Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 41277 

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). 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

* * * * * * * 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

and 2002 Base-Year Inventory.

Northumberland County .............. 12/17/07 07/18/08 [Insert page 

number where the document begins].

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–16271 Filed 7–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0313, FRL–8694–1] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan; Pesticide 

Element; Ventura County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA 

is approving a revision of the California 

State Implementation Plan submitted by 

the California Air Resources Board on 

November 30, 2007. The revision in 

part, and temporarily, relaxes a 

commitment to reduce emissions of 

volatile organic compounds in Ventura 

County caused by the application of 

pesticides. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on August 18, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0313 for 

this action. The index to the docket 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, (520) 622–

1622, tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

A. Comments on the Economic 

Consequences of EPA Action on the SIP 

Revision 

B. Comments on the Environmental 

Consequences of EPA Action on the SIP 

Revision 

C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l) Issues 

D. Comments on Technical Issue of 

Whether Reduction Is Based on Tonnage 

or Percentage Reductions 

E. Comment About the Opportunity to 

Comment 

F. Comments on Whether Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) Can Achieve 

the Necessary Reductions 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

On April 23, 2008 (73 FR 21885), we 

proposed to approve a revision of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) on November 

30, 2007. Table 1 lists the revision we 

proposed to approve with the dates that 

it was revised and submitted by 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. 

As discussed in detail in our April 23, 

2008, proposed rule, California adopted 

the original Pesticide Element to reduce 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

emissions resulting from the application 

of agricultural and structural pesticides 

in certain ozone nonattainment areas 

and included the Pesticide Element in 

the 1994 Ozone SIP. Under the original 

Pesticide Element, 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 

action, we are approving a revision by 

the State of California to the Pesticide 

Element for Ventura County. 

In our April 23, 2008, proposed rule, 

we also described the replacement of 

the 1-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS), for which 

the 1994 Ozone SIP (and related original 

Pesticide Element) was developed, with 

the current 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Further, we noted that California had 

requested a change in classification, 

with respect to the 8-hour NAAQS for 

the Ventura County nonattainment area 

from ‘‘moderate’’ to ‘‘serious’’ with a 

new attainment date of June 15, 2013. 

We also indicated that we had reviewed 

the subject SIP revision assuming the 

‘‘serious’’ classification in anticipation 

of our approval of the State’s request. 

We have now approved the State’s 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
41278 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

2On June 27, 2008, CARB submitted the Final 

Ventura County 2007 Air Quality Management Plan 

(May 13, 2008), which includes the final 8-hour 

ozone RFP demonstration for Ventura County. The 

final adopted plan mirrors the draft Ventura County 

AQMP that we relied upon in our proposed 

approval of the Revised Pesticide Element for 

Ventura. 

reclassification request. See 73 FR 

29073 (May 20, 2008). 

In our April 23, 2008, proposed rule, 

we presented our evaluation of the 

Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura 

first by characterizing the change in 

VOC emissions in Ventura County that 

would occur if we were to approve the 

revision, and then by determining 

whether the change in VOC emissions 

would interfere with reasonable further 

progress (RFP) or attainment of any of 

the NAAQS as required under CAA 

section 110(l). We described the impact 

of the Revised Pesticide Element for 

Ventura in terms of a reduction in the 

State’s emission reduction 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 that allows 

a corresponding increase in VOC in 

Ventura County in those years. 

With respect to CAA section 110(l), 

we found that the Revised Pesticide 

Element for Ventura would not interfere 

with RFP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

notwithstanding the corresponding, 

temporary increase in VOC emissions, 

based on the air quality analysis 

contained in the Draft Final Ventura 

County Air Quality Management Plan 

(AQMP) (March 2008), which includes 

an RFP demonstration that does not rely 

on emissions reductions from 

pesticides. In reaching our conclusion of 

non-interference with respect to 8-hour 

ozone RFP, we reviewed the RFP 

demonstration in the draft Ventura 

County 2007 AQMP and concluded that 

the methodology and emission estimates 

used therein appear reasonable. In our 

proposed rule, we indicated that we 

would defer final action on our 

proposed approval of the Revised 

Pesticide Element for Ventura until we 

had received a SIP revision submittal 

from California containing the final 8- 

hour ozone Ventura RFP plan. We have 

now received the final adopted 8-hour 

ozone Ventura RFP plan from CARB.2

In our proposed rule, in addition to 

our RFP finding, we found that the 

Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura 

would not interfere with attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the 

temporary decrease in the VOC 

emissions reduction commitment 

allowed under the revised pesticide 

element would be phased out by 2012, 

i.e., the year before the attainment 

deadline (June 15, 2013) for Ventura 

County as a reclassified ‘‘serious’’ ozone 

nonattainment area. Thus, based on the 

air quality analysis contained in the 

draft Ventura County 2007 AQMP and 

the phase-out of the relaxed 

commitment by 2012, we concluded 

that the Revised Pesticide Element for 

Ventura would not interfere with RFP, 

attainment, or any other applicable 

requirement with respect to the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. With respect to the other 

NAAQS, we based our non-interference 

conclusion on our finding that the SIP 

revision would only affect VOC 

emissions (precursor to ozone) and 

because Ventura County is 

unclassifiable/attainment for all of the 

other NAAQS. 

For a more detailed discussion, please 

refer to our proposed rule (see 73 FR 

21885, April 23, 2008). 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

Our April 23, 2008 proposed rule 

provided a 30-day comment period. 

EPA received seven comment letters on 

our proposed rule during the comment 

period. Commenters include a 

government agency (California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

(DPR)), a State-sanctioned agricultural 

commission (California Strawberry 

Commission), two sets of agricultural 

groups (Western Growers and California 

Farm Bureau Federation (co-authored a 

single letter) and Ventura County 

Agricultural Association), a pesticides 

manufacturing group (Chloropicrin 

Manufacturers’ Task Force), and two 

environmental groups (Pesticide Action 

Network, and Center on Race, Poverty & 

the Environment). Generally, the 

organizations other than the 

environmental groups provided 

comments in support of our proposed 

approval of the Revised Pesticide 

Element for Ventura. These commenters 

concentrated the discussion on the 

economic and environmental 

consequences of the decision on 

whether or not to approve the proposed 

revision. Of the two environmental 

groups who wrote opposing our 

proposed approval, one raised concerns 

about the health issues related to the 

smog in the area, of which pesticide 

application is a contributor, and the 

other focused on allegations that the SIP 

revision would violate section 110(l) of 

the CAA. Additionally, commenters 

writing both in support and opposition 

to our proposed approval remarked 

upon the technical issue of whether the 

commitment was to reduce emissions by 

a tonnage or percentage value. 

A summary of the significant 

comments and responses is provided 

below. 

A. Comments on the Economic 

Consequences of EPA Action on the SIP 

Revision 

Comment 1: The majority of 

commenters emphasize that a reduction 

in the use of certain fumigants, as a 

result of a failure to approve the SIP 

revision, would have a significant, 

adverse economic impact on the 

farmers, as well as many others who 

depend on the agriculture industry. One 

commenter stresses the long reach of 

that economic loss, noting that there 

would be lost revenue to the 

community, lost jobs to the community, 

and lost land rents affecting bank loans 

and financing. These supporters 

contend that the phased-in approach to 

compliance will help mitigate adverse 

economic and environmental impacts in 

the region, while restoring the ultimate 

emissions reduction commitments 

under the 1994 Ozone SIP. 

Response 1: EPA’s role in reviewing 

SIP revisions is to approve State 

choices, provided that they meet 

minimum criteria set by the CAA and 

any applicable EPA regulations. As 

discussed in our proposed rule and as 

discussed further in this final rule, we 

believe the SIP revision that is the 

subject of this action, the Revised 

Pesticide Element for Ventura, meets 

those criteria. Thus, while we 

acknowledge commenters’ views as to 

the economic impacts that could occur 

if we were to disapprove the SIP 

revision, we did not base our proposed 

approval, nor do we base our final 

approval today, on such considerations. 

B. Comments on the Environmental 

Consequences of EPA Action on the SIP 

Revision 

Comment 2: A few of the commenters 

address the negative environmental 

impacts that, in their view, a failure by 

EPA to approve the SIP revision could 

create. They explain that the economic 

strain that would come with the denial 

of the revision would force a substantial 

portion of the agricultural land to be 

converted to urban and suburban 

development. This conversion, they 

assert, will result in a large amount of 

additional emissions from an increase in 

vehicle traffic and residences (e.g. use of 

consumer products). 

Response 2: We acknowledge 

commenters’ views concerning longterm conversion of agricultural land to 

urban development and related 

environmental impacts that could occur 

if we were to disapprove the Revised 

Pesticide Element for Ventura. However, 

we did not take such considerations into 

account in our proposed action, nor do 

we take such considerations into 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 41279 

3We note that the RFP demonstration that was 

contained in the draft Ventura County 2007 AQMP 

(March 2008) and that was included in the docket 

for our April 23, 2008 proposed rule mirrors the 

RFP demonstration in the final Ventura County 

2007 AQMP (May 13, 2008) that was adopted by 

Ventura County on May 13, 2008, and adopted by 

CARB on June 26, 2008, and submitted to us on 

June 27, 2008. We received no comments on the 

substance of the RFP demonstration in response to 

our April 23, 2008 proposed rule. 

4The phase-out will also be complete before any 

attainment deadline for the 0.075 ppm 8-hour ozone 

standard. See generally, CAA sections 107(d), 

181(a). 

account for our final action today. With 

the limited amount of information on 

the topic of agricultural land conversion 

and related environmental impacts that 

is before us, we do not have a sufficient 

basis either to agree or to disagree with 

the commenters’ view in that regard. 

Instead, we have based our approval on 

an evaluation of the near-certain 

increase in VOC emissions that would 

occur from 2008–2011 due to the SIP 

revision in light of CAA requirements, 

and have concluded that such VOC 

increases in Ventura County over the 

short-term would not interfere with RFP 

or attainment of any of the NAAQS, or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

Clean Air Act. 

It is important to note that, while we 

describe the effect of the SIP revision as 

an increase in VOC emissions, we do 

not expect there to be an increase in 

overall VOC emissions within Ventura 

County over the period affected by the 

SIP revision, but only that the expected 

overall decrease would be slightly less 

with the SIP revision than would occur 

if the SIP revision were not approved. 

Comment 3: Two commenters state 

that the approval and implementation of 

the SIP revision would be accomplished 

without substantial adverse impacts to 

air quality in Ventura County or to the 

health or safety of its citizens. This 

conclusion is founded on the 

commenters’ belief that the actual VOC 

from pesticides are a very small 

percentage of all VOC in Ventura. 

Response 3: As discussed in our 

proposed rule (see 73 FR 21885, April 

23, 2008), we believe that the Revised 

Pesticide Element for Ventura would 

have an adverse impact on air quality in 

the short-term as it would allow greater 

VOC emissions, and thereby 

incrementally slow the downward trend 

in such emissions and associated ozone 

concentrations, as compared to fully 

achieving the commitments for 

pesticide-related emission reductions in 

the 1994 Ozone SIP. However, we have 

determined that the Revised Pesticide 

Element for Ventura would not interfere 

with RFP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on our review of the RFP 

demonstration in the Ventura County 

2007 AQMP that does not rely on the 

foregone pesticide-related emissions 

reductions.3 Further, we note that, by its 

terms, the Revised Pesticide Element for 

Ventura phases out over four years 

(2008–2011), ensuring that it would not 

interfere with Ventura’s ability to attain 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the serious 

area deadline (i.e., June 15, 2013). 

Comment 4: One commenter is 

concerned that EPA approval of the 

revision of the SIP would further delay 

efforts to reduce smog, of which 

pesticide application is a contributor, in 

the region and hence the area would 

continue to suffer from air pollution 

created by smog, which damages lung 

tissue, exacerbates asthma, reduces lung 

capacity, increases respiratory and 

cardiovascular hospital admissions, and 

increases school and work absenteeism. 

Response 4: We acknowledge the 

commenter’s concerns over the health 

effects associated with elevated ozone 

concentrations. As discussed in our 

proposal, we believe that the Revised 

Pesticide Element for Ventura would 

have an adverse impact on ozone air 

quality in the short-term as it would 

allow greater VOC emissions, and 

thereby incrementally slow the 

downward trend in such emissions and 

associated ozone concentrations, as 

compared to fully achieving the 

commitments for pesticide-related 

emission reductions in the 1994 Ozone 

SIP. Nonetheless, under the Clean Air 

Act, we must approve a SIP revision 

notwithstanding such impacts so long as 

all of the applicable requirements of the 

CAA (and applicable EPA regulations) 

are met. We have determined that the 

Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura 

meets all applicable CAA requirements 

and applicable EPA regulations. For 

instance, notwithstanding the temporary 

increase in VOC emissions associated 

with the Revised Pesticide Element for 

Ventura, we have concluded that it 

would not interfere with RFP for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in that area based 

on our review of the RFP demonstration 

in the Ventura County 2007 AQMP, 

which does not rely on the foregone 

pesticide-related emissions reductions, 

nor would it interfere with expeditious 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

because the effect of the Revised 

Pesticide Element for Ventura 

diminishes each year through 2011 and 

phases out completely well before the 

serious area deadline (June 15, 2013). 

Comment 5: Some of the commenters 

assert that there would be no 

‘‘backsliding’’ from the overall 1994 SIP 

commitments for Ventura County, 

because all of the reactive organic gases 

(ROG) emission reductions committed 

to in the 1994 SIP would still be 

achieved. This assertion is based on the 

argument that a portion of the ROG 

reductions for Ventura County would 

come from other emission sources. 

Response 5: As stated in our proposed 

rule, we do not agree with CARB that 

emissions reductions from California’s 

mobile source emissions control 

program are ‘‘surplus’’ for 8-hour ozone 

planning purposes, and thus, we do not 

agree that such reductions are a 

substitute for the foregone emissions 

reductions that would occur under the 

Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura. 

See 73 FR 21885, at 21887 (April 23, 

2008). Notwithstanding the temporary 

increase in VOC (equivalent to ROG) 

emissions resulting therefrom, we are 

approving the Revised Pesticide 

Element for Ventura because, for the 

reasons given in the proposed rule and 

this final rule, we find that it would not 

interfere with any requirement 

concerning attainment and RFP, or any 

other applicable requirement of the 

Clean Air Act. 

C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l) Issues 

Comment 6: One commenter argues 

that EPA cannot propose approval of the 

SIP revision because it has not approved 

the 8-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration plan and the 8-hour 

ozone reasonable further progress plan. 

It is suggested that approving the SIP 

revision before the attainment plan and 

reasonable further progress 

demonstration would make EPA’s 

decision arbitrary and capricious 

because it has no basis to make the 

finding that the revision would not 

interfere with attainment. 

Response 6: For our final action, we 

are not relying on an EPA-approved 8- 

hour ozone RFP or attainment 

demonstration for Ventura, but rather, 

are relying on our review of the RFP 

demonstration included in the Ventura 

County 2007 AQMP as a reasonable 

basis for our finding of non-interference 

with respect to RFP for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS under CAA section 110(l). We 

do not believe the attainment 

demonstration (approved or otherwise) 

to be necessary to this action because 

the effect of the Revised Pesticide 

Element for Ventura, by its terms, 

phases out completely by 2012, the year 

before the attainment deadline (June 15, 

2013).4 As discussed further below, we 

do not believe that an approved RFP 

demonstration is necessary to approve 

the Revised Pesticide Element for 

Ventura based on our preliminary 

review of the air quality analysis in the 

Ventura County 2007 AQMP that shows 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
41280 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

how the area will maintain reasonable 

further progress towards the 8-hour 

NAAQS without the benefit of VOC 

emissions reductions from pesticide 

use. 

As explained in the proposed rule at 

73 FR at 21888–21889, we found, based 

on our review of the air quality analysis 

contained therein, the RFP 

demonstration in the draft Ventura 

County 2007 AQMP to be a reasonable 

basis to propose approval of the Revised 

Pesticide Element for Ventura because 

the demonstration does not rely on VOC 

emission reductions from pesticide use 

to show RFP and the methods and 

emissions estimates used to demonstrate 

RFP in the AQMP appear reasonable. 

However, given the preliminary nature 

of our review of the RFP demonstration 

in the draft Ventura County 2007 

AQMP, we concluded that it would be 

appropriate for us to wait for the final 

adopted AQMP to be submitted to us, 

and to consider any changes to the RFP 

demonstration as well as any public 

comments on the RFP demonstration 

submitted in connection with adoption 

of the plan at the county and State 

levels, and any public comments 

submitted in response to our April 23, 

2008 proposed rule, prior to taking final 

action on the Revised Pesticide Element 

for Ventura. We described our approach, 

including our reliance on a draft SIP 

revision and our deferral of final action 

pending receipt of the adopted SIP 

revision including public comments, in 

our proposed rule at 73 FR 21889. 

On June 27, 2008, CARB submitted 

the Final Ventura County 2007 Ventura 

County AQMP (May 13, 2008) as a 

revision to the California SIP. There 

were no public comments submitted 

either at the local district level or at the 

State level in relation to the AQMP’s 

RFP demonstration, and the final 

adopted RFP demonstration is the same 

as the one in the Draft Final AQMP that 

was a basis for our proposed rule. We 

did not receive any comments on the 

substance of the RFP demonstration in 

the Ventura County 2007 AQMP in 

response to our April 23, 2008 proposed 

rule. Therefore, for the reasons set forth 

in the proposed rule, we continue to 

believe that the RFP demonstration in 

the 2007 Ventura County AQMP, even 

though it has not been approved, 

provides a reasonable basis for us to 

make our non-interference finding with 

respect to the Revised Pesticide Element 

for Ventura. 

Comment 7: One commenter objected 

to EPA’s finding that the SIP revision 

does not interfere with ‘‘any other 

applicable requirement’’ of the Act 

when, in the commenters’ opinion, the 

proposed SIP revision directly interferes 

with a court order issued to remedy a 

violation of the SIP. Noting that the EPA 

has not made an attainment finding for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in Ventura 

County, the commenter further contends 

that EPA cannot approve the SIP 

revision without making a finding that 

the revision does not interfere with 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

by the applicable deadline. 

Response 7: We do not agree with the 

commenter’s contention that the 

existence of a court order enforcing the 

existing SIP precludes a finding of noninterference under CAA section 110(l) 

with respect to a SIP revision amending 

the portion of the existing SIP that is 

under the court order. EPA is not a party 

to the lawsuit from which the court 

order emanates, and the court order is 

not itself part of the SIP. Thus, the 

existence of a court order under these 

circumstances is not material to EPA’s 

evaluation of the subject SIP revision 

under CAA section 110(l), and as set 

forth in the proposed rule and further 

discussed in this document, we 

conclude that the Revised Pesticide 

Element for Ventura would not interfere 

with any requirement concerning RFP 

or attainment of the NAAQS, or any 

other applicable requirement under the 

Clean Air Act. By the same token, 

however, our approval today of the 

Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura 

does not relieve any obligations under 

the court order, but, as noted in the 

proposed rule at 73 FR 21886, footnote 

2, we expect that our approval of the SIP 

revision will allow California to seek a 

modification to the court order. 

Second, the commenter’s assertion 

that we cannot make a finding of noninterference for the Revised Pesticide 

Element for Ventura without having first 

evaluated whether the SIP revision 

would interfere with attainment of the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

1-hour ozone attainment deadline is 

incorrect because the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS has been revoked. By way of 

explanation, we note that, under the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 

States were required to develop, adopt 

and submit for EPA approval various 

SIP revisions to provide for expeditious 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

by no later than the applicable deadline. 

However, under the Act, attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

deadline is not itself a separate 

requirement, although failure to do so, 

even now that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

has been revoked, may have certain 

consequences such as the triggering of 

contingency measures. 

Nonetheless, we reviewed Ventura 

County’s 1-hour ozone data contained in 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

database, the database in which qualityassured concentration data from the 

States’ monitoring networks are 

recorded, and note that Ventura County 

appears to have attained the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS by the applicable 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS deadline (2005) and 

appears to have continued to have been 

in attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS since that time. 

Furthermore, as noted in response to 

comment #2, above, while we describe 

the effect of the SIP revision as an 

increase in VOC emissions, we mean 

that there would be an increase in VOC 

emissions relative to what otherwise 

would occur. We do not mean that there 

would be an increase in overall VOC 

emissions within Ventura County over 

the period affected by the SIP revision. 

Rather, we expect that overall VOC 

emissions in Ventura County, with or 

without approval of this SIP revision, 

would decrease, reducing the potential 

for 1-hour ozone violations during the 

period affected by the SIP revision. See 

ROG emissions projections in table 4-6 

on page 61 of the Ventura County 2007 

AQMP. Thus, even if interference with 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS by the 

applicable deadline were material to 

this action, the AQS data provides us 

with the basis to reasonably conclude 

that the Revised Pesticide Element for 

Ventura would have no such effect. Our 

observations herein related to ambient 

1-hour ozone concentrations are not 

tantamount to an attainment finding for 

Ventura County for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. We expect to propose such a 

finding through a separate rulemaking 

in the near future. 

Comment 8: One commenter claims 

the SIP revision relies on a new 

pesticide inventory, a part of the State 

Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan and the Draft 

Ventura 2007 Air Quality Management 

Plan that has not been approved by the 

EPA, and that the pesticide inventory 

lacks the appropriate scientific basis. 

Response 8: California’s Department 

of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) develops 

and continues to update baseline and 

current year inventories to evaluate 

pesticide VOC emissions. The 

refinement of emissions estimates is 

ongoing and necessary to better 

characterize and quantify emissions and 

control measures. We proposed to 

approve the Revised Pesticide Element 

for Ventura into the California SIP based 

on a finding of non-interference with 8- 

hour ozone RFP, which was itself based 

on a review of the Ventura County 2007 

AQMP, and specifically, the RFP 

demonstration contained therein, and 

consideration of any related public 

comments. The AQMP includes an air 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 41281 

quality analysis that demonstrates RFP 

toward attaining the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS without the attribution of VOC 

emissions reductions from pesticides. 

The estimated VOC emissions from 

pesticide use are included in the 

baseline emissions estimates of the RFP 

demonstration, and if they were 

significantly underestimated, the RFP 

demonstration might be undermined. 

However, the RFP demonstration in the 

Ventura County 2007 AQMP shows a 

significant surplus in oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX ) (i.e., the other ozone precursor 

in addition to VOC) after meeting 

substitution and contingency needs. See 

page 73 of the AQMP. The surplus in 

NOX in the RFP milestone year of 2011, 

for example, amounts to roughly 150 

tons per day. Thus, even if the estimate 

for VOCs from pesticides were double or 

triple the AQMP estimate of 4.82 tons 

per day, RFP would continue to be 

demonstrated based on the analysis in 

the Ventura County 2007 AQMP. 

D. Comments on Technical Issue of 

Whether Reduction Is Based on Tonnage 

or Percentage Reductions 

Comment 9: Commenters in support 

and in opposition to our proposed 

action assert that the existing SIP 

commitment from the Pesticide Element 

in the 1994 Ozone SIP is only to achieve 

a percentage reduction from the 1990 

baseline inventory and not, in addition, 

a commitment to achieve a tonnage 

reduction as our proposed rule states. A 

commenter in opposition to the 

proposed approval contends that in 

presenting the commitment in a tonsper-day amount, EPA is overstepping its 

authority and amending a SIP, rather 

than reviewing it under the proper 

standards of section 110(k) of the Clean 

Air Act. Lastly, DPR clarifies the basis 

for certain VOC emissions estimates 

attributed to DPR and cited in the 

proposed rule. 

Response 9: Commenters and EPA 

both agree that the State’s SIP 

commitment (from the 1994 Ozone SIP) 

with respect to VOC emissions 

reductions from use of pesticides in 

Ventura County is defined in terms of 

percent reduction from base year 

emissions. The point of disagreement is 

that EPA states in the proposed rule that 

the commitment is a two-fold 

commitment defined in terms of both a 

percent reduction and a tonnage 

reduction. 

Our interpretation of the original 

Pesticide Element commitment as 

having both a tonnage reduction 

commitment in addition to the percent 

reduction commitment rests on general 

and specific grounds. First, EPA has 

traditionally found committal measures, 

such as the commitment to reduce VOC 

emissions in the Pesticide Element of 

the 1994 Ozone SIP, to be enforceable, 

and thus approvable, only if such 

measures identify the responsible party, 

adoption dates for rules, 

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. The tonnage 

specification provides the essential link 

between the committal measure and the 

RFP or attainment demonstration. See 

the general discussion of committal 

measures in EPA’s final rule approving 

the 1994 Ozone SIP at 62 FR 1150 

(January 8, 1997), at 1155–1157, and the 

specific discussion of the committal 

measures submitted as part of the 1994 

Ozone SIP at 1157, column 3. In this 

case, the tonnage commitment (for 2005) 

links the original Pesticide Element 

commitment to the approved attainment 

demonstration for Ventura County. Each 

specific element of a committal 

measure, once the measure is approved 

by EPA, is considered to be enforceable. 

Thus, we believe that EPA would not 

have found the original Pesticide 

Element commitment for Ventura 

approvable unless the measure included 

the 2.37 tons per day reduction in 

pesticide VOC emissions in 2005 that 

was credited to the measure in the 1994 

Ozone SIP. 

Second of all, we find support for our 

conclusion in the California SIP in the 

form of the letter from James D. Boyd, 

Executive Officer, CARB, to David 

Howekamp, Director, Air and Toxics 

Division, EPA-Region IX, dated June 13, 

1996 (‘‘Boyd letter’’), that includes an 

attachment C that specifies a 2.37 tons 

per day commitment in 2005 in Ventura 

County under the Pesticide Element of 

the 1994 Ozone SIP. The second page of 

the Boyd letter describes attachment C 

as follows: ‘‘In Attachment C, we 

provide summary spreadsheets 

identifying the reductions that the State 

committed to achieve and that we 

expect from the federal government, by 

measure, area, and milestone year. 

These summary tables contain the 

numbers used in the rate-of-progress 

and attainment demonstrations, as 

reflected in Volume IV of the California 

SIP.’’ The Boyd letter, explicitly 

including attachment C, is incorporated 

by reference into the California SIP at 40 

CFR 52.220(c)(236)(i)(A)(1). The 

commenters cite attachment A of the 

Boyd letter (also referred to as the 

‘‘Howekamp letter’’) as evidence that 

the Pesticide Element only includes a 

percent reduction commitment, but we 

interpret the meaning of attachment A 

(‘‘commitment is for a 20% reduction 

from 1990 levels by 2005 in each SIP 

area, except SD’’) as clarifying that a 

percent reduction commitment (related 

to the Pesticide Element) did not, as set 

forth in EPA’s proposed rule on the 

1994 Ozone SIP, exist for the RFP 

milestone years in Ventura County but 

only existed for the attainment year 

(2005). In other words, we do not view 

attachment A as excluding the existence 

of a tonnage reduction commitment in 

2005 as set forth in attachment C to the 

Boyd letter. 

In any event, under the Revised 

Pesticide Element for Ventura, the 

original commitment from the 1994 

Ozone SIP, whether defined exclusively 

in terms of percent reduction or also as 

a tonnage reduction, will be entirely 

restored by year 2012, and no VOC 

emissions reductions from pesticide use 

are relied upon in the 8-hour ozone RFP 

demonstration in the Ventura County 

2007 AQMP. Thus, our rationale for 

approval of the Revised Pesticide 

Element for Ventura does not depend 

upon definitive resolution of the issue 

of whether the original commitment 

from the Pesticide Element of the 1994 

Ozone SIP is two-fold or just a percent 

reduction commitment. Lastly, EPA 

appreciates DPR’s clarification of the 

estimates of pesticide-related VOC 

emissions in years 1990 and 1991. 

E. Comment About the Opportunity To 

Comment 

Comment 10: One commenter alleges 

that EPA has not provided the public 

with the opportunity to comment on the 

basis for its proposed findings—on 

whether the SIP revision interferes with 

attainment, reasonable further progress, 

or any other requirement of the CAA, as 

required by section 110(l)— which 

violates the Administrative Procedures 

Act (APA). Along the same lines, the 

commenter contends that EPA has failed 

to provide relevant documents 

requested in violation of the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA), and that the 

denial of documents on which to base 

comments interfered with the 

opportunity to comment in a 

meaningful manner. 

Response 10: EPA has provided the 

public with the materials on which we 

have based our proposed action through 

creation of a docket for the rulemaking. 

In our proposed rule, at 73 FR 21886, 

we indicate where the index to the 

docket can be located and indicate how 

to access the items listed in the docket. 

Among the items so listed is Ventura 

County Air Pollution Control District’s 

‘‘Final Draft Ventura County 2007 Air 

Quality Management Plan (March 

2008),’’ which contains the air quality 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
41282 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

analysis, specifically, the RFP 

demonstration, that we relied upon in 

the proposed rule for our finding that 

the Revised Pesticide Element for 

Ventura would not interfere with RFP 

for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 

footnote 5 of the proposed rule, at 73 FR 

21888. 

For our final action, we are not 

relying on an EPA-approved 8-hour RFP 

demonstration for Ventura, but rather, 

are relying on our review of the RFP 

demonstration included in the Ventura 

County 2007 AQMP as a reasonable 

basis for our finding of non-interference 

with respect to RFP for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS under CAA section 110(l). We 

described our approach, including our 

reliance on a draft AQMP and our 

deferral of final action pending receipt 

and consideration of the adopted SIP 

revision including any related public 

comments, as well as any comments 

made in response to our April 23, 2008 

proposed rule, in our proposed rule at 

73 FR 21889. 

There were no public comments 

submitted either at the local district 

level or at the State level in relation to 

the AQMP’s RFP demonstration nor did 

we receive any comments on the 

substance of the RFP demonstration in 

the Ventura County 2007 AQMP in 

response to our April 23, 2008 proposed 

rule. Moreover, the final adopted RFP 

demonstration is the same as the one in 

the draft AQMP that was a basis for our 

proposed rule. Therefore, for the reasons 

set forth in the proposed rule, we 

continue to believe that the RFP 

demonstration in the Ventura County 

2007 AQMP, even though it has not 

been approved, is a reasonable basis to 

make our non-interference finding with 

respect to the Revised Pesticide Element 

for Ventura. As explained above and 

because the RFP demonstration in the 

final Ventura County 2007 AQMP, that 

was submitted on June 27, 2008, is no 

different than the one available at the 

time we proposed action, we conclude 

that the public has had an opportunity 

to know and review the basis for our 

proposed action, consistent with the 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). We will be taking 

action on the final adopted Ventura 

County 2007 AQMP, as submitted by 

CARB on June 27, 2008, in a separate 

rulemaking. 

With respect to the second part of this 

comment, we believe that the 

documents needed for an informed 

review of our proposed action were 

included in the docket during the public 

comment period. Additional documents 

have been provided in response to the 

FOIA request, but none of these 

additional documents were needed to 

review the substance and rationale of 

our proposed action in an informed 

manner. 

F. Comments on Whether Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) Can 

Achieve the Necessary Reductions 

Comment 11: Some commenters 

question whether further, even total, 

implementation of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) could 

achieve the overall reductions 

commitment. The commenters indicate 

that even if all fumigant applicators 

adopt BACT, the emissions reduction 

commitment would still fail to be 

reached. They propose that the only 

way to reach the commitment level is 

through some combination of acreage 

reduction, application rate reduction, 

and shifting applications outside of the 

typical season. 

Response 11: In today’s action, we are 

approving a SIP revision that relaxes in 

part, and temporarily, a commitment by 

the State of California to reduce VOC 

emissions from pesticide use in Ventura 

County. We are not taking action on the 

specific regulations promulgated by 

DPR, and that purportedly go beyond 

BACT-level of control, to fulfill that 

commitment. We acknowledge 

commenters’ views concerning the 

feasibility of complying with DPR’s 

regulations but have not based our 

approval action on the SIP revision on 

such considerations. 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the Revised 

Pesticide Element for Ventura as set 

forth in our proposed rule. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA 

and for the reasons set forth in detail in 

EPA’s proposed rule and in today’s final 

rule, including the responses to 

comments, EPA is approving the 

revision to the California SIP submitted 

by the State of California on November 

30, 2007 concerning the Pesticide 

Element for Ventura County. We find 

that the SIP revision is consistent with 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations. 

IV. 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 (Public 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 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 41283 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 16, 

2008. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: July 3, 2008. 

Kathleen H. Johnson, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(355) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(355) The following plan revision was 

submitted on November 30, 2007, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Attachment 3 to Executive Order 

S–07–003, Appendix H, Revised 

Proposed Revision to the Pesticide 

Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the 

Ventura County Nonattainment Area 

(August 13, 2007). 

(2) California Air Resources Board, 

Executive Order S–07–003, November 

30, 2007; to Wit: Revised Pesticide 

Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the 

Ventura County Nonattainment Area. 

[FR Doc. E8–16388 Filed 7–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0254; FRL–8371–7] 

Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with 

oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2-)

butoxymethylethoxy))methylethoxyl] 

ether; Tolerance Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of oxirane, 2- 

methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono 

[2-[2-(2-)butoxymethylethoxy)

methylethoxy]methylethyl] ether; (CAS 

Reg. No. 926031–36–9) when used as an 

inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical 

formulation. Rhodia, Inc. c/o SciReg, 

Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food 

Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) 

requesting an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, 

polymer with oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2)

butoxymethylethoxy))methylethoxy]

methylethyl] ether. 

DATES: This regulation is effective July 

18, 2008. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

September 16, 2008, and must be filed 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–

OPP–2008–0254. To access the 

electronic docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced 

Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert 

the docket ID number where indicated 

and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow 

the instructions on the regulations.gov 

website to view the docket index or 

access available documents. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the docket index available in 

regulations.gov. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305–

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Samek, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 347–8825; e-mail address: 

samek.karen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document? 

In addition to accessing an electronic 

copy of this Federal Register document 

through the electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, you may access 

this ‘‘Federal Register’’ document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES