Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Pesticide Element; Ventura County, 21885-21889 [E8-8812]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We invite your comments on how this
proposed rule might impact tribal
governments, even if that impact may
not constitute a ‘‘tribal implication’’
under the Order.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Apr 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
that this action is not likely to have a
significant effect on the human
environment. A preliminary
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’
supporting this preliminary
determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We
seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
21885
Guard patrol personnel, including Coast
Guard coxswains, petty officers and
other officers operating Coast Guard
vessels, and federal, state, and local
officers designated by the Captain of the
Port Baltimore.
(c) Regulations. (1) All persons are
required to comply with the general
regulations governing security zones
found in § 165.33 of this part.
(2) Entry into or remaining in the
security zone described in paragraph (a)
of this section is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain
of the Port Baltimore, Maryland or his
or her designated representative.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area
of the security zone may contact the
Captain of the Port Baltimore at
telephone number 410–576–2674 or on
marine band radio VHF–FM channel 16
(156.8 MHz) to seek permission to
transit the area. On-scene Coast Guard
patrol personnel operating Coast Guard
vessels may be contacted on marine
band radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz) to seek permission to transit the
area. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast
Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing
light, or other means, the operator of a
vessel shall proceed as directed. If
permission is granted, all persons and
vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port
Baltimore or his or her designated
representative.
(d) Effective period. This rule is
effective from 4 p.m. through 11 p.m. on
August 9, 2008.
Dated: April 10, 2008.
Brian D. Kelley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. E8–8728 Filed 4–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
2. Add § 165.T08–0272 to read as
follows:
§ 165.T08–0272 Security Zone; Patapsco
River, Middle Branch, Baltimore, MD.
(a) Location. The following area is a
security zone: All waters of the Patapsco
River, Middle Branch, from surface to
bottom, encompassed by lines
connecting the following points,
beginning at 39°15′40″ N., 076°35′23″
W., thence to 39°15′24″ N., 076°35′18″
W., thence to 39°15′25″ N., 076°35′54″
W., thence to 39°15′43″ N., 076°35′58″
W., located approximately 1,600 yards
east of the Hanover Street (SR–2) Bridge.
These coordinates are based upon North
American Datum 1983.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, for purposes of enforcing the
security zone identified in paragraph (a)
of this section, designated
representative means on-scene Coast
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0313; FRL–8557–3]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan; Pesticide
Element; Ventura County
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA
is proposing to approve a revision of the
California State Implementation Plan
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board on November 30, 2007.
The revision would in part, and
temporarily, relax a commitment to
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
21886
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds in Ventura County caused
by the application of pesticides. EPA is
proposing this action under the Clean
Air Act obligation to take action on
submittals of revisions to state
implementation plans.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
May 23, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2008–0313, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
• E-mail: chavira.raymond@epa.gov.
• Mail or deliver: Raymond Chavira
(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://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
https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
https://www.regulations.gov is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA
will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the public
comment. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed 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 in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
below.
1 Tonnage commitment is 2.37 tons per day per
letter dated June 13, 1996, from James D. Boyd to
David Howekamp, including ‘‘Corrections to State
and Local Measures’’ (Attachment A) and
‘‘Summary Emission Reduction Spreadsheets’’
(Attachment C).
2 Several environmental groups successfully sued
the State of California for failure to adopt
regulations necessary to achieve the VOC emissions
reduction committed to under the Pesticide
Element. See El Comite v. Helliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d
912 (E.D.Cal. 2006). The ensuing court order has led
DPR to adopt a regulation that achieves all of the
VOC emission reductions previously committed to
for Ventura County beginning with the peak ozone
season (May through October) in 2008. We are not
taking action on DPR’s regulation in today’s action,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Apr 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Raymond Chavira, Air Planning Office
(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4218,
chavira.raymond@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The State’s SIP Revision Submittal
A. What revisions did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this SIP
element?
C. What is the purpose of the SIP revision?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP Revision
A. How is EPA evaluating the revision?
B. Does the revision meet the evaluation
criteria?
IV. Public Comment and Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Under the Clean Air Act, as amended
in 1990 (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), many parts of
the country, including California’s
Ventura County, were designated as
nonattainment for the ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS),
which, at the time, was 0.12 ppm, 1hour average. Under the Act, States with
nonattainment areas were required to
develop, adopt and submit SIP revisions
that included sufficient control
measures to attain the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS by deadlines also established in
the Act. In response, in 1994, the State
of California developed, adopted and
submitted an ozone State
Implementation Plan (SIP) (‘‘1994
Ozone SIP’’) to provide for attainment of
the ozone NAAQS in all areas of
California.
As part of the 1994 Ozone SIP,
California adopted a Pesticide Element
that committed the State to reduce
volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions resulting from the application
of agricultural and structural pesticides
in certain ozone nonattainment areas.
For the Ventura County nonattainment
area (Ventura), the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation
(DPR) committed to adopt and submit to
EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations
necessary to reduce VOC emissions
from agricultural and structural
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pesticides by 20 percent of the 1990
base year emissions by 2005. California
further defined DPR’s commitment in
Ventura under the Pesticide Element in
terms of VOC emissions reductions of
2.4 tons per day by 2005.1 See 62 FR
1150, at 1169–1170 and at 1187 (January
8, 1997); and 40 CFR
52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)(6) and
52.220(c)(236). In 1997, we approved
the 1994 Ozone SIP, including the
Pesticide Element. See 62 FR 1150, at
1169–1170 (January 8, 1997). In today’s
document, we propose to approve a
revision by California of the Pesticide
Element for Ventura County.2
Meanwhile, EPA has replaced the
0.12 ppm, 1-hour ozone NAAQS with
0.08 ppm, 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR
38856, July 18, 1997). EPA has also
designated all areas of the country with
respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In
so doing, EPA designated Ventura
County as nonattainment for ozone with
a classification of ‘‘moderate’’ (69 FR
23889, April 30, 2004). On February 14,
2008,3 California requested EPA to
reclassify Ventura County from
‘‘moderate’’ to ‘‘serious’’ with a new
attainment date of 2012. EPA has not
taken action yet on the State’s voluntary
request to reclassify Ventura County to
‘‘serious,’’ but is mandated under the
CAA to grant such request, and thus, is
reviewing the subject SIP revision
assuming that Ventura’s classification
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will in the
near future become ‘‘serious.’’ See CAA
section 181(b)(3). Under EPA’s phase I
implementation rule for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, certain ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ that applied under 1hour ozone NAAQS planning
requirements continue to apply to 8hour ozone nonattainment areas. See 40
CFR 51.900(f). The ‘‘Pesticide Element’’
is not one of the applicable
requirements under our phase I rule for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS but
represents, instead, a ‘‘discretionary’’
measure, which means that California
may relax or repeal it through a SIP
revision so long as generally applicable
procedural and substantive
requirements for such revisions are met.
II. The State’s SIP Revision Submittal
A. What revisions did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the revision we are
proposing to approve with the dates that
but rather, are taking action on a revision of the
Pesticide Element that, if finalized as proposed, will
allow California to seek a modification to the court
order followed by conforming changes to DPR’s
rule.
3 See February 14, 2008 letter from CARB
Executive Officer James Goldstene to Wayne Nastri,
EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
21887
it was revised and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED SIP REVISION PROPOSED FOR FULL APPROVAL
State agency
SIP revision
Amended
Submitted
CARB .....................................
Revised Proposed Revision to the Pesticide Element of
the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area (August 13, 2007).
November 30, 2007 .............
November 30, 2007.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
CARB’s November 30, 2007 SIP
revision submittal package includes the
‘‘Revised Proposed Revision to the
Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP
for the Ventura County Nonattainment
Area (August 13, 2007)’’ (‘‘Revised
Pesticide Element for Ventura’’) as
attachment 3 to Executive Order S–07–
003.4 The November 30, 2007 SIP
revision submittal also includes a copy
of CARB’s Resolution 07–42, dated
September 27, 2007, approving the
Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura,
and evidence of public participation
including CARB’s response to public
comments and a public hearing held on
September 27, 2007.
As noted above, under the Pesticide
Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP, DPR
committed to adopt and submit to EPA
by June 15, 1997, any regulations
necessary to reduce VOC emissions
resulting from agricultural and
structural pesticides in Ventura by 20
percent of the 1990 base year emissions,
and by 2.4 tons per day, by 2005. Under
the Revised Pesticide Element for
Ventura, CARB commits to substitute
specific ‘‘surplus’’ emissions reductions
for a portion of the existing Pesticide
Element commitment for Ventura. See
Table 3 of the Revised Pesticide Element
for Ventura. Under the Revised
Pesticide Element for Ventura, CARB
reduces the amount of the substitution
each year such that no substitution is
made in year 2012 and thereafter, thus
restoring the full VOC commitment
under the Pesticide Element of the 1994
Ozone SIP. CARB cites California’s ongoing mobile source emission control
program, which, in CARB’s view, has
achieved greater-than-expected VOC
emissions reductions, as the source for
the substitute VOC emissions
reductions.
B. Are there other versions of this SIP
element?
As discussed above, we approved the
Pesticide Element, including the
4 The Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura is
also referred to as ‘‘Appendix H’’ because it was
originally included as such for the Proposed State
Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation
Plan, but was subsequently pulled from that
document for separate SIP processing.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Apr 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
specific emissions reduction
commitments, as part of the 1994
California Ozone SIP (62 Federal
Register 1169–1170, January 8, 1997).
We have yet to approve DPR’s
regulation implementing the Pesticide
Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP and do
not propose to do so as part of this
action.
C. What is the purpose of the SIP
revision?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit regulations that control
volatile organic compounds, nitrogen
oxides, particulate matter, and other air
pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. Ozone is formed
by the interaction of directly-emitted
precursor emissions, VOCs and oxides
of nitrogen (NOX), in the presence of
sunlight under the influence of
meteorological and topographical
features of an area. California adopted
the Pesticide Element as one of the
commitments to help attain the ozone
NAAQS in the State of California. As
part of the Pesticide Element of the 1994
Ozone SIP, California adopted specific
VOC emissions reduction commitments
for Ventura County in support of the
attainment demonstration for the ozone
NAAQS in that area. California has now
revised the Pesticide Element to reduce
in part, and temporarily, the VOC
emissions reduction commitments for
Ventura County to avoid short-term, but
potentially significant, economic losses
by strawberry farmers and the potential
for long-term loss of farmland to urban
development. The State has submitted
the Revised Pesticide Element for
Ventura to EPA for approval as a
revision of the California SIP.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP
Revision
A. How is EPA evaluating the revision?
Generally, SIP rules must be
enforceable and must not interfere with
an area’s progress towards attainment or
any other requirement of the Act. See
CAA sections 110(a), 110(l); see also
CAA section 193 (antibacksliding
requirements for pre-1990 control
measures). CAA section 110(l) directs
EPA to disapprove any SIP revision that
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or
reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. CAA
section 193 does not apply to this action
because the Pesticide Element was not
part of the pre-1990 California SIP and
thus, a revision to the Pesticide Element
does not modify a control requirement
in effect before passage of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.
B. Does the revision meet the evaluation
criteria?
CAA section 110(l) provides: ‘‘Each
revision to an implementation plan
submitted by a State under this chapter
shall be adopted by such State after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
The Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined
in section 7501 of this title) or any other
applicable requirement of this chapter.’’
The term ‘‘reasonable further progress’’
(RFP) is defined in section 7501 (CAA
section 171) as ‘‘such annual
incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required
by this part or may reasonably be
required by the Administrator for the
purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable national ambient air quality
standard by the applicable date.’’ We
interpret CAA section 110(l) as
requiring EPA to ensure that the state,
in seeking a revision to its SIP, does not
impair its compliance with the statutory
mandates applicable to the SIP.
As noted above, under the Revised
Pesticide Element for Ventura, CARB
substitutes ‘‘surplus’’ VOC emissions
reductions from California’s mobile
source emission control program for a
portion of the State’s VOC emissions
reduction commitments from
application of pesticides. Because
emissions reductions from California’s
mobile source emissions control
program are included in the baseline for
8-hour ozone planning purposes, we do
not view the emissions reductions as
‘‘surplus’’ With respect to RFP and
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Rather, we view the Revised Pesticide
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
21888
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Element for Ventura as simply a
reduction in the State’s emissions
reduction commitments leading to an
increase, albeit temporarily, in VOC
emissions in Ventura relative to what
otherwise would occur. Specifically, we
view the Revised Pesticide Element for
Ventura as reducing the State’s
commitments by 1.3 tons per day in
2008, 1.0 tons per day in 2009, 0.7 tons
per day in 2010, and 0.3 tons per day
in 2011, and thereby allowing
corresponding increases in VOC in
those years. Under the Revised Pesticide
Element for Ventura, we note that there
would be no reduction in the State’s SIP
commitment by year 2012 and
thereafter.
We have developed two tables to
present the effects of the Revised
Pesticide Element for Ventura. Table 2
compares the emissions reduction
commitments under the existing SIP
with those that would exist under the
Revised Pesticide Element and shows
how CARB’s substitutions link the two
sets of emissions reduction
commitments. Table 3 converts the
emissions reduction commitments
shown in Table 2 into corresponding
VOC emissions estimates in Ventura
County resulting from application of
pesticides. As shown in Table 3,
allowable VOC emissions under the
different emissions reduction
commitments would increase from 3.7
to 4.3 tons per day in 2008 under the
Revised Pesticide Element from 2.4 to
3.0 tons per day under the existing
Pesticide Element. The increase would
decline in stages to the ultimate VOC
emissions cap from this source category
under the emissions reduction
commitments of 2.5 (rounded from 2.45)
tons per day in 2012.
TABLE 2.—COMMITMENTS FOR VOC EMISSION REDUCTIONS (IN TONS PER DAY) FROM PESTICIDES UNDER THE EXISTING
SIP AND REVISED PESTICIDE ELEMENT FOR VENTURA
Pesticide element in existing SIP a
20 Percent reduction
Year
1990
2008 .................................................................
2009 .................................................................
2010 .................................................................
2011 .................................................................
2012+ ...............................................................
1991
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Tonnage
2005
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
CARB substitution of VOC
emission reductions under
revised pesticide element
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
Revised pesticide element b
20 Percent reduction
1990
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.0
Tonnage
1991
0.5
0.8
1.2
1.5
1.8
2005
0.9
1.2
1.6
1.9
2.2
1.1
1.4
1.8
2.1
2.4
a The emissions reductions shown for 1990 and 1991 under the percent reduction commitment represent the differences between current VOC
pesticide emissions (assumed to be the same as 2004, i.e., 4.826 tpd) and 80 percent of 1990 (3.756 tpd) and 1991 (i.e., 3.293 tpd), respectively. DPR’s September 29, 2007 memorandum from Terrell Barry, Ph.D., Research Scientist III, DPR, et al to John Sanders, Ph.D., Chief, Environmental Monitoring Branch, DPR is the source for 1990, 1991, and 2004 emissions estimates. The 1994 Ozone SIP anticipated that 1991 pesticide use records would be used to adjust emissions for 1990. It is not clear whether DPR’s September 29, 2007 VOC emissions estimates for
1990 or 1991 reflect the calculation method described in the 1994 Ozone SIP.
b Calculated by subtracting CARB’s substitution from the emission reduction commitments in the Pesticide Element of the Existing SIP.
TABLE 3.—VOC EMISSIONS FROM APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES IN VENTURA COUNTY UNDER EXISTING SIP
COMMITMENTS AND UNDER THE REVISED PESTICIDE ELEMENT FOR VENTURA
Pesticide element in existing SIP a
20 Percent reduction
Year
1990
2008 .................................................................
2009 .................................................................
2010 .................................................................
2011 .................................................................
2012+ ...............................................................
1991
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Tonnage
2005
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
CARB substitution of VOC
emission reductions under
revised pesticide element
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Revised pesticide element b
20 Percent reduction
1990
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.0
1991
4.3
4.0
3.6
3.3
3.0
Tonnage
2005
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.9
2.6
3.8
3.5
3.1
2.8
2.5
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
a The emissions estimates shown in these columns subtract the emission reduction commitments shown in Table 2 under the existing SIP with
emissions estimated for 2004 (and assumed for planning purposes by California thereafter until 2012, i.e., 4.82 tpd). See page C–2 of the Final
Draft Ventura County 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2008).
b Calculated by adding CARB substitutions to the VOC emissions estimates for pesticides under the existing SIP.
Thus, the Revised Pesticide Element
for Ventura would have an impact on air
quality in the short term as it would
slow down slightly the improvement in
ozone levels as compared to fully
achieving the commitments for
pesticide emission reductions in the
1994 Ozone SIP. However, the revision
phases out over four years ensuring that
it would not interfere with Ventura’s
ability to attain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by the serious area deadline in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Apr 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
2012. In 2012, the emissions reduction
commitments are 2.4 tpd (rounded from
2.37).
For ozone, the Revised Pesticide
Element would not affect attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the
revision would be phased-out by 2012.
In other words, under the Revised
Pesticide Element, the emissions
reduction commitments under the 1994
Ozone SIP would be fully restored by
2012. Therefore, our approval of the
revision would not interfere with
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Ventura’s attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
The only remaining question with
respect to ozone is whether the Revised
Pesticide Element would interfere with
8-hour ozone RFP. Ventura has
completed its Final Draft 8-hour ozone
SIP, including an RFP plan,5
5 See Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District ‘‘Final Draft 2007 Air Quality Management
Plan’’, March 2008, pp. 71–74, included in the
docket for this proposed rule.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by the ‘‘serious’’ area
deadline. The RFP plan includes an air
quality analysis that demonstrates RFP
toward attaining the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS without the attribution of VOC
emission reductions from pesticides.
Based on the air quality analysis
contained in the RFP plan, Ventura
meets the RFP milestone year
reductions and the three percent
contingency requirements for ‘‘serious’’
areas in 2008, 2011, and 2012 with a
combination of VOC and NOX
reductions. The State adjusted the
milestone year emissions for local and
state control measures already adopted
through December 31, 2006. These
adjustments do not include any
adjustment for VOC emission reductions
from pesticides.6
EPA approved Ventura’s 15 percent
rate-of-progress plan for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS on January 8, 1997 (see
62 FR 1169). EPA’s final 8-hour ozone
RFP rule does not require serious and
above 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas
with approved 15 percent rate-ofprogress VOC plans for the 1-hour ozone
standard to do another 15 percent VOConly reduction for the 8-hour ozone
standard. See 70 FR 71612 (November
29, 2005) and 73 FR 15418–9 (March 24,
2008). Rather, those areas must reduce
VOC and/or NOX emissions by an
average of three percent per year for the
first six-year period following the
baseline year plus all remaining threeyear periods out to their attainment
dates. Therefore the RFP plan includes
a combination of VOC and NOX
reductions. The RFP plan also includes
transport contributions from the Los
Angeles-South Coast Air Basin within
100 kilometers of Ventura. The State
followed guidance in EPA’s fine
particulate matter Implementation Rule
for crediting VOC and NOX reductions
from outside the nonattainment area for
RFP purposes.7 See 72 FR 20586 (April
25, 2007) and 73 FR 15418–9 (March 24,
2008).
This SIP revision only concerns VOC
emissions. Emissions of VOCs
contribute to the formation of ozone.
Therefore, given that Ventura is
unclassifiable/attainment for all NAAQS
6 For all milestone years, the RFP plan assumes
4.82 tons per day from pesticides. In contrast, if the
RFP plan had relied on emission reductions
commitments in the Pesticide Element of the 1994
Ozone SIP or the Revised Pesticide Element
proposed for approval herein, the VOC emissions
from this source category would have ranged from
2.5 tons per year to 4.3 tons per day depending
upon specific commitment and year. See Table 3 of
this document.
7 See Harnett-Zaw-Mon RFP memo, October 11,
2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Apr 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
other than ozone,8 we conclude noninterference of the SIP revision with
continued attainment of NAAQS other
than ozone 9 in Ventura.
Accordingly, we conclude that this
SIP revision would not interfere with
any applicable requirements for
attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA and is thus
approvable under CAA section 110(l).
IV. Public Comment and Final Action
Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air
Act, we are proposing to approve the
Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura,
submitted to EPA on November 30, 2007
by CARB. We intend to defer final
action on this proposed approval until
we receive a SIP revision submittal from
California containing the final 8-hour
ozone Ventura RFP Plan. We will
consider the final plan and any related
public comments on the plan, as well as
comments on this proposal, before we
take final action on the Pesticide
Element SIP Revision.
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, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this Action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
21889
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 EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: April 15, 2008.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8–8812 Filed 4–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0138, FRL–8557–2]
RIN 2060–AO99
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
8 EPA
has promulgated NAAQS for the following
pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, ozone and sulfur oxides (sulfur
dioxide), see 40 CFR 50.
9 The applicable ozone NAAQS is the 8-hour
standard. The 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked
effective June 25, 2005, see 70 FR 44470.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend
the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 23, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21885-21889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8812]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0313; FRL-8557-3]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Pesticide
Element; Ventura County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is proposing to approve a
revision of the California State Implementation Plan submitted by the
California Air Resources Board on November 30, 2007. The revision would
in part, and temporarily, relax a commitment to
[[Page 21886]]
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds in Ventura County caused
by the application of pesticides. EPA is proposing this action under
the Clean Air Act obligation to take action on submittals of revisions
to state implementation plans.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 23, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0313, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions.
E-mail: chavira.raymond@epa.gov.
Mail or deliver: Raymond Chavira (AIR-2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed 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 in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Chavira, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-
4218, chavira.raymond@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The State's SIP Revision Submittal
A. What revisions did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this SIP element?
C. What is the purpose of the SIP revision?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision
A. How is EPA evaluating the revision?
B. Does the revision meet the evaluation criteria?
IV. Public Comment and Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or ``Act''), many
parts of the country, including California's Ventura County, were
designated as nonattainment for the ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS), which, at the time, was 0.12 ppm, 1-hour average.
Under the Act, States with nonattainment areas were required to
develop, adopt and submit SIP revisions that included sufficient
control measures to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by deadlines also
established in the Act. In response, in 1994, the State of California
developed, adopted and submitted an ozone State Implementation Plan
(SIP) (``1994 Ozone SIP'') to provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS
in all areas of California.
As part of the 1994 Ozone SIP, California adopted a Pesticide
Element that committed the State to reduce volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions resulting from the application of agricultural and
structural pesticides in certain ozone nonattainment areas. For the
Ventura County nonattainment area (Ventura), the California Department
of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) committed to adopt and submit to EPA by
June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions from
agricultural and structural pesticides by 20 percent of the 1990 base
year emissions by 2005. California further defined DPR's commitment in
Ventura under the Pesticide Element in terms of VOC emissions
reductions of 2.4 tons per day by 2005.\1\ See 62 FR 1150, at 1169-1170
and at 1187 (January 8, 1997); and 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)(6) and
52.220(c)(236). In 1997, we approved the 1994 Ozone SIP, including the
Pesticide Element. See 62 FR 1150, at 1169-1170 (January 8, 1997). In
today's document, we propose to approve a revision by California of the
Pesticide Element for Ventura County.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tonnage commitment is 2.37 tons per day per letter dated
June 13, 1996, from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp, including
``Corrections to State and Local Measures'' (Attachment A) and
``Summary Emission Reduction Spreadsheets'' (Attachment C).
\2\ Several environmental groups successfully sued the State of
California for failure to adopt regulations necessary to achieve the
VOC emissions reduction committed to under the Pesticide Element.
See El Comite v. Helliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d 912 (E.D.Cal. 2006). The
ensuing court order has led DPR to adopt a regulation that achieves
all of the VOC emission reductions previously committed to for
Ventura County beginning with the peak ozone season (May through
October) in 2008. We are not taking action on DPR's regulation in
today's action, but rather, are taking action on a revision of the
Pesticide Element that, if finalized as proposed, will allow
California to seek a modification to the court order followed by
conforming changes to DPR's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, EPA has replaced the 0.12 ppm, 1-hour ozone NAAQS with
0.08 ppm, 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997). EPA has also
designated all areas of the country with respect to the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. In so doing, EPA designated Ventura County as nonattainment for
ozone with a classification of ``moderate'' (69 FR 23889, April 30,
2004). On February 14, 2008,\3\ California requested EPA to reclassify
Ventura County from ``moderate'' to ``serious'' with a new attainment
date of 2012. EPA has not taken action yet on the State's voluntary
request to reclassify Ventura County to ``serious,'' but is mandated
under the CAA to grant such request, and thus, is reviewing the subject
SIP revision assuming that Ventura's classification for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS will in the near future become ``serious.'' See CAA section
181(b)(3). Under EPA's phase I implementation rule for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, certain ``applicable requirements'' that applied under 1-hour
ozone NAAQS planning requirements continue to apply to 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 51.900(f). The ``Pesticide Element'' is
not one of the applicable requirements under our phase I rule for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS but represents, instead, a ``discretionary''
measure, which means that California may relax or repeal it through a
SIP revision so long as generally applicable procedural and substantive
requirements for such revisions are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See February 14, 2008 letter from CARB Executive Officer
James Goldstene to Wayne Nastri, EPA Region 9 Regional
Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The State's SIP Revision Submittal
A. What revisions did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the revision we are proposing to approve with the
dates that
[[Page 21887]]
it was revised and submitted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB).
Table 1.--Submitted SIP Revision Proposed for Full Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State agency SIP revision Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB............................. Revised Proposed Revision November 30, 2007.. November 30, 2007.
to the Pesticide Element
of the 1994 Ozone SIP
for the Ventura County
Nonattainment Area
(August 13, 2007).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's November 30, 2007 SIP revision submittal package includes
the ``Revised Proposed Revision to the Pesticide Element of the 1994
Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area (August 13, 2007)''
(``Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura'') as attachment 3 to
Executive Order S-07-003.\4\ The November 30, 2007 SIP revision
submittal also includes a copy of CARB's Resolution 07-42, dated
September 27, 2007, approving the Revised Pesticide Element for
Ventura, and evidence of public participation including CARB's response
to public comments and a public hearing held on September 27, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura is also referred
to as ``Appendix H'' because it was originally included as such for
the Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State
Implementation Plan, but was subsequently pulled from that document
for separate SIP processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, under the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP,
DPR committed to adopt and submit to EPA by June 15, 1997, any
regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions resulting from
agricultural and structural pesticides in Ventura by 20 percent of the
1990 base year emissions, and by 2.4 tons per day, by 2005. Under the
Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, CARB commits to substitute
specific ``surplus'' emissions reductions for a portion of the existing
Pesticide Element commitment for Ventura. See Table 3 of the Revised
Pesticide Element for Ventura. Under the Revised Pesticide Element for
Ventura, CARB reduces the amount of the substitution each year such
that no substitution is made in year 2012 and thereafter, thus
restoring the full VOC commitment under the Pesticide Element of the
1994 Ozone SIP. CARB cites California's on-going mobile source emission
control program, which, in CARB's view, has achieved greater-than-
expected VOC emissions reductions, as the source for the substitute VOC
emissions reductions.
B. Are there other versions of this SIP element?
As discussed above, we approved the Pesticide Element, including
the specific emissions reduction commitments, as part of the 1994
California Ozone SIP (62 Federal Register 1169-1170, January 8, 1997).
We have yet to approve DPR's regulation implementing the Pesticide
Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP and do not propose to do so as part of
this action.
C. What is the purpose of the SIP revision?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate
matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the
environment. Ozone is formed by the interaction of directly-emitted
precursor emissions, VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), in the presence
of sunlight under the influence of meteorological and topographical
features of an area. California adopted the Pesticide Element as one of
the commitments to help attain the ozone NAAQS in the State of
California. As part of the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP,
California adopted specific VOC emissions reduction commitments for
Ventura County in support of the attainment demonstration for the ozone
NAAQS in that area. California has now revised the Pesticide Element to
reduce in part, and temporarily, the VOC emissions reduction
commitments for Ventura County to avoid short-term, but potentially
significant, economic losses by strawberry farmers and the potential
for long-term loss of farmland to urban development. The State has
submitted the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura to EPA for approval
as a revision of the California SIP.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision
A. How is EPA evaluating the revision?
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable and must not interfere
with an area's progress towards attainment or any other requirement of
the Act. See CAA sections 110(a), 110(l); see also CAA section 193
(antibacksliding requirements for pre-1990 control measures). CAA
section 110(l) directs EPA to disapprove any SIP revision that would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or
reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the
Act. CAA section 193 does not apply to this action because the
Pesticide Element was not part of the pre-1990 California SIP and thus,
a revision to the Pesticide Element does not modify a control
requirement in effect before passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.
B. Does the revision meet the evaluation criteria?
CAA section 110(l) provides: ``Each revision to an implementation
plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by such
State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator
shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title) or any
other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' The term ``reasonable
further progress'' (RFP) is defined in section 7501 (CAA section 171)
as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant
air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be
required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of
the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable
date.'' We interpret CAA section 110(l) as requiring EPA to ensure that
the state, in seeking a revision to its SIP, does not impair its
compliance with the statutory mandates applicable to the SIP.
As noted above, under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura,
CARB substitutes ``surplus'' VOC emissions reductions from California's
mobile source emission control program for a portion of the State's VOC
emissions reduction commitments from application of pesticides. Because
emissions reductions from California's mobile source emissions control
program are included in the baseline for 8-hour ozone planning
purposes, we do not view the emissions reductions as ``surplus'' With
respect to RFP and attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Rather, we
view the Revised Pesticide
[[Page 21888]]
Element for Ventura as simply a reduction in the State's emissions
reduction commitments leading to an increase, albeit temporarily, in
VOC emissions in Ventura relative to what otherwise would occur.
Specifically, we view the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura as
reducing the State's commitments by 1.3 tons per day in 2008, 1.0 tons
per day in 2009, 0.7 tons per day in 2010, and 0.3 tons per day in
2011, and thereby allowing corresponding increases in VOC in those
years. Under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, we note that
there would be no reduction in the State's SIP commitment by year 2012
and thereafter.
We have developed two tables to present the effects of the Revised
Pesticide Element for Ventura. Table 2 compares the emissions reduction
commitments under the existing SIP with those that would exist under
the Revised Pesticide Element and shows how CARB's substitutions link
the two sets of emissions reduction commitments. Table 3 converts the
emissions reduction commitments shown in Table 2 into corresponding VOC
emissions estimates in Ventura County resulting from application of
pesticides. As shown in Table 3, allowable VOC emissions under the
different emissions reduction commitments would increase from 3.7 to
4.3 tons per day in 2008 under the Revised Pesticide Element from 2.4
to 3.0 tons per day under the existing Pesticide Element. The increase
would decline in stages to the ultimate VOC emissions cap from this
source category under the emissions reduction commitments of 2.5
(rounded from 2.45) tons per day in 2012.
Table 2.--Commitments for VOC Emission Reductions (in Tons Per Day) From Pesticides Under the Existing SIP and Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pesticide element in existing SIP CARB Revised pesticide element \b\
\a\ substitution -----------------------------------
------------------------------------ of VOC 20 Percent reduction Tonnage
20 Percent reduction Tonnage emission -----------------------------------
Year ------------------------------------ reductions
under revised
1990 1991 2005 pesticide 1990 1991 2005
element
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................................ 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.3 0.5 0.9 1.1
2009............................................................ 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.4
2010............................................................ 1.8 2.2 2.4 0.6 1.2 1.6 1.8
2011............................................................ 1.8 2.2 2.4 0.3 1.5 1.9 2.1
2012+........................................................... 1.8 2.2 2.4 0.0 1.8 2.2 2.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The emissions reductions shown for 1990 and 1991 under the percent reduction commitment represent the differences between current VOC pesticide
emissions (assumed to be the same as 2004, i.e., 4.826 tpd) and 80 percent of 1990 (3.756 tpd) and 1991 (i.e., 3.293 tpd), respectively. DPR's
September 29, 2007 memorandum from Terrell Barry, Ph.D., Research Scientist III, DPR, et al to John Sanders, Ph.D., Chief, Environmental Monitoring
Branch, DPR is the source for 1990, 1991, and 2004 emissions estimates. The 1994 Ozone SIP anticipated that 1991 pesticide use records would be used
to adjust emissions for 1990. It is not clear whether DPR's September 29, 2007 VOC emissions estimates for 1990 or 1991 reflect the calculation method
described in the 1994 Ozone SIP.
\b\ Calculated by subtracting CARB's substitution from the emission reduction commitments in the Pesticide Element of the Existing SIP.
Table 3.--VOC Emissions From Application of Pesticides in Ventura County Under Existing SIP Commitments and Under the Revised Pesticide Element for
Ventura
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pesticide element in existing SIP CARB Revised pesticide element \b\
\a\ substitution -----------------------------------
------------------------------------ of VOC 20 Percent reduction Tonnage
20 Percent reduction Tonnage emission -----------------------------------
Year ------------------------------------ reductions
under revised
1990 1991 2005 pesticide 1990 1991 2005
element
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................................ 3.0 2.6 2.5 1.3 4.3 3.9 3.8
2009............................................................ 3.0 2.6 2.5 1.0 4.0 3.6 3.5
2010............................................................ 3.0 2.6 2.5 0.6 3.6 3.2 3.1
2011............................................................ 3.0 2.6 2.5 0.3 3.3 2.9 2.8
2012+........................................................... 3.0 2.6 2.5 0.0 3.0 2.6 2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The emissions estimates shown in these columns subtract the emission reduction commitments shown in Table 2 under the existing SIP with emissions
estimated for 2004 (and assumed for planning purposes by California thereafter until 2012, i.e., 4.82 tpd). See page C-2 of the Final Draft Ventura
County 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2008).
\b\ Calculated by adding CARB substitutions to the VOC emissions estimates for pesticides under the existing SIP.
Thus, the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would have an
impact on air quality in the short term as it would slow down slightly
the improvement in ozone levels as compared to fully achieving the
commitments for pesticide emission reductions in the 1994 Ozone SIP.
However, the revision phases out over four years ensuring that it would
not interfere with Ventura's ability to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
by the serious area deadline in 2012. In 2012, the emissions reduction
commitments are 2.4 tpd (rounded from 2.37).
For ozone, the Revised Pesticide Element would not affect
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the revision would be
phased-out by 2012. In other words, under the Revised Pesticide
Element, the emissions reduction commitments under the 1994 Ozone SIP
would be fully restored by 2012. Therefore, our approval of the
revision would not interfere with Ventura's attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
The only remaining question with respect to ozone is whether the
Revised Pesticide Element would interfere with 8-hour ozone RFP.
Ventura has completed its Final Draft 8-hour ozone SIP, including an
RFP plan,\5\
[[Page 21889]]
demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the ``serious''
area deadline. The RFP plan includes an air quality analysis that
demonstrates RFP toward attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS without the
attribution of VOC emission reductions from pesticides. Based on the
air quality analysis contained in the RFP plan, Ventura meets the RFP
milestone year reductions and the three percent contingency
requirements for ``serious'' areas in 2008, 2011, and 2012 with a
combination of VOC and NOX reductions. The State adjusted
the milestone year emissions for local and state control measures
already adopted through December 31, 2006. These adjustments do not
include any adjustment for VOC emission reductions from pesticides.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Ventura County Air Pollution Control District ``Final
Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan'', March 2008, pp. 71-74,
included in the docket for this proposed rule.
\6\ For all milestone years, the RFP plan assumes 4.82 tons per
day from pesticides. In contrast, if the RFP plan had relied on
emission reductions commitments in the Pesticide Element of the 1994
Ozone SIP or the Revised Pesticide Element proposed for approval
herein, the VOC emissions from this source category would have
ranged from 2.5 tons per year to 4.3 tons per day depending upon
specific commitment and year. See Table 3 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA approved Ventura's 15 percent rate-of-progress plan for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS on January 8, 1997 (see 62 FR 1169). EPA's final 8-
hour ozone RFP rule does not require serious and above 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas with approved 15 percent rate-of-progress VOC plans
for the 1-hour ozone standard to do another 15 percent VOC-only
reduction for the 8-hour ozone standard. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29,
2005) and 73 FR 15418-9 (March 24, 2008). Rather, those areas must
reduce VOC and/or NOX emissions by an average of three
percent per year for the first six-year period following the baseline
year plus all remaining three-year periods out to their attainment
dates. Therefore the RFP plan includes a combination of VOC and
NOX reductions. The RFP plan also includes transport
contributions from the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin within 100
kilometers of Ventura. The State followed guidance in EPA's fine
particulate matter Implementation Rule for crediting VOC and
NOX reductions from outside the nonattainment area for RFP
purposes.\7\ See 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007) and 73 FR 15418-9 (March
24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7 \ See Harnett-Zaw-Mon RFP memo, October 11, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SIP revision only concerns VOC emissions. Emissions of VOCs
contribute to the formation of ozone. Therefore, given that Ventura is
unclassifiable/attainment for all NAAQS other than ozone,\8\ we
conclude non-interference of the SIP revision with continued attainment
of NAAQS other than ozone \9\ in Ventura.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA has promulgated NAAQS for the following pollutants:
carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, ozone
and sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide), see 40 CFR 50.
\9\ The applicable ozone NAAQS is the 8-hour standard. The 1-
hour ozone NAAQS was revoked effective June 25, 2005, see 70 FR
44470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we conclude that this SIP revision would not interfere
with any applicable requirements for attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA and is thus
approvable under CAA section 110(l).
IV. Public Comment and Final Action
Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act, we are proposing to
approve the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, submitted to EPA on
November 30, 2007 by CARB. We intend to defer final action on this
proposed approval until we receive a SIP revision submittal from
California containing the final 8-hour ozone Ventura RFP Plan. We will
consider the final plan and any related public comments on the plan, as
well as comments on this proposal, before we take final action on the
Pesticide Element SIP Revision.
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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this Action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: April 15, 2008.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8-8812 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
