Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24441 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Waterson, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9061. 

Ms. Waterson can be reached via 

electronic mail at 

waterson.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone 

NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436. The current 

action, however, is being taken to 

address requirements under the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Requirements for 

the Atlanta Area under the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS will be addressed in the future. 

For additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

A detailed rationale for the approval is 

set forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

Dated: April 4, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9706 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0194; FRL–9664–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan Pesticide Element 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve 

several revisions to the Pesticide 

Element of the California state 

implementation plan (SIP). These 

revisions include regulations adopted 

by the California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) that: (1) 

Reduce volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from the application of 

agricultural field fumigants in the South 

Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura, San 

Joaquin Valley (SJV), and Sacramento 

Metro ozone nonattainment areas by 

restricting fumigant application 

methods; (2) establish a contingency 

fumigant emissions limit and allocation 

system for Ventura; (3) require CDPR to 

prepare and make available to the 

public an annual pesticide VOC 

emissions inventory report; and (4) 

require recordkeeping and reporting of 

pesticide usage. EPA also proposes to 

approve CDPR’s commitments to 

manage VOC emissions from the use of 

agricultural and commercial structural 

pesticides in the SJV to ensure that they 

do not exceed 18.1 tons per day and to 

implement restrictions on VOC 

emissions in the SJV from non-fumigant 

pesticides by 2014. Lastly, EPA is 

providing its response to a remand by 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of 

EPA’s 2009 approval of a revision to the 

California SIP related to reducing VOC 

emissions from pesticides. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

May 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0194, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel, 

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The technical support 

document (TSD) and the index to the 

docket for this proposed action is 

available electronically on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site and in 

hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material), and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with either of the contacts listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the proposed action on 

CDPR’s regulations: Nancy Levin, Rules 

Office (AIR–4), (415) 972–3848, 

levin.nancy@epa.gov. For information 

on the proposed actions on CDPR’s 

commitments and the PEST–1 measure: 

Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), (415) 972–3957, 

wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. The Current California SIP Pesticide 

Element and Description of the Proposed 

Revisions 

A. Currently-Approved Provisions of the 

California SIP Pesticide Element 

B. Proposed Revisions to the California SIP 

Pesticide Element 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revisions to the 

California SIP Pesticide Element 

A. Clean Air Act (CAA) Procedural and 

Administrative Requirements for SIP 

Submittals Under CAA Section 110 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24442 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, No. 

09–71383, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 

remanded the approval of PEST–1 to EPA with the 

instructions to determine whether the Pesticide 

Element has sufficient enforcement mechanisms to 

satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). We provide our response to the remand in 

section IV of this notice. 

2The South Coast nonattainment area includes 

Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, San 

Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The Southeast 

Desert (SED) nonattainment area includes the 

Coachella Valley in Riverside County, Antelope 

Valley in Los Angeles County, and the 

southwestern quadrant of San Bernardino County. 

The Ventura nonattainment area is Ventura County. 

The San Joaquin Valley (SJV) nonattainment area 

includes San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, 

Fresno, Tulare and Kings Counties and the valley 

portion of Kern County. The Sacramento Metro 

nonattainment area includes Sacramento County 

and parts of El Dorado, Placer, Solano and Sutter 

Counties. 

3See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, October 12, 2009. 

4CARB did not submit for inclusion into the SIP 

those portions of 3 CCR sections 6452.2 and 6452.3 

pertaining to field fumigation limits and allowances 

in the South Coast, SED, SJV, and Sacramento 

Metro ozone nonattainment areas. 

5See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, October 12, 2009. 

6See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 2, 2011. 

7As part of its August 2, 2011 submittal, CARB 

also submitted 3 CCR section 6400 (Restricted 

Materials), 6446 (Methyl Iodide Field—General 

Requirements) and section 6446.1 (Methyl Iodide 

Field Fumigation Methods) and methyl-iodide 

B. Enforceability of Emission Limitations 

Under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) 

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/ 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACM/RACT) Requirement 

Under CAA Sections 172(c)(1) and 

182(b)(1) 

D. Finding of Non-Interference With 

Applicable Requirements of the CAA 

Under Section 110(l) 

IV. Response To Remand in Association of 

Irritated Residents Case 

V. Proposed Actions and Opportunity for 

Public Comment 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Introduction 

This proposed action deals with 

revisions to California’s federallyapproved program to reduce emissions 

from the use of agricultural and 

structural pesticides to improve ozone 

air quality in five areas of the State: the 

South Coast, Southeast Desert (SED), 

Ventura, San Joaquin Valley (SJV), and 

Sacramento Metro nonattainment areas. 

Pesticides contribute to ozone pollution 

through the emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). VOC react in 

the atmosphere with nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) in the presence of sunlight to 

form ozone. Breathing ground-level 

ozone can result in a number of health 

effects that are observed in broad 

segments of the population. These 

health effects include reduced lung 

function and inflamed airways, which 

can increase respiratory symptoms and 

aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. 

Ozone exposure also has been 

associated with increased susceptibility 

to respiratory infections, medication 

use, doctor visits, and emergency 

department visits and hospital 

admissions for individuals with lung 

disease. Ozone exposure also increases 

the risk of premature death from heart 

or lung disease. Children are at 

increased risk from exposure to ozone 

because their lungs are still developing 

and they are more likely to be active 

outdoors, which increases their 

exposure. 

Pesticides contribute about 5 percent 

to total VOC emissions in SJV and 

Ventura ozone nonattainment areas and 

less than 1 percent to total VOC 

emissions in the South Coast, SED, and 

Sacramento Metro areas. See TSD, 

section I.D. 

This proposal addresses the 

regulation of VOC emissions from 

pesticides under the federal Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’). Pesticides and their 

uses and application are primarily 

regulated under Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA). This proposal does not address 

regulations of pesticides under FIFRA or 

other federal acts. 

II. The Current California SIP Pesticide 

Element and a Description of the 

Proposed Revisions 

A. Currently-Approved Provisions of the 

California SIP Pesticide Element 

Prior to today’s proposal, EPA has 

taken three actions to either approve or 

revise provisions of the California SIP 

Pesticide Element. We briefly describe 

each action below. More information on 

each action and its background can be 

found in section I.E. of the TSD for this 

proposal. 

• 1994 Pesticide Element—The 1994 

Pesticide Element was submitted by 

California in November 1994 as part of 

the State’s comprehensive 1-hour ozone 

attainment plan (known as the 1994 

Ozone SIP) and included a plan by 

CDPR to reduce VOC emissions from 

agricultural and structural pesticides in 

five ozone nonattainment areas by a 

maximum of 20 percent from 1990 

baseline levels by 2005 and to adopt 

regulations if necessary to achieve these 

reductions. EPA approved the 1994 

Pesticide Element on January 8, 1997 

(62 FR 1150) and codified it at 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)(6) and 

52.220(c)(236). 

• PEST–1 Measure in CARB’s 2003 

State Strategy—In 2003, the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) updated 

the statewide strategy that was part of 

the 1994 Ozone SIP. One of the 

measures in the 2003 State Strategy was 

PEST–1 (‘‘Implement Existing Pesticide 

Strategy’’), which retained and 

continued unchanged the provisions of 

the 1994 Pesticide Element. EPA 

approved the PEST–1 measure into the 

California SIP as part of its action to 

approve in part and disapprove in part 

the 2003 South Coast Air Quality 

Management Plan and 2003 State 

Strategy. See 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 

2009), codified at 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(339)(ii)(A)(1).1

• 2007 Ventura Pesticide Element—In 

2007, CARB submitted a revision to the 

Ventura portion of the 1994 Pesticide 

Element. This revision reduced in part 

and temporally the emissions reduction 

commitment for Ventura in 1994 

Pesticide Element. EPA approved this 

revision in 2008. See 73 FR 41277 (July 

18, 2008), codified at 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(355)(i)(A). 

B. Proposed Revisions to the California 

SIP Pesticide Element 

EPA is proposing to approve 

regulations and commitments adopted 

by the CDPR to limit VOC emissions 

from the use of agricultural and 

commercial structural pesticides in the 

South Coast, SED, Ventura, SJV, and 

Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment 

areas.2 These CDPR regulations and 

commitments were submitted by CARB 

to EPA as follows: 

1. October 12, 2009 submittal 3 of the 

following CDPR regulations: 

• Title 3 California Code of 

Regulations (CCR), sections 6447 (first 

paragraph) and 6447.3–6452 pertaining 

to field fumigation methods; 

• Portions of 3 CCR sections 6452.1– 

6452.4 and sections 6624–6626 

pertaining to emission inventory; 

• 3 CCR sections 6452.2 and 6452.3 

pertaining to field fumigation limits and 

allowances in the Ventura ozone 

nonattainment area.4

2. October 12, 2009 submittal 5 of 

CDPR’s revised ‘‘Pesticide Emission 

Reduction Commitment for the San 

Joaquin Valley’’. This submittal caps 

VOC emissions from the use of 

agricultural and commercial structural 

pesticides in the SJV to 18.1 tpd and 

commits CDPR to implement 

restrictions on non-fumigant pesticides 

in the SJV by 2014. 

3. August 2, 2011 submittal 6 of the 

following CDPR regulations which 

revised in part and added to the October 

12, 2009 submittal: 7

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24443 

related portions of provisions 6452.2(a)(4)(Annual 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Inventory 

Report) and 6624(f) (Pesticide Use Records). We are 

deferring action on these provisions due to 

California’s cancellation, effective March 21, 2012, 

of the registration of all products containing the 

active ingredient methyl iodide. CDPR adopted this 

set of methyl iodide-related regulations on May 11, 

2011, after and separately from the CDPR April 7, 

2011 regulations that are also included in the CARB 

August 2, 2011 submittal. 

8CDPR’s regulations establishing the parameters 

for field fumigant application methods (but not the 

restrictions on which methods may be used during 

certain periods of the year) apply statewide; 

however, EPA is limiting its approval to just the 

five listed nonattainment areas. 

• 3 CCR sections 6448.1, 6449.1, and 

6450.1 pertaining to fumigation method 

restrictions. 

• Portions of 3 CCR sections 6452.2 

and 6452.3 pertaining to field 

fumigation limits and allowances in the 

Ventura ozone nonattainment area. 

• 3 CCR section 6452.4 pertaining to 

the annual VOC emissions inventory 

report. 

• 3 CCR sections 6624 and 6626 

pertaining to pesticide use records and 

reports. 

The submitted CDPR regulations that 

we are proposing action on today can be 

divided into four distinct but related 

parts. The first part (3 CCR sections 

6447 through 6452) establishes 

standards for fumigant application and 

restricts the use of certain higheremitting application methods in the five 

nonattainment areas. The second part (3 

CCR sections 6452.2 and 6452.3) 

provides a contingency mechanism to 

limit VOC emissions from field 

fumigant applications in the Ventura 

nonattainment area. The third part (3 

CCR section 6452.4) requires CDPR to 

annually report on pesticide VOC 

emissions in each of the five 

nonattainment areas and establishes 

requirements for the report. The fourth 

part (3 CCR sections 6624 and 6626) 

establishes the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements necessary to 

ensure compliance with the other parts. 

We describe each part in more detail 

below. 

The first part (3 CCR sections 6447 

through 6452) establishes, by fumigant 

and method, requirements for the field 

application of seven fumigants and 

restricts the use of certain higheremitting application methods in the 

South Coast, SED, Ventura, SJV, and 

Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment 

areas during the period May 1 to 

October 31.8 Requirements are 

described for the field fumigants: 

methyl bromide (sections 6447 and 

6447.3), 1,3-dichloropropene (sections 

6448 and 6448.1), chloropicrin (sections 

6449 and 6449.1), metam-sodium, 

potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate 

and dazomet (sections 6450, 6450.1 and 

6450.2), and sodium tetrathiocarbonate 

(sections 6451 and 6451.1). 

Specific requirements for applying 

these fumigants include, for example, 

limiting fumigant application rates 

(pounds/acre); specifying application 

methods (e.g., minimum injection depth 

below soil surface, number of water 

treatments, minimum hours to leave 

tarpaulin in place); and requiring plans 

to address damaged tarpaulins. 3 CCR 

section 6452 allows CDPR to approve 

alternative fumigation methods under 

certain conditions and based on specific 

criteria. 

As submitted, the second part of 

CDPR’s regulations (3 CCR sections 

6452.2 and 6452.3) apply only to the 

Ventura ozone nonattainment area. This 

part requires CDPR to set a field 

fumigant VOC emissions limit for 

Ventura in its annual VOC emissions 

inventory report if overall pesticide 

emissions (not just fumigant emissions) 

in the Ventura nonattainment area are 

found to be within five percent of or 

exceed the listed benchmark. The 

benchmark is equivalent to the 20 

percent reduction in pesticide VOC 

emissions from 1990 emissions levels 

that is required in the area by the 

California SIP Pesticide Element. This 

part further requires that the county 

agricultural commissioner add 

conditions to field fumigation permits 

or take other actions that will prevent 

the field fumigant limit from being 

exceeded. 

The third part of the submitted 

regulations (3 CCR section 6452.4) 

requires CDPR to issue an annual 

emissions inventory report that reports 

the total agricultural and commercial 

structural (fumigant and nonfumigant) 

pesticide VOC emissions for previous 

years in each of the five nonattainment 

areas and evaluates compliance with the 

emissions reduction targets in each area. 

This section specifies the method for 

calculating emissions and requires 

CDPR make a draft emissions inventory 

available to the public for a 45-day 

comment period and post the final 

report on its Web site. 

The fourth part of the submitted 

regulations (3 CCR sections 6624 and 

6626) establishes the pesticide use 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements needed to assure 

compliance with the other parts. This 

part requires anyone using pesticides in 

specific applications to keep and 

maintain certain records for two years 

and requires operators of property that 

produces an agricultural commodity 

and agricultural pest control businesses 

to report the use of pesticides to the 

county agricultural commissioner. 

These sections require the recording and 

reporting of the method for fumigant 

application in the five nonattainment 

areas. 

CDPR has revised its commitments in 

the 1994 Pesticide Element to limit VOC 

emissions from agricultural and 

commercial structural pesticides in the 

SJV. Specifically, it is now committing 

to 

• Use a specified emissions 

estimation methodology to establish the 

1990 pesticide VOC emission levels and 

evaluate compliance with the provisions 

in the 1994 Pesticide Element for SJV; 

• Implement restrictions on 

agricultural fumigation methods and by 

2014 implement restrictions on VOC 

emissions from non-fumigant pesticides; 

and 

• Manage VOC emissions from 

agricultural and commercial structural 

pesticide use to ensure that they do not 

exceed 18.1 tons-per-day in the SJV area 

(which is equivalent to a 12 percent 

reduction in pesticide VOC emissions 

from 1990 levels). 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revisions to 

the California SIP Pesticide Element 

A. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submittals Under 

CAA Section 110 

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

110(l) require a state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and an opportunity for a 

public hearing was provided consistent 

with EPA’s implementing regulations in 

40 CFR 51.102. All three submittals 

under consideration here included 

evidence of adequate public notice and 

opportunity for comment. 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires 

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. This section also provides that 

any SIP submittal that we have not 

affirmatively determined to be complete 

or incomplete will become complete by 

operation of law six months after the 

day of submittal. The October 12, 2009 

submittals of the CDPR’s regulations 

and the revised SJV Pesticide Element 

went complete by operation of law on 

April 12, 2009. The August 2, 2011 

submittal of revisions to CDPR’s 

regulations went complete by operation 

of law on February 2, 2012. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24444 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9 ‘‘Review of State Implementations Plans and 

Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency’’ 

(Enforceability Guidance), Craig Potter, EPA, 

September 23, 1987. See also General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990. 57 FR 13498, 13502 and 

13541 (April 16, 1992) and CAA sections 110(a)(2) 

and 172(c)(6). http://www.epa.gov/compliance/

resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/review-enfrpt.pdf. 

10 ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, 

Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ U.S. EPA, OAQPS, 

May 25, 1988 (‘‘the Bluebook’’) and ‘‘Guidance 

Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other 

Rule Deficiencies,’’ U.S. EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (‘‘the Little Bluebook’’). 

11The Neal memorandum was included as part of 

October 12, 2009 submittal of the ‘‘Pesticide 

Emission Reduction Commitment for the San 

Joaquin Valley’’ and we intend to include it as 

additional material in the California SIP should we 

finalize our proposed approval of CDPR’s 

commitment. 

12These procedures apply not only to SJV but 

also to the other four nonattainment areas. 

13 In areas classified as severe (such as SED, 

Ventura, and Sacramento Metro), a major source is 

a stationary source that emits or has the potential 

to emit at least 25 tons of VOC or NOX per year. 

See CAA sections 182(d) and (f). For extreme areas 

(South Coast and SJV), a major stationary sources 

B. Enforceability of Emission 

Limitations Under CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(A) 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that 

SIP ‘‘shall include enforceable 

emissions limitations, and such other 

control measures, means or techniques 

(* * *) as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate for attainment 

* * *.’’ 

In order to be enforceable, SIP 

regulations and commitments must be 

clear regarding, for example, who must 

comply, by what date, the standard of 

compliance, the methods used to 

determine compliance, and the process 

and criteria for obtaining any variation 

from the normal mode of compliance.9

Guidance used to help evaluate 

enforceability includes the Bluebook 

and the Little Bluebook.10

Field Fumigant Regulations 

CDPR’s regulations include 

recordkeeping requirements in 3 CCR 

section 6624 (Pesticide Use Records) 

and the reporting requirements in 3 CCR 

section 6626 (Pesticide Use Reports for 

Production Agriculture). Among these 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements is the provision that 

require any person who uses a fumigant 

in any of the five ozone nonattainment 

areas to record and report a description 

of the application method. See 3 CCR 

sections 6624(f) and 6626(d). The 

regulations provide specific methods, 

limits, and timeframes for agricultural 

use of each fumigant. The regulations 

provide a process and criteria for use of 

a field fumigation method not described 

in the regulations. The request to 

implement a method not described in 

the regulations must be accompanied by 

scientific data documenting the VOC 

emissions, and that the method will not 

result in emissions greater than any one 

of the methods allowed for use by the 

regulations. The director must consider 

criteria such as data sufficiency and 

validity, and representativeness of field 

conditions studied. See 3 CCR section 

6452. 

The recordkeeping and report 

requirements and other rule provisions 

in the submitted regulations are clear 

and adequate to ensure that California’s 

submitted fumigant regulations is 

enforceable as required by of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Pesticide Emission Reduction 

Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley 

The mechanism to track compliance 

with the 18.1 tpd limit on VOC 

emissions from agricultural and 

commercial structural pesticides in SJV 

is the Annual VOC Emissions Inventory 

Report required by 3 CCR section 

6452.4. (Annual Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions Inventory 

Report). For tracking compliance with 

the overall VOC limit in the SJV, CDPR 

proposes to use the emissions 

estimation methodology described on 

page 2–4 (in the section ‘‘Procedure for 

Calculating Unadjusted and Adjusted 

Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions’’) of November 5, 2008 

memorandum from Rosemary Neal, 

CDPR to Randy Segawa, CDPR, Subject: 

Update to the Pesticide Volatile Organic 

Inventory; Estimated Emissions 1990– 

2006, and Preliminary Estimates for 

2007 (‘‘Neal memorandum’’).11

Procedures for calculating pesticide 

VOC emissions are also in 3 CCR section 

6452.4(a)(1).12 The Neal memorandum 

lays out a calculation process that 

follows standard inventorying practice 

and provides the same procedures for 

calculating VOC emissions as 3 CCR 

section 6452.4(a)(1). Pesticide usage 

rates used to calculate total emissions 

are collected from pesticide use reports 

which are required by 3 CCR section 

6626 and the requirements for persons 

(e.g., pesticide applicators) to keep and 

report the data necessary for preparing 

the annual report are in 3 CCR section 

6624. These provisions are clear and 

adequate in combination with the 

fumigant regulations to ensure the 

pesticide VOC limit for the SJV is 

enforceable as required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A). 

CDPR has committed to implement 

restrictions on VOC emissions from 

non-fumigant regulations by 2014 which 

we interpret to mean by no later than 

May 1, 2014 given that CDPR projects 

emissions reductions from these 

restrictions in 2014 and its control 

program operates from May 1 to October 

31 of each year. See ‘‘Proposed SIP 

Commitment for San Joaquin Valley,’’ 

page 2. To achieve reductions in 2014, 

the restriction would need to be 

implemented by the beginning of the 

regulatory season (May 1) in that year. 

CDPR does not commit to a specific 

emissions reduction from the additional 

restrictions on non-fumigant pesticide; 

however, the restrictions are part of 

CDPR’s regulatory program to ensure 

that the inventory target of 18.1 tpd in 

the SJV is not exceeded (Id. at page 1), 

which effectively defines the needed 

stringency. This commitment is 

sufficiently clear and adequate to ensure 

that is enforceable as required by CAA 

section 110(a)(1)(A). 

C. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACM/RACT) Requirement 

Under CAA Sections 172(c)(1) and 

182(b)(1) 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology), and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ RACM is 

a requirement only for nonattainment 

areas. 

EPA defines RACM as any potential 

control measure for application to point, 

area, on-road and non-road emissions 

source categories that meets certain 

criteria. These criteria include whether 

the measure is technologically and 

economically feasible and either 

individually or collectively with other 

RACM can advance the attainment date 

by at least one year. See 57 FR 13498, 

13560 (April 16, 1992). The 

determination as to whether a SIP 

provides for the implementation of 

RACM as required by CAA section 

172(c)(1) is done as part of an area’s 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress plans and not on a rule-by-rule 

basis. 

For ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or above, CAA 

section 182(b)(2) requires the 

implementation of reasonably available 

control technologies (RACT) on all 

major sources of VOC13 and for each 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24445 

is one that emits or has the potential to emit at least 

10 tons of VOC or NOX per year. See CAA sections 

182(e) and (f). 

14See letter, Andrew Steckel, EPA Region 9 to 

Frank Spurlock, CDPR and Mike Guzzetta, CARB, 

November 2, 2010. 

15See letter and attachments, Randy Segawa, 

CDPR to Andrew Steckel, EPA–Region 9, Reducing 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from 

Pesticides: Analysis of Alternatives for Field 

Fumigation Methods, June 28, 2011. 

16See 40 CFR 70.2 (Definitions). 

17See 76 FR 69928 (November 9, 2011) (South 

Coast PM2.5 Plan), 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012) (SJV 

2007 8-hour Ozone SIP), and 77 FR 12674 (March 

1, 2012) (South Coast 8-hour Ozone Plan). EPA has 

also recently approved the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP 

which relied in part on measures in the 2007 State 

Strategy. In approving that SIP, EPA concurred with 

the State’s determination that VOC did not need to 

be controlled for PM2.5 attainment in the SJV and 

therefore the plan did not include did not need to 

evaluate VOC control measures as part of its RACM 

demonstration. See 76 FR 69896, 69924 (November 

9, 2011). The PM2.5 plan for the Sacramento Metro 

area is not due until late 2012. 

VOC source category for which EPA has 

issued a Control Techniques Guideline 

(CTG). CAA section 182(f) requires that 

RACT under section 182(b)(2) also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

NOX. See CAA sections 182(d) and (f). 

The proposed revisions to the 

California SIP Pesticide Element that we 

are evaluating here are intended to 

reduce VOC emissions in the South 

Coast, SED, Ventura, SJV, and 

Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment 

areas. VOC emissions contribute to the 

formation of ozone and secondary 

particulate matter. EPA, though, has 

determined by rule that states do not 

need to address controls for sources of 

VOC emissions for PM2.5 standard 

attainment unless the state and/or EPA 

make a technical demonstration that 

such controls would significantly 

contribute to reducing PM2.5

concentrations in the nonattainment 

area. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3). Such a 

determination would be made in the 

context of each area’s plan for 

attainment of the PM2.5 standards. Of 

the areas subject to the California SIP 

Pesticide Element, only the South Coast, 

SJV, and Sacramento Metro areas are 

nonattainment for one or more of the 

PM2.5 standards and only South Coast 

controls VOC for PM2.5 attainment. 

Field Fumigant Regulations 

CARB’s 2009 submittal of the field 

fumigant regulations did not include a 

demonstration of how the field 

fumigation methods implement 

RACT.14 In response to EPA comments, 

CDPR provided a document containing 

more detailed information on its RACT 

evaluation of fumigation methods.15

This document contains a general 

discussion of strategies for controlling 

VOC emissions from fumigants and an 

evaluation of field fumigation method 

options, including the basis for those 

accepted and those rejected by CDPR for 

inclusion in its regulations. It discusses 

current research on fumigant VOC 

emission reduction methods, including 

a reevaluation of fumigants to obtain 

additional data to replace surrogate data 

used in developing the adopted 

regulations. 

Field fumigation emissions are 

considered fugitive emissions because 

they are emissions that ‘‘could not 

reasonably pass through a stack, 

chimney, vent, or other functionallyequivalent opening.’’ 16 As noted above, 

CAA section 182(b)(1) requires RACT be 

applied to all to major stationary 

sources in a ozone nonattainment area 

classified moderate or above. EPA has 

not yet defined by rule whether fugitive 

emissions must be included in 

determination of major source status for 

the purposes determining the 

application of section 182(b)(1) RACT 

requirement; however, EPA believes, 

based on the information provided in 

the CDPR’s alternatives analysis, and 

the research cited to support it, that 

CDPR has demonstrated that the 

proposed regulations are stringent 

enough to implement RACT-level 

controls on the application of 

pesticides. 

On January 10, 2012, EPA partially 

approved and partially disapproved the 

section 182(b)(1) RACT SIP submitted 

by California on June 18, 2009 for the 

SJV ozone nonattainment area. The 

partial disapproval was based in part on 

our conclusion that the State had not 

fully satisfied CAA section 182(b) RACT 

requirements for the application of 

fumigants. See 77 FR 1417, 1425 

(January 10, 2012). Based on our 

proposed finding here that CDPR’s field 

fumigant regulations provide RACTlevel controls on this source category, 

final approval of these regulations 

would satisfy California’s obligation to 

implement RACT under CAA section 

182(b)(1) for this source category for the 

1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards for the SJV RACT SIP. 

EPA has recently approved the 

attainment, RFP and RACM 

demonstrations in the 8-hour ozone SIPs 

for the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley and the PM2.5 SIP for the South 

Coast (which did include VOC 

reductions in its RFP and attainment 

demonstrations).17 These 

demonstrations relied in part on VOC 

control measures in the 2007 State 

Strategy; however, EPA’s approval of 

these demonstrations did not rely on 

emissions reductions from CDPR’s field 

fumigant regulations. Therefore, their 

approval into the SIP is consistent with 

the approved RACM demonstrations. 

CARB has submitted SIPs to address 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in the SED, Ventura County, 

and Sacramento Metro nonattainment. 

EPA has not yet acted on these plans 

although we note that none rely on 

reductions from controls on pesticides. 

Pesticide Emission Reduction 

Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley 

As noted above, the demonstration 

that a SIP provides for the 

implementation of RACM as required by 

CAA section 172(c)(1) is done as part of 

an area’s attainment and reasonable 

further progress plans and not on an 

individual rule or commitment basis. 

EPA recently approved the 2007 

8-hour ozone SIP for the San Joaquin 

Valley, including the SIP’s RACM 

demonstration. 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 

2012). To demonstrate that the SIP 

provided for RACM, California relied in 

part on measures in the 2007 State 

Strategy, including the ‘‘Pesticide 

Emission Reduction Commitment for 

the San Joaquin Valley’’ (as revised 

April 17, 2009) that we are proposing to 

approve here. However, because we had 

not yet approved the commitment into 

the SIP, we did not grant any emissions 

reductions credit to the commitment in 

either the RFP or attainment 

demonstration nor did we rely on it to 

make our determination that the 2007 

SIP provided for RACM. See Air 

Division, EPA Region 9, ‘‘Final 

Technical Support Document and 

Response to Comments Final Rule on 

the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan 

and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of 

the 2007 State Strategy,’’ December 15, 

2011, pp. 51–57. Because EPA’s 

approvals of the attainment, RFP, and 

RACM demonstrations in the SJV 2007 

8-hour ozone SIP did not rely on 

emissions reductions from CDPR’s 

commitment to limit pesticide VOC 

emissions in the SJV to 18.1 tpd, its 

approval into the SIP is consistent with 

the approved RACM demonstration. 

D. Finding of Non-Interference With 

Applicable Requirements of the CAA 

Under Section 110(l) 

Revisions to the SIP, including 

revisions to SIP-approved control 

measure, must meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(l) to be approved by 

EPA. CAA section 110(l) ‘‘Plan 

Revisions’’ provides in relevant part: 

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 171]) or any 

other applicable requirement of [the CAA]. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24446 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

18As noted previously, while EPA considers VOC 

to be a precursor to PM, it does not require control 

of VOC emissions for PM standard attainment in 

most instances. See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 

2007) and 57 FR 13498, 13538 (April 16, 1992). 

19As submitted, the 1994 Pesticide Element 

consisted of three documents: the 1994 Pesticide 

SIP and the memorandum from James W. Wells, 

Director, CDPR, to James D. Boyd, Executive 

Officer, CARB, May 9, 1995 (‘‘Wells 

memorandum’’) and the letter from James D. Boyd, 

Executive Officer, CARB, to David Howekamp, 

Division Director, EPA–Region 9, June 13, 1996 

(‘‘Boyd Letter’’). As approved, it consisted of the 

1994 Pesticide SIP (40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)(6)) 

and the Boyd letter (40 CFR 52.220(c)(236)). See 

section IV of this preamble for further discussion 

of the 1994 Pesticide Element. 

20A SIP’s ‘‘currency’’ is the emissions inventory 

on which it is based. An emissions reduction 

expressed in a particular ‘‘SIP currency’’ is an 

emissions reduction calculated using the inventory 

included in that SIP. Because inventories vary from 

SIP to SIP for reasons unrelated to controls (e.g., 

improved activity estimates or emissions factors), 

the estimated emissions reductions from a control 

measure in tons per day can change from SIP to SIP 

even if the effectiveness of the control measure as 

a percentage of the emissions category does not. 

21The 13 tpd figure was provided by CARB on 

page A–2 and in Attachment C of the Boyd Letter. 

For the 1994 Ozone SIP, the State estimated that 

VOC emissions from pesticide use in 1990 in the 

San Joaquin Valley were 62.5 tpd. A 12 percent 

reduction from this level would require reducing 

overall pesticide emissions to be no more than 55.0 

tpd in 1999. The State further estimated that 

without controls, VOC emissions from pesticides in 

the SJV would increase to 67.9 tpd by 1999, thereby 

requiring a reduction of 12.9 tpd (67.9 tpd minus 

55.0 tpd, rounded to 13 tpd) in 1999 in order to 

meet the target level for a 12 percent reduction. See 

CDPR, Staff Report on the Department of Pesticide 

Regulation’s Proposed SIP Commitment for San 

Joaquin Valley,’’ undated, p. 1, ftn 1. 

22A 20 percent reduction that was to occur 

linearly over the fifteen years between 1990 and 

2005 would accrue reductions at a rate of 1.33 

percent per year (20 percent divided by 15 years) 

resulting in a 12 percent reduction by 1999 (9 years 

times 1.33 percent per year). 

23San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District, ‘‘Extreme Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Plan’’ adopted October 8, 2004; 

amended October 20, 2005 and August 21, 2008. 

24CARB, Staff Report, Proposed 2004 State 

Implementation Plan For Ozone In The San Joaquin 

Valley, Release Date: September 28, 2004. 

We interpret section 110(l) to apply to 

all requirements of the CAA and to all 

areas of the country, whether 

attainment, nonattainment, 

unclassifiable, or maintenance for one 

or more of the six criteria pollutants. We 

also interpret section 110(l) to require a 

demonstration addressing all pollutants 

whose emissions and/or ambient 

concentrations may change as a result of 

the SIP revision. The scope and rigor of 

an adequate section 110(l) 

demonstration of noninterference 

depends on the air quality status of the 

area, the potential impact of the revision 

on air quality, the pollutant(s) affected, 

and the nature of the applicable CAA 

requirements. 

In reviewing a modification to an 

approved SIP provision, we look to see 

to what extent the existing SIP has 

relied on that provision to meet 

applicable CAA requirements. For 

emissions reduction measures, we 

generally conclude that the revision will 

not interfere with any applicable 

requirement related to attainment or 

RFP if the revised SIP will provide the 

same or more emissions reductions on 

the same or similar schedule as the 

existing SIP. We note, however, that 

CAA section 110(l) does not bar 

approval of SIP revisions that may result 

in higher levels of emissions than would 

potentially occur under the unrevised 

SIP; only that such revisions do not 

result in the applicable SIP no longer 

providing for expeditious attainment or 

RFP or complying with any other 

applicable requirements of the CAA. 

The submittals that we are evaluating 

in this proposal for inclusion into the 

California SIP control VOC emissions in 

five California areas. Neither the field 

fumigant regulations nor the SJV 

pesticide SIP commitment explicitly 

regulated any other pollutant besides 

VOC. VOC is a precursor pollutant for 

ozone as well as for both fine (PM2.5) 

and coarse (PM10) particulate matter.18

At this time, only the South Coast’s SIP 

relies on VOC controls for PM2.5 or PM10

attainment and none of its adopted 

particulate matter plans rely on 

reductions from the California SIP 

Pesticide Element (either as already 

approved or proposed for approval here) 

to demonstrate attainment, RFP, or 

RACM or to meet any other requirement 

of the CAA. 

Field Fumigant Regulations 

The CDPR’s field fumigant regulations 

are the first such regulations 

incorporated into the California SIP. 

Their approval will strengthen the SIP 

by providing SIP-enforceable measures 

and compliance procedures to reduce 

emissions from the application of 

fumigants in the five ozone 

nonattainment areas covered by the 

regulations. Their approval will also aid 

compliance with the approved 

California SIP Pesticide Element’s 

provisions for reducing VOC emissions 

by 20 percent from 1990 baseline levels 

in the South Coast, SED, Ventura, and 

Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment 

areas. Their approval will also aid 

compliance with the proposed 18.1 tpd 

limit on pesticide VOC emissions in the 

San Joaquin Valley. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to find that approving the field 

fumigant regulations into the California 

SIP will not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or with any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

Pesticide Emission Reduction 

Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley 

In 1997, EPA approved the 1994 

Pesticide Element into the California 

SIP. See 62 FR 1150, 1170 (January 8, 

1997). As approved, the Element’s goal 

was to reduce VOC emissions from 

agricultural and commercial structural 

pesticide applications by a maximum of 

20 percent from the 1990 baseline 

emission inventory by 2005 in areas that 

relied on VOC reductions from 

pesticides in their attainments plans 

with reductions to occur linearly from 

1990 to 2005 but it allowed for less than 

20 percent if fewer VOC reductions from 

pesticide were needed. See ‘‘The State 

Implementation Plan for Agricultural 

and Commercial Structural Pesticides,’’ 

November 15, 1994 (‘‘1994 Pesticide 

SIP’’), p. 1.19

The attainment demonstration for the 

SJV in the 1994 Ozone SIP relied in part 

on reductions of 12 percent from 1990 

emissions levels from the 1994 Pesticide 

Element to demonstrate attainment by 

the area’s then-applicable attainment 

deadline of November 15, 1999. In 

approving the 1994 Pesticide Element 

and the SJV ozone attainment 

demonstration, EPA credited the 

element with 13 tpd (in 1994 SIP 

currency 20) in VOC emissions 

reductions in 1999.21 At the same time, 

EPA noted that California had 

committed to adopt and submit any 

regulations necessary to reduce VOC 

emissions from agricultural and 

commercial structural pesticides by 12 

percent in 1999 22 in SJV. See 61 FR 

10920, 10935 (March 18, 1996). 

In 2003, CARB updated the strategy 

that was part of the 1994 Ozone SIP. 

One of the measures in the 2003 State 

Strategy was PEST–1 (‘‘Implement 

Existing Pesticide Strategy’’), which 

retained the provisions of the 1994 

Pesticide Element. In 2004, CARB 

submitted the 2004 Extreme [1-hour 

Ozone] Attainment Plan for the SJV 23

which relied in part on the 2003 State 

Strategy for the reductions needed to 

demonstrate attainment by SJV’s new 

applicable attainment date of November 

15, 2010. On page 27 of its staff report 

for that plan,24 CARB discusses the 

measures in the 2003 State Strategy 

including PEST–1. It describes the 

measure as a ‘‘[c]ontinuation of the 

Department of Pesticide Regulation’s 

approved SIP obligation to reduce 

volatile emissions from pesticides 

[which f]or the San Joaquin Valley 

* * * means a pesticide VOC emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24447 

25We have approved two ozone plans for the SJV 

since the 1997: the 2004 Ozone Plan in 2010 and 

the second, the 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan in 2012. 

See 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010) and 77 FR 12652 

(March 1, 2012). Neither plan nor our approval of 

them relied on reductions in pesticide emissions to 

meet any applicable CAA requirement. 

26See CDPR, Staff Report on the Department of 

Pesticide Regulation’s Proposed SIP Commitment 

for San Joaquin Valley,’’ undated (enclosure 2 to 

memorandum, Christopher W. Reardon, Chief 

Deputy Director, CDPR, to James Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, October 5, 2009; subject: 

Amendments to the Pesticide Element of the Ozone 

State Implementation Plan). 

27See letter, Brent Newell, Legal Director, Center 

on Race, Poverty & the Environment, August 31, 

2009, ‘‘Comments on Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone Extreme Area 

Plan for San Joaquin Valley, CA (Docket No. EPA– 

R09–OAR–2008–0693),’’ pp. 16–20. 

target of 12 percent less than 1990 

levels.’’ 

EPA approved PEST–1 into the SIP as 

part of its action to approve in part and 

disapprove in part the 2003 South Coast 

AQMP. See 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 

2009), codified at 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(ii)(A)(1). We have not 

approved any other changes to the SJVrelated provisions of 1994 Pesticide 

Element nor have we granted any 

emissions reductions credit for the 1994 

Pesticide Element beyond the 13 tpd (in 

1994 SIP currency) approved as part of 

our action on the 1994 Ozone SIP.25

California is now proposing to revise 

its SIP Pesticide Element for the SJV to 

replace the requirement to achieve a 

percent reduction in VOC emissions 

from pesticides with a limit on overall 

VOC emissions from pesticides in the 

SJV of 18.1 tpd of VOC during the high 

ozone season of May 1 to October 31. 

The 18.1 tpd cap equates to a reduction 

of 12 percent from the current estimate 

of 1990 pesticide VOC emissions levels 

in the SJV.26

Based on our review of the proposed 

revision, we find that the revision will 

result in, at minimum, the same 

emissions reductions that are currently 

required by the approved SIP and will 

not delay those reductions given that 

the limit is currently effective. We, 

therefore, propose to find that approving 

CDPR’s commitment to manage VOC 

emissions from agricultural and 

commercial structural pesticide use to 

ensure that they do not exceed 18.1 tpd 

in the SJV area into the California SIP 

will not interfere with any requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

In comments that EPA received on its 

proposed approval of the SJV 2004 

Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan (74 FR 

33933(July 14, 2009)), several nongovernmental organizations argued that 

the 1994 Pesticide Element requires a 20 

percent reduction in VOC emissions 

from 1990 levels by 2005 in the SJV 

citing to the Boyd letter on page A–2.27

In the Boyd letter, CARB provided 

EPA with suggested revisions to our 

March 18, 1996 (61 FR 10920, 10935) 

proposed approval of the 1994 Ozone 

SIP. In reference to the 1994 Pesticide 

Element, CARB stated that the 

‘‘commitment is for a 20% reduction 

from 1990 levels by 2005 in each SIP 

area, except [San Diego]. [CARB] only 

took credit in the attainment year: SJV 

1999 = 12%; Sac 2005 = 20%; Ven 2005 

= 20%; SED 2007 = 20%; SC 2010 = 

20%.’’ EPA does not find the 

‘‘commitment is for a 20% reduction’’ 

statement determinative as to the State’s 

commitment for SJV, not only because 

it is immediately contradicted by the 

statement that a 12 percent credit was 

taken only in the attainment year of 

1999 but also because it is not entirely 

consistent with the more extensive 

language describing the emissions 

reductions target in other parts of the 

approved 1994 Pesticide Element and 

does not reflect the reductions relied on 

in the SIP. 

The 1994 Pesticide Element 

committed CDPR to a ‘‘maximum of 20 

percent’’ reduction in pesticide VOC 

emissions from 1990 baseline levels in 

areas ‘‘which reference VOC 

reductions’’ from the element in their 

plans. See 1994 Pesticide SIP, p. 1. With 

this language, the percent reduction 

required in an area is tied to the 

emissions reductions referenced, that is, 

relied on, in that area’s plan. As 

approved, the 1994 Pesticide Element 

also allowed for reductions of less than 

20 percent if fewer VOC reductions from 

pesticide were needed. Id. As noted 

above, the reductions relied on in the 

1994 Ozone SIP in its attainment 

demonstration for SJV in 1999 were 13 

tpd (in 1994 SIP currency) which 

equates to 12 percent reduction from 

1990 baseline in 1999 (when anticipated 

growth in pesticide VOC emissions 

between 1990 and 1999 is excluded) 

and no additional reductions have been 

relied on in any SIP for SJV subsequent 

to the 1994 one. 

Approval of the revised ‘‘Pesticide 

Emission Reduction Commitment for 

the San Joaquin Valley’’ (submitted in 

2009) will not interfere with any 

applicable requirement related to 

attainment or reasonable further 

progress for any PM2.5 or PM10 standard 

in the SJV. EPA has determined that 

VOC controls are not required for 

particulate matter control in the SJV. 

See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 

2007), 69 FR 30006, 30007 (May 26, 

2004), and 76 FR 69896, 69924 

(November 9, 2011). 

Additional information on EPA’s 

determination under CAA section 110(l) 

can be found in section II.D. of the TSD 

for this proposal. 

IV. Response To Remand in Association 

of Irritated Residents Case 

In this section, we discuss why EPA 

believes that our proposed approval of 

the fumigant regulations and 

commitment for the SJV obviate the 

need to rescind or modify EPA’s 

previous approvals of the California SIP 

Pesticide Element notwithstanding the 

deficiencies in the 1994 Pesticide 

Element that have been brought to light 

by subsequent litigation. In so doing, we 

summarize the relevant background that 

provides the context for this 

explanation. 

In 1994, California submitted the 1994 

Pesticide SIP as part of its 

comprehensive 1994 Ozone SIP. The 

1994 Pesticide SIP set forth the goal of 

reducing VOC emissions from pesticide 

use by as much as 20 percent from 1990 

levels as needed in those areas of 

California that relied on emissions 

reductions from pesticides to meet CAA 

requirements for attainment of the 

1-hour ozone standard. The 1994 

Pesticide SIP included a process for reevaluation of pesticide products (to 

refine emissions estimates and to review 

for possible restrictions on use), for 

establishing the 1990 base year 

inventory and for tracking emissions, for 

reducing VOC emissions from pesticide 

use through voluntary changes in pest 

management practices, and for 

developing additional regulatory 

measures to ensure that reductions are 

achieved. 

Upon review of the 1994 Pesticide 

SIP, EPA identified certain 

completeness and approvability issues 

and requested clarification. See letters, 

David P. Howekamp, Director, Air and 

Toxics Division, EPA Region 9 to James 

W. Wells, Director, CDPR, March 20, 

1995 and April 21, 1995. CDPR 

responded to EPA’s request with a 

clarification of the 1994 Pesticide SIP 

that established a commitment on the 

part of CDPR ‘‘to adopt and submit to 

U.S. EPA by June 15, 1997, any 

regulations necessary to reduce [VOC] 

emissions from agricultural and 

commercial structural pesticides by 

specific percentages of the 1990 base 

year emissions, by specific years, and in 

specific nonattainment areas,’’ as listed 

in a table showing percent reductions of 

8, 12, 16, and 20 percent by 1996, 1999, 

2002, and 2005, respectively, in the 

following nonattainment areas: South 

Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura, San 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24448 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

28At the time of EPA’s action on the 1994 

California Ozone SIP and related 1994 Pesticide 

Element, the SJV was classified as a ‘‘serious’’ 

nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard 

with an applicable attainment date of 1999. See 61 

FR 10920, 10925. Years after approval of the 1994 

SIP, the SJV was reclassified as ‘‘severe’’ and then 

‘‘extreme’’ for the 1-hour ozone standard. See 66 FR 

56476 (November 8, 2001) and 69 FR 20550 (April 

16, 2004).The other four areas were classified as 

‘‘severe’’ or ‘‘extreme’’ with later attainment dates 

at the time of EPA’s action on the ozone SIP and 

Pesticide Element. 

Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento Metro. 

See letter, James W. Wells, Director, 

CDPR, to David P. Howekamp, EPA 

Region 9, March 31, 1995; the Wells 

memorandum; and the related 

transmittal letter for the Wells 

memorandum from James D. Boyd, 

Executive Officer, CARB to Felicia 

Marcus, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, May 11, 1995. 

In March 1996, EPA proposed to 

approve the 1994 Pesticide Element, 

among other elements of the 1994 

Ozone SIP and did so based in part on 

the clarification provided by CDPR 

through the Wells memorandum. See 61 

FR 10920, 10935–10936 (March 18, 

1996). In response to EPA’s proposed 

rule, CARB submitted a letter stating: 

‘‘In the pesticide element of the SIP, the 

[CDPR] projected a steady decline in 

volatile emissions from pesticides 

between 1996 and 2005. However, 

California took SIP credit for these 

reductions only in the applicable 

attainment year for the San Joaquin 

Valley, Sacramento Region, Ventura 

County, the Southeast Desert, and the 

South Coast. The notice should reflect 

this information.’’ See letter, James M. 

Strock, Secretary for Environmental 

Protection, California Environmental 

Protection Agency, to Felicia Marcus, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

May 2, 1996. CARB subsequently 

submitted the Boyd Letter providing 

additional detail that was intended to 

supplement the technical corrections 

identified in the State’s formal May 2 

comment letter. Through the Boyd 

Letter, CARB clarified again that CDPR’s 

commitment was for a 20 percent 

reduction from 1990 levels by 2005 in 

the five specified nonattainment area 

but also noted that CARB only took 

credit in the attainment year, which 

CARB specified as a 12 percent 

reduction by 1999 in San Joaquin 

Valley, and 20 percent reduction in the 

attainment years for the four other 

nonattainment areas.28

In 1997, EPA took final action to 

approve the 1994 Pesticide Element, 

and most of the 1994 California Ozone 

SIP and again referred to the Wells 

memorandum as providing the 

clarification necessary to provide EPA 

with the basis to approve the 1994 

Pesticide Element as meeting the 

applicable requirements for 

enforceability of SIP revisions. See 62 

FR 1150, 1169–1170 (January 8, 1997). 

However, in the 1997 final rule, EPA 

referred explicitly to California’s request 

in its May 2, 1996 comment letter to 

exclude emissions reductions for 

interim years from the SIP, and also 

implicitly referred to the Boyd Letter by 

citing CARB’s decision not to assign 

credit to the pesticides measure except 

for purposes of attainment. In the final 

rule, we tried to reconcile the Wells 

memorandum with California’s 

comment letter and the Boyd letter and 

summarized what we believed the 

Pesticide Element to contain with 

respect to regulatory measures, as 

follows: ‘‘As described in the SIP, 

California has committed to adopt and 

submit to U.S. EPA by June 15, 1997, 

any regulations necessary to reduce 

VOC emissions from agricultural and 

commercial structural pesticides by 20 

percent of the 1990 base year emissions 

in the attainment years for Sacramento, 

Ventura, Southeast Desert, and the 

South Coast, and by 12 percent in 1999 

for the San Joaquin Valley.’’ Id. at 1170. 

In listing the specific portions of the 

1994 Ozone SIP and related documents 

that we were approving and 

incorporating as part of the California 

SIP in our 1997 final action, we listed 

CDPR’s 1994 Pesticide SIP and the Boyd 

Letter, but did not list the Wells 

memorandum. While EPA’s failure to 

approve and incorporate the Wells 

memorandum into the SIP may have 

been inadvertent, California’s May 2, 

1996 comment letter and the Boyd 

Letter made such approval and 

incorporation (i.e., without 

modification) problematic because the 

Wells memorandum contained interim 

year emissions reduction commitments 

that the California comment letter and 

Boyd Letter specifically excluded. 

In the mid-2000’s, several community 

groups sued CDPR under the CAA for 

failure to adopt and submit regulations 

ensuring VOC emissions reductions 

from pesticide use in Ventura County 

based on the commitments set forth in 

the Wells memorandum. Upon review 

of the record, the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals in effect denied the community 

group the remedy that the group sought 

based on the court’s determination that 

the Wells memorandum was not in fact 

approved into the California SIP and 

thus the commitment by CDPR to adopt 

and submit regulations as set forth in 

the Wells memorandum was not 

enforceable under the Act. See El 

Comite ́ para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. 

Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 

2008) (Warmerdam). In the wake of the 

Warmerdam decision, the community 

group filed a petition for review in the 

Ninth Circuit challenging EPA’s 1997 

approval of the 1994 Ozone SIP on the 

grounds that, without the Wells 

memorandum, EPA’s approval of that 

SIP was arbitrary and capricious 

because it relied on unenforceable 

emissions reductions from the 1994 

Pesticide Element. See El Comite ́ para el 

Bienestar de Earlimart v. EPA, No. 08– 

74340 (‘‘El Comite ́’’). The Ninth Circuit 

has not issued its decision in the El 

Comite ́ case against EPA’s approval of 

the 1994 Ozone SIP. 

Meanwhile, in 2004, California 

resubmitted the 1994 Pesticide Element 

to EPA as part of the 2003 State 

Strategy, which was originally intended 

to replace the state measures potion of 

the 1994 California Ozone SIP in the 

California SIP, in the form of a control 

measure referred to as ‘‘PEST–1.’’ 

PEST–1 was simply a continuation of 

the original 1994 Pesticide Element. In 

2009, we approved PEST–1 as part of 

our approval of the 2003 State Strategy 

reasoning that approval or disapproval 

of PEST–1 amounted to the same thing 

from the standpoint of the California 

SIP, namely the 1994 Pesticide Element. 

See 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 2009). 

EPA’s approval of PEST–1 was 

challenged and the Ninth Circuit 

disagreed with EPA’s decision that 

approval or disapproval of PEST–1 

amounted to the same thing and 

remanded the approval of PEST–1 back 

to EPA for an evaluation of the Pesticide 

Element for enforceability. See 

Association of Irritated Residents v. 

EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), 

revised January 27, 2012 (AIR). 

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held, 

given its earlier finding in the 

Warmerdam case that the Wells 

memorandum was not approved and 

incorporated into the California SIP, 

that EPA must determine whether the 

approved 1994 Pesticide Element has 

sufficient enforcement mechanisms to 

satisfy the requirements of the CAA. In 

light of the decision in AIR, EPA filed 

a supplemental brief that argues that the 

decision in the AIR case makes the El 

Comite ́ case moot on the grounds that 

the relief granted in the AIR case with 

respect to PEST–1 amounts to the same 

relief that the petitioner could gain by 

a favorable decision in the El Comite ́

case, namely re-evaluation of the 

Pesticide Element for enforceability. 

The petitioners in the El Comite ́

disagree that the AIR decision has made 

the El Comite ́ case moot, and the Ninth 

Circuit has not yet issued its decision in 

the El Comite ́ case. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24449 

In light of the remand in the AIR case 

and with due consideration to the 

history summarized above, we must reevaluate the enforceability of the 1994 

Pesticide Element recognizing that the 

Wells memorandum is not approved 

into the SIP and take appropriate 

remedial actions if the element (without 

the Wells memorandum) does not meet 

the minimum requirements for 

enforceability under the CAA. We are 

using this proposed rule on the 

submitted fumigant regulations and 

revised SIP commitment for the SJV as 

the opportunity to present our reevaluation and to explain our rationale 

for taking no action to rescind or modify 

our approvals of the 1994 Pesticide 

Element in 1997 and again (as PEST–1) 

in 2009. 

First, we recognize that the 1994 

Pesticide Element is a ‘‘committal’’ 

measure rather than a ‘‘control’’ 

measure. That is, the 1994 Pesticide 

Element constitutes a measure for which 

the State does not provide regulations 

(or equivalent enforceable mechanism) 

in support of the emissions reductions 

credited to the measure at the time EPA 

takes action on the RFP or attainment 

demonstration plan that relies on the 

emissions reduction, but commits to 

adopt and submit regulations in support 

of the emissions reductions prior to the 

time when the reductions are needed for 

RFP or attainment. EPA has found, 

under certain circumstances, that 

committal measures that are relied on to 

meet RFP, attainment, and/or other 

emissions reductions requirements of 

the CAA to be enforceable, and thus 

approvable, only if such measures 

identify the responsible party, 

applicability, adoption dates for rules (if 

applicable), implementation dates, and 

emissions reductions in terms of 

emissions rates (such as tons per day) 

equal to the credit taken in the RFP or 

attainment plan for the committal 

measure. 

Back in 1995, when EPA reviewed the 

1994 Pesticide SIP, we sought 

clarification from CDPR on whether the 

1994 Pesticide SIP establishes a 

commitment to limit VOC emissions 

from pesticides to specific percentages 

of the 1990 base year emissions by 

specific years in specific nonattainment 

areas, regardless of future growth in 

emissions that might otherwise occur 

and whether the Pesticide Element 

establishes a commitment to adopt any 

regulations by a specific month prior to 

the implementation date. See letter, 

David P. Howekamp, Director, Air and 

Toxics Division, EPA Region 9 to James 

W. Wells, Director, CDPR, March 20, 

1995. Later, we requested that CDPR 

modify the SIP to be explicit as to the 

dates of rule adoption and submittal and 

the emissions reductions by date and 

area. See letter, David P. Howekamp, 

Director, Air and Toxics Division, EPA 

Region 9 to James W. Wells, Director, 

CDPR, April 21, 1995. The clear 

implication in EPA’s request to CDPR is 

that EPA believed at the time that such 

a modification of the 1994 Pesticide SIP 

was necessary to meet the minimum 

level of enforceability for crediting the 

emissions reductions from such a 

committal measure. CDPR’s response, 

via CARB, was the Wells memorandum. 

EPA’s views on acceptable committal 

measures have not changed significantly 

since the time of EPA’s review and 

approval of the 1994 Pesticide Element 

in 1997, and thus, we can infer from the 

correspondence between EPA and CDPR 

cited above and EPA’s statements in 

both the 1996 proposed rule and 1997 

final rule that, in the absence of the 

Wells memorandum, EPA would not 

have approved the 1994 Pesticide 

Element on the grounds that it does not 

meet the minimum level of 

enforceability that the CAA requires. 

See, generally, CAA section 110(a)(2) 

(‘‘Each such plan shall (A) include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques * * * as may be necessary 

or appropriate to meet the applicable 

requirements of [the CAA]’’). We have 

no reason to conclude otherwise today, 

and thus, we affirm that, absent a 

commitment providing the specificity 

found in the Wells memorandum, the 

1994 Pesticide Element does not meet 

the minimum requirements for 

enforceability of SIP committal 

measures. 

Second, we discuss what actions EPA 

should take to address the deficiency in 

enforceability of the 1994 Pesticide 

Element as discussed above. We do so 

recognizing that CDPR has, since EPA’s 

approval of the 1994 Pesticide Element, 

adopted and (via CARB) submitted 

regulations that in effect have converted 

many of the non-regulatory provisions 

in the 1994 Pesticide Element into a 

regulatory form. Specifically, CDPR has 

adopted and submitted regulations 

restricting the use of field fumigant 

application methods; requiring CDPR to 

annually inventory and report pesticide 

VOC emissions for each area; 

establishing pesticide use recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements; and 

creating a contingency field fumigation 

limit and allowance program for 

Ventura. These are the types of 

regulations that the commitment in the 

Well memorandum would have made 

enforceable had the Wells memorandum 

been approved into the SIP, and thus, 

we find no need to perfect the 

commitment to regulations in the 1994 

Pesticide Element because the actual 

submittal of the regulations themselves 

obviates the need for an enforceable 

commitment to submit those same 

regulations. 

While we believe that the submitted 

CDPR regulations fulfill the otherwise 

unenforceable commitment in the 1994 

Pesticide Element to adopt and submit 

regulations, the question remains 

whether the regulations alone suffice to 

ensure that the emission reduction 

targets (20 percent from 1990 levels in 

the South Coast, Southeast Desert, 

Ventura, and Sacramento Metro areas 

and 12 percent from 1990 levels in San 

Joaquin Valley) are met. Based on our 

review of the regulations for this 

proposed action, we find that 

compliance with the emission 

reductions targets is provided through 

CDPR regulations limiting field 

fumigant application to lower-emitting 

methods and establishing a fumigant 

emissions limit and allocation system 

for Ventura County and monitored and 

enforced through regulations that 

require recordkeeping and reporting of 

pesticide usage and CDPR to annually 

evaluate and report VOC emissions from 

pesticides in each area. 

These provisions are adequate to 

ensure that the emission reduction 

targets are met in the Sacramento Metro, 

South Coast, and Southeast Desert areas 

given that VOC emissions from 

pesticide use are typically 60 percent 

lower than 1990 levels in Sacramento 

Metro and Southeast Desert and 80 

percent lower than 1990 levels in the 

South Coast. See CDPR’s Annual Report 

on Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Pesticides: Emissions for 

1990–2010 (March 2012), page 3. To a 

large degree, the reductions in VOC 

emissions from pesticide use (relative to 

1990 levels) in these three areas have 

resulted from permanent changes in 

land use, although CDPR’s regulations 

still serve an important function by 

reducing the VOC emissions from 

remaining pesticide use in the areas and 

by establishing a regulatory mechanism 

to track VOC emissions from this source 

category that could, if necessary, 

provide the basis for additional 

regulatory measures if, for some reason, 

VOC emissions from pesticide use were 

to increase significantly over current 

levels. 

For Ventura County, in recognition 

that VOC emissions from pesticide use 

are predominantly from fumigant use 

and are high enough that they could, in 

a given year due to fluctuations in 

pesticide use, violate the 20 percent 

emission reduction target, CDPR has 

submitted, and we are proposing to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24450 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

29CDPR has presented options for these 

measures. See CDPR presentation ‘‘Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Pesticides: Options for 

Reducing Non-Fumigant Emissions’’ September 

2011 and November 2011, which can be found at 

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/ 

nonfum_options_091611.pdf http:// 

www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/ 

nonfum_options_prec_111811.pdf. 

approve, additional regulatory 

provisions for that area. These Venturaspecific provisions require CDPR to set 

a field fumigant VOC emissions limit in 

its annual VOC emissions inventory 

report if overall pesticide emissions (not 

just fumigant emissions) in the Ventura 

nonattainment area are found to be 

within five percent of or exceed the 

listed benchmark. The benchmark is 

equivalent to the 20 percent emissions 

reduction target called for in the 1994 

Pesticide Element for the Ventura area. 

The Ventura-specific provisions also 

require the county agricultural 

commissioner to add conditions to field 

fumigation permits or take other actions 

to prevent the field fumigation limit 

from being exceeded. As such, the 

regulations reasonably ensure that the 

20 percent emissions reduction target 

would be met in Ventura County. 

For the San Joaquin Valley, CDPR’s 

regulations restricting fumigant 

application methods and establishing 

requirements on CDPR to inventory and 

report VOC emissions from pesticide 

use apply just as they do in the other 

four nonattainment areas. While these 

regulations and other measures have 

decreased VOC emissions from 

pesticide use in the SJV such that 

current VOC emissions are 

approximately 18 percent less than 1990 

levels, CDPR concluded that a 

mechanism was needed to supplement 

the regulations to ensure that the 12 

percent emission reduction target would 

be met in the SJV. The supplemental 

mechanism chosen by CDPR is the 

adoption of a commitment, which we 

are proposing to approve in today’s 

action, to manage VOC emissions from 

commercial structural and agricultural 

pesticide use, such that the related VOC 

emissions do not exceed 18.1 tons per 

day in the SJV. This level of emissions 

reflects a 12 percent emissions 

reduction from 1990 level of VOC 

emissions from pesticide use. The 

specific measures that CDPR would 

undertake to bring emissions back down 

to that level in the event that the annual 

inventory reveals that the 18.1 tons per 

day emissions level had been exceeded 

are not specified.29 Considered in 

isolation, the revised commitment for 

San Joaquin Valley changes the form of 

the commitment in the 1994 Pesticide 

Element for the SJV but does not 

represent an enforceable measure for 

SIP purposes. However, when viewed in 

light of the CDPR’s regulations, the 

combination of the commitment and 

fumigant regulations does meet the 

minimum requirements for 

enforceability of SIP measures and 

reasonably ensures that the 12 percent 

emissions reduction target from the 

1994 Pesticide Element would be 

achieved in San Joaquin Valley. 

For the reasons stated above, we 

conclude that there is no need to 

rescind or otherwise modify our 1997 

approval of the 1994 Pesticide Element 

or our 2009 approval of PEST–1 

notwithstanding the deficiencies in 

enforceability in the 1994 Pesticide 

Element due to the absence of an 

enforceable mechanism like the Wells 

memorandum. In short, this is because 

CDPR’s regulations and revised 

commitment for the San Joaquin Valley 

provide the enforceable mechanism that 

would otherwise be lacking in the 1994 

Pesticide Element. If EPA approves the 

regulations and commitment, as 

proposed herein, then the 1994 

Pesticide Element would be fulfilled. If, 

after consideration of comments, EPA 

concludes that the regulations and 

commitment do not meet the applicable 

CAA requirements, then the decision 

regarding EPA’s previous actions on the 

1994 Pesticide Element would need to 

be reconsidered. 

V. Proposed Actions and Opportunity 

for Public Comment 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

is proposing to approve under CAA 

section 110(k)(3) the revisions to the 

California SIP Pesticide Element 

submitted by CARB on October 12, 2009 

and August 2, 2011 and to incorporate 

them into the California’s federallyenforceable SIP. We are deferring action 

on the set of regulations submitted by 

CARB August 2, 2011 related to 

incorporating requirements related to 

methyl iodide into the fumigant 

regulations. 

Based on the proposed approval of 

these SIP revisions, EPA does not plan 

to rescind or modify the Agency’s prior 

approvals of the Pesticide Element 

because the Agency has concluded that 

the revisions fulfill the commitments of 

the original Pesticide Element, thus 

obviating the need to address the 

deficiencies in enforceability of those 

original commitments. 

We encourage the public to comment 

on these proposals. Comments will be 

accepted for 30 days following 

publication of the proposal in the 

Federal Register. The deadline and a 

list of options for submitting comments 

is provided at the DATES and ADDRESSES

sections at the beginning of this 

preamble. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not propose to impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive 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 CAA; 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 action 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24451 

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. 

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

Dated: April 13, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9850 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0087; FRL–9663–5] 

Direct Final Approval of Hospital/ 

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators 

State Plan for Designated Facilities 

and Pollutants: Illinois 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, 

through direct final rulemaking, Illinois’ 

revised State Plan to control air 

pollutants from Hazardous/Medical/ 

Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI). 

The Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency submitted the revised State Plan 

on November 8, 2011 and supplemented 

it on December 28, 2011, following the 

required public process. The revised 

State Plan is consistent with Emission 

Guidelines promulgated by EPA on 

October 6, 2009. This approval means 

that EPA finds that the revised State 

Plan meets applicable Clean Air Act 

requirements for subject HMIWI units. 

Once effective, this approval also makes 

the revised State Plan Federally 

enforceable. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0087, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: nash.carlton @epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 886–6030. 

• Mail: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Toxics 

and Global Atmosphere Section, Air 

Toxics and Assessment Branch 

(AT–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: Carlton T. Nash, 

Chief, Toxics and Global Atmosphere 

Section, Air Toxics and Assessment 

Branch (AT–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Sieffert, Environmental 

Engineer, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard (AT–18J), Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 353–1151, 

sieffert.margaret@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is approving the State’s submittal 

as a direct final rule without prior 

proposal because the Agency views this 

as a noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if EPA receives adverse comment 

on an amendment, paragraph, or section 

of this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. For additional 

information, see the direct final rule 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. 

Dated: April 9, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9711 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0086; FRL–9663–3] 

Direct Final Approval of Hospital/ 

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators 

State Plan for Designated Facilities 

and Pollutants: Indiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, 

through direct final rulemaking, 

Indiana’s revised State Plan to control 

air pollutants from Hazardous/Medical/ 

Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI). 

The Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management submitted 

the revised State Plan on December 19, 

2011, following the required public 

process. The revised State Plan is 

consistent with Emission Guidelines 

promulgated by EPA on October 6, 

2009. This approval means that EPA 

finds that the revised State Plan meets 

applicable Clean Air Act requirements 

for subject HMIWI units. Once effective, 

this approval also makes the revised 

State Plan Federally enforceable. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0086, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: nash.carlton@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 886–6030. 

4. Mail: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Toxics 

and Global Atmosphere Section, Air 

Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Carlton T. Nash, 

Chief, Toxics and Global Atmosphere 

Section, Air Toxics and Assessment 

Branch (AT–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS