Approval and Promulgation of Implementations Plans; California Air Resources Board-In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Truck and Bus Regulation, and Drayage Truck Regulation, 20308-20314 [2012-7023]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20308
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
applicable to manufacturers, importers,
and processors of this substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
■ 17. Add new § 721.10295 to subpart E
to read as follows:
§ 721.10295 IPDI modified isophthalic acid,
neopentyl glycol and adipic acid (generic).
(a) Chemical substances and
significant new uses subject to reporting.
(1) The chemical substance identified
generically as IPDI modified isophthalic
acid, neopentyl glycol and adipic acid
(PMN P–11–591) is subject to reporting
under this section for the significant
new uses described in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Industrial, commercial, and
consumer activities. Requirements as
specified in § 721.80(o) and (s) (15,000
kilograms).
(ii) [Reserved]
(b) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph.
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping
requirements as specified in
§ 721.125(a), (b), (c), and (i) are
applicable to manufacturers, importers,
and processors of this substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
■ 18. Add new § 721.10296 to subpart E
to read as follows:
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
§ 721.10296 1,3-Benzenediol, 4-[1-[[3-(lHimidazol-1-yl)propyl]imino] ethyl]-.
(a) Chemical substance and
significant new uses subject to reporting.
(1) The chemical substance identified as
1,3-benzenediol, 4-[ 1-[[3-(lH-imidazol1-yl)propyl]imino[ethyl]- (PMN P–11–
608; CAS No. 1313999–39–1) is subject
to reporting under this section for the
significant new uses described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Release to water. Requirements as
specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and
(c)(4) (N = 1 ppb).
(ii) [Reserved]
(b) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph.
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping
requirements as specified in
§ 721.125(a), (b), (c), and (k) are
applicable to manufacturers, importers,
and processors of this substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
■ 19. Add new § 721.10297 to subpart E
to read as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
§ 721.10297 Tin, C16-18 and C18-unsatd.
fatty acids castor-oil fatty acids complexes.
[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0544; FRL–9633–3]
(a) Chemical substances and
significant new uses subject to reporting.
(1) The chemical substance identified as
tin, C16-18 and C18-unsatd. fatty acids
castor-oil fatty acids complexes (PMN
P–11–637; CAS No. 1315588–63–6) is
subject to reporting under this section
for the significant new uses described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Industrial, commercial, and
consumer activities. Requirements as
specified in § 721.80(f) and (o).
(ii) [Reserved]
(b) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph.
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping
requirements as specified in
§ 721.125(a), (b), (c), and (i) are
applicable to manufacturers, importers,
and processors of this substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
■ 20. Add new § 721.10298 to subpart E
to read as follows:
§ 721.10298 MDI terminated polyester
polyurethane polymer (generic).
(a) Chemical substances and
significant new uses subject to reporting.
(1) The chemical substance identified
generically as MDI terminated polyester
polyurethane polymer (P–11–662) is
subject to reporting under this section
for the significant new uses described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Industrial, commercial, and
consumer activities. Requirements as
specified in § 721.80(o).
(ii) [Reserved]
(b) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph.
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping
requirements as specified in
§ 721.125(a), (b), (c), and (i) are
applicable to manufacturers, importers,
and processors of this substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
[FR Doc. 2012–8092 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementations Plans; California Air
Resources Board—In-Use Heavy-Duty
Diesel-Fueled Truck and Bus
Regulation, and Drayage Truck
Regulation
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking final action to
approve a revision to the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB or Board). This
revision concerns two regulations that
reduce emissions of diesel particulate
matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOX),
and other pollutants from in-use, heavyduty diesel-fueled trucks and buses, and
drayage trucks. EPA is approving this
SIP revision because the Agency has
determined that the regulations are
consistent with the relevant Clean Air
Act requirements, policies and
guidance. Final approval of the two
regulations and incorporation of them
into the California SIP makes them
federally enforceable.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective on May 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0544 for
this action. The index to the docket is
available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., Confidential
Business Information). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roxanne Johnson, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4150, johnson.roxanne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
I. EPA’s Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
I. EPA’s Proposed Action
On July 11, 2011 (76 FR 40652), EPA
proposed to approve title 13, California
Code of Regulations (CCR), section 2025
(‘‘Regulation to Reduce Emissions of
Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of
Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants,
from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled
Vehicles’’) (referred to herein as the
California Air Resources Board’s
(CARB’s) ‘‘Truck and Bus Regulation’’
and 13 CCR section 2027 (‘‘In-Use OnRoad Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage
Trucks’’) (referred to herein as CARB’s
‘‘Drayage Truck Regulation’’) as
revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). We
proposed to approve CARB’s regulations
under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’). In today’s action,
EPA is taking final action to approve
CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation and
Drayage Truck Regulation.
EPA proposed to approve the Truck
and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation based on the versions of the
amended regulations released for public
comment on May 19, 2011 and
submitted by CARB to EPA in
connection with a request to ‘‘parallel
process’’ the regulations for SIP
approval purposes. Our July 11, 2011
proposed rule provides detailed
information on the State’s procedural
steps culminating in the public release
of the proposed Truck and Bus
Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation that formed the basis for
EPA’s proposed approval, on the
amendments to the original versions of
the Truck and Bus Regulation and
Drayage Truck Regulation (which had
been originally adopted by CARB in
December 2008 and December 2007,
respectively), and on EPA’s ‘‘parallel
process’’ procedure used to evaluate and
propose action on proposed SIP
revisions prior to final adoption and
submittal to EPA. The reader is directed
to the July 11, 2011 proposed rule for
this detailed information. See 76 FR at
40653–40654.
The regulations were developed by
CARB to reduce NOX, and PM emissions
from in-use, heavy-duty diesel-fueled
trucks and buses and to meet CAA
requirements. NOX and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) are precursors
responsible for the formation of ozone;
and NOX, VOC, ammonia, and sulfur
dioxide are precursors for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5). At elevated
levels, ozone and PM2.5 harm human
health and the environment by
contributing to premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, decreased lung
function, visibility impairment, and
damage to vegetation and ecosystems.
California has a number of
nonattainment areas for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for ozone and PM2.5, and the
CAA requires states to submit SIP
revisions that ensure reasonable further
progress (RFP) and that demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS within such
areas. See, generally, part D of title I of
the CAA. Reductions from the two
regulations play a critical role in
assuring that areas such as the South
Coast Air Basin (which includes the Los
Angeles metropolitan area and Orange
County) and the San Joaquin Valley
meet the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5.1
Truck and Bus Regulation
CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation
(i.e., 13 CCR section 2025) requires
fleet 2 owners to upgrade their vehicles
to meet specific performance standards
for NOX and PM. The regulation applies
to diesel-fueled trucks and buses that
are privately owned, federally owned,
and to publicly and privately owned
school buses, that have a manufacturer’s
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
greater than 14,000 pounds (lbs). (Local
20309
and state government owned dieselfueled trucks are already subject to other
CARB regulations.) Nearly all of the
vehicles affected by the regulation are
on-road vehicles, but the regulation also
applies to yard trucks with off-road
engines used for agricultural operations
and two-engine street sweepers with
such engines. The regulation exempts
certain categories of trucks and buses,
many of which, such as solid waste
collection vehicles, are subject to
different CARB regulations. See 13 CCR
section 2025(c).
Key concepts used in the Truck and
Bus Regulation include ‘‘2010 Model
Year (MY) Emissions Equivalent
Engine,’’ ‘‘PM Best Available Control
Technology’’ (BACT), and ‘‘Verified
Diesel Emission Control Strategy’’
(VDECS). These concepts are described
in detail in our July 11, 2011 proposed
rule on pages 40654 and 40655 and the
reader is directed there for more
information on these concepts.
As described in our July 11, 2011
proposed rule, the basic requirements of
the regulation are set forth in
subsections (e), (f), and (g) of the
regulation. Under these subsections,
different sets of requirements are
established for subject vehicles with a
GVWR of 26,000 lbs or less [subsection
(f)] and subject vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 26,000 lbs [subsection (g)].
Under subsection (f), with certain
exceptions, subject vehicles with a
GVWR of 26,000 lbs or less must,
starting January 1, 2015, be equipped
with a ‘‘2010 model year emissions
equivalent engine’’ pursuant to the
schedule shown in table 1. School
buses, that otherwise would be subject
to subsection (f), are subject to a
different set of requirements in
subsection (k). Under subsection (k),
with certain exceptions, all schools
buses must comply with PM BACT by
2014.
TABLE 1—COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE UNDER SECTION 2025(f) BY ENGINE MODEL YEAR FOR LIGHTER HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS
Compliance date
as of January 1
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Existing engine model year
Requirement
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2023
2010 model year emission equivalent.
1995 and older ..........................................................................
1996 ..........................................................................................
1997 ..........................................................................................
1998 ..........................................................................................
1999 ..........................................................................................
2003 and older ..........................................................................
2004–2006 ................................................................................
All engines ................................................................................
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 dioxide
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
person, business, or government agency, traveling
in California and subject to the regulation. See 13
CCR section 2025(d)(28).
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
20310
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Under subsection (g), with certain
exceptions, subject vehicles with a
GVWR more than 26,000 lbs must,
starting January 1, 2012, meet the PM
Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) requirement and must upgrade
to a 2010 MY emissions equivalent
engine pursuant to the schedule shown
in table 2. Fleets with vehicles
otherwise subject to subsection (g) may
opt for a different phase-in compliance
schedule for PM BACT but must comply
with section 2025(g) by 2023. See 13
CCR section 2025, subsections (h)
(‘‘Small Fleet Compliance Option’’) and
(i) (‘‘Phase-in Option’’).
TABLE 2—COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE UNDER SECTION 2025(g) BY ENGINE MODEL YEAR FOR HEAVIER HEAVY-DUTY
TRUCKS
Compliance date install PM filter by January 1
1993 and older ..........................................................................
1994–1995 ................................................................................
1996–1999 ................................................................................
2000–2004 ................................................................................
2005–2006 ................................................................................
2007 or newer ...........................................................................
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Engine model year
No Requirement .......................................................................
No Requirement .......................................................................
2012 .........................................................................................
2013 .........................................................................................
2014 .........................................................................................
2014 if not OEM equipped .......................................................
Section 2025(j) allows credits for early
PM retrofits, fleets that have downsized,
early addition of newer vehicles, hybrid
vehicles, alternative fueled vehicles and
vehicles with heavy-duty pilot ignition
engines that can allow delayed
requirements for other heavier trucks in
the fleet. Fleet owners are required to
meet the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of subsections (r) and (s).
Credits are not transferrable except with
appropriate documentation of a change
of business form approved by the CARB
Executive Officer (EO).
Subsection (l) of the Truck and Bus
Regulation provides requirements for
drayage trucks and utility vehicles.
Drayage trucks subject to the Drayage
Truck Regulation may be included in
the fleet to comply with the
requirements of the Truck and Bus
Regulation only if all drayage trucks are
included. Starting January 1, 2023, all
drayage truck owners must comply with
the requirements of the Truck and Bus
Regulation.
Other provisions in the Truck and Bus
Regulation include certain requirements
and exemptions for agricultural fleets
[13 CCR 2025(m)]; requirements for
single-engine and two-engine sweepers
[13 CCR 2025(n)]; requirements for a
new fleet and changes in an existing
fleet [13 CCR 2025(o)]; certain
exemptions, delays, and extensions [13
CCR 2025(p)]; special provisions for
VDECS and experimental diesel
emission control strategies [13 CCR
2025(q)]; detailed reporting
requirements [13 CCR 2025(r)];
recordkeeping requirements [13 CCR
2025(s)]; provisions for auditing of
records [13 CCR section 2025(t)];
provisions for record retention [13 CCR
2025(u)]; provisions establishing
CARB’s right of entry [13 CCR 2025(v)];
provisions requiring disclosures by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
sellers [13 CCR 2025(w)]; compliance
requirements [13 CCR 2025(x)];
provisions for CARB issuance of
certificates of reported compliance [13
CCR 2025(y)]; and penalties for noncompliance [13 CCR section 2025(z)].
The reader is directed to the proposed
rule (pages 40654–40656) for additional
information on the content of the Truck
and Bus Regulation.
Drayage Truck Regulation
CARB’s Drayage Truck Regulation (13
CCR section 2027) applies to owners
and operators of certain in-use, on-road,
diesel-fueled, heavy-duty drayage
vehicles with a GVWR greater than
26,000 pounds defined as ‘‘drayage
trucks.’’ Drayage trucks are those that
are used for transporting cargo, such as
containerized, bulk, or break-bulk goods
and that operate on or transgress
through port or intermodal rail yard
property for the purpose of loading,
unloading or transporting cargo,
including transporting empty containers
and chassis; or that operate off port or
intermodal rail yard property
transporting cargo or empty containers
or chassis that originated from or is
destined to a port or intermodal rail
yard property. The regulation also
applies to owners and operators of
motor carriers that dispatch drayage
trucks that operate in California, marine
or port terminals, intermodal rail yards,
and rail yard and port authorities.
Owners and operators are subject to the
Drayage Truck Regulation through
December 31, 2022. Starting January 1,
2023, drayage trucks will be subject to
the Truck and Bus Regulation.
As described in our July 11, 2011
proposed rule, section 2027(d) of the
Drayage Truck Regulation establishes
the requirements and compliance
deadlines, grouped into two phases, for
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Compliance date
2010 engine by
January 1
2015
2016
2020
2021
2022
2023
drayage trucks. Phase 1 of the regulation
[section 2027(d)(1)] required, by
December 31, 2009, all drayage trucks
with a GVWR greater than 33,000
pounds to be equipped with a 1994–
2003 MY engine certified to California
or federal emission standards and a
level 3 VDECS for PM emissions; or a
2004 or newer MY engine certified to
California or federal emission standards.
Drayage trucks with GVWR greater than
33,000 pounds but with 2004–2006 MY
engines are allowed extra time to be
equipped with a level 3 VDECS (by
January 1, 2012 for subject vehicles with
MY 2004 engines and by January 1,
2013 for vehicles with MY 2005–2006
engines). Under Phase 1, by January 1,
2012, all drayage trucks with a GVWR
of 26,001 lbs to 33,000 pounds must be
equipped with a level 3 VDECS for PM
emissions while operating in the South
Coast Air Basin. Phase 2 [section
2027(d)(2)] requires that, beginning on
January 1, 2014, all drayage trucks must
be equipped with a 1994 or newer MY
engine that meets or exceeds 2007 MY
California or federal emissions
standards.
Drayage truck owners must register
with the CARB Drayage Truck Registry,
a database that contains information on
all trucks that conduct business at
California ports and intermodal rail
yards. See section 2027(e). The Drayage
Truck Regulation provides for the same
types of penalties for non-compliance as
described above for the Truck and Bus
Regulation. See section 2027(g).
Sections 2027(h) (‘‘Right of Entry’’) and
2027(i) (‘‘Enforcement’’) authorize and
support efforts by CARB and other
officials to ensure compliance with the
regulation. Section 2023(j) is a sunset
clause that provides that, starting
January 1, 2023, drayage trucks would
no longer be subject to the provisions of
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the Drayage Truck Regulation but rather
would be subject to the provisions of the
Truck and Bus Regulation in 13 CCR
section 2025. The reader is directed to
the July 11, 2011 proposed rule (page
40656) for additional information on the
content of the Drayage Truck
Regulation.
Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of the
Regulations in Proposed Rule
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
In our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we
described the basis for our evaluation of
the two regulations. Specifically, we
noted that SIPs must include
enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, means, or
techniques, as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be
necessary to meet the requirements of
the Act [see CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)];
must provide necessary assurances that
the State will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under State law
to carry out such SIP (and is not
prohibited by any provision of Federal
to State law from carrying out such SIP)
[see CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)]; must be
adopted by a State after reasonable
notice and public hearing [see CAA
section 110(l)], and must not interfere
with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (RFP), or any other
applicable requirement of the Act [see
CAA section 110(l)].3
In our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we
proposed approval of the Truck and Bus
Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation based on our conclusion that
the regulation would meet the
applicable procedural and substantive
requirements of the Clean Air Act for
SIPs and SIP revisions described in the
previous paragraph. The following
paragraphs summarize our findings in
this regard from our proposed rule.
First, with respect to the procedural
requirements of CAA section 110(l), we
noted the extensive public process that
CARB conducted prior to the adoption
of the original versions of the Truck and
Bus Regulation in December 2008 and
the Drayage Truck Regulation in
December 2007 and the extensive public
process that CARB conducted for the
recent amendments to the two
regulations. We anticipated that we
would conclude that CARB had met the
applicable procedural requirements for
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
SIP revisions upon submittal by CARB
of the final adopted regulations as a SIP
revision with the necessary public
process documentation.
On September 21, 2011, CARB
submitted the final adopted versions of
the Truck and Bus Regulation and the
Drayage Truck Regulation to EPA as a
revision to the California SIP, and on
December 9 and 15, 2011, CARB
supplemented the September 21, 2011
submittal with evidence of approval of
the regulations by the California Office
of Administrative Law. CARB’s
September 21, 2011 submittal, as
supplemented on December 9 and 15,
2011, includes the documentation of the
adoption and public process for the
amendments to the two regulations that
we had anticipated in our July 11, 2011
proposed rule. Thus, we conclude that
CARB has met the procedural
requirements under CAA section 110(l)
for reasonable public notice and hearing
prior to adoption of SIPs and SIP
revisions.
Second, in our July 11, 2011 proposed
rule, we described the general and
specific authority granted to CARB
under the California Health and Safety
Code (H&SC) to adopt and implement
the two regulations.
Third, in our July 11, 2011 proposed
rule, we evaluated the enforceability of
both regulations with respect to
applicability and exemptions; standard
of conduct and compliance dates; sunset
provisions; discretionary provisions;
and test methods, recordkeeping and
reporting,4 and concluded that the two
regulations would be enforceable for the
purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2) for
the following reasons:
• The regulations would be
sufficiently clear as to which persons
and which vehicles or engines are
affected by the regulations;
• The regulations would be
sufficiently specific so that the persons
affected by the regulations would be
fairly on notice as to what the
requirements and related compliance
dates are;
• The sunset clause in the Drayage
Truck Regulation would be acceptable
because it merely transfers CARB’s
regulatory authority over drayage trucks
from the Drayage Truck Regulation to
the Truck and Bus Regulation;
• The ‘‘director’s discretion’’
provisions in the two regulations would
be sufficiently limited in scope and
application; and
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20311
• The regulations would require use
of appropriate test methods and would
include adequate recordkeeping and
reporting requirements sufficient to
ensure compliance with the applicable
requirements.
Fourth, in our July 11, 2011 proposed
rule, we noted that the State’s 2007
State Strategy to attain the 1997 PM2.5
and ozone NAAQS in areas like the
South Coast Air Basin and the San
Joaquin Valley are relying on the Truck
and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation, among other CARB
regulations, to help achieve needed
emissions reductions and thereby meet
the aggregated State emissions reduction
commitments made by CARB in
connection with the regional air quality
plans. As such, we concluded that the
Truck and Bus Regulation and the
Drayage Truck Regulation would not
interfere with RFP, attainment or any
other applicable requirement of the Act
in accordance with CAA section 110(l).
Based on the evaluation summarized
above, we concluded in our July 11,
2011 proposal that the Truck and Bus
Regulation and the Drayage Truck
Regulation would be consistent with the
relevant CAA requirements, policies
and guidance. The reader is directed to
our July 11, 2011 proposed rule (pages
40657–40659) for a more detailed
discussion of our evaluation of the
Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage
Truck Regulation.
Lastly, we indicated in our July 11,
2011 proposed rule that if the State
substantially revises the version of the
Truck and Bus Regulation or the
Drayage Truck Regulation that was
released for public comment by the
State and that was submitted for
‘‘parallel processing,’’ this would result
in the need for additional proposed
rulemaking on the regulations by EPA.
On September 21, 2011, CARB
submitted the final versions of the
Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage
Truck Regulation, which were adopted
by the CARB Executive Officer on
September 19, 2011, to EPA as a
revision to the California SIP.
The two final adopted regulations
essentially mirror the versions of the
regulations that had been released for
public comment and that had been
submitted to EPA for parallel
processing, and on which EPA had
based the Agency’s proposed approval.
Because the two final adopted
regulations are essentially the same as
the versions of the rules on which the
proposed approval was based, we can
rely on our evaluation of the proposed
versions of the Truck and Bus
Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation, as set forth in our July 11,
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
20312
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
2011 proposed rule and summarized
above, in taking today’s final action to
approve the final adopted versions of
the regulations.
Under California law, once adopted, a
regulation must still be approved by the
California Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) to take effect. CARB’s Truck and
Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation, as amended, were approved
by OAL on December 14, 2011 and
November 9, 2011, respectively, and
became effective under State law on the
same days as their OAL approvals. On
December 9, 2011 and December 15,
2011, CARB submitted evidence of
approval of the final, adopted Drayage
Truck Regulation and Truck and Bus
Regulation, respectively, by the
California OAL to EPA as supplements
to CARB’s September 21, 2011 SIP
revision, and therefore, CARB has now
provided EPA with all of the
documentation necessary for EPA to
take this final action on the two subject
regulations.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
Our July 11, 2011 proposed rule
provided a 30-day comment period.
During this period, we did not receive
any comments on our proposed action
on CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation.
However, we received three comment
letters in connection with our proposed
action on CARB’s Drayage Truck
Regulation. The comments and our
responses are provided below.
Individual Trucking Company: An
Individual Trucking Company requests
that EPA prevent Phase 2 of CARB’s
Drayage Truck Regulation from being
implemented on the schedule set forth
in the regulation due to social and
economic impacts that the Individual
Trucking Company believes will result,
in part due to the absence of a CARBverified filter available to allow truck
owners and operators to comply with
Phase 2 requirements. The Individual
Trucking Company notes that
development of such a filter is unlikely
now that the schedule for Phase 2
compliance by non-drayage trucks has
been extended to dates later than for
drayage trucks.
EPA Response: Under Phase 2 of
CARB’s Drayage Truck Regulation,
beginning January 1, 2014, all drayage
trucks must be equipped with a 1994 or
newer model year engine that meets or
exceeds 2007 MY California or federal
emission standards. See 13 CCR
2027(d)(2). In our July 11, 2011
proposed rule, we evaluated the Drayage
Truck Regulation against the procedural
and substantive requirements of the
CAA for SIPs and SIP revisions and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
determined that the regulation meet all
of the applicable requirements. See
pages 40657–40659 of the proposed
rule.
Under the CAA, EPA is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies
with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal requirements. See
section 110(k) of the CAA and 40 CFR
52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act. The
above comments from the Individual
Trucking Company do not challenge
EPA’s conclusion that the Drayage
Truck Regulation meets all applicable
CAA requirements but rather contend,
for various reasons, that Phase 2 of
CARB’s Drayage Truck Regulation is too
costly and may not be economically or
technologically feasible. However, such
considerations cannot form the basis for
EPA disapproval of a rule submitted by
a state as part of a SIP [see Union
Electric Company v. EPA; 427 U.S. 246,
265 (1976)]. Moreover, EPA disapproval
of CARB’s regulation would not prevent
the implementation of Phase 2 because
the Phase 2 requirements would still
apply, and would still be enforceable,
under State law, regardless of EPA’s
action to approve or disapprove the
regulation as a revision to the California
SIP.
Anonymous Oakland Trucker: The
Oakland trucker objects to CARB’s
decision not to delay Phase 2 of the
Drayage Truck Regulation consistent
with the delay adopted for non-drayage
truckers under the Truck and Bus
Regulation and contends that, due to the
lack of a filter to allow 2004–2006 MY
trucks to remain compliant with the
regulation through 2020, certain social
and economic consequences will result.
EPA Response: As explained above in
our response to the Individual Trucking
Company, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act, and
that objections to a State rule grounded
in economic or technological feasibility
cannot form the basis for EPA
disapproval of the rule submitted by a
state as part of a SIP.
West State Alliance: West State
Alliance (WSA), an association of
truckers and ancillary goods movement
industries servicing the Port of Oakland,
generally requests that EPA disapprove
the Drayage Truck Regulation as a
revision of the California SIP based on
the contents of seven documents
attached to their general comment
requesting disapproval. The seven
documents include the following:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• A letter from WSA to CARB, dated
December 28, 2010, objecting to CARB’s
December 17, 2010 decision not to delay
the Phase 2 requirements under the
Drayage Truck Regulation.
• A letter from Horizon Freight
System, Inc. to CARB, dated December
29, 2010, objecting to CARB’s December
17, 2010 decision not to delay the Phase
2 requirements under the Drayage Truck
Regulation.
• A letter from Diesel Emissions
Service to WSA, dated December 29,
2010, discussing the lack of an available
EPA- or CARB-verified retrofit system
that would allow the operator of a 1994–
2006 model year engine to meet the
requirements of Phase 2 of CARB’s
Drayage Truck Regulation.
• An undated letter from an Oakland
City Councilmember to CARB objecting
to CARB’s failure to extend the Phase 2
compliance dates in the Drayage Truck
Regulation consistent with the
compliance date extensions adopted by
CARB in the Truck and Bus Regulation.
• An undated WSA fact sheet
concerning CARB’s Drayage Truck
Regulation that was circulated after
CARB’s December 17, 2010 decision not
to delay the Phase 2 requirements under
the Drayage Truck Regulation.
• A WSA request to CARB submitted
May 16, 2011 requesting that CARB
reconsider the Proposed Amendments
to the Drayage Truck Regulation of
October 2010 that would have aligned
scheduled upgrades for drayage trucks
with other diesel trucks under CARB’s
Truck and Bus Regulation.
• A letter to CARB dated August 3,
2011 from an attorney retained by WSA
concerning the costs of implementation
of Phase 2 of CARB’s Drayage Truck
Regulation as well as CARB’s purported
failure to prepare a study on the
economic impacts on business under
California Government Code 11346, et
seq., in connection with CARB’s
decision not to delay implementation of
Phase 2 of the Drayage Truck
Regulation.
EPA Response: EPA has reviewed the
seven documents and finds that, with
one exception, the comments contained
therein object to the compliance date for
Phase 2 requirements under CARB’s
Drayage Truck Regulation based on
purported economic or technological
infeasibility, unfairness relative to nondrayage truckers, and unavailability of
funding, and that the comments also
denounce the purported adverse social
impacts that will result, particularly to
the West Oakland community. However,
as discussed above in responses to
comments from the Individual Trucking
Company and the Anonymous Oakland
Trucker, such considerations cannot
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
form the basis for EPA disapproval of
the rule submitted by a state as part of
a SIP.
The one specific comment that does
relate to EPA’s action is directed to
CARB, rather than EPA, but it
challenges CARB’s decision not to
extend Phase 2 compliance dates on
state law grounds. SIP rules must be
adopted by states in compliance with
their own laws because a state must
provide necessary assurances that it has
adequate legal authority to carry out the
SIP revision and, where a state has not
followed its own laws in adopting a rule
subsequently submitted as a SIP
revision, such assurances generally
cannot be provided. See CAA section
110(a)(2)(E).
In this instance, the commenter
accuses CARB of failing to follow the
mandates of state law proscribed by
California Government Code section
11346, et seq., which generally
establishes procedures for state
departments and agencies for adoption,
amendment, or repeal of administrative
regulations. Among the requirements
are the duty to assess the potential for
adverse economic impact on California
businesses and individuals and to
identify and evaluate alternatives that
are less burdensome but equally
effective. See Cal. Government Code
§§ 11346.2 and 11346.3. However, we
note that CARB specifically addressed
the issue of adverse economic impacts
related to CARB’s decision not to extend
Phase 2 compliance dates under the
Drayage Truck Regulation in CARB’s
Final Statement of Reasons for
Rulemaking (for the Drayage Truck
Regulation) (‘‘FSOR’’), which was
submitted by CARB in its SIP submittal
dated September 21, 2011. In the FSOR,
CARB explains that CARB staff
performed the required economic
analysis of the impacts to drayage
businesses for compliance with the
Phase 2 requirements as part of the
rulemaking decision in 2007, and that
no new economic analysis is required
for CARB’s decision to retain those
requirements. See CARB’s FSOR, page
46. We find that CARB’s response
adequately addresses this issue and
provides us with the necessary
assurances that CARB has complied
with state law in adopting the Drayage
Truck Regulation and will be able to
carry out this SIP revision.
III. Final Action
No comments were submitted that
change our assessment that the Truck
and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation comply with the relevant
CAA requirements. Therefore, pursuant
to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA and for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
the reasons given above and in our July
11, 2011 proposed rule, EPA is taking
final action to approve the Truck and
Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation into the California SIP. The
specific rules approved into the SIP in
today’s action are:
• 13 CCR section 2025 (‘‘Regulation
to Reduce Emissions of Diesel
Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen
and Other Criteria Pollutants, from InUse Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled
Vehicles’’), as adopted by the CARB
Executive Officer on September 19,
2011, submitted on September 21, 2011,
and made effective under State law on
December 14, 2011; and
• 13 CCR section 2027 (‘‘In-Use OnRoad Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage
Trucks’’), as adopted by the CARB
Executive Officer on September 19,
2011, submitted on September 21, 2011,
and made effective under State law on
November 9, 2011.
Final approval of the regulations and
incorporation of them into the
California SIP makes them federally
enforceable.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20313
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by June 4, 2012.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
20314
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 26, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(409) and (c)(410)
to read as follows:
■
Identification of plan.
*
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
2-Propenoic Acid, 2-Methyl-, 2Ethylhexyl Ester, Telomer With 1Dodecanethiol, Ethenylbenzene and 2Methyloxirane Polymer With Oxirane
Monoether With 1,2-Propanediol
Mono(2-Methyl-2-Propenoate),
Hydrogen 2-Sulfobutanedioate,
Sodium Salt, 2, 2′-(1,2Diazenediyl)Bis[2Methylpropanenitrile]-Initiated;
Tolerance Exemption
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(409) New regulation was submitted
on December 9, 2011, by the Governor’s
designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) State of California Office of
Administrative Law, ‘‘Notice of
Approval of Regulatory Action,’’ Title
13, California Code of Regulations
(CCR), section 2027, effective on
November 9, 2011.
(2) Final Regulation Order, 13 CCR
section 2027 (‘‘In-Use On-Road DieselFueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks’’).
(410) New regulation was submitted
on December 15, 2011, by the
Governor’s designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) State of California Office of
Administrative Law, ‘‘Notice of
Approval of Regulatory Action,’’ Title
13, California Code of Regulations
(CCR), section 2025, effective on
December 14, 2011.
(2) Final Regulation Order, 13 CCR
section 2025 (‘‘Regulation to Reduce
Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter,
Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria
Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty
Diesel-Fueled Vehicles’’).
[FR Doc. 2012–7023 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Jkt 226001
This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of 2-Propenoic
acid, 2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl ester,
telomer with 1-dodecanethiol,
ethenylbenzene and 2-methyloxirane
polymer with oxirane monoether with
1,2-propanediol mono(2-methyl-2propenoate), hydrogen 2sulfobutanedioate, sodium salt, 2, 2′(1,2-diazenediyl)bis[2methylpropanenitrile]-initiated, CAS
Reg. No. 1283712–50–4; when used as
an inert ingredient in a pesticide
chemical formulation. Clariant
Corporation submitted a petition to EPA
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of 2Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl
ester, telomer with 1-dodecanethiol,
ethenylbenzene and 2-methyloxirane
polymer with oxirane monoether with
1,2-propanediol mono(2-methyl-2propenoate), hydrogen 2sulfobutanedioate, sodium salt, 2, 2′(1,2-diazenediyl)bis[2methylpropanenitrile]-initiated on food
or feed commodities.
DATES: This regulation is effective April
4, 2012. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
June 4, 2012, and must be filed in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
SUMMARY:
Subpart F—California
14:04 Apr 03, 2012
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0975; FRL–9339–9]
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
40 CFR Part 180
AGENCY:
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 52.220
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2011–0975. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is (703) 305–
5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alganesh Debesai, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–8353; email address:
debesai.alganesh@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s e-CFR site at https://
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20308-20314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7023]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0544; FRL-9633-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementations Plans; California
Air Resources Board--In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Truck and Bus
Regulation, and Drayage Truck Regulation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB or Board). This revision concerns two
regulations that reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM),
oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and other pollutants from in-use,
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 May 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0544 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket
are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available
only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some
may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., Confidential
Business Information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanne Johnson, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4150, johnson.roxanne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. EPA's Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
[[Page 20309]]
I. EPA's Proposed Action
On July 11, 2011 (76 FR 40652), EPA proposed to approve title 13,
California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 2025 (``Regulation to
Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and
Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled
Vehicles'') (referred to herein as the California Air Resources Board's
(CARB's) ``Truck and Bus Regulation'' and 13 CCR section 2027 (``In-Use
On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks'') (referred to herein
as CARB's ``Drayage Truck Regulation'') as revisions to the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). We proposed to approve CARB's
regulations under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``Act''). In today's action, EPA is taking final action to approve
CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation.
EPA proposed to approve the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage
Truck Regulation based on the versions of the amended regulations
released for public comment on May 19, 2011 and submitted by CARB to
EPA in connection with a request to ``parallel process'' the
regulations for SIP approval purposes. Our July 11, 2011 proposed rule
provides detailed information on the State's procedural steps
culminating in the public release of the proposed Truck and Bus
Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation that formed the basis for EPA's
proposed approval, on the amendments to the original versions of the
Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation (which had been
originally adopted by CARB in December 2008 and December 2007,
respectively), and on EPA's ``parallel process'' procedure used to
evaluate and propose action on proposed SIP revisions prior to final
adoption and submittal to EPA. The reader is directed to the July 11,
2011 proposed rule for this detailed information. See 76 FR at 40653-
40654.
The regulations were developed by CARB to reduce NOX,
and PM emissions from in-use, heavy-duty diesel-fueled trucks and buses
and to meet CAA requirements. NOX and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) are precursors responsible for the formation of ozone;
and NOX, VOC, ammonia, and sulfur dioxide are precursors for
fine particulate matter (PM2.5). At elevated levels, ozone
and PM2.5 harm human health and the environment by
contributing to premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment,
and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. California has a number of
nonattainment areas for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for ozone and PM2.5, and the CAA requires states to
submit SIP revisions that ensure reasonable further progress (RFP) and
that demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS within such areas. See,
generally, part D of title I of the CAA. Reductions from the two
regulations play a critical role in assuring that areas such as the
South Coast Air Basin (which includes the Los Angeles metropolitan area
and Orange County) and the San Joaquin Valley meet the NAAQS for ozone
and PM2.5.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
dioxide and NOX are significant PM2.5
precursors for attainment planning purposes in San Joaquin Valley
[76 FR 69896, at 69924 (Nov. 9, 2011)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck and Bus Regulation
CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation (i.e., 13 CCR section 2025)
requires fleet \2\ owners to upgrade their vehicles to meet specific
performance standards for NOX and PM. The regulation applies
to diesel-fueled trucks and buses that are privately owned, federally
owned, and to publicly and privately owned school buses, that have a
manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000
pounds (lbs). (Local and state government owned 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key concepts used in the Truck and Bus Regulation include ``2010
Model Year (MY) Emissions Equivalent Engine,'' ``PM Best Available
Control Technology'' (BACT), and ``Verified Diesel Emission Control
Strategy'' (VDECS). These concepts are described in detail in our July
11, 2011 proposed rule on pages 40654 and 40655 and the reader is
directed there for more information on these concepts.
As described in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, the basic
requirements of the regulation are set forth in subsections (e), (f),
and (g) of the regulation. Under these subsections, different sets of
requirements are established for subject vehicles with a GVWR of 26,000
lbs or less [subsection (f)] and subject vehicles with a GVWR greater
than 26,000 lbs [subsection (g)]. Under subsection (f), with certain
exceptions, subject vehicles with a GVWR of 26,000 lbs or less must,
starting January 1, 2015, be equipped with a ``2010 model year
emissions equivalent engine'' pursuant to the schedule shown in table
1. School buses, that otherwise would be subject to subsection (f), are
subject to a different set of requirements in subsection (k). Under
subsection (k), with certain exceptions, all schools buses must comply
with PM BACT by 2014.
Table 1--Compliance Schedule Under Section 2025(f) by Engine Model Year
for Lighter Heavy-Duty Trucks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date
Existing engine model year as of January 1 Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 and older................... 2015 2010 model year
emission
equivalent.
1996............................. 2016
1997............................. 2017
1998............................. 2018
1999............................. 2019
2003 and older................... 2020
2004-2006........................ 2021
All engines...................... 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20310]]
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date Compliance date
Engine model year install PM filter 2010 engine by
by January 1 January 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 and older................... No Requirement..... 2015
1994-1995........................ No Requirement..... 2016
1996-1999........................ 2012............... 2020
2000-2004........................ 2013............... 2021
2005-2006........................ 2014............... 2022
2007 or newer.................... 2014 if not OEM 2023
equipped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2025(j) allows credits for early PM retrofits, fleets that
have downsized, early addition of newer vehicles, hybrid vehicles,
alternative fueled vehicles and vehicles with heavy-duty pilot ignition
engines that can allow delayed requirements for other heavier trucks in
the fleet. Fleet owners are required to meet the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of subsections (r) and (s). Credits are not
transferrable except with appropriate documentation of a change of
business form approved by the CARB Executive Officer (EO).
Subsection (l) of the Truck and Bus Regulation provides
requirements for drayage trucks and utility vehicles. Drayage trucks
subject to the Drayage Truck Regulation may be included in the fleet to
comply with the requirements of the Truck and Bus Regulation only if
all drayage trucks are included. Starting January 1, 2023, all drayage
truck owners must comply with the requirements of the Truck and Bus
Regulation.
Other provisions in the Truck and Bus Regulation include certain
requirements and exemptions for agricultural fleets [13 CCR 2025(m)];
requirements for single-engine and two-engine sweepers [13 CCR
2025(n)]; requirements for a new fleet and changes in an existing fleet
[13 CCR 2025(o)]; certain exemptions, delays, and extensions [13 CCR
2025(p)]; special provisions for VDECS and experimental diesel emission
control strategies [13 CCR 2025(q)]; detailed reporting requirements
[13 CCR 2025(r)]; recordkeeping requirements [13 CCR 2025(s)];
provisions for auditing of records [13 CCR section 2025(t)]; provisions
for record retention [13 CCR 2025(u)]; provisions establishing CARB's
right of entry [13 CCR 2025(v)]; provisions requiring disclosures by
sellers [13 CCR 2025(w)]; compliance requirements [13 CCR 2025(x)];
provisions for CARB issuance of certificates of reported compliance [13
CCR 2025(y)]; and penalties for non-compliance [13 CCR section
2025(z)]. The reader is directed to the proposed rule (pages 40654-
40656) for additional information on the content of the Truck and Bus
Regulation.
Drayage Truck Regulation
CARB's Drayage Truck Regulation (13 CCR section 2027) applies to
owners and operators of certain in-use, on-road, diesel-fueled, heavy-
duty drayage vehicles with a GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds defined as
``drayage trucks.'' Drayage trucks are those that are used for
transporting cargo, such as containerized, bulk, or break-bulk goods
and that operate on or transgress through port or intermodal rail yard
property for the purpose of loading, unloading or transporting cargo,
including transporting empty containers and chassis; or that operate
off port or intermodal rail yard property transporting cargo or empty
containers or chassis that originated from or is destined to a port or
intermodal rail yard property. The regulation also applies to owners
and operators of motor carriers that dispatch drayage trucks that
operate in California, marine or port terminals, intermodal rail yards,
and rail yard and port authorities. Owners and operators are subject to
the Drayage Truck Regulation through December 31, 2022. Starting
January 1, 2023, drayage trucks will be subject to the Truck and Bus
Regulation.
As described in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, section 2027(d) of
the Drayage Truck Regulation establishes the requirements and
compliance deadlines, grouped into two phases, for drayage trucks.
Phase 1 of the regulation [section 2027(d)(1)] required, by December
31, 2009, all drayage trucks with a GVWR greater than 33,000 pounds to
be equipped with a 1994-2003 MY engine certified to California or
federal emission standards and a level 3 VDECS for PM emissions; or a
2004 or newer MY engine certified to California or federal emission
standards. Drayage trucks with GVWR greater than 33,000 pounds but with
2004-2006 MY engines are allowed extra time to be equipped with a level
3 VDECS (by January 1, 2012 for subject vehicles with MY 2004 engines
and by January 1, 2013 for vehicles with MY 2005-2006 engines). Under
Phase 1, by January 1, 2012, all drayage trucks with a GVWR of 26,001
lbs to 33,000 pounds must be equipped with a level 3 VDECS for PM
emissions while operating in the South Coast Air Basin. Phase 2
[section 2027(d)(2)] requires that, beginning on January 1, 2014, all
drayage trucks must be equipped with a 1994 or newer MY engine that
meets or exceeds 2007 MY California or federal emissions standards.
Drayage truck owners must register with the CARB Drayage Truck
Registry, a database that contains information on all trucks that
conduct business at California ports and intermodal rail yards. See
section 2027(e). The Drayage Truck Regulation provides for the same
types of penalties for non-compliance as described above for the Truck
and Bus Regulation. See section 2027(g). Sections 2027(h) (``Right of
Entry'') and 2027(i) (``Enforcement'') authorize and support efforts by
CARB and other officials to ensure compliance with the regulation.
Section 2023(j) is a sunset clause that provides that, starting January
1, 2023, drayage trucks would no longer be subject to the provisions of
[[Page 20311]]
the Drayage Truck Regulation but rather would be subject to the
provisions of the Truck and Bus Regulation in 13 CCR section 2025. The
reader is directed to the July 11, 2011 proposed rule (page 40656) for
additional information on the content of the Drayage Truck Regulation.
Summary of EPA's Evaluation of the Regulations in Proposed Rule
In our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we described the basis for our
evaluation of the two regulations. Specifically, we noted that SIPs
must include enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary to meet the requirements of the Act
[see CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)]; must provide necessary assurances that
the State will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under
State law to carry out such SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision
of Federal to State law from carrying out such SIP) [see CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)]; must be adopted by a State after reasonable notice and
public hearing [see CAA section 110(l)], and must not interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Act [see CAA
section 110(l)].\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we proposed approval of the
Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation based on our
conclusion that the regulation would meet the applicable procedural and
substantive requirements of the Clean Air Act for SIPs and SIP
revisions described in the previous paragraph. The following paragraphs
summarize our findings in this regard from our proposed rule.
First, with respect to the procedural requirements of CAA section
110(l), we noted the extensive public process that CARB conducted prior
to the adoption of the original versions of the Truck and Bus
Regulation in December 2008 and the Drayage Truck Regulation in
December 2007 and the extensive public process that CARB conducted for
the recent amendments to the two regulations. We anticipated that we
would conclude that CARB had met the applicable procedural requirements
for SIP revisions upon submittal by CARB of the final adopted
regulations as a SIP revision with the necessary public process
documentation.
On September 21, 2011, CARB submitted the final adopted versions of
the Truck and Bus Regulation and the Drayage Truck Regulation to EPA as
a revision to the California SIP, and on December 9 and 15, 2011, CARB
supplemented the September 21, 2011 submittal with evidence of approval
of the regulations by the California Office of Administrative Law.
CARB's September 21, 2011 submittal, as supplemented on December 9 and
15, 2011, includes the documentation of the adoption and public process
for the amendments to the two regulations that we had anticipated in
our July 11, 2011 proposed rule. Thus, we conclude that CARB has met
the procedural requirements under CAA section 110(l) for reasonable
public notice and hearing prior to adoption of SIPs and SIP revisions.
Second, in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we described the
general and specific authority granted to CARB under the California
Health and Safety Code (H&SC) to adopt and implement the two
regulations.
Third, in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we evaluated the
enforceability of both regulations with respect to applicability and
exemptions; standard of conduct and compliance dates; sunset
provisions; discretionary provisions; and test methods, recordkeeping
and reporting,\4\ and concluded that the two regulations would be
enforceable for the purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2) for the following
reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulations would be sufficiently clear as to which
persons and which vehicles or engines are affected by the regulations;
The regulations would be sufficiently specific so that the
persons affected by the regulations would be fairly on notice as to
what the requirements and related compliance dates are;
The sunset clause in the Drayage Truck Regulation would be
acceptable because it merely transfers CARB's regulatory authority over
drayage trucks from the Drayage Truck Regulation to the Truck and Bus
Regulation;
The ``director's discretion'' provisions in the two
regulations would be sufficiently limited in scope and application; and
The regulations would require use of appropriate test
methods and would include adequate recordkeeping and reporting
requirements sufficient to ensure compliance with the applicable
requirements.
Fourth, in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we noted that the
State's 2007 State Strategy to attain the 1997 PM2.5 and
ozone NAAQS in areas like the South Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin
Valley are relying on the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation, among other CARB regulations, to help achieve needed
emissions reductions and thereby meet the aggregated State emissions
reduction commitments made by CARB in connection with the regional air
quality plans. As such, we concluded that the Truck and Bus Regulation
and the Drayage Truck Regulation would not interfere with RFP,
attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act in accordance
with CAA section 110(l).
Based on the evaluation summarized above, we concluded in our July
11, 2011 proposal that the Truck and Bus Regulation and the Drayage
Truck Regulation would be consistent with the relevant CAA
requirements, policies and guidance. The reader is directed to our July
11, 2011 proposed rule (pages 40657-40659) for a more detailed
discussion of our evaluation of the Truck and Bus Regulation and
Drayage Truck Regulation.
Lastly, we indicated in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule that if the
State substantially revises the version of the Truck and Bus Regulation
or the Drayage Truck Regulation that was released for public comment by
the State and that was submitted for ``parallel processing,'' this
would result in the need for additional proposed rulemaking on the
regulations by EPA. On September 21, 2011, CARB submitted the final
versions of the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation,
which were adopted by the CARB Executive Officer on September 19, 2011,
to EPA as a revision to the California SIP.
The two final adopted regulations essentially mirror the versions
of the regulations that had been released for public comment and that
had been submitted to EPA for parallel processing, and on which EPA had
based the Agency's proposed approval. Because the two final adopted
regulations are essentially the same as the versions of the rules on
which the proposed approval was based, we can rely on our evaluation of
the proposed versions of the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation, as set forth in our July 11,
[[Page 20312]]
2011 proposed rule and summarized above, in taking today's final action
to approve the final adopted versions of the regulations.
Under California law, once adopted, a regulation must still be
approved by the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) to take
effect. CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation,
as amended, were approved by OAL on December 14, 2011 and November 9,
2011, respectively, and became effective under State law on the same
days as their OAL approvals. On December 9, 2011 and December 15, 2011,
CARB submitted evidence of approval of the final, adopted Drayage Truck
Regulation and Truck and Bus Regulation, respectively, by the
California OAL to EPA as supplements to CARB's September 21, 2011 SIP
revision, and therefore, CARB has now provided EPA with all of the
documentation necessary for EPA to take this final action on the two
subject regulations.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
Our July 11, 2011 proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period.
During this period, we did not receive any comments on our proposed
action on CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation. However, we received three
comment letters in connection with our proposed action on CARB's
Drayage Truck Regulation. The comments and our responses are provided
below.
Individual Trucking Company: An Individual Trucking Company
requests that EPA prevent Phase 2 of CARB's Drayage Truck Regulation
from being implemented on the schedule set forth in the regulation due
to social and economic impacts that the Individual Trucking Company
believes will result, in part due to the absence of a 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 the Clean Air Act. The above
comments from the Individual Trucking Company do not challenge EPA's
conclusion that the Drayage Truck Regulation meets all applicable CAA
requirements but rather contend, for various reasons, that Phase 2 of
CARB's Drayage Truck Regulation is too costly and may not be
economically or technologically feasible. However, such considerations
cannot form the basis for EPA disapproval of a rule submitted by a
state as part of a SIP [see Union Electric Company v. EPA; 427 U.S.
246, 265 (1976)]. Moreover, EPA disapproval of CARB's regulation would
not prevent the implementation of Phase 2 because the Phase 2
requirements would still apply, and would still be enforceable, under
State law, regardless of EPA's action to approve or disapprove the
regulation as a revision to the California SIP.
Anonymous Oakland Trucker: The Oakland trucker objects to CARB's
decision not to delay Phase 2 of the Drayage Truck Regulation
consistent with the delay adopted for non-drayage truckers under the
Truck and Bus Regulation and contends that, due to the lack of a filter
to allow 2004-2006 MY trucks to remain compliant with the regulation
through 2020, certain social and economic consequences will result.
EPA Response: As explained above in our response to the Individual
Trucking Company, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act, and that objections to a State rule grounded in economic
or technological feasibility cannot form the basis for EPA disapproval
of the rule submitted by a state as part of a SIP.
West State Alliance: West State Alliance (WSA), an association of
truckers and ancillary goods movement industries servicing the Port of
Oakland, generally requests that EPA disapprove the Drayage Truck
Regulation as a revision of the California SIP based on the contents of
seven documents attached to their general comment requesting
disapproval. The seven documents include the following:
A letter from WSA to CARB, dated December 28, 2010,
objecting to CARB's December 17, 2010 decision not to delay the Phase 2
requirements under the Drayage Truck Regulation.
A letter from Horizon Freight System, Inc. to CARB, dated
December 29, 2010, objecting to CARB's December 17, 2010 decision not
to delay the Phase 2 requirements under the Drayage Truck Regulation.
A letter from Diesel Emissions Service to WSA, dated
December 29, 2010, discussing the lack of an available EPA- or CARB-
verified retrofit system that would allow the operator of a 1994-2006
model year engine to meet the requirements of Phase 2 of CARB's Drayage
Truck Regulation.
An undated letter from an Oakland City Councilmember to
CARB objecting to CARB's failure to extend the Phase 2 compliance dates
in the Drayage Truck Regulation consistent with the compliance date
extensions adopted by CARB in the Truck and Bus Regulation.
An undated WSA fact sheet concerning CARB's Drayage Truck
Regulation that was circulated after CARB's December 17, 2010 decision
not to delay the Phase 2 requirements under the Drayage Truck
Regulation.
A WSA request to CARB submitted May 16, 2011 requesting
that CARB reconsider the Proposed Amendments to the Drayage Truck
Regulation of October 2010 that would have aligned scheduled upgrades
for drayage trucks with other diesel trucks under CARB's Truck and Bus
Regulation.
A letter to CARB dated August 3, 2011 from an attorney
retained by WSA concerning the costs of implementation of Phase 2 of
CARB's Drayage Truck Regulation as well as CARB's purported failure to
prepare a study on the economic impacts on business under California
Government Code 11346, et seq., in connection with CARB's decision not
to delay implementation of Phase 2 of the Drayage Truck Regulation.
EPA Response: EPA has reviewed the seven documents and finds that,
with one exception, the comments contained therein object to the
compliance date for Phase 2 requirements under CARB's Drayage Truck
Regulation based on purported economic or technological infeasibility,
unfairness relative to 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
[[Page 20313]]
form the basis for EPA disapproval of the rule submitted by a state as
part of a SIP.
The one specific comment that does relate to EPA's action is
directed to CARB, rather than EPA, but it challenges CARB's decision
not to extend Phase 2 compliance dates on state law grounds. SIP rules
must be adopted by states in compliance with their own laws because a
state must provide necessary assurances that it has adequate legal
authority to carry out the SIP revision and, where a state has not
followed its own laws in adopting a rule subsequently submitted as a
SIP revision, such assurances generally cannot be provided. See CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E).
In this instance, the commenter accuses CARB of failing to follow
the mandates of state law proscribed by California Government Code
section 11346, et seq., which generally establishes procedures for
state departments and agencies for adoption, amendment, or repeal of
administrative regulations. Among the requirements are the duty to
assess the potential for adverse economic impact on California
businesses and individuals and to identify and evaluate alternatives
that are less burdensome but equally effective. See Cal. Government
Code Sec. Sec. 11346.2 and 11346.3. However, we note that CARB
specifically addressed the issue of adverse economic impacts related to
CARB's decision not to extend Phase 2 compliance dates under the
Drayage Truck Regulation in CARB's Final Statement of Reasons for
Rulemaking (for the Drayage Truck Regulation) (``FSOR''), which was
submitted by CARB in its SIP submittal dated September 21, 2011. In the
FSOR, CARB explains that CARB staff performed the required economic
analysis of the impacts to drayage businesses for compliance with the
Phase 2 requirements as part of the rulemaking decision in 2007, and
that no new economic analysis is required for CARB's decision to retain
those requirements. See CARB's FSOR, page 46. We find that CARB's
response adequately addresses this issue and provides us with the
necessary assurances that CARB has complied with state law in adopting
the Drayage Truck Regulation and will be able to carry out this SIP
revision.
III. Final Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation comply with the
relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of
the CAA and for the reasons given above and in our July 11, 2011
proposed rule, EPA is taking final action to approve the Truck and Bus
Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation into the California SIP. The
specific rules approved into the SIP in today's action are:
13 CCR section 2025 (``Regulation to Reduce Emissions of
Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria
Pollutants, from 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 Heavy-
Duty Drayage Trucks''), as adopted by the CARB Executive Officer on
September 19, 2011, submitted on September 21, 2011, and made effective
under State law on November 9, 2011.
Final approval of the regulations and incorporation of them into the
California SIP makes them federally enforceable.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 4, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
[[Page 20314]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 26, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(409) and (c)(410)
to read as follows:
Sec. 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.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) State of California Office of Administrative Law, ``Notice of
Approval of Regulatory Action,'' Title 13, California Code of
Regulations (CCR), section 2025, effective on December 14, 2011.
(2) Final Regulation Order, 13 CCR section 2025 (``Regulation to
Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and
Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled
Vehicles'').
[FR Doc. 2012-7023 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
