 and 2. 

The Drayage Truck Regulation provides for the same types of 

penalties for non-compliance as described above for the Truck 

and Bus Regulation. Sections 2027(h) (“Right of Entry”) and 

2027(i)(“Enforcement”) authorize and support efforts by CARB and 

other officials to ensure compliance with the regulation. 

Section 2023(j) is a sunset clause that provides that, starting 

January 2, 2023, drayage truck would no longer be subject to the 

provisions of the Drayage Truck Regulation but rather would be 

subject to the provisions of the Truck and Bus Regulation in 13 

CCR section 2025.

OGV Clean Fuels Regulation

CARB‟s OGV Clean Fuels Regulation (13 CCR section 2299.2) 

requires the use of low sulfur marine distillate fuels (instead 

of heavy fuel oil) to reduce PM, NOx, and SO2 emissions from the 

use of auxiliary diesel and diesel-electric engines, main 

propulsion engines, and auxiliary boilers on ocean-going vessels 

(OGVs). The regulation applies to owners and operators of OGVs
22

that operate in any of the Regulated California Waters, which 

are defined in the regulation to include, among other areas, all 

waters within 24 miles of the California baseline (except a 

specific area off Point Conception. Unless specifically 

exempted, the regulation applies to both U.S.-flagged and 

foreign-flagged OGVs. Exemptions in the regulation include, 

among other vessels, OGVs that pass through Regulated California 

Waters but do not enter California internal or estuarine waters 

or call at a port, roadstead5 or terminal facility; OGVs owned or 

operated by any governmental entity (unless used for commercial 

purposes); and OGVs when compliance with the regulation is

reasonably determined by the master of the vessel to endanger 

the safety of the vessel, its crew, its cargo or its passengers 

because of severe weather conditions, equipment failure, fuel 

contamination or other extraordinary reasons beyond the master‟s 

reasonable control. See 13 CCR 2299.2(c)(1), (3) and (5).

Section 2299.2(e)(1) specifies allowable fuels and fuel 

sulfur content limits for auxiliary diesel engines, main engines 

and auxiliary boilers that must be met while the OGV is 

operating in Regulated California Waters. In the first phase, 

beginning July 1, 2009, auxiliary diesel engines, main engines 

and auxiliary boilers on subject OGVs must use either marine gas 

 

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

anchoring of ships. See 13 CCR section 2299.2(d)(31).
23

oil (MGO), with a maximum of 1.5 percent sulfur by weight, or 

marine diesel oil (MDO), with a maximum of 0.5 percent sulfur by 

weight. The “Phase 1” sulfur content limit for MGO would be 

reduced from 1.5% to 1.0% beginning on August 1, 2012. Phase 2, 

beginning January 1, 2014, requires use of either MGO with a 

maximum of 0.1% sulfur by weight or MDO with a maximum of 0.1% 

sulfur by weight. As such, the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation 

establishes more stringent requirements than otherwise required 

under Federal law, at least until January 1, 2015.6

Section 2299.2(e)(2) establishes recordkeeping, reporting, 

and monitoring requirements including the requirement to retain 

and maintain records that document vessel entry to and departure 

from Regulated California Waters, completion of any fuel 

switching procedures used to comply with the regulations, and 

types and sulfur content of fuel used in each auxiliary engine, 

 

6 In 2008, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted amendments to 

MARPOL Annex VI (International Convention for the Prevention of Air Pollution 

From Ships) to further reduce air emissions from ships. Among other 

provisions, the 2008 amendments to MARPOL Annex VI allowed for the creation 

of Emission Control Areas (ECA) by member states allowing them to implement 

more stringent requirements than otherwise provided for in Annex VI upon 

approval by the IMO. In 2010, the IMO approved a joint application by the 

U.S. and Canada for the creation of an ECA, referred to 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. 
24

main engine, and auxiliary boiler operated in Regulated 

California Waters. Under subsection (e) (2), any person subject 

to the regulation must provide CARB with access to the OGV for 

the purpose of determining compliance with the regulation. 

Under section 2299.2(f), the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation 

provides for the same types of penalties for non-compliance as 

described above for the Truck and Bus Regulation.

Section 2299.2(g) allows the EO to exempt, in whole or in 

part, vessels from compliance with the fuel and fuel sulfur 

content requirements in subsection (e) based on the need for 

essential modifications. Essential modifications refer to the 

addition of new equipment, or the replacement of existing 

components with modified components, that can be demonstrated to 

be necessary to comply with the regulation. See 13 CCR 

2299.2(d)(10). Eligibility for relief under subsection (g) is 

generally cleared in advance by CARB through approval of an 

Essential Modification Report that demonstrates the need for 

essential modification and that is submitted by the vessel owner 

or operator to CARB 45 days prior to entry into Regulated 

California Waters.

Section 2299.2(h) allows CARB, under certain circumstances, 

to permit an owner or operator of an OGV to pay noncompliance 

fees in lieu of meeting the fuel and fuel sulfur content 
25

requirements in subsection (e) if specific notification 

requirements are met under subsection (h)(1). CARB may consider 

noncompliance fees in lieu of compliance for any owner or 

operator of an OGV that demonstrates that noncompliance is 

beyond the person‟s reasonable control under circumstances where 

the OGV was, while en route from its last port of call, 

redirected to a California port, where the supply of complying 

fuel is inadequate, or where the person made an inadvertent 

purchase of defective fuel. In-lieu fees may also be assessed 

for noncompliance by OGVs to be taken out of service for 

modifications or based on infrequent visits and need for vessel

modifications. Applicable noncompliance (in-lieu) fees are shown 

below in Table 4. 

Table 4 - Noncompliance Fee Schedule under the OGC Clean Fuels 

Regulation, Per Vessel

Port Visit Per-Port Visit Fee

1

st Port Visited

2

nd Port Visited

3

rd Port Visited

4

th Port Visited

5

th or more Port Visited

$45,500

$45,500

$91,000

$136,500

$182,000

Under subsection (h), CARB assesses the fees at the time of 

the port visit, and the fees must be paid prior to leaving the 
26

California port or by a later date approved by CARB. Section 

2299.2(h)(5)(D) allows CARB to enter into enforceable agreements 

with each port that will receive the fees. Fees must be used by 

the ports only to fund projects reducing PM, NOx, and SO2 within 

two miles of port boundaries, or OGVs operated in Regulated 

California Waters. 

Section 2299.2(i) establishes the test methods that must be 

used to determine compliance with 13 CCR section 2299.2. 

Subsection (i) allows the CARB EO to approve alternative test 

methods if they are demonstrated to be equally or more accurate 

than the listed methods.

Lastly, under section 2299.2(j), the requirements of OGV 

Clean Fuels Regulation will cease to apply if and when the CARB 

EO issues written findings that Federal requirements are in 

place that will achieve equivalent emissions reductions within 

the Regulated California Waters and are being enforced within 

the Regulated California Waters.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?

EPA has evaluated the three regulations described in the 

previous section of this document against the applicable 

procedural and substantive requirements of the Clean Air Act for 

SIPs and SIP revisions and has concluded that they meet all of 
27

the applicable requirements. Generally, SIPs must include 

enforceable emission limitations and other control measures,

means, or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary to meet the requirements of the 

Act [see CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)]; must provide necessary 

assurances that the State will have adequate personnel, funding, 

and authority under State law to carry out such SIP (and is not 

prohibited by any provision of Federal to State law from 

carrying out such SIP)[see CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)]; must be 

adopted by a State after reasonable notice and public hearing 

[see CAA section 110(l)], and must not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act 

[see CAA section 110(l)].7 

B. CARB regulations meeting CAA SIP evaluation criteria.

1. Did the State provide aadequate public notice and comment 

periods?

Under CAA section 110(l), SIP revisions must be adopted by 

the State, and the State must provide for reasonable public 

notice and hearing prior to adoption. In 40 CFR section 

 

7 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 these regulations 

because they do not represent pre-1990 SIP control requirements.
28

51.102(d), we specify that reasonable public notice in this 

context refers to at least 30 days. As described previously, the 

three subject regulations were submitted to EPA by California 

with requests to “parallel process” them pending final adoption 

(of the most recent amendments) by CARB. We recognize the 

extensive public process that CARB conducted prior to the 

adoption of the original versions of the three regulations and 

the extensive public process that CARB conducted for the recent 

amendments and modifications and expect to determine that CARB 

will have met the applicable procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions upon submittal by CARB of the final adopted 

regulations as a SIP revision with the necessary public process 

documentation.8

2. Does the State have adequate legal authority to implement the 

regulations?

CARB has been granted both general and specific authority 

under the California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) to adopt and 

implement these regulations. California H&SC sections 39600 

(“Acts required”) and 39601 (“Adoption of regulation; 

 

8 For example, all three regulations were originally developed through a 

series of public workshops and adopted following 45-day public comment

periods. The significant amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation and the 

Drayage Truck Regulation proposed in October 2010 followed a similar process 

as have the 2011 amendments to the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation. The 

modifications to the 2010 amendments proposed in 2011 for the Truck and Bus 

Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation were subject to a supplemental 15-day 

public comment period.
29

Conformance to federal law”) confer on CARB the general 

authority and obligation to adopt regulations and measures 

necessary to execute CARB‟s powers and duties imposed by State 

law. California H&SC sections 43013(a) and 43018 provide broad 

authority to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective 

emission reductions from all mobile source categories, including 

both on-road and off-road diesel engines. Regarding in-use motor 

vehicles, California H&SC sections 43600 and 43701(b),

respectively, grant CARB authority to adopt emission standards 

and emission control equipment requirements. Further, California 

H&SC section 39666 gives CARB authority to adopt airborne toxic 

control measures to reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants 

from new and in-use nonvehicular sources, including marine 

vessels.

Moreover, we know of no obstacle under Federal or State law 

in CARB‟s ability to implement the regulations. As a general 

matter, the CAA assigns mobile source regulation to EPA through 

title II of the Act and assigns stationary source regulation and 

SIP development responsibilities to the States through title I 

of the Act. In so doing, the CAA preempts various types of State 

regulation of mobile sources as set forth in section 209(a) 

(preemption of State emissions standards for new motor vehicles 

and engines), section 209(e) (preemption of State emissions 
30

standards for nonroad vehicles and engines) and section 

211(c)(4)(A)[preemption of State fuel requirements for motor 

vehicles, i.e., other than California‟s motor vehicle fuel 

requirements – see section 211(c)(4)(B)]. For certain types of 

mobile source standards, the State of California may request a 

waiver or authorization for state emissions standards. See CAA 

sections 209(b)(new motor vehicles) and 209(e)(2)(most 

categories of new and non-new nonroad vehicles).

Notwithstanding the preemption provisions of the CAA, 

however, we do not believe that preemption represents an 

obstacle to implementation by California with respect to these 

three particular regulations. First, the Truck and Bus 

Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation establish emissions 

standards for in-use trucks and buses. Because the requirements 

do not apply to new motor vehicles or engines and because the 

burden for retrofits or replacements does not fall on original 

equipment manufacturers, we believe that the preemption under 

CAA section 209(a) does not apply and California need not secure 

a waiver to enforce the Truck and Bus Regulation or the Drayage 

Truck Regulation. See Allway Taxi Inc. v. City of New York, 340 

F. Supp. 1120 (S.D.N.Y) (interpreting CAA section 209(a) motor 

vehicle preemption), aff'd, 468 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1972).

To the extent that the Truck and Bus Regulation affects 
31

nonroad vehicles or engines, we take note of CARB‟s 

authorization request under CAA section 209(e)(2) for CARB‟s 

emissions standards for in-use off-road diesel-fueled equipment 

with engines 25 horsepower and greater and EPA‟s related notice 

of opportunity for public hearing and comment concerning CARB‟s 

request. See 75 FR 11880 (March 12, 2010) for the most recent 

related EPA announcement concerning CARB‟s authorization request 

for the relevant in-use nonroad emissions standards. Assuming 

that EPA issues the relevant authorization requested by CARB, 

there will be no obstacle to CARB‟s enforcement of the 

provisions of the Truck and Bus Regulation that apply to nonroad 

vehicles and engines.

With respect to the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation, we first 

note that State-adopted fuel requirements for nonroad vehicles 

are generally not preempted under the CAA. However, there are 

provisions of Federal law, other than the CAA, that might be 

relied upon to challenge State fuel requirements as preempted. 

In this instance, we recognize that the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals recently issued an opinion in which the court upheld 

CARB‟s OGV Clean Fuels Regulation against a challenge grounded 

in preemption principles. See Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass’n. 

v. Goldstene, No. 09-17765 (9th Cir. March 28, 2011). The 

petitioners in the Pacific Merchant case may yet appeal the 
32

decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but at this time, we have no 

reason to believe that the case will ultimately be resolved in a 

manner that takes away CARB‟s ability to implement and enforce 

the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation.

3. Are the regulations enforceable as required under CAA section 

110(a)(2)?

We have evaluated the enforceability of the three subject 

proposed regulations with respect to applicability and

exemptions; standard of conduct and compliance dates; sunset 

provisions; discretionary provisions; and test methods, 

recordkeeping and reporting,

9 and have concluded for the reasons 

given below that the proposed regulations would be enforceable 

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

First, with respect to applicability, we find the proposed

regulations would be sufficiently clear as to which persons and 

which vehicles or engines are affected by the regulations. For 

instance, with respect to the Truck and Bus Regulation, 

subsections (b) define the scope and applicability of the 

regulation in terms of, among other parameters, type of fuel 

used and manufacturer‟s GVWR. Subsection (c) of the Truck and 

Bus Regulation clearly identifies categories of vehicles that 

 

9 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.
33

are exempt from the regulation, and subsection (d) provides 

additional detail on the types of owners and operators and 

vehicles covered by the regulation by defining key terms 

including “person” and “agricultural operations,” among others. 

Similar types of provisions are also found in the Drayage Truck 

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

Clean Fuels Regulation [see 13 CCR sections 2299.2(b), (c), and 

(d)].

Second, we find that the proposed regulations would be 

sufficiently specific so that the persons affected by the 

regulations would be fairly on notice as to what the 

requirements and related compliance dates are. To a large 

extent, we have already described the substantive requirements 

and compliance dates set forth in the proposed regulations in 

section I.D of this document. We recognize that CARB intends to 

extend certain compliance dates in the latest amendments to the 

original regulations but, as discussed in section II.B.4 of this 

document, we find that extending the compliance dates would not 

interfere reasonable further progress and attainment 

requirements for California nonattainment areas with respect to 

the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS. See section II.B.4 of this 

document. No compliance date in any of the regulations extends 

past January 1, 2023, which is consistent with the attainment 
34

needs for California with respect to the attainment deadline for 

the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley “extreme” nonattainment 

areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Third, both the Drayage Truck Regulation and OGV Clean 

Fuels Regulation contain sunset provisions. In the case of the 

Drayage Truck Regulation, the regulation would sunset on 

December 31, 2022, but after that date, the requirements of the 

Truck and Bus Regulation would apply. See 13 CCR section 

2027(j). Thus, regulation of drayage trucks would continue 

indefinitely under the terms of the Truck and Bus Regulation.

Under subsection (j) of the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation, once the 

CARB EO makes a finding that federal requirements are in place 

that will achieve equivalent emissions reduction within 

California Regulated Waters and that are being enforced within 

California Regulated Waters, the regulation would no longer be 

in effect. The CARB EO is expected to make the necessary finding 

under subsection (j) sometime after January 1, 2015 when the 

0.1% marine fuel sulfur content limit (applicable within the 

North American ECA) will become enforceable by EPA and the U.S. 

Coast Guard. Given that the 0.1% marine fuel sulfur content 

limit will continue to be federally enforceable after the CARB 

EO invokes the sunset clause, we find the sunset clause in the 

OGC Clean Fuels Regulation to be acceptable.
35

Fourth, all three regulations would contain provisions that 

allow for discretion on the part of CARB‟s EO. Such “director‟s 

discretion” provisions can undermine enforceability of a SIP 

regulation, and thus prevent full approval by EPA, but in the 

instances of “director‟s discretion” in the three subject 

regulations, the discretion that can be exercised by the CARB EO 

is limited both in scope and application. As such, we do not 

find that the “director‟s discretion” provisions in the proposed

regulations would preclude our approval of them for the purposes 

of the SIP.

Lastly, each of the proposed regulations identifies 

appropriate test methods and includes adequate recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements sufficient to ensure compliance with the 

applicable requirements. 

4. Do the regulations interfere with reasonable further progress 

and attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act?

The State‟s 2007 State Strategy to attain the 1997 PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS relies on these three regulations to help achieve 

needed emissions reductions in various nonattainment areas in 

California, particularly the South Coast Air Basin and San 

Joaquin Valley. A summary of the latest emissions reductions 

estimates from these rules in the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley 1997 PM2.5 and ozone attainment plans can be found in the 
36

State‟s 2007 State Strategy, the 2009 Status Report on the State 

Strategy and the “Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5

State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP revisions,” dated 

March 29, 2011. In separate rulemakings, EPA is evaluating the 

approvability of the reasonable further progress (RFP) and 

attainment demonstrations (and other provisions) for areas that 

rely on these three regulations. In general, these rules provide 

much needed NOx, direct PM and SO2 reductions, however, the 

attainment plans do not require specific reductions from any 

particular rule. Thus, EPA believes that the approval of these 

three regulations, which have never been approved into the SIP, 

does not interfere with RFP, attainment or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act.

5. Will the State have adequate personnel and funding for the 

regulations?

Chapter XIII of CARB‟s “Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus 

Regulation, the Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor-Trailer 

Greenhouse Gas Regulation,” dated October 2010, addresses 

implementation and enforcement of the regulations. As described 

therein, CARB intends to conduct enforcement of the Truck and 

Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation similarly to 
37

enforcement of CARB‟s commercial vehicle and school bus idling 

regulations. CARB‟s enforcement staff intends to use the 

inspection and audit methods that they have developed during the 

many years of experience enforcing the Heavy-Duty Vehicle 

Inspection Program (adopted into law in 1988) and the Periodic 

Smoke Inspection Program (adopted into law in 1990). 

CARB indicates that enforcement activities will include 

inspections at border crossings, California Highway Patrol (CHP) 

weigh stations, fleet facilities, and randomly selected roadside 

locations and audits of records. See appendix H to CARB‟s 

initial statement of reasons for proposed rulemaking, dated 

October 2010, cited above. These activities could result in 

corrective actions and substantial civil penalties for noncompliance with the regulations. CARB‟s enforcement activities 

are summarized in annual reports. See, e.g., CARB‟s 2009 Annual

Enforcement Report (August 2010).

We recognize the general effectiveness of CARB‟s motor 

vehicle enforcement program and expect CARB‟s approach to 

enforcement of the Truck and Bus and Drayage Truck regulations, 

as described above, to be equally effective; however, none of 

the information we have received or were able to download from 

CARB‟s website has identified the specific additional resources 

and personnel that CARB has allocated to the Truck and Bus 
38

Regulation. We expect such information to be submitted to EPA as 

part of the SIP submittal package contained the final adopted 

versions of the regulations.

Since the original OGV Clean Fuels Regulation became 

effective, CARB enforcement staff has conducted over 450 vessel 

inspections and the compliance rate, as determined by CARB 

enforcement staff, is approximately 95%. See page ES-2 of CARB‟s 

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed 

Amendments to the Regulations “Fuel Sulfur and Other Operational 

Requirements for Ocean-Going Vessels within California Waters 

and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline,” dated May 

2011. Based on CARB‟s enforcement activities since the effective 

date of the original OGV Clean Fuels Regulation, we believe that 

CARB has allocated adequate funding and personnel for the 

regulation.

6. EPA’s Regulation Evaluation Conclusion

Based on the above discussion, we believe these regulations

are consistent with the relevant CAA requirements, policies and 

guidance.

C. Proposed Action, Public Comment and Final Action.

For the reasons given above, we believe CARB‟s Truck and 

Bus Regulation, Drayage Truck Regulation, and OGV Clean Fuels 

Regulation fulfill all relevant requirements, and thus, EPA is 
39

proposing to approve these regulations under section 110(k)(3) 

of the CAA once we receive the final adopted versions as a 

revision to the California SIP. If the State substantially 

revises these submitted regulations from the versions proposed 

by the State and submitted for “parallel processing,” this will 

result in the need for additional proposed rulemaking on these 

regulations. 

We will accept comments from the public on this proposal 

for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, we intend to publish a 

final approval action that will incorporate these regulations

into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to 

approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of 

the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA‟s role 

is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
40

• 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 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those 
41

requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 

address disproportionate human health or environmental 

effects with practical, appropriate, and legally 

permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 

Sulfur dioxide.

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

__June 29, 2011____ _/s/ Jared Blumenfeld______

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

Region IX.