Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 21885 

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. 

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 

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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

21886 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1Tonnage 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). 

2Several 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. 

3See February 14, 2008 letter from CARB 

Executive Officer James Goldstene to Wayne Nastri, 

EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator. 

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: http:// 

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 http://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 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://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 

http://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

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. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 21887 

4The 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. 

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

21888 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

5See 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. 

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

Year 

Pesticide element in existing SIPa CARB substitution of VOC 

emission reductions under 

revised pesticide element 

Revised pesticide element b

20 Percent reduction Tonnage 20 Percent reduction Tonnage 

1990 1991 2005 1990 1991 2005 

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 

aThe 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

Year 

Pesticide element in existing SIPa CARB substitution of VOC 

emission reductions under 

revised pesticide element 

Revised pesticide element b

20 Percent reduction Tonnage 20 Percent reduction Tonnage 

1990 1991 2005 1990 1991 2005 

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 

aThe 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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 21889 

6For 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. 

8EPA has promulgated NAAQS for the following 

pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, 

particulate matter, ozone and sulfur oxides (sulfur 

dioxide), see 40 CFR 50. 

9The applicable ozone NAAQS is the 8-hour 

standard. The 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked 

effective June 25, 2005, see 70 FR 44470. 

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 

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 

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) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS