Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52539 

1CAA 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). 

2The 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 highestvolume port areas in the world. For a precise 

description of the geographic boundaries of the 

South Coast, please see 40 CFR 81.305. 

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.’’ 

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. 

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 yearover-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 yearover-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 thenlongstanding 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
52540 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3Memorandum 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. 

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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52541 

4As 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. 

5Contained in the appendix VIII (‘‘Vehicle Miles 

Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstration’’) of the 

SCAQMD’s Final 2012 Air Quality Management 

Plan. 

both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards.4

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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
52542 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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: 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3