```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52539-52542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20791]

[[Page 52539]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0823; FRL-9915-85-Region 9]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plan Revisions; State of 
California; South Coast VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to approve a state implementation plan revision submitted by the 
State of California to meet the vehicle miles traveled emissions offset 
requirement under the Clean Air Act for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards in the Los Angeles-
South Coast Air Basin (``South Coast''). The EPA is approving this 
revision because it demonstrates that California has put in place 
specific enforceable transportation control strategies and 
transportation control measures to offset the growth in emissions from 
the growth in vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips in the South 
Coast, and thereby meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air 
Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID 
No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0823. Generally, documents in the docket for this 
action are 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 at www.regulations.gov, 
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 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: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3963, ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
A. Regulatory Background
B. CARB's Submittal
C. The EPA's Proposed Approval
II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed rule?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29705), under section 110(k) of the Clean 
Air Act (Act or CAA), the EPA proposed approval of a submittal dated 
February 13, 2013 from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) of a 
revision to the California state implementation plan (SIP) for the 
South Coast. The SIP revision includes demonstrations intended to show 
compliance with the vehicle-miles-traveled emissions offset element of 
CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). The following paragraphs summarize the 
regulatory background, CARB's submittal, and the EPA's rationale for 
proposing approval. For additional details concerning these topics, 
please see our May 23, 2014 proposed rule.

A. Regulatory Background

    The specific CAA requirement that is relevant for the purposes of 
this action is section 182(d)(1)(A), which applies in ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as ``Severe'' or ``Extreme,'' and, in 
relevant part, requires the state, if subject to its requirements, to 
``submit a [SIP] revision that identifies and adopts specific 
enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation 
control measures to offset any growth in emissions from growth in 
vehicle miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area.'' \1\ 
Herein, we use ``VMT'' to refer to vehicle miles traveled or vehicle 
trips, and refer to the related SIP requirement as the ``VMT emissions 
offset requirement.'' In addition, we refer to the SIP revision 
intended to demonstrate compliance with the VMT emissions offset 
requirement as the ``VMT emissions offset demonstration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three separate elements. 
This final action relates only to the first element of CAA section 
182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., the VMT emissions offset requirement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The South Coast \2\ is an ``Extreme'' ozone nonattainment area for 
both the revoked 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard 
(standard or NAAQS) and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and thus, the 
State of California is required to submit SIP revisions that include 
VMT emissions offset demonstrations for the South Coast for both ozone 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern 
two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino 
County, and western Riverside County. The South Coast is home to 
approximately 17 million people, has a diverse economic base, and 
contains one of the highest-volume port areas in the world. For a 
precise description of the geographic boundaries of the South Coast, 
please see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, to comply with the VMT emissions offset requirement for 
the 1-hour ozone standard, the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (SCAQMD) submitted a demonstration showing decreases in 
aggregate year-over-year motor vehicle emissions in the South Coast 
from a base year (1990) through the applicable attainment year (2010). 
The following year, the EPA approved the South Coast 1-hour ozone VMT 
emissions offset demonstration as meeting the VMT emissions offset 
requirement of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). See 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 
2009). The EPA also approved the South Coast VMT emissions offset 
demonstration submitted in connection with the area's ``Extreme'' 
classification for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 77 FR 12674 
(March 1, 2012). Once again, the approved demonstration showed 
decreases in aggregate year-over-year motor vehicle emissions in the 
South Coast from a base year through the applicable attainment year.
    In approving the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations in 
2009 and 2012, the EPA applied its then-longstanding interpretation of 
the VMT emissions offset requirement, first explained in guidance in 
the General Preamble to Title I of the Clean Air Act (see 57 FR 13498, 
at 13521-13523, April 16, 1992), that no transportation control 
measures are necessary if aggregate motor vehicle emissions are 
projected to decline each year from the base year of the plan to the 
attainment year. See 74 FR 10176, at 10179-10180 (March 10, 2009); 76 
FR 57872, at 57889 (September 16, 2011). However, in response to a 
legal challenge brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit, the Court ruled against the EPA's approval of the South Coast 
VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard, 
determining that the EPA incorrectly interpreted the statutory phrase 
``growth in emissions'' in section 182(d)(1)(A) as meaning a growth in 
``aggregate motor vehicle emissions'' versus a growth solely from VMT. 
Essentially, the Court ruled that additional transportation control 
measures are required whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be 
higher than they would have been had VMT not increased, even when 
aggregate vehicle emissions are actually decreasing. However, the Court 
acknowledged that ``clean car technology'' advances could result in

[[Page 52540]]

there being no increase in emissions even in the face of VMT growth, 
which would then allow VMT to increase without triggering the 
requirement to adopt offsetting transportation control measures. 
Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584, at 596-597 
(9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27, 2012, 686 F.3d 
668, further amended February 13, 2012.
    Based on this reasoning, the Court remanded the approval of the 
South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 
standard back to the EPA for further proceedings consistent with the 
opinion. In response, we withdrew our approval of the South Coast VMT 
emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard and 
disapproved it. See 78 FR 18849 (March 28, 2013). Furthermore, because 
our approval of the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard was predicated on the same rationale as 
the corresponding South Coast demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 
standard that was rejected by the Ninth Circuit, we withdrew our 
approval of the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard and disapproved it as well. Id. Our 
disapproval of the previous South Coast VMT emissions offset 
demonstrations triggered sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(a) that 
would lead to sanctions within a certain period of time unless 
California submitted, and the EPA approved, SIP revisions that 
addressed the deficiency upon which the disapproval was based.
    In the wake of the decision in the Association of Irritated 
Residents case cited above, and in addition to withdrawing our approval 
of the previous South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations and 
disapproving the same, the EPA issued a guidance document, Guidance on 
Implementing Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control 
Measures and Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in 
Emissions Due to Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled (herein referred to 
as the ``August 2012 guidance''), which includes a revised methodology 
for states to use in their VMT emissions offset demonstrations.\3\ The 
guidance discusses the meaning of the terms, ``transportation control 
strategies'' (TCSs) and ``transportation control measures'' (TCMs), and 
recommends that both TCSs and TCMs be included in the calculations made 
for the purpose of determining the degree to which any hypothetical 
growth in emissions due to growth in VMT should be offset. Generally, 
TCSs is a broad term that encompasses many types of controls including, 
for example, motor vehicle emission limitations, inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) programs, alternative fuel programs, other 
technology-based measures, and TCMs, that would fit within the 
regulatory definition of ``control strategy.'' See, e.g., 40 CFR 
51.100(n). TCMs are defined at 40 CFR 51.100(r) as meaning ``any 
measure that is directed toward reducing emissions of air pollutants 
from transportation sources. Such measures include, but are not limited 
to those listed in section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act[,]'' and 
generally refer to programs intended to reduce the VMT, the number of 
vehicle trips, or traffic congestion, such as programs for improved 
public transit, designation of certain lanes for passenger buses and 
high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), trip reduction ordinances, and similar 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and 
Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl 
Edland, Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA 
Region 6, and Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, 
August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 2012 guidance explains how states may demonstrate that 
the VMT emissions offset requirement is satisfied in conformance with 
the Court's ruling. States are recommended to estimate emissions for 
the nonattainment area's base year and the attainment year. One 
emission inventory is developed for the base year, and three different 
emissions inventory scenarios are developed for the attainment year. 
For the attainment year, the state would present three emissions 
estimates, two of which would represent hypothetical emissions 
scenarios that would provide the basis to identify the ``growth in 
emissions'' due solely to the growth in VMT, and one that would 
represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions after fully 
accounting for projected VMT growth and offsetting emissions reductions 
obtained by all creditable TCSs and TCMs. See the August 2012 guidance 
for specific details on how states might conduct the calculations.

B. CARB's Submittal

    On February 13, 2013, in response to the EPA's final disapproval of 
the previous South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations, CARB 
submitted revised South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations for 
the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards. CARB then provided 
supplemental information and analysis on April 3, 2014.

C. The EPA's Proposed Approval

    As noted above, on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29705), the EPA proposed 
approval of the revised South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations 
submitted by CARB to meet the CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions 
offset requirement for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards 
in the South Coast. The EPA proposed to approve the revision because it 
demonstrated that California had put in place specific enforceable TCSs 
and TCMs to offset the growth in emissions from the growth in VMT and 
vehicle trips in the South Coast, and thereby met the applicable 
requirements in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). In addition, based on our 
proposed approval of the VMT emissions offset demonstrations, we issued 
an interim final determination that deferred the imposition of 
sanctions triggered by our March 28, 2013 disapproval of previous 
versions of the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations. See 79 
FR 29680 (May 23, 2014).
    Our full evaluation of the revised South Coast VMT emissions offset 
demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards can 
be found in our May 23, 2014 proposed rule. In summary, the results 
from the State's VMT emissions offset calculations establish projected 
actual attainment-year VOC emissions of 65 tons per day (tpd) for the 
1-hour standard demonstration and 62 tpd for the 1997 8-hour standard 
demonstration. The State then compared these projected actual emissions 
values against the attainment year scenario for no growth in VMT and 
trips and no additional TCMs or TCSs. This calculation is also referred 
to as the ``VMT offset ceiling.'' By comparing the projected actual 
attainment year emissions against the VMT offset ceiling, the State 
(along with the EPA and the public) can determine whether additional 
TCMs or TCSs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to 
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT. Because the 
projected actual emissions in both the 1-hour standard demonstration 
and the 1997 8-hour standard demonstration are less than the 
corresponding VMT offset ceiling emissions, the State concluded that 
the demonstration shows compliance with the VMT emissions offset 
requirement and that there are sufficient adopted TCSs and TCMs to 
offset the growth in emissions from the growth in VMT in the South 
Coast for

[[Page 52541]]

both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As described in the EPA's May 23, 2014 proposed rule, the 
offsetting VOC emissions reductions from the TCSs and TCMs put in 
place after the respective base year can be determined by 
subtracting the projected actual emissions estimates from the no 
action emissions estimates. For the purposes of the 1-hour ozone 
demonstration, the offsetting emissions reductions, 423 tpd (488 tpd 
minus 65 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and 
vehicle trips, 176 tpd (488 tpd minus 312 tpd). See table 1 on page 
29710 of our May 23, 2014 proposed rule. For the purposes of the 8-
hour ozone demonstration, the offsetting emissions reductions, 53 
tpd (115 tpd minus 62 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions from 
growth in VMT and vehicle trips, 26 tpd (115 tpd minus 89 tpd). See 
table 2 on page 29710 of our May 23, 2014 proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the State's submittal, including the 
technical supplement, we found the State's analysis to be acceptable 
and agreed that the State had adopted sufficient TCSs and TCMs to 
offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in 
the South Coast for the purposes of the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard. As such, we found that the revised South Coast VMT 
emissions offset demonstrations complied with the VMT emissions offset 
requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), and therefore, we proposed 
approval of the revised South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations 
for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards as a revision to 
the California SIP.

II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed rule?

    Our May 23, 2014 proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment 
period. During this period, we received one comment: an email from a 
private citizen representing the Public Solar Power Coalition (PSPC). 
We provide our response to this comment below.
    Comment: PSPC, noting ongoing litigation over the 2012 South Coast 
Air Quality Management Plan, requests that sanctions be imposed on 
California and the District. PSCP also calls for adoption by SCAQMD of 
an Immediate Solar Conversion Plan as a control measure, with full 
implementation by 2020 at the latest, contending that that the 
Immediate Solar Conversion Plan is cost effective and represents RACT/
RACM. PSPC also requested a 60-day extension of the comment period to 
allow more time to get the more recent information into the records.
    Response: Our proposed rule relates to the South Coast VMT offset 
demonstration submitted by CARB as a revision to the California SIP to 
address the VMT-related requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for 
the South Coast ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour 
ozone standards. Section 182(d)(1)(A) requires states to submit SIP 
revisions for such areas that identify and adopt specific TCSs and TCMs 
to offset any growth in emissions due to growth in VMT in such areas.
    In our proposed rule, we concluded that, with the TCSs and TCMs put 
in place by the various relevant state and regional agencies, the 
required demonstrations have been made. PSPC does not challenge our 
conclusion but rather seeks to compel the state to adopt a specific 
additional control measure referred to by PSPC as the Immediate Solar 
Conversion Plan. However, the EPA's role in reviewing SIPs and SIP 
revisions is to ensure that the states meet the requirements of the 
CAA, and California has demonstrated how it meets the requirement 
without adoption and implementation of the Immediate Solar Power 
Conversion Plan. Therefore, we have no authority to require California 
to adopt and implement such a plan to comply with CAA section 
182(d)(1)(A). Furthermore, because we have concluded that California 
has met the applicable requirements, sanctions would not be authorized 
under the CAA.
    Lastly, we have decided not to extend the comment period because 
further information concerning the Immediate Solar Power Conversion 
Plan would not change our conclusion that California has submitted a 
SIP revision that meets the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) 
for the South Coast and would not, therefore, provide a basis for us to 
reconsider our approval of the SIP revision under CAA section 110(k).

III. What action is the EPA taking?

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), for the reasons set forth above and in 
greater detail in the proposed rule, the EPA is approving CARB's 
submittal dated February 13, 2013 of the revised South Coast VMT 
emissions offset demonstrations \5\ for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-
hour ozone standards, as supplemented by CARB on April 3, 2014, as a 
revision to the California SIP. We are approving this SIP revision 
because it demonstrates that California has put in place specific 
enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation 
control measures to offset the growth in emissions from the growth in 
VMT and vehicle trips in the South Coast for both the 1-hour ozone and 
1997 8-hour ozone standards, and thereby meets the applicable 
requirements in section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Contained in the appendix VIII (``Vehicle Miles Traveled 
Emissions Offset Demonstration'') of the SCAQMD's Final 2012 Air 
Quality Management Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon the effective date of today's final approval, all sanctions 
and sanctions clocks that were triggered upon our final disapproval at 
78 FR 18849 (March 28, 2013) of previous versions of the South Coast 
VMT emissions offset demonstrations, and deferred upon our interim 
final rule at 79 FR 29680 (May 23, 2014), are permanently terminated.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that 
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action 
merely approves a state plan revision as meeting federal requirements 
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
state law. For these reasons, this final 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address

[[Page 52542]]

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 final 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 the 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. 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by November 3, 2014. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action 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)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 13, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

    2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs 
(c)(439)(ii)(A)(3) and (c)(439)(ii)(B)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (439) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Letter and enclosures from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive 
Officer, California Air Resources Board, dated April 3, 2014, providing 
supplemental information related to Appendix VIII (``Vehicle Miles 
Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstration'') of the Final 2012 Air 
Quality Management Plan.
    (B) * * *
    (4) Appendix VIII (``Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions Offset 
Demonstration'') (December 2012) of the Final 2012 Air Quality 
Management Plan.

[FR Doc. 2014-20791 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```