Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29705 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: May 20, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12041 Filed 5–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0823; FRL–9911–04- 

Region 9] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plan Revisions; State of California; 

South Coast VMT Emissions Offset 

Demonstrations 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

state implementation plan (SIP) 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 (NAAQS) in the Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin. The 

EPA is proposing to approve 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. The EPA is taking comments on 

this proposal and plans to follow with 

a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must be 

submitted by June 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0823, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

• Mail or Deliver: John Ungvarsky, 

Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and the 

EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send email directly to the EPA, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

public comment. If the EPA cannot read 

your comments due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, the EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site and 

in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105. 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 at 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 

below. 

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. Regulatory Background 

A. Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

B. South Coast Ozone Designations and 

Classifications 

C. Previous South Coast VMT Emissions 

Offset Demonstrations 

II. Submittal of Revised South Coast VMT 

Emissions Offset Demonstrations 

A. 2012 South Coast AQMP and CARB’s 

Technical Supplement 

B. CAA Procedural Requirements for 

Submittals of SIPs and SIP Revisions 

III. Evaluation of Revised South Coast VMT 

Emissions Offset Demonstrations 

A. Section 182(d)(1)(A) and the EPA’s 

August 2012 VMT Emissions Offset 

Demonstration Guidance 

B. Revised South Coast VMT Emissions 

Offset Demonstrations 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Regulatory Background 

A. Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

Ground-level ozone is formed when 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) react in the 

presence of sunlight. These two 

pollutants, referred to as ozone 

precursors, are emitted by many types of 

pollution sources, including on- and offroad motor vehicles and engines, power 

plants and industrial facilities, and 

smaller area sources such as lawn and 

garden equipment and paints. 

Scientific evidence indicates that 

adverse public health effects occur 

following exposure to ozone, 

particularly in children and adults with 

lung disease. Breathing air containing 

ozone can reduce lung function and 

inflame airways, which can increase 

respiratory symptoms and aggravate 

asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone 

exposure also has been associated with 

increased susceptibility to respiratory 

infections, medication use, doctor visits, 

and emergency department visits and 

hospital admissions for individuals with 

lung disease. Ozone exposure also 

increases the risk of premature death 

from heart or lung disease. Children are 

at increased risk from exposure to ozone 

because their lungs are still developing 

and they are more likely to be active 

outdoors, which increases their 

exposure. 

In 1979, under section 109 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the EPA 

established primary and secondary 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS, standards, or standard) for 

ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) 

averaged over a 1-hour period (referred 

to herein as the ‘‘1-hour ozone 

standard’’ or ‘‘1-hour ozone NAAQS’’). 

See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 

In 1997, the EPA revised the ozone 

NAAQS to set the acceptable level of 

ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, 

averaged over an 8-hour period (referred 

to herein as the ‘‘1997 8-hour ozone 

standard’’ or ‘‘1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS’’). See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 

1997). The EPA set the 8-hour ozone 

standard based on scientific evidence 

demonstrating that ozone causes 

adverse health effects at lower 

concentrations and over longer periods 

of time than was understood when the 

previous 1-hour ozone standard was set. 

The EPA determined that the 8-hour 

ozone standard would be more 

protective of human health, especially 

children and adults who are active 

outdoors, and individuals with a preVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 May 22, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM 23MYP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29706 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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. 

2 In EPA’s final rule to classify nonattainment 

areas for the 1-hour ozone standard, Severe areas 

were classified as either Severe-15 or Severe-17 

based on their design value. See 56 FR 56694 

(November 6, 1991). 

3 In EPA’s final rule to classify nonattainment 

areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, Severe 

areas were classified as either Severe-15 or Severe17 based on their design value. See 69 FR 23858 

(April 30, 2004). 

4CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three 

separate elements. Please see the related discussion 

in our proposed rule withdrawing our previous 

approvals of the South Coast VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations and disapproving the same at 77 FR 

58067, at 58068 (September 19, 2012). This 

proposed action relates only to the first element of 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., the VMT emissions 

offset requirement). 

5Letter from Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive 

Officer, SCAQMD, dated September 10, 2008. 

existing respiratory disease, such as 

asthma. 

In 2008 (73 FR 16436, March 27, 

2008), the EPA revised and further 

strengthened the primary and secondary 

NAAQS for ozone by setting the 

acceptable level of ozone in the ambient 

air at 0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8- 

hour period (‘‘2008 8-hour ozone 

standard’’). Today’s proposed action 

relates only to the 1-hour and 1997 8- 

hour ozone standards and does not 

relate to the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

B. South Coast Ozone Designations and 

Classifications 

Section 107 of the CAA requires the 

EPA to designate all areas of the country 

as nonattainment, attainment, or 

unclassifiable for each of the NAAQS, 

depending upon whether such areas 

experience violations of the NAAQS or 

contribute to violations in a nearby area. 

In the late 1970s, the EPA designated 

the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin 

Area (South Coast) 1 as nonattainment 

for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the 

1990 CAA Amendments, ozone 

nonattainment areas were further 

classified, based on the severity of their 

nonattainment problem, as ‘‘Marginal’’, 

‘‘Moderate,’’ ‘‘Serious,’’ ‘‘Severe,’’ 2 or 

‘‘Extreme,’’ and the South Coast was 

classified as ‘‘Extreme’’ nonattainment 

for the 1-hour ozone standard. See 56 

FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). 

In 2004, the EPA designated areas of 

the country with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, 69 FR 23858 

(April 30, 2004), and the EPA 

designated the South Coast as ‘‘Severe17’’ 3 for the 1997 ozone standard, but 

later granted the State of California’s 

request to reclassify the South Coast to 

‘‘Extreme’’ for that standard. See 75 FR 

24409 (May 5, 2010). 

C. Previous South Coast VMT Emissions 

Offset Demonstrations 

Once the EPA has promulgated a 

NAAQS, states are required to develop 

and submit plans that provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS under CAA 

section 110(a)(1). The content 

requirements for such plans, which are 

referred to as state implementation 

plans (SIPs) are found in CAA section 

110(a)(2). The CAA further requires 

states with nonattainment areas to 

submit revisions to their SIPs that 

provide for, among other things, 

attainment of the relevant standard 

within certain prescribed periods. 

In California, as a general matter, the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

is responsible for adoption and 

submittal to the EPA of California SIPs 

and California SIP revisions and is the 

primary State agency responsible for 

regulation of mobile sources. Local and 

regional air pollution control districts 

are responsible for developing regional 

air quality plans and for regulation of 

stationary sources. For the South Coast, 

the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD or 

District) develops and adopts air quality 

management plans (AQMPs) to address 

CAA SIP planning requirements 

applicable to that region. Generally, 

such AQMPs are then submitted to 

CARB for adoption and submittal to the 

EPA as revisions to the California SIP. 

Under the CAA, as amended in 1990, 

the control requirements and date by 

which attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard was to be achieved varied with 

an area’s classification. ‘‘Extreme’’ areas, 

such as the South Coast, were subject to 

the most stringent planning 

requirements but were provided the 

most time to attain the standard (i.e., 

until 2010). The various ozone planning 

requirements to which ‘‘Extreme’’ ozone 

nonattainment areas were subject are set 

forth in section 172(c) and section 

182(a)–(e) of the CAA. 

The specific ozone planning 

requirement that is relevant for the 

purposes of this action is CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A), which, in relevant part, 

requires the state, if subject to its 

requirements, to ‘‘submit a 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.’’ 4 Herein, we use ‘‘VMT’’ to 

refer to vehicle miles traveled 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.’’ 

As described above, in 1997, the EPA 

revised the ozone NAAQS and 

established the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Under the EPA’s Phase I rules 

governing the transition from the 1-hour 

ozone standard to the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, the EPA revoked the 1- 

hour ozone standard effective June 2005 

but also established ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provisions that, in effect, carried 

forward most of the SIP requirements 

that had applied to an area by virtue of 

its 1-hour ozone classification to areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 69 FR 

23951 (April 30, 2004); 40 CFR 

51.905(a)(1); and 40 CFR 51.900(f). The 

VMT emission offset requirement is one 

of the requirements carried forward; 

thus, the South Coast, which is 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard, remains subject 

to the VMT emissions offset 

requirement for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, notwithstanding the 

revocation of that standard in 2005. 

Moreover, the South Coast is also 

subject to the VMT emissions offset 

requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard by virtue of its classification, 

initially as ‘‘Severe-17’’ and later as 

‘‘Extreme,’’ for the 1997 ozone standard. 

See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 

71612 (November 29, 2005); 75 FR 

24409 (May 5, 2010); and 40 CFR 

51.902(a). 

In 2008, to comply with the VMT 

emissions offset requirement for the 1- 

hour ozone standard, the 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).5

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 yearVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 May 22, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM 23MYP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29707 

6See the SCAQMD’s Final 2007 Air Quality 

Management Plan (June 2007) for the South Coast 

Air Basin, chapter 6, table 6–12. 

7For a more detailed discussion of the regulatory 

and SIP submittal history of the South Coast Air 

Basin 1-hour and 8-hour nonattainment areas with 

respect to the VMT emissions offset requirement 

under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), the South Coast 

VMT emissions offset demonstrations, the related 

EPA actions, and the ensuing litigation and Court 

decision, please see our rule proposing to 

disapprove our previous approvals of the South 

Coast emissions offset demonstrations and 

disapproval of the same at 77 FR 58067, at 58068– 

58070 (September 19, 2012). 

8See CARB Resolution 13–3 (January 25, 2013) 

and letter from James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, letter with enclosures 

(February 13, 2013). 

9The principal difference between the two sets of 

calculations is that CARB’s technical supplement 

includes running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, 

and running loss emissions of VOCs in all of the 

emissions scenarios. These processes are directly 

related to VMT and vehicle trips. The revised 

calculation excludes diurnal and resting loss 

emissions of VOCs from all of the emissions 

scenarios because such evaporative emissions are 

related to vehicle population rather than to VMT or 

vehicle trips. 

over-year motor vehicle emissions in the 

South Coast from a base year through 

the applicable attainment year.6

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 

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. 

Specifically, we withdrew our 

previous approvals of the VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations and 

disapproved the same because we found 

that the submitted VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations were not consistent 

with the Court’s ruling on the 

requirements of section 182(d)(1)(A) 

because they failed to identify, 

compared to a baseline assuming no 

VMT growth, the level of ‘‘increased’’ 

emissions, within the overall set of 

declining aggregate motor vehicle 

emissions, resulting solely from VMT 

growth and to show how such relatively 

higher emissions, compared to what 

they would have been had VMT held 

constant, have been offset through 

adoption and implementation of 

transportation control strategies and 

transportation control measures. See 77 

FR 58067, at 58070 (September 19, 

2012).7

II. Submittal of Revised South Coast 

VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations 

A. 2012 South Coast AQMP and CARB’s 

Technical Supplement 

As described above, in March 2013, 

the EPA finalized the withdrawal of its 

previous approvals of SIP revisions 

submitted by the State of California to 

meet the VMT emissions offset 

requirement under the CAA for the 

South Coast 1-hour and 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas. See 78 FR 

18849 (March 28, 2013). In response, 

CARB and the SCAQMD (‘‘State’’) 

prepared and adopted revised South 

Coast VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations to show compliance 

with the VMT emissions offset 

requirement under section 182(d)(1)(A) 

for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards consistent with the Court’s 

opinion in the Association of Irritated 

Residents case discussed above. 

On February 13, 2013, CARB 

submitted, as a revision to the California 

SIP, the Final 2012 Air Quality 

Management Plan (December 2012) 

(‘‘2012 South Coast AQMP’’) for the 

South Coast Air Basin (‘‘2012 South 

Coast AQMP’’), adopted by SCAQMD on 

December 21, 2012 and by CARB on 

January 25, 2013.8 The revised South 

Coast VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations, which are the subject of 

today’s proposed action, are included in 

the February 13, 2013 SIP revision 

submittal as appendix VIII, titled 

‘‘Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions 

Offset Demonstration’’ (February 2013), 

to the 2012 South Coast AQMP. In this 

document, we are proposing action only 

on the revised South Coast VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations 

contained in appendix VIII of the 2012 

South Coast AQMP. The EPA will take 

action on the other portions of the 2012 

South Coast AQMP, including the 

revised South Coast 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration found in 

appendix VII to 2012 South Coast 

AQMP, in separate rulemakings. 

The revised South Coast VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations address 

the requirement under CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) for a state with ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

‘‘Severe’’ or ‘‘Extreme’’ to identify and 

adopt specific enforceable 

transportation control strategies and 

transportation control measures to offset 

any growth in emissions from growth in 

VMT or the numbers of vehicle trips. 

The demonstrations include analyses for 

the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards. 

On April 3, 2014, CARB submitted a 

technical supplement to the revised 

South Coast VMT emissions offset 

demonstration submitted on February 

13, 2013 (‘‘technical supplement’’). See 

letter and enclosures from Lynn Terry, 

Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to 

Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, 

EPA Region 9. CARB’s technical 

supplement includes a revised set of 

motor vehicle emissions estimates 

reflecting technical changes to the 

inputs used to develop the original set 

of calculations.9 While the vehicle 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29708 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

10See SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution No. 

12–19. 

11See CARB Board Resolution No. 13–3. 

12Memorandum 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. 

emissions estimates in CARB’s technical 

supplement differ from those contained 

in the demonstration as submitted on 

February 13, 2013, the conclusions of 

the analysis remain the same. 

B. CAA Procedural Requirements for 

Submittals of SIPs and SIP Revisions 

CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

CAA section 110(l) require a state to 

provide reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submission of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and an opportunity for a 

public hearing was provided consistent 

with the EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. 

CARB and the District have satisfied 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for reasonable public 

notice and hearing prior to adoption and 

submittal of the 2012 South Coast 

AQMP, which as noted above, included 

the revised South Coast VMT emissions 

offset demonstrations as appendix VIII 

to the plan. The District provided a 

public comment period and held a 

public hearing prior to the adoption of 

the 2012 South Coast AQMP on 

December 7, 2012.10 CARB provided the 

required public notice and opportunity 

for public comment prior to its January 

25, 2013 public hearing on the plan.11

The SIP submittal includes notices of 

the District and CARB public hearings 

as evidence that all hearings were 

properly noticed. We therefore find that 

the submittals meet the procedural 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a) 

and 110(l). 

III. Evaluation of Revised South Coast 

VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations 

A. Section 182(d)(1)(A) and the EPA’s 

August 2012 VMT Emissions Offset 

Demonstration Guidance 

As noted previously, the first element 

of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires 

that areas classified as ‘‘Severe’’ or 

‘‘Extreme’’ submit a SIP revision that 

identifies and adopts transportation 

control strategies and transportation 

control measures sufficient to offset any 

growth in emissions from growth in 

VMT or the number of vehicle trips. In 

response to the Court’s decision in 

Association of Irritated Residents v. 

EPA, also discussed above, the EPA 

issued a memorandum titled 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’’).12

The August 2012 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 the like. 

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. 

The base year on-road VOC emissions 

should be based on VMT in that year 

and it should reflect all enforceable 

TCSs and TCMs in place in the base 

year. This would include vehicle 

emissions standards, state and local 

control programs such as I/M programs 

or fuel rules, and any additional 

implemented TCSs and TCMs that were 

already required by or credited in the 

SIP as of that base year. 

The first of the emissions calculations 

for the attainment year would be based 

on the projected VMT and trips for that 

year, and assume that no new TCSs or 

TCMs beyond those already credited in 

the base year inventory have been put 

in place since the base year. This 

calculation demonstrates how emissions 

would hypothetically change if no new 

TCSs or TCMs were implemented, and 

VMT and trips were allowed to grow at 

the projected rate from the base year. 

This estimate would show the potential 

for an increase in emissions due solely 

to growth in VMT and trips. This 

represents a ‘‘no action’’ taken scenario. 

Emissions in the attainment year in this 

scenario may be lower than those in the 

base year due to the fleet that was on the 

road in the base year gradually being 

replaced through fleet turnover; 

however, provided VMT and/or 

numbers of vehicle trips will in fact 

increase by the attainment year, they 

would still likely be higher than they 

would have been assuming VMT had 

held constant. 

The second of the attainment year’s 

emissions calculations would also 

assume that no new TCSs or TCMs 

beyond those already credited have 

been put in place since the base year, 

but would also assume that there was no 

growth in VMT and trips between the 

base year and attainment year. This 

estimate reflects the hypothetical 

emissions level that would have 

occurred if no further TCMs or TCSs 

had been put in place and if VMT and 

trip levels had held constant since the 

base year. Like the ‘‘no action’’ 

attainment year estimate described 

above, emissions in the attainment year 

may be lower than those in the base year 

due to the fleet that was on the road in 

the base year gradually being replaced 

by cleaner vehicles through fleet 

turnover, but in this case they would 

not be influenced by any growth in 

VMT or trips. This emissions estimate 

would reflect a ceiling on the attainment 

emissions that should be allowed to 

occur under the statute as interpreted by 

the Court because it shows what would 

happen under a scenario in which no 

offsetting TCSs or TCMs have yet been 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29709 

13See 78 FR 14533 (March 6, 2013) regarding the 

EPA’s approval of the 2011 version of the California 

EMFAC model (short for EMissionFACtor) and 

announcement of its availability. The software and 

detailed information on the EMFAC vehicle 

emission model can be found on the following 

CARB Web site: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/

msei.htm. 

put in place and VMT and trips are held 

constant during the period from the 

area’s base year to its attainment year. 

This represents a ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ 

scenario. These two hypothetical status 

quo estimates are necessary steps in 

identifying the target level of emissions 

from which states would determine 

whether further TCMs or TCSs, beyond 

those that have been adopted and 

implemented in reality, would need to 

be adopted and implemented in order to 

fully offset any increase in emissions 

due solely to VMT and trips identified 

in the ‘‘no action’’ scenario. 

Finally, the state would present the 

emissions that are actually expected to 

occur in the area’s attainment year after 

taking into account reductions from all 

enforceable TCSs and TCMs that in 

reality were put in place after the 

baseline year. This estimate would be 

based on the VMT and trip levels 

expected to occur in the attainment year 

(i.e., the VMT and trip levels from the 

first estimate) and all of the TCSs and 

TCMs expected to be in place and for 

which the SIP will take credit in the 

area’s attainment year, including any 

TCMs and TCSs put in place since the 

base year. This represents the ‘‘projected 

actual’’ attainment year scenario. If this 

emissions estimate is less than or equal 

to the emissions ceiling that was 

established in the second of the 

attainment year calculations, the TCSs 

or TCMs for the attainment year would 

be sufficient to fully offset the identified 

hypothetical growth in emissions. 

If, instead, the estimated projected 

actual attainment year emissions are 

still greater than the ceiling which was 

established in the second of the 

attainment year emissions calculations, 

even after accounting for post-baseline 

year TCSs and TCMs, the state would 

need to adopt and implement additional 

TCSs or TCMs to further offset the 

growth in emissions and bring the 

actual emissions down to at least the 

‘‘had VMT and trips held constant’’ 

ceiling estimated in the second of the 

attainment year calculations, in order to 

meet the VMT offset requirement of 

section 182(d)(1)(A) as interpreted by 

the Court. 

B. Revised South Coast VMT Emissions 

Offset Demonstrations 

For the revised South Coast VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations, the 

State used EMFAC2011, the latest EPAapproved motor vehicle emissions 

model for California.13 The EMFAC2011 

model estimates the on-road emissions 

from two combustion processes (i.e., 

running exhaust and start exhaust) and 

four evaporative processes (i.e., hot 

soak, running losses, diurnal losses, and 

resting losses). The EMFAC2011 model 

combines trip-based VMT data from the 

regional transportation planning 

agencies (i.e., Southern California 

Association of Governments), starts data 

based on household travel surveys, and 

vehicle population data from the 

California Department of Motor 

Vehicles. These sets of data are 

combined with corresponding emission 

rates to calculate emissions. 

Emissions from running exhaust, start 

exhaust, hot soak, and running losses 

are a function of how much a vehicle is 

driven. As such, emissions from these 

processes are directly related to VMT 

and vehicle trips, and the State included 

emissions from them in the calculations 

that provide the basis for the revised 

South Coast VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations. The State did not 

include emissions from resting loss and 

diurnal loss processes in the analysis 

because such emissions are related to 

vehicle population, not to VMT or 

vehicle trips, and thus are not part of 

‘‘any growth in emissions from growth 

in vehicle miles traveled or numbers of 

vehicle trips in such area’’ (emphasis 

added) under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). 

The revised South Coast VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations address 

both the 1-hour ozone standard and the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard and include 

two different ‘‘base year’’ scenarios: 

1990, for the purposes of the VMT 

emissions offset demonstration for the 

1-hour ozone standard, and 2002, for the 

purposes of the VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. The ‘‘base year’’ for 

VMT emissions offset demonstration 

purposes should generally be the same 

‘‘base year’’ used for nonattainment 

planning purposes. In 2012, the EPA 

approved the 2002 base year inventory 

for the South Coast for the purposes of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 77 FR 

12674, at 12693 (March 1, 2012), and 

thus, the State’s selection of 2002 as the 

base year for the revised South Coast 

VMT emissions offset demonstration for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 

appropriate. With respect to the 1-hour 

ozone standard, the revised South Coast 

attainment demonstration, submitted to 

the EPA on February 13, 2013, relies on 

a base year of 2008, rather than 1990; 

however, the State’s selection of 1990 as 

the base year for the VMT offset 

demonstration is appropriate because 

1990 was used as the base year for 1- 

hour ozone SIP planning purposes 

under the CAA Amendments of 1990, 

which established, among other 

requirements, the VMT emissions offset 

requirement in section 182(d)(1)(A). 

The demonstrations also include the 

previously described three different 

attainment year scenarios (i.e., no 

action, VMT offset ceiling, and 

projected actual) but the attainment year 

differs between the two demonstrations. 

Year 2022 was selected as the 

attainment year for the revised VMT 

emissions offset demonstration for the 

1-hour ozone standard, and year 2023 

was selected as the attainment year for 

the revised demonstration for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. For the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, the State’s 

selection of 2023 is appropriate given 

that the approved South Coast 1997 8- 

hour ozone plan demonstrates 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date of June 15, 2024 based on the 2023 

controlled emissions inventory. See 76 

FR 57872, at 57885 (September 16, 

2011) and 77 FR 12674, at 12693 (March 

1, 2012). 

For the 1-hour ozone standard, in 

2013, the EPA found the California SIP 

for the South Coast to be substantially 

inadequate to comply with the 

obligation to adopt and implement a 

plan providing for attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard. 78 FR 889 

(January 7, 2013). Under this ‘‘SIP call,’’ 

effective February 6, 2013, the State was 

required to develop a revised South 

Coast plan demonstrating attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years from the effective date of 

the SIP call, or, in this case, no later 

than February 6, 2018, unless the State 

can demonstrate that it needs up to an 

additional five years, i.e., up to February 

6, 2023, to attain the standard in light 

of the severity of the nonattainment 

problem and the availability and 

feasibility of control measures. 

The revised South Coast 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration, which was 

submitted along with the revised VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations and the 

rest of the 2012 South Coast AQMP on 

February 13, 2013, provides a 

justification for the full five years 

beyond the statutory five-year 

attainment date. The revised South 

Coast 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration thus provides a 

demonstration of attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard in the South Coast 

by 2023 based on the controlled 2022 

emissions inventory. In a separate 

rulemaking action published elsewhere 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29710 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

14 In this context, ‘‘attainment year’’ refers to the 

ozone season immediately preceding a 

nonattainment area’s attainment date. In the case of 

the South Coast for the 1-hour ozone standard, the 

proposed applicable attainment date is February 6, 

2023, and the ozone season immediately preceding 

that date will occur in year 2022. 

15The docket for today’s action includes an 

updated list of the post-1990 transportation control 

strategies in attachment 1 of Appendix VIII to the 

South Coast AQMP. 

in today’s Federal Register, EPA is 

proposing to approve 2022 as the 

attainment year for the 1-hour ozone 

standard in the South Coast.14 Based on 

the proposed approval of 2022 as the 

attainment year for the South Coast for 

the 1-hour ozone standard, we find 

CARB’s selection of Year 2022 as the 

attainment year for the revised VMT 

emissions offset demonstration for the 

1-hour ozone standard to be acceptable. 

For additional background and 

justification regarding the 2022 

attainment year, please see the separate 

rulemaking action published elsewhere 

in today’s Federal Register. 

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the 

relevant distinguishing parameters for 

each of the emissions scenarios and 

show the State’s corresponding VOC 

emissions estimates. Table 1 provides 

the parameters and emissions estimates 

for the revised VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, and table 2 provides the 

corresponding values for the revised 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

TABLE 1—VMT EMISSIONS OFFSET INVENTORY SCENARIOS AND RESULTS FOR 1-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Scenario 

VMT Starts Controls VOC 

emissions 

Year 1000/day Year 1000/day Year tpd 

Base Year ............................................................................................ 1990 257,490 1990 46,060 1990 873 

No Action ............................................................................................. 2022 394,838 2022 72,531 1990 488 

VMT Offset Ceiling ............................................................................... 1990 257,490 1990 46,060 1990 312 

Projected Actual ................................................................................... 2022 394,838 2022 72,531 2022 65 

Source: CARB’s Technical Supplement, April 3, 2014. 

TABLE 2—VMT EMISSIONS OFFSET INVENTORY SCENARIOS AND RESULTS FOR 1997 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Scenario 

VMT Starts Controls VOC 

emissions 

Year 1000/day Year 1000/day Year tpd 

Base Year ............................................................................................ 2002 330,268 2002 58,039 2002 280 

No Action ............................................................................................. 2023 395,750 2023 72,730 2002 115 

VMT Offset Ceiling ............................................................................... 2002 330,268 2002 58,039 2002 89 

Projected Actual ................................................................................... 2023 395,750 2023 72,730 2023 62 

Source: CARB’s Technical Supplement, April 3, 2014. 

For the two ‘‘base year’’ scenarios, the 

State ran the EMFAC2011 model for the 

applicable base year (i.e., 1990 for the 1- 

hour ozone standard and 2002 for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard) using VMT 

and starts data corresponding to those 

years. As shown in tables 1 and 2, the 

State estimates South Coast VOC 

emissions at 873 tons per day (tpd) in 

1990 and 280 tpd in 2002. 

For the two ‘‘no action’’ scenarios, the 

State first identified the on-road motor 

vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or 

TCMs) put in place since the base years 

and incorporated into EMFAC2011 and 

then ran EMFAC2011 with the VMT and 

starts data corresponding to the 

applicable attainment year (i.e., 2022 for 

the 1-hour ozone standard and 2023 for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) 

without the emissions reductions from 

the on-road motor vehicle control 

programs put in place after the base 

year. Thus, the ‘‘no action’’ scenarios 

reflect the hypothetical VOC emissions 

that would occur in the attainment years 

in the South Coast if the State had not 

put in place any additional TCSs or 

TCMs after 1990 (for the 1-hour ozone 

VMT emissions offset demonstration) or 

after 2002 (for the 8-hour ozone 

demonstration). As shown in tables 1 

and 2, the State estimates ‘‘no action’’ 

South Coast VOC emissions at 488 tons 

per day (tpd) in 2022 and 115 tpd in 

2023. The principal difference between 

the two estimates is that the latter value 

(used for the revised VMT emissions 

offset demonstration for the 8-hour 

ozone standard) reflects the emissions 

reductions from TCSs and TCMs put in 

place by the end of 2002 whereas the 

former value (used for the revised 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard) reflects only the emissions 

reductions from TCSs and TCMs put in 

place by the end of 1990. The most 

significant of the measures adopted 

since 1990 and relied upon for the 1- 

hour ozone VMT emissions offset 

demonstration include tiered (series of 

increasingly stringent limits) emissions 

standards for new motor vehicles (i.e., 

Low Emissions Vehicles I, II, and III 

standards), content specifications for 

gasoline (i.e., California Reformulated 

Gasoline Phases 1, 2, and 3), and 

enhancements to the State’s I/M 

program (i.e., Smog Check II). See 

attachments 1 and 2 of Appendix VIII to 

the 2012 South Coast AQMP (i.e., the 

revised South Coast VMT emissions 

offset demonstrations) for the entire list 

of TCSs and TCMs adopted by the State 

since 1990.15

For the ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ 

scenarios, the State ran the EMFAC2011 

model for the attainment years but with 

VMT and starts data corresponding to 

base year values. Like the ‘‘no action’’ 

scenarios, the EMFAC2011 model was 

adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions 

levels in the attainment years without 

the benefits of the post-base-year onroad motor vehicle control programs. 

Thus, the ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ 

scenarios reflect hypothetical VOC 

emissions in the South Coast if the State 

had not put in place any TCSs or TCMs 

after the base years and if there had 

been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips 

between the base years and the 

attainment years. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29711 

16See 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012) for the EPA’s 

approval or waiver/authorization of the TCSs and 

TCMs relied upon for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration in the 2007 South Coast 

AQMP. Also see Technical Support Document for 

the Final Rulemaking Action on the South Coast 

2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan and the South Coast 

Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy, USEPA 

Region 9, December 2011. Also see footnote 15. Per 

section 209 of the CAA, the EPA has previously 

waived (for control of emissions from new motor 

vehicles of new motor vehicle engines prior to 

March 30, 1966) or authorized (for control 

emissions of nonroad engines or vehicles) all such 

TCSs and TCMs. 

17The 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 in tables 1 and 2. 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). 

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). 

The hypothetical growth in emissions 

due to growth in VMT and trips can be 

determined from the difference between 

the VOC emissions estimates under the 

‘‘no action’’ scenarios and the 

corresponding estimates under the 

‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ scenarios. Based 

on the values in tables 1 and 2, the 

hypothetical growth in emissions due to 

growth in VMT and trips in the South 

Coast would have been 176 tpd (i.e., 488 

tpd minus 312 tpd) for the purposes of 

the revised VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, and 26 tpd (i.e., 115 tpd 

minus 89 tpd) for the purposes of the 

corresponding demonstration for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. These 

hypothetical differences establish the 

levels of VMT growth-caused emissions 

that need to be offset by the 

combination of post-baseline year TCMs 

and TCSs and any necessary additional 

TCMs and TCSs. 

For the ‘‘projected actual’’ scenario 

calculations, the State ran the 

EMFAC2011 model for the attainment 

years with VMT and starts data at 

attainment year values and with the full 

benefits of the relevant post-baseline 

year motor vehicle control programs. 

For this scenario, the State included the 

emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs 

put in place since the base year. The 

most significant measures put in place 

during the 2002 to 2023 time frame, 

relied upon for the 8-hour ozone 

demonstration, include Low Emission 

Vehicles II and III standards, Zero 

Emissions Vehicle standards, and 

California Reformulated Gasoline Phase 

3. Again, see attachments 1 and 2 of the 

Appendix VIII to the 2012 South Coast 

AQMP. These measures are also relied 

upon in the approved South Coast 8- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

and the revised South Coast 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration.16

As shown in tables 1 and 2, the 

results from these calculations establish 

projected actual attainment-year VOC 

emissions of 65 tpd for the 1-hour 

standard demonstration and 62 tpd for 

the 1997 8-hour standard 

demonstration. The State then 

compared these values against the 

corresponding VMT offset ceiling values 

to 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 

and trips. Because the ‘‘projected 

actual’’ emissions 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 and 

vehicle trips in the South Coast for both 

the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour standards. 

In fact, taking into account of the 

creditable post-baseline year TCMs and 

TCSs, the State showed that they offset 

the hypothetical differences by 423 tpd 

for the 1-hour standard and by 53 tpd 

for the 1997 8-hour standards, rather 

than merely the required 176 tpd and 26 

tpd, respectively.17

Based on our review of the State’s 

submittal, including the technical 

supplement, we find the State’s analysis 

to be acceptable and agree that the State 

has 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 find that the 

revised South Coast VMT emissions 

offset demonstrations, comply with the 

VMT emissions offset requirement in 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), and therefore, 

we propose 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. 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request 

for Public Comment 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for 

the reasons set forth above, EPA is 

proposing to approve CARB’s submittal 

dated February 13, 2013 of the revised 

South Coast VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations 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 proposing to approve this SIP 

revision because we believe that 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. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document or 

on other relevant matters. We will 

accept comments from the public on 

this proposal for the next 30 days. We 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 

V. 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, EPA’s 

role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to approve a 

State plan revision as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For these reasons, 

this proposed 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29712 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; 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 proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: May 5, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11511 Filed 5–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0185; FRL–9911–03– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; 

South Coast 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the portions of a State implementation 

plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 

State of California on February 13, 2013 

that relate to attainment of the 1-hour 

and 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standards in the Los AngelesSouth Coast area. Specifically, the EPA 

is proposing to approve the portions of 

the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District’s Final 2012 Air 

Quality Management Plan that update 

the approved control strategy for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard and that 

provide a demonstration of attainment 

of the 1-hour ozone standard by 

December 31, 2022. In proposing 

approval, EPA finds that an attainment 

date of December 31, 2022 is 

appropriate in light of the severity of the 

1-hour ozone problem in the South 

Coast and, given the extent to which 

emissions sources in the South Coast 

have already been controlled, the 

limited emissions remaining that can be 

regulated. EPA is proposing as part of 

this action to approve new 

commitments adopted by the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District, 

updated new technology measures, and 

a new commitment by the California Air 

Resources Board to submit contingency 

measures in 2019 as necessary to meet 

the emissions reductions targets for 

2022 from implementation of new 

technology measures. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

June 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0185, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Office 

of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site and 

in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. 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 or large 

maps), and some may not be publicly 

available at 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 below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4192, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Review of California’s Submittal 

A. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submittals 

B. Attainment Demonstration 

Requirements 

1. Emissions Inventories 

a. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 

b. Base Year and Future Baseline 

Emissions Inventories in the 2012 AQMP 

2. South Coast 1-Hour Ozone Plan Control 

Strategy 

a. Requirements for Control Strategies and 

RACM Demonstrations 

b. 2012 AQMP RACM Demonstration 

c. 2012 AQMP Aggregate Emissions 

Reductions Commitments 

d. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New or Improved 

Technology Measures 

3. Applicable Attainment Date 

4. Air Quality Modeling for the 2012 1- 

Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration 

a. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 1- 

Hour Ozone Air Quality Modeling and 

EPA Guidance 

b. 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration 

Modeling and Weight of Evidence 

i. Modeling Approaches for the SCAQMD 

Attainment Demonstration 

ii. Results of SCAQMD Modeling 

c. EPA’s Evaluation of the Modeling 

Demonstration 

III. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that 

is formed from photochemical reactions 

in the atmosphere between volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of 

sunlight. These two pollutants, referred 

to as ozone precursors, are emitted by 

many types of pollution sources 

including on-road motor vehicles (cars, 

trucks, and buses), nonroad vehicles 

and engines, power plants and 

industrial facilities, and smaller area 

sources such as lawn and garden 

equipment and paints. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS