[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79330-79331]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31996]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9940-45-OA]

Notification of a Public Meeting of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) Sulfur Oxides Panel and a Public
Teleconference of the Chartered CASAC and the CASAC Sulfur Oxides Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Sulfur Oxides Panel and a public
teleconference of the Chartered CASAC and CASAC Sulfur Oxides Panel to
review of EPA's Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur Oxides--
Health Criteria (External Review Draft--November 2015).

DATES: The face-to-face meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 27,
2016, and Thursday, January 28, 2016. The teleconference will be held
on Wednesday, April 6, 2016 from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).
    Location: The face-to-face meeting will be held at the DoubleTree
by Hilton Hotel Raleigh-Brownstone-University, 1707 Hillsborough
Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. The public teleconference will be held
by telephone only. Call-in information will be available on the
respective CASAC meeting Web pages or by contacting the Designated
Federal Officer (DFO).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing to
obtain information concerning the public

meeting or teleconference may contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, EPA Science
Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by
telephone/voice mail at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
General information about the CASAC, as well as any updates concerning
the meetings announced in this notice, may be found on the CASAC Web
page at http://www.epa.gov/casac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CASAC was established pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C.
7409(d)(2), to review air quality criteria and National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and recommend any new NAAQS and revisions of
existing criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate. The CASAC is a
Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA
requires that the Agency periodically review and revise, as
appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six
``criteria'' air pollutants, including sulfur oxides. EPA is currently
reviewing the primary (health-based) NAAQS for sulfur dioxide
(SO2), as an indicator for health effects caused by the
presence of sulfur oxides in the ambient air. Pursuant to FACA and EPA
policy, notice is hereby given that the CASAC Sulfur Oxides Panel will
hold a public face-to-face meeting to review EPA's Integrated Science
Assessment for Sulfur Oxides--Health Criteria (External Review Draft--
November 2015). The CASAC Sulfur Oxides Panel will hold a public
teleconference to discuss its draft peer review report and the
Chartered CASAC will discuss the disposition of the panel's report at
the end of the teleconference. The Chartered CASAC and CASAC Sulfur
Oxides Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all
appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.
    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the
Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides--Health Criteria
(External Review Draft--November 2015) should be directed to Dr. Tom
Long (long.tom@epa.gov), EPA Office of Research and Development.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review
documents, agenda and other materials will be available on the CASAC
Web page at http://www.epa.gov/casac/.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office.
    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific
advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the
public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider
as it develops advice for EPA. Interested members of the public may
submit relevant written or oral information on the topic of this
advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the
CASAC to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to
the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific
or technical information or analysis for CASAC panels to consider or if
it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO
directly. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting
an oral presentation at a public face-to-face meeting will be limited
to five minutes and on a public teleconference will be limited to three
minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing
written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points
presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties
should contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing (preferably via email)
at the contact information noted above by January 20, 2016, to be
placed on the list of public speakers for the face-to-face meeting and
by March 30, 2016, for the teleconference. Written Statements: Written
statements should be supplied to the DFO via email at the contact
information noted above by January 20, 2016, for the face-to-face
meeting and by March 30, 2016, for the teleconference so that the
information may be made available to the Panel members for their
consideration. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post
written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or
teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version
of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish
documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public
should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in
any written comments, may be posted to the CASAC Web site. Copyrighted
material will not be posted without explicit permission of the
copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202)
564-2050 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Mr. Yeow preferably at least ten days prior
to each meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

    Dated: December 14, 2015.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-31996 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12395-12397]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04494]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31415; Amdt. No. 3997]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective March 4, 2022. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 4, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums
and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its
associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed
on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this
amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20.
The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B,
when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the typed of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 18, 2022.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service, Manager, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CRF part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff

Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the
dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 24 March 2022

Sand Point, AK, PASD, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 14, Orig-A
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton NTL/Adams Fld, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 10
Fresno, CA, KFAT, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 29R, ILS Y RWY 29R (SA CAT I),
ILS Y RWY 29R (CAT II), ILS Y RWY 29R (CAT III), Amdt 39A
Nucla, CO, KAIB, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1
Windsor Locks, CT, KBDL, COPTER ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 2A
Windsor Locks, CT, KBDL, ILS OR LOC RWY 6, ILS RWY 6 (SA CAT I), ILS
RWY 6 (CAT II), ILS RWY 6 (CAT III), Amdt 38B
Windsor Locks, CT, KBDL, ILS OR LOC RWY 24, ILS RWY 24 (SA CAT I),
ILS RWY 24 (SA CAT II), Amdt 13B
Sioux City, IA, KSUX, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 27
Spencer, IA, KSPW, ILS OR LOC RWY 12, Amdt 2C
Coeur D'Alene, ID, KCOE, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig
Quinter, KS, 1QK, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Quinter, KS, 1QK, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Covington, KY, KCVG, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, ILS RWY 27 (SA CAT I), ILS
RWY 27 (SA CAT II), Amdt 19
Covington, KY, KCVG, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 27, Orig-D
Covington, KY, KCVG, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 27, Orig-B
Oakdale, LA, KACP, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Oakdale, LA, KACP, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 3
Fitchburg, MA, KFIT, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2
Rangeley, ME, Stephen A. Bean Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 2
Marlette, MI, 77G, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1D
Marlette, MI, 77G, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 2
Marlette, MI, Marlette Township, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Kansas City, MO, KMKC, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 3A
Lincoln, NE, KLNK, VOR RWY 17, Amdt 7B
Lincoln, NE, KLNK, VOR Y RWY 18, Amdt 13C
New York, NY, LaGuardia, RNAV (GPS) X RWY 31, Orig
Oklahoma City, OK, KOKC, ILS OR LOC RWY 17L, Amdt 3D
Oklahoma City, OK, KOKC, ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, ILS RWY 17R (SA CAT
II), Amdt 13A
Oklahoma City, OK, KOKC, ILS OR LOC RWY 35L, Amdt 2D
Oklahoma City, OK, KOKC, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, ILS RWY 35R (SA CAT I),
ILS RWY 35R (CAT II), Amdt 10E
Oklahoma City, OK, KOKC, VOR RWY 17L, Amdt 2B
Albany, OR, Albany Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2C
Humboldt, TN, M53, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-A
Dallas, TX, KADS, ILS OR LOC RWY 16, Amdt 11C
Dallas, TX, KADS, ILS OR LOC RWY 34, Amdt 3C
Dallas, TX, KADS, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1C
Dallas, TX, KADS, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 2A
Dallas, TX, Addison, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6A
Terrell, TX, KTRL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-C
Terrell, TX, KTRL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-C

    Rescinded: On January 24, 2022 (87 FR 3423), the FAA published
an Amendment in Docket No. 31409, Amdt No. 3991, to Part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.37. The following
entry for Old Town, ME, effective March 24, 2022, is hereby
rescinded in its entirety:

Old Town, ME, Dewitt Fld/Old Town Muni, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1

    Rescinded: On February 3, 2022 (87 FR 6021), the FAA published
an Amendment in Docket No. 31411, Amdt No. 3993, to Part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.33. The following
entry for Salinas, CA, effective March 24, 2022, is hereby rescinded
in its entirety:

Salinas, CA, KSNS, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig

[FR Doc. 2022-04494 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


surplus emissions reductions estimated to be achieved in the RFP
milestone years and the year after the attainment year. More
specifically, the 2018 SIP Update, as clarified by CARB in August 2019,
identified surplus NOX reductions in the various RFP
milestone years. For Ventura County, the estimates of surplus
NOX reductions are 7.1 tpd in 2017 and 6.5 tpd in 2020 and
are 8 or 9 times greater than one year's worth of progress (0.8 tpd of
NOX).\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ For the 2017 and 2020 RFP milestone years, surplus
NOX reductions correspond to 27.4 percent and 24.9
percent, respectively, of the 26.0 tpd 2011 RFP milestone inventory.
See Table 4 in section III.E of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The surplus reflects already implemented regulations and is
primarily the result of vehicle turnover, which refers to the ongoing
replacement by individuals, companies, and government agencies of
older, more polluting vehicles and engines with newer vehicles and
engines. In light of the extent of surplus NOX emissions
reductions in the RFP milestone years, the emissions reductions from
the District contingency measure would be sufficient to meet the
contingency measure requirements of the CAA with respect to RFP
milestones, even though the measure would likely achieve emissions
reductions lower than the EPA normally recommends for reductions from
such a measure.
    For attainment contingency measure purposes, we view the emissions
reductions from the contingency measure in the context of the expected
reduction in emissions within Ventura County in the year following the
attainment year relative to those occuring in the attainment year.
Based on the emission inventories in Appendix A to the 2018 SIP Update,
we note that overall county-wide emissions are expected to be
approximately 0.9 tpd of NOX lower in 2021 than in 2020.
Thus, baseline measures are expected to provide for continued progress
(i.e., incremental reduction in ozone precursors) greater than one
year's worth of progress (i.e., 0.8 tpd of NOX). In light of
these incremental year-over-year NOX emissions reductions,
we find that the emissions reductions from the District contingency
measure would also be sufficient to meet the attainment contingency
measure requirement of the CAA, even though the measure would likely
achieve emissions reductions lower than the EPA normally recommends for
reductions from such a measure.
    For these reasons, we propose to approve conditionally the
contingency measure element of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP, as
supplemented by commitments from the District and CARB to adopt and
submit an additional contingency measure, to meet the contingency
measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Our
proposed approval is conditional because it relies upon commitments to
adopt and submit a specific enforceable contingency measure (i.e., a
revised District rule or rules with contingent provisions). Conditional
approvals are authorized under CAA section 110(k)(4).

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving timely attainment of the standards. Conformity to the SIP's
goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute to
violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
    Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A. Under this rule, MPOs in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with state and local air quality and transportation
agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the FTA to demonstrate that an area's
regional transportation plans and transportation improvement programs
conform to the applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by
showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and
transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (``budgets'') contained in all control strategy SIPs. Budgets
are generally established for specific years and specific pollutants or
precursors. Ozone plans should identify budgets for on-road emissions
of ozone precursors (NOX and VOC) in the area for each RFP
milestone year and, if the plan demonstrates attainment, the attainment
year.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, the
EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). To meet these
requirements, the budgets must be consistent with the attainment and
RFP requirements and reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures
contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For more
information on the transportation conformity requirements and
applicable policies on budgets, please visit our transportation
conformity website at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's process for determining adequacy of a budget consists of
three basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP
submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the
budget during a public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of
adequacy or inadequacy.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The 2016 Ventura County AQMP includes budgets for the 2018 RFP
milestone year and the 2020 attainment year.\114\ The budgets for 2018
were derived from the 2012 RFP baseline year and the associated 2018
RFP milestone year. As such, the budgets are affected by the South
Coast II decision vacating

the alternative baseline year provision, and therefore, the EPA has not
previously acted on the budgets. In the submittal letter for the 2016
Ventura County AQMP, CARB requested that the EPA limit the duration of
our approval of the budgets in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP to last
only until the effective date of future EPA adequacy findings for
replacement budgets.\115\ In August 2019, CARB provided further
explanation in connection with its request to limit the duration of the
approval of the budgets in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ When the 2016 Ventura County AQMP was developed, 2012 was
used as the RFP baseline year, and 2020 was not considered an RFP
milestone year because it was not one of the years that follow in
the three-year cycle after the initial six-year period after the RFP
baseline year. However, in the wake of the South Coast II decision,
2011 became the required RFP baseline year and year 2020 became an
RFP milestone year because it is three years after the initial six-
year period from the 2011 RFP baseline year. Thus, the 2020 budgets
from the 2016 Ventura County AQMP now serve as both the RFP
milestone and attainment budgets.
    \115\ Letter dated April 11, 2017, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, transmitting the 2016 Ventura County AQMP.
    \116\ Letter dated August 29, 2019, from Dr. Michael T.
Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to
Amy Zimpfer, Assistant Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 5, 2018, CARB submitted the 2018 SIP Update, which
revised the RFP demonstration consistent with the South Coast II
decision (i.e., by using a 2011 RFP baseline year). The 2018 SIP Update
does not identify new budgets for Ventura County for VOC and
NOX for the 2017 RFP milestone year because budgets for the
2017 milestone year would never be used for conformity determinations
given that milestone/attainment budgets for the immediate near-term
year of 2020 have also been submitted. Today, we are proposing action
only on the 2020 RFP milestone/attainment budgets from the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP.
    The budgets in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP were derived from motor
vehicle emissions estimates prepared using EMFAC2014,\117\ and the
travel activity data provided by SCAG. The conformity budgets for
NOX and VOC in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP for Ventura
County in 2020 are provided in Table 5 below. To develop the budgets,
the District rounded up the motor vehicle emissions estimates for 2020
to the nearest ton. Thus, the motor vehicle emissions estimates for
Ventura County for VOC and NOX in 2020, i.e., 4.21 tpd and
6.01 tpd, respectively, were rounded up to become budgets for VOC and
NOX of 5 tpd and 7 tpd, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ As previously noted, EMFAC2014 is CARB's model for
estimating emissions from on-road vehicles operating in California.
See 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). We have recently announced the
availability of an updated version of EMFAC, referred to as
EMFAC2017. See 84 FR 41717 (August 15, 2019). For the 2016 Ventura
County Ozone SIP, EMFAC2014 was the appropriate model to use for SIP
development purposes at the time it was prepared.

 Table 5--Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in
                             Ventura County
                    [Summer planning inventory, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Budget year                        VOC         NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................................          5           7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Table 3-7, 52.

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    As part of our review of the approvability of the budgets in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP, we have evaluated the budgets using our
adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). We will complete the
adequacy review concurrent with our final action on the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP. The EPA is not required under its transportation
conformity rule to find budgets adequate prior to proposing approval of
them.\118\ Today, the EPA is announcing that the adequacy process for
these budgets begins, and the public has 30 days to comment on their
adequacy, per the transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR
93.118(f)(2)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ Under the transportation conformity regulations, the EPA
may review the adequacy of submitted motor vehicle emission budgets
simultaneously with the EPA's approval or disapproval of the
submitted implementation plan. 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As documented in a separate memorandum included in the docket for
this rulemaking, we preliminarily conclude that the budgets in the 2016
Ventura County AQMP meet each adequacy criterion.\119\ While adequacy
and approval are two separate actions, reviewing the budgets in terms
of the adequacy criteria informs the EPA's decision to propose to
approve the budgets. We have completed our detailed review of the 2016
Ventura County AQMP and are proposing herein to approve the attainment
and RFP demonstrations. We have also reviewed the budgets in the 2016
Ventura County AQMP and found that they are consistent with the
attainment and RFP demonstrations for which we are proposing approval,
are based on control measures that have already been adopted and
implemented, and meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.1118(e)(4)
and (5). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the 2020 budgets in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP. At the point when we either finalize the
adequacy process or approve the budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP as proposed (whichever occurs first; note that
they could also occur concurrently per 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii)), they
will replace the budgets that we previously found adequate for use in
transportation conformity determinations.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Memorandum dated September 5, 2019, from John J. Kelly,
Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9, to docket for this proposed
rulemaking, titled ``Adequacy Documentation for Plan Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets in 2016 Ventura County Ozone Plan.''
    \120\ In May 2008, we found adequate the 2009 budgets from the
Ventura County 2008 8-hour Ozone Early Progress Plan (February
2008). 73 FR 24595 (May 5, 2008). The 2009 budgets are 13 tpd for
VOC and 19 tpd for NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under our transportation conformity rule, as a general matter, once
budgets are approved, they cannot be superseded by revised budgets
submitted for the same CAA purpose and the same year(s) addressed by
the previously approved SIP until the EPA approves the revised budgets
as a SIP revision. In other words, as a general matter, such approved
budgets cannot be superseded by revised budgets found adequate, but
rather only through approval of the revised budgets, unless the EPA
specifies otherwise in its approval of a SIP by limiting the duration
of the approval to last only until subsequently submitted budgets are
found adequate.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, as noted above, in its submittal letter, CARB
requested that we limit the duration of our approval of the budgets in
the 2016 Ventura County AQMP only until the effective date of the EPA's
adequacy finding for subsequently submitted budgets, and in August
2019, CARB provided further explanation for its request. Generally, we
will consider a state's request to limit an approval of a budget only
if the request includes the following elements: \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 67 FR 69139 (November 15, 2002) (final action limiting our
prior approval of budgets in certain California SIPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets
under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
     A commitment to update the budgets as part of a
comprehensive SIP update; and
     A request that the EPA limit the duration of its approval
to the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
    CARB's request includes an explanation for why the budgets have
become, or will become, outdated or deficient. In short, CARB requested
that

we limit the duration of the approval of the budgets in light of the
EPA's recent approval of EMFAC2017, an updated version of the model
(EMFAC2014) used for the budgets in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP.
EMFAC2017 updates vehicle mix and emissions data of the previously
approved version of the model, EMFAC2014.
    Preliminary calculations by CARB indicate that EMFAC2017-derived
motor vehicle emissions estimates for Ventura County will exceed the
corresponding EMFAC2014-derived budgets in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP. In light of the approval of EMFAC2017, CARB explains that the
budgets from the 2016 Ventura County AQMP, for which we are proposing
approval in today's action, will become outdated and will need to be
revised using EMFAC2017. In addition, CARB states that, without the
ability to replace the budgets using the budget adequacy process, the
benefits of using the updated data may not be realized for a year or
more after the updated SIP (with the EMFAC2017-derived budgets) is
submitted, due to the length of the SIP approval process. We find that
CARB's explanation for limiting the duration of the approval of the
budgets is appropriate and provides us with a reasonable basis on which
to limit the duration of the approval of the budgets.
    We note that CARB has not committed to update the budgets as part
of a comprehensive SIP update, but as a practical matter, CARB must
submit a SIP revision that includes updated demonstrations as well as
the updated budgets to meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4); \123\ and thus, we do not need a specific commitment for
such a plan at this time. For the reasons provided above, and in light
of CARB's explanation for why the budgets will become outdated and
should be replaced upon an adequacy finding for updated budgets, we
propose to limit the duration of our approval of the budgets in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP until we find revised budgets based on
EMFAC2017 to be adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), the EPA will not find a budget
in a submitted SIP to be adequate unless, among other criteria, the
budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources,
are consistent with applicable requirements for RFP and attainment.
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. General Conformity Budgets

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving timely attainment of the standards. Conformity to the SIP's
goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute to
violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
    Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA establishes the framework for general
conformity. The EPA first promulgated general conformity regulations in
November 1993.\124\ On April 5, 2010, the EPA revised the general
conformity regulations.\125\ The general conformity regulations ensure
that federal actions not covered by the transportation conformity rule
will not interfere with the SIP and encourage consultation between the
federal agency and the state or local air pollution control agencies
before or during the environmental review process, as well as public
participation (e.g., notification of and access to federal agency
conformity determinations and review of individual federal actions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 40 CFR part 51, subpart W, and 40 CFR part 93, subpart B.
    \125\ 75 FR 17254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general conformity regulations provide three phases:
Applicability analysis, conformity determination, and review process.
The applicability analysis phase under 40 CFR 93.153 is used to find if
a federal action requires a conformity determination for a specific
pollutant. If a conformity determination is needed, federal agencies
can use one of several methods to show that the federal action conforms
to the SIP. In an area without a SIP, a federal action may be shown to
``conform'' by demonstrating there will be no net increase in emissions
in the nonattainment or maintenance area from the federal action. In an
area with a SIP, conformity to the applicable SIP can be demonstrated
in one of several ways. For actions where the direct and indirect
emissions exceed the rates in 40 CFR 93.153(b), the federal action can
include mitigation measures to offset the emission increases from the
federal action or can show that the action will conform by meeting any
of the following requirements:
     Showing that the net emission increases caused by an
action are included in the SIP,
     documenting that the state agrees to include the emission
increases in the SIP,
     offsetting the action's emissions in the same or nearby
area of equal or greater classification, or
     providing an air quality modeling demonstration in some
circumstances.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ 40 CFR 93.158; and VCAPCD Rule 220 (``General
Conformity''), approved at 64 FR 19916 (April 23, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.161 allow state and
local air quality agencies working with federal agencies with large
facilities (e.g., commercial airports, ports, and large military bases)
that are subject to the general conformity regulations to develop and
adopt an emissions budget for those facilities in order to facilitate
future conformity determinations. Such a budget, referred to as a
facility-wide emissions budget, may be used by federal agencies to
demonstrate conformity as long as the total facility-wide budget level
identified in the SIP is not exceeded.
    According to 40 CFR 93.161, the state or local agency responsible
for implementing and enforcing the SIP can develop and adopt an
emissions budget to be used for demonstrating conformity under 40 CFR
93.158(a)(1). The requirements include the following: (1) The facility-
wide budget must be for a set time period; (2) the budget must cover
the pollutants or precursors of the pollutants for which the area is
designated nonattainment or maintenance; (3) the budgets must be
specific about what can be emitted on an annual or seasonal basis; (4)
the emissions from the facility along with all other emissions in the
area must not exceed the total SIP emissions budget for the
nonattainment or maintenance area; (5) specific measures must be
included to ensure compliance with the facility-wide budget, such as
periodic reporting requirements or compliance demonstrations when the
federal agency is taking an action that would otherwise require a
conformity determination; (6) the budget must be submitted to the EPA
as a SIP revision; and (7) the SIP revision must be approved by the
EPA. Having or using a facility-wide emissions budget does not preclude
a federal agency from demonstrating conformity in any other manner
allowed by the conformity rule.
2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The 2016 Ventura County AQMP establishes VOC and NOX
general conformity budgets for the Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) for
each year from 2017 through 2020 as shown in Table 6 below. The budgets
are intended to reflect aircraft and missile operations associated with
NBVC Point Mugu and ship operations at Port Hueneme occuring within the
Ventura County

ozone nonattainment area. The budgets include a 4 percent growth
allowance to account for uncertainties in potential projects resulting
from future actions and unknown projects. As shown in Table 6, the
budgets for NBVC in the attainment year (2020) are 198.0 tpy of VOC and
475.9 tpy of NOX, which is equivalent to 0.54 tpd of VOC and
1.30 tpd of NOX on an annual average daily basis.

  Table 6--NBVC General Conformity Budgets for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in
                             Ventura County
                    [summer planning inventory, tpy]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Budget year                        VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017..............................................      178.6      434.2
2018..............................................      184.8      447.6
2019..............................................      191.3      461.5
2020..............................................      198.0      475.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 Ventura County Ozone AQMP, Table 4-9.

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    We propose to approve the general conformity budgets in the 2016
Ventura County AQMP for NBVC shown in Table 6, as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR 93.161. We find that the
general conformity budgets in the 2016 AQMP: are established for a set
time period; cover both precursors of ozone; are precisely quantified
in terms of tons per year; and, along with all other emissions in
Ventura County, are consistent with the RFP and attainment
demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    If we finalize our approval of these budgets, NBVC can use these
budgets to demonstrate that their projects conform to the SIP through a
letter from the State and District confirming that the project
emissions are accounted for in the SIP's general conformity budgets.

I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Serious Ozone
Nonattainment Areas

    In addition to the SIP requirements discussed in the previous
sections, the CAA includes certain other SIP requirements applicable to
Serious ozone nonattainment areas, such as Ventura County. We describe
these provisions and their current status below.
1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
    Section 182(c)(3) of the CAA requires states with ozone
nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as Serious or above to
implement an enhanced motor vehicle I/M program in those areas. The
requirements for those programs are provided in CAA section 182(c)(3)
and 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.
    Consistent with the 2008 Ozone SRR, no new I/M programs are
currently required for nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\127\ The EPA previously approved California's I/M program in
Ventura County as meeting the requirements of the CAA and applicable
EPA regulations for enhanced I/M programs.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ 2008 Ozone SRR, 80 FR 12264, at 12283 (March 6, 2015).
    \128\ 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. New Source Review Rules
    Section 182(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires states to develop SIP
revisions containing permit programs for each of its ozone
nonattainment areas. The SIP revisions are to include requirements for
permits in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 for the
construction and operation of each new or modified major stationary
source for VOC and NOX anywhere in the nonattainment area.
The 2008 Ozone SRR includes provisions and guidance for nonattainment
NSR programs.\129\ Earlier this year, the EPA proposed to approve the
nonattainment NSR SIP submitted for Ventura County for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The nonattainment NSR SIP includes a certification letter
documenting how the VCAPCD's SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program,
established in VCAPCD Rules 26 through 26.11, meets the applicable NSR
requirements for Ventura County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\130\ We
expect to take final action on the nonattainment NSR SIP for Ventura
County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the near future in a separate
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
    \130\ 84 FR 20604 (May 10, 2019); reproposed at 84 FR 43738
(August 22, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Clean Fuels Fleet Program
    Sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 of the CAA require California to
submit to the EPA for approval measures to implement a Clean Fuels
Fleet Program. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA allows states to opt-out
of the federal clean-fuel vehicle fleet program by submitting a SIP
revision consisting of a program or programs that will result in at
least equivalent long-term reductions in ozone precursors and toxic air
emissions.
    In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to opt-out of the
federal clean-fuel fleet program. The submittal included a
demonstration that California's low-emissions vehicle program achieved
emissions reductions at least as large as would be achieved by the
federal program. The EPA approved the SIP revision to opt-out of the
federal program on August 27, 1999.\131\ There have been no changes to
the federal Clean Fuels Fleet program since the EPA approved the
California SIP revision to opt-out of the federal program, and no
corresponding changes to the SIP are required. Thus, we find that the
California SIP revision to opt-out of the federal program, as approved
in 1999, meets the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246
for Ventura for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ 64 FR 46849 (August 27, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Gasoline Vapor Recovery
    Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a SIP
revision by November 15, 1992, that requires owners or operators of
gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate gasoline vehicle
refueling vapor recovery (``Stage II'') systems in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate and above. California's ozone
nonattainment areas implemented Stage II vapor recovery well before the
passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13514 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to promulgate
standards requiring motor vehicles to be equipped with onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems. The EPA promulgated the first
set of ORVR system regulations in 1994 for phased implementation on
vehicle manufacturers, and since the end of 2006, essentially all new
gasoline-powered light- and medium-duty vehicles are ORVR-
equipped.\133\ Section 202(a)(6) also authorizes the EPA to waive the
SIP requirement under CAA section 182(b)(3) for installation of Stage
II vapor recovery systems after such time as the EPA determines that
ORVR systems are in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet.
Effective May 16, 2012, the EPA waived the requirement of CAA section
182(b)(3) for Stage II vapor recovery systems in ozone nonattainment
areas regardless of classification.\134\ Thus, a SIP submittal meeting
CAA section 182(b)(3) is not required for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ 77 FR 28772, at 28774 (May 16, 2012).
    \134\ See 40 CFR 51.126(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While a SIP submittal meeting CAA section 182(b)(3) is not required
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, under California state law (i.e., Health and
Safety Code section 41954), CARB is required to adopt procedures and
performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline
marketing

operations, including transfer and storage operations. State law also
authorizes CARB, in cooperation with local air districts, to certify
vapor recovery systems, to identify defective equipment and to develop
test methods. CARB has adopted numerous revisions to its vapor recovery
program regulations and continues to rely on its vapor recovery program
to achieve emissions reductions in ozone nonattainment areas in
California.
    In Ventura County, the installation and operation of CARB-certified
vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced through VCAPCD Rule
70 (``Storage And Transfer Of Gasoline''), which was most recently
approved into the SIP on January 31, 2011.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ 76 FR 5277 (January 31, 2011). See also, 69 FR 29451 (May
24, 2004) (The EPA's approval of an earlier version of VCAPCD Rule
70 as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Enhanced Ambient Air Monitoring
    Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires that all ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Serious or above implement measures to enhance and
improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NOX,
and VOC, and to improve monitoring of emissions of NOX and
VOC. The enhanced monitoring network for ozone is referred to as the
photochemical assessment monitoring station (PAMS) network. The EPA
promulgated final PAMS regulations on February 12, 1993.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ 58 FR 8452 (February 12, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 10, 1993, CARB submitted to the EPA a SIP revision
addressing the PAMS network for six ozone nonattainment areas in
California, including Ventura County, to meet the enhanced monitoring
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1) and the PAMS regulations. The EPA
determined that the PAMS SIP revision met all applicable requirements
for enhanced monitoring and approved the PAMS submittal into the
California SIP.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ 82 FR 45191 (September 28, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to 2006, the EPA's ambient air monitoring regulations in 40
CFR part 58 (``Ambient Air Quality Surveillance'') set forth specific
SIP requirements (see former 40 CFR 52.20). In 2006, the EPA
significantly revised and reorganized 40 CFR part 58.\138\ Under
revised 40 CFR part 58, SIP revisions are no longer required; rather,
compliance with EPA monitoring regulations is established through
review of required annual monitoring network plans.\139\ The 2008 Ozone
SRR made no changes to these requirements.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006).
    \139\ 40 CFR 58.2(b) now provides that, ``The requirements
pertaining to provisions for an air quality surveillance system in
the SIP are contained in this part.''
    \140\ The 2008 ozone SRR addresses PAMS-related requirements at
80 FR 12264, at 12291 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP does not specifically address the
enhanced ambient air monitoring requirement in CAA section 182(c)(1).
However, we note that CARB includes the ambient monitoring network
within Ventura County in its annual monitoring network plan that is
submitted to the EPA, and that we have approved the most recent annual
monitoring network plan (``Annual Network Plan Covering Monitoring
Operations in 25 California Air Districts (June 2018)'' or ``2018
ANP'') with respect to the Ventura County element.\141\ Based on our
review and approval of the 2018 ANP with respect to Ventura County and
our earlier approval of the PAMS SIP revision, we propose to find that
CARB and VCAPCD meet the enhanced monitoring requirements under CAA
section 182(c)(1) for Ventura County with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Letter dated November 26, 2018, from Gwen Yoshimura,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Ravi
Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment
Branch, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed in this notice, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the
California SIP the following portions of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone
SIP submitted by CARB on April 11, 2017 and December 5, 2018:
     Base year emissions inventory element in the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and
182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     Emissions statement element in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR
51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     RACM demonstration element in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR
51.1112(c) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     Attainment demonstration element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;
     ROP demonstration element in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP
as meeting the requirements of CAA 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     RFP demonstration element in the 2018 SIP Update, as
clarified in August 2019,\142\ as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii) for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ Letter dated August 29, 2019, from Dr. Michael T.
Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to
Amy Zimpfer, Assistant Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP for the RFP milestone/attainment year of 2020 (as shown in Table
5) because they are consistent with the RFP and attainment
demonstrations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS proposed for approval herein
and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e); and
     General conformity budgets of VOC and NOX (as
shown in Table 6) for Naval Base Ventura County, as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR 93.161.
    We are also proposing to find that the:
     Enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program in
Ventura County meets the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(3) and 40
CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     California SIP revision to opt-out of the federal Clean
Fuels Fleet Program meets the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A)
and 246 and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS with respect to
Ventura County; and
     Enhanced monitoring in Ventura County meets the
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Regarding other applicable requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in Ventura County, the EPA has previously approved SIP
revisions that address the nonattainment area requirements for
implementation of RACT for Ventura County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
See 80 FR 2016 (January 15, 2015) (approval of Ventura County RACT
SIP). With respect to the Nonattainment NSR SIP for Ventura County
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed approval at 84 FR 20604
(May 10, 2019) and is expected to take final action in the near
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the motor vehicle emissions budgets, we are
proposing to limit the duration of the approval of the budgets to last
only until the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for any
subsequently submitted budgets. We are doing so at CARB's request and
in light of the benefits of using EMFAC2017-derived budgets prior to
our taking final action on the future SIP revision that includes the
updated budgets.
    In addition, we are proposing, under CAA section 110(k)(4), to
approve conditionally the contingency measure element of the 2016
Ventura County Ozone SIP as meeting the requirements

of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for RFP and attainment
contingency measures. Our proposed approval is based on commitments by
the District and CARB to supplement the element through submission, as
a SIP revision (within one year of the effective date of our final
conditional approval action), of a revised District rule or rules that
would add new limits or other requirements if an RFP milestone is not
met or if Ventura County fails to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Letter dated August 16, 2019, from Michael Villegas, Air
Pollution Control Officer, VCAPCD, to Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB; and letter dated August 30, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days and will consider comments before taking final
action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve, or
conditionally approve, state plans as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 5, 2019.
Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-27545 Filed 12-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P