Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 signed the following proposed rule on May 5, 2014, and 

EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy 

of this Internet version of the proposed rule, it is not the official version of the proposed rule for purposes of public 

comment. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government 

Printing Office's FDsys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov 

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0823.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0823; FRL-]

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2

Clean Air Act. The EPA is taking comments on this proposal and 

plans to follow with a final action.

DATE: Any comments must be submitted by [Insert date 30 days 

from the date of publication in the Federal Register].

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.

 E-mail: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

 Mail or deliver: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR2), 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 e-mail. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3

The www.regulations.gov website 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 

e-mail directly to the EPA, your e-mail 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 website 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.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

4

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
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5

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 onand off-road 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

6

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

7

children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals 

with a pre-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 

 

1 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.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8

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 “Severe-17”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 

 

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 Severe-17 

based on their design value. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004).
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

9

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” 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

10

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 

 

4 CAA 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).
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

11

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-
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

12

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 year-overyear motor vehicle emissions in the South Coast from a base year 

through the applicable attainment year.6

 

5 Letter from Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, dated September 

10, 2008.

6 See the SCAQMD’s Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (June 2007) for the 

South Coast Air Basin, chapter 6, table 6-12.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

13

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

14

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

15

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

 

7 For 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).
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

16

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 

 

8 See CARB Resolution 13-3 (January 25, 2013) and letter from James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

17

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.

 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, letter with enclosures (February 13, 2013).
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

18

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 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 

 

9 The 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.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

19

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 

 

10 See SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution No. 12-19.

11 See CARB Board Resolution No. 13-3.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

20

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

 

12 Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl Edland, Director, 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

21

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 

 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, and Deborah 

Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, August 30, 2012.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

22

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

23

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

24

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 put in place and VMT and trips are held constant during 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

25

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

26

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 

 

13 See 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

27

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,

 

the EMFAC vehicle emission model can be found on the following CARB web site:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

28

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
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

29

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). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

30

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

31

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 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 

 

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.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

32

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
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

33

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

34

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

35

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 on-road 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. 

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” 

 

15 The 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

36

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

37

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 

 

16 See 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.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

38

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,

 

17 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 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).
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

39

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.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

40

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.);
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

41

 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to 

address disproportionate human health or environmental 

effects with practical, appropriate, and legally 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

42

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, 

Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

43

____________________ ____________________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

 EPA Region 9.