```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65294-65305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26311]

[[Page 65294]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0194; FRL-9723-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan Pesticide Element

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving 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: Reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions from the application of agricultural field fumigants in the 
South Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura County, San Joaquin Valley 
(SJV), and Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment areas by restricting 
fumigant application methods; establish a fumigant emission limit and 
allocation system for Ventura County; require CDPR to prepare and make 
available to the public an annual pesticide VOC emissions inventory 
report; and require recordkeeping and reporting of pesticide usage. EPA 
is also approving 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. We are approving these regulations and commitments as 
complying with applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act. Lastly, 
EPA is finalizing its response to remands by the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals of EPA's previous approvals of the California SIP Pesticide 
Element.

DATES: The rule is effective November 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0194 for 
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at 
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket 
are listed in the index, some 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 one of the contacts listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the approval of 
CDPR's regulations: Nancy Levin, Rules Office (AIR-4), (415) 972-3848, 
levin.nancy@epa.gov. For information on the approval of CDPR's 
commitments and the response to the Ninth Circuit remands: 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. Summary and Background
II. Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed Action
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary and Background

    This action deals with revisions to California's federally-approved 
program to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) 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 County, San Joaquin Valley (SJV), and Sacramento Metro 
ozone nonattainment areas. VOC from pesticides and other sources react 
in the atmosphere with nitrogen oxides (NOX) from mobile and 
other combustion sources in the presence of sunlight to form ozone.
    EPA is approving as revisions to California state implementation 
plan (SIP) regulations and commitments adopted by the California 
Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). These CDPR regulations and 
commitments were submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
to EPA as follows:
    1. October 12, 2009 submittal of the following CDPR regulations:
     Title 3 California Code of Regulations (3 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 
and 6626 pertaining to emissions inventory;
     3 CCR sections 6452.2 and 6452.3 pertaining to field 
fumigation limits and allowances in the Ventura County ozone 
nonattainment area.
    2. October 12, 2009 submittal of CDPR's revised SIP commitment for 
the San Joaquin Valley (adopted by the CDPR Director, April 17, 2009). 
This submittal limits VOC emissions from the use of agricultural and 
commercial structural pesticides in the SJV to 18.1 tons per day (tpd) 
and commits CDPR to implement restrictions on non-fumigant pesticides 
in the SJV by 2014.
    3. August 2, 2011 submittal of the following CDPR regulations that 
revised in part and added to the October 12, 2009 submittal: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As part of this 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 County ozone 
nonattainment area.
     3 CCR section 6452.4 pertaining to the annual VOC 
emissions inventory report.
     3 CCR section 6626 pertaining to pesticide use reports.
    EPA proposed to approve these submittals as revisions to the 
California SIP on April 24, 2012 at 77 FR 24441. A detailed discussion 
of these submitted revisions, the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA 
requirements applicable to them, and our evaluation can be found in the 
proposed rule and the technical support document (TSD) for this final 
action.\2\ In this final rule, EPA is approving these revisions to the 
California SIP based on our conclusion that they comply with applicable 
CAA and regulatory requirements for SIP revisions. We are also finding 
that the fumigant regulations meet the CAA section 182(b)(2) 
requirement to provide for reasonably available control technology on 
the application of fumigants in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Air Division, EPA Region 9; Technical Support Document--
Final Rule Approval of Revisions to the Pesticide Element of the 
California State Implementation Plan; August 14, 2012. The TSD can 
be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the April 24, 2012 proposal, EPA also provided its preliminary 
response to the remand by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 
Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 
2011), revised January 27, 2012 (AIR). This remand required EPA to 
evaluate the California SIP Pesticide Element for enforceability under 
the CAA. See 77 FR 24441, 24447. In this action, we are finalizing that 
response without change.
    Lastly, in our April 24, 2012 proposed rule, we referred to another 
Ninth

[[Page 65295]]

Circuit petition for review, El Comite Para El Bienestar De Earlimart 
v. EPA (No. 08-74340) (``El Comit[eacute]''). 77 FR 24441 at 24448. In 
El Comit[eacute], various environmental and community groups challenged 
EPA's 1997 approval (62 FR 1150, Jan. 8, 1997) of the 1994 SIP for the 
1-hour ozone standard for various California nonattainment areas 
(``1994 California Ozone SIP''), which included approval of the 
California SIP Pesticide Element, on the basis of the same 2008 Ninth 
Circuit decision, El Comit[eacute] Para El Bienestar De Earlimart v. 
Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062) (``Warmerdam''), that was the basis for the 
remand in Association of Irritated Residents. At the time of our April 
24, 2012 proposed rule, the Ninth Circuit had not issued its decision 
in El Comit[eacute].
    Since then, the Ninth Circuit has issued a remand order to EPA in 
El Comit[eacute] to reconsider its approval of the 1994 California 
Ozone SIP in light of the Warmerdam decision, as required by the remand 
in Association of Irritated Residents.\3\ The remands in both 
Association of Irritated Residents and El Comit[eacute] necessitate the 
same evaluation (i.e., for CAA enforceability) for the same portion of 
the California SIP (i.e., the California SIP Pesticide Element). Thus, 
our decision not to rescind or amend our 2009 re-approval of the 
California SIP Pesticide Element, in light of today's action approving 
the CDPR's revised SIP commitment for the San Joaquin Valley and 
fumigant regulations, finalizes not only our response to the remand in 
Association of Irritated Residents, but it also finalizes our response 
to the remand in El Comit[eacute].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Ninth Circuit issued its remand order in El 
Comit[eacute] on dated July 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed Action

A. Comments Received on the Proposed Action

    EPA provided the public an opportunity to comment on its proposal 
to approve the revisions to the California SIP Pesticide Element for 30 
days following the proposal's April 24, 2012 publication in the Federal 
Register. We received one comment letter on the proposed approval. This 
letter was submitted by the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment 
on behalf of itself and 41 California environmental and community 
organizations (collectively ``El Comit[eacute]''). See letter, Brent 
Newell, General Counsel, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, May 
24, 2012. We summarize our response to El Comit[eacute]'s main comments 
below. Our complete responses to all comments received can be found in 
section III of the TSD. A copy of the comment letter and its 
attachments can be found in the docket for this rule.

B. Enforceability of CDPR's Revised SIP Commitment for San Joaquin 
Valley

    Comment: El Comit[eacute] argues that CDPR's revised SIP commitment 
to limit pesticide VOC emissions in the SJV to no more than 18.1 tpd is 
not enforceable because citizens may not enforce the manner in which 
the Department calculates the baseline inventory and subsequent years' 
inventories as a means to challenge a failure to adopt regulations or 
otherwise to limit pesticide VOC emissions in the SJV. They (El 
Comit[eacute]) also argue that including the inventory calculation 
procedures in the SIP would not make the revised commitment 
enforceable.
    Response: Except for the analysis required by CAA section 110(l), 
the SJV baseline (that is, the 1990 baseline used to calculate the 
required level of emissions reductions) is no longer at issue now that 
the State has fixed the maximum level of pesticide VOC emissions 
allowed in the SJV at a fixed 18.1 tons per day (tpd).\4\ Once this 
limitation is incorporated into the SIP, the 1990 baseline inventory 
will be of only historical interest and neither it nor the calculation 
procedures used for it need to be enforceable. Therefore, in addressing 
El Comit[eacute]'s comments, we will focus on the enforceability of the 
calculation procedures for the subsequent years' inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Fixed, that is, without the State first seeking and EPA 
approving through notice and comment rulemaking a revision to the 
SIP. To be approved, such a SIP revision would need to meet all 
applicable CAA requirements and not be barred under the section 
110(l) non-interference provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``emissions inventories'' required by both the revised SIP 
commitment for the SJV and the fumigant regulations should not be 
confused with the emissions inventories that are required by specific 
sections of the CAA, such as sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1). They are 
not the same in either scope or purpose. CAA section 172(c)(3) requires 
SIPs to ``include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of 
actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or 
pollutants in such [nonattainment] area. * * *'' The purpose of the 
comprehensive inventories required by this and similar CAA sections is 
to provide the basis for, among other things, the demonstrations of 
attainment and progress toward attainment required, for example, by CAA 
sections 182(c)(2)(A), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B). Emissions 
inventories submitted to meet the CAA's specific inventory requirements 
are intended to describe but not control emissions from sources and 
source categories in the inventory and thus are not enforceable 
emission limitations as defined by CAA section 302(k).
    In contrast, the ``emissions inventory'' called for in the revised 
SIP commitment and fumigant regulations is not a specific requirement 
of the CAA. It is instead an emissions estimation for a single 
emissions source--pesticide usage in the SJV--for the sole purpose of 
``evaluat[ing] compliance with the 1994 SIP pesticide element for 
SJV.'' Revised SIP commitment for the SJV, p. 2. Together with the 
calculation methodology in the Neal memorandum,\5\ the annual inventory 
requirement in 3 CCR section 6452.4(a)(1), and the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements in sections 6624 and 6626, it is the means 
for monitoring compliance of this emissions source (pesticide usage in 
the SJV) with its applicable emission limit of not more than 18.1 tons 
of VOC per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Neal memorandum is the memorandum from Rosemary Neal, 
Ph.D., CDPR to Randy Segawa, CDPR, November 5, 2008; Subject: Update 
to the Pesticide Volatile Organic Inventory. Estimated Emissions 
1990-2006, and Preliminary Estimates for 2007. This memorandum is 
being included in the SIP in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the CAA and EPA regulations, a wide range of data and means 
of collecting data qualify as methods to monitor compliance. CDPR's 
procedures for monitoring compliance with the 18.1 tpd emission limit 
for VOC emissions from pesticides in the SJV fall squarely within this 
range. See, for example, 40 CFR 64.1 (defining compliance monitoring to 
include emission estimation and calculation procedures).
    EPA considers the compliance monitoring associated with an emission 
limitation to be part of that limitation and, once incorporated into 
the SIP, enforceable under CAA sections 113 and 304. Therefore, 
including the inventory calculation procedures along with the 
requirements for an annual emissions inventory report and recordkeeping 
and reporting by pesticide users (which collectively constitute the 
compliance monitoring procedures for the 18.1 tpd emission limit), in 
the SIP will make CDPR's revised commitment for the SJV fully 
enforceable under CAA sections 113 and 304.
    We also note that citizens seeking to enforce the revised 
commitment for the SJV under CAA section 304 are not

[[Page 65296]]

restricted to using CDPR's inventory procedures or CDPR-generated 
inventories to demonstrate a violation. Under the CAA and EPA 
regulations, citizens may use any credible evidence of violation to 
enforce a SIP-approved emission limitation under CAA section 304. See 
CAA section 113, 40 CFR 51.212(c) and 40 CFR 52.12 and 52.30.
    Comment: El Comit[eacute] comments that EPA proposes to find that 
the revised SIP commitment for the SJV is enforceable based on the Neal 
memorandum, citing to the proposed rule at 77 FR 24441, 24444. It then 
claims that EPA contradicts itself by stating the SIP revision is 
unenforceable because it does not commit to specific measures to ensure 
that the 18.1 tpd limit is not exceeded, citing to the proposed rule at 
77 FR 24441, 24450.
    Response: We did not propose to find that the revised commitment 
for the SJV is enforceable based solely on the Neal memorandum. In the 
proposed rule, we cite not only to the Neal memorandum but also to 
several other provisions in CDPR's submitted regulations \6\ and to the 
fumigant application method regulations to find that the 18.1 tpd 
emission limit for the SJV is enforceable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These other provisions included the annual emissions 
inventory requirements in section 6452.4; the emissions inventory 
calculation methodology in section 6452.4(a)(1) and recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements for pesticide users in sections 6624 and 
6626. We are approving each of these provisions into the California 
SIP.

    These [compliance monitoring] 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).

77 FR 24441, 24444.
    This statement is consistent with the one later in the proposed 
rule that El Comit[eacute] claims contradicts it:

    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.

77 FR 24441, 24450.
    Comment: El Comit[eacute] argues that EPA's proposal to approve the 
revised SIP commitment for SJV as enforceable conflicts with the Ninth 
Circuit's decision in Warmerdam. They assert that in this decision, the 
Ninth Circuit did not allow citizens to ``bootstrap'' arguments of 
inventory manipulation to enforce a commitment to adopt regulations, 
citing Warmerdam at 1072-73. El Comit[eacute] argues that the revised 
SIP commitment is a discretionary commitment and that the CAA does not 
allow such discretionary commitments.
    Response: Our finding that the revised commitment for SJV is 
enforceable does not conflict with Warmerdam. In Warmerdam, the Ninth 
Circuit ruled that the baseline inventory could not be turned into an 
enforceable emission limitation by ``bootstrapping it to the commitment 
to adopt regulations.''
    As explained above, except for the analysis required by CAA section 
110(l), the SJV baseline (that is, the 1990 baseline used to calculate 
the required level of emissions reductions) no longer has a purpose now 
that the State has set the maximum level of pesticide VOC emissions 
allowed in the SJV at a fixed 18.1 tpd. Once that limitation is 
incorporated into the SIP, the 1990 baseline inventory will be of 
historical interest only and neither it nor the calculation procedures 
used for it need to be enforceable in the future. We note that this 
will also be true for the 1990 baseline inventory for Ventura County 
once we approve the fumigant regulations.
    CDPR's revised SIP commitment for the SJV is not a discretionary 
commitment. As discussed above and in the proposed rule, the commitment 
(including the fixed 18.1 tpd limitation on pesticide VOC emissions in 
the SJV), the monitoring procedures necessary to determine compliance 
with it, and the fumigant regulations combine to be a fully enforceable 
program under the CAA once approved into the SIP. We note again that 
citizens may use any credible evidence to enforce the commitment and 
are not restricted to using inventories generated by the State.
    Comment: El Comit[eacute] argues that the revised commitment by 
CDPR to manage pesticides emissions in the SJV is unenforceable because 
it is impractical to determine whether emissions levels are exceeded 
because inventories are only available two years after the fact. They 
further argue that the emission controls should constantly limit 
pesticide VOC emissions and ``not lag two years behind.'' To support 
these arguments, El Comit[eacute] cites to the discussion of the 
fundamental principles for SIPs and control strategies found in the 
General Preamble at 13567-13568,\7\ noting in particular the second 
principle relating to enforceable measures. They also cite to the 
General Preamble's discussion of enforceability of SIP regulations at 
13502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' published at 57 FR 13498 on 
April 16, 1992, describes EPA's preliminary view on how we would 
interpret various SIP planning provisions in title I of the CAA as 
amended in 1990, including those planning provisions applicable to 
the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA 
continues to rely on certain guidance in the General Preamble to 
implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS under title I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: El Comit[eacute] confuses two requirements: the 
requirement that an emission limitation assures continuous emissions 
reductions and the requirement for a practical means of determining 
compliance with that emission limitation. The cited sections of the 
General Preamble all address the latter requirement. We have reviewed 
CDPR's revised SIP commitment for the SJV against the criteria for 
enforceability given in the General Preamble and determined that it 
meets them. See TSD, section III.B., Response B-6.
    As to the requirement for continuous emissions reductions, we 
cannot consider the 18.1 tpd emission limit for the SJV as unrelated to 
the fumigant regulations. Not only do the fumigant regulations contain 
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements necessary for monitoring 
compliance with the limit, they also contain the principal control 
requirements for maintaining pesticide VOC emissions in the SJV under 
that limit. CDPR considers the 1.5 tpd in emissions reductions from the 
application method restrictions in the fumigant regulations to be 
sufficient to meet the SJV limit in a typical year.\8\ These 
restrictions apply throughout the May 1 to October 30 regulatory season 
and thus provide for continuous emissions reductions during that 
season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CDPR, ``Staff Report on the Department of Pesticide 
Regulation's Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley,'' 
(``CDPR staff report''), p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a practical matter, CDPR produces the inventories as soon as 
practicable given the size and complexity of the source at hand 
(pesticide usage in the SJV), the sheer amount of data that must be 
evaluated, and the requirement in 3 CCR section 6452.4(b) that the 
public be given 45 days to comment on the draft inventories.

C. Approval of the Revised Pesticide Element for SJV Under CAA Section 
110(I)

    Comment: El Comit[eacute] comments that the commitment in the 
existing 1994 Pesticide Element is both a tonnage commitment in an 
areas' attainment year and a percentage commitment: 13

[[Page 65297]]

tpd reduction by 1999 and 20 percent reduction from 1990 by 2005 in the 
SJV.
    Response: We agree that the commitment in the 1994 Pesticide 
Element \9\ is both a tonnage commitment and a percentage commitment, 
and we agree that the ton per day reduction called for in the Element 
is 13 tpd. Where EPA disagrees with El Comit[eacute] is that EPA has 
concluded that the percentage commitment corresponds to the tonnage 
commitment in that they both relate directly to the attainment needs of 
SJV in achieving the 1-hour ozone standard by 1999 as anticipated by 
California in 1994 and 1996 in developing its Ozone SIP, and approved 
by EPA in 1997 when EPA approved that plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As these terms are used in this document, the ``1994 
Pesticide SIP'' is the State Implementation Plan for Agricultural 
and Commercial Structural Pesticides, November 15, 1994 which was 
submitted as part of the 1994 California State Implementation Plan 
for Ozone (``1994 California Ozone SIP''). The 1994 Pesticide SIP is 
incorporated at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)(6). The 1994 California 
Ozone SIP was approved at 62 FR 1150 (January 8, 1997). The ``Boyd 
Letter'' is the letter from James Boyd, CARB's Executive Officer to 
David Howekamp, Air and Toxics Division Director, EPA Region 9, June 
13, 1996. This letter and its appendices are incorporated at 40 CFR 
52.220(c) (236). The 1994 Pesticide SIP and the Boyd Letter 
collectively constitute the ``1994 Pesticide Element.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We explained the basis for our conclusion in this regard on pages 
24446-24447 of the proposed rule. First, we note that the Boyd Letter, 
while clarifying certain other aspects of the Pesticide Element, 
introduced an ambiguity in the percentage commitment for SJV by 
stating, in the same paragraph, that the commitment in each SIP area 
(which in this context presumably includes SJV) is for a 20 percent 
reduction from 1990 to 2005 and that the credit taken in SJV is 12 
percent.
    To resolve this ambiguity, EPA is taking into account the words of 
the 1994 Pesticide Element itself and the words of EPA's final rule 
approving the 1994 California Ozone SIP, including this Element.
    First, the 1994 Pesticide SIP 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. In the case of SJV, the 
``plan'' that references VOC reductions from the Pesticide Element is 
the attainment demonstration plan for SJV in the 1994 California Ozone 
SIP, and it took credit for a 12 percent (not a 20 percent) reduction 
in baseline emissions from 1990.
    Second, the Pesticide SIP states: ``[t]he plan offers the 
flexibility to achieve reductions of less than 20 percent by the year 
2005 in air districts if less pesticide VOC emission reductions are 
needed.'' Id. At the time when the 1994 California Ozone SIP was 
adopted and approved, the applicable attainment date for SJV was 1999, 
and the 1994 California Ozone SIP, as ultimately approved, took credit 
for only a 12 percent reduction in pesticide VOC emission in that area 
because that was all that the attainment demonstration at the time 
called for from that source category. By its terms, the 1994 Pesticide 
SIP was developed specifically to be flexible enough to provide for a 
less-than-20 percent reduction in areas that did not need the full 20 
percent to meet attainment needs.
    Third, in EPA's final rule approving the 1994 California Ozone SIP 
(and the related 1994 Pesticide Element), we summarized our 
understanding of the emissions reduction commitments in the Pesticide 
Element 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.'' 
See 62 FR at 1150, at 1170 (January 8, 1997). Therefore, in view of the 
overall design and purpose of the 1994 Pesticide Element and EPA's 
understanding of the commitments in the Element at the time of the 
approval of the Element into the California SIP, we have concluded that 
the approved Pesticide Element includes a 12 percent emissions 
reduction commitment in SJV, not a 20 percent emissions reduction 
commitment.
    Comment: El Comit[eacute] comments that the plain language of the 
1994 Pesticide SIP and the [Boyd] Letter together commit to achieve a 
20 percent reduction of pesticide VOC from 1990 levels by 2005, and 
EPA's approval of the revised SIP commitment for SJV will violate 
section 110(l) because CDPR and CARB have failed to demonstrate the 
change in the commitment to 12 percent will not interfere with 
attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other 
requirements of the CAA. They also comment that EPA's finding that the 
existing commitment is for 12 percent (rather than 20 percent) and 
that, as a result, approval of the revised SIP commitment for SJV would 
not violate section 110(l), has no basis in the plain language of the 
SIP, and is contrary to the Ninth Circuit's decision in Safe Air for 
Everyone v. EPA, 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2007).
    Response: As discussed above, EPA believes that the SIP commitment 
in the 1994 Pesticide SIP (as modified by the Boyd Letter) for SJV is 
ambiguous and thus subject to interpretation. We have interpreted the 
1994 Pesticide SIP and Boyd Letter, in light of the language of both 
and do not find any one sentence of either document to be a definitive 
statement as to the commitment in SJV. Rather, in light of CDPR's 
stated purposes and design of the 1994 Pesticide Element itself, and 
the reliance on it by California in demonstrating attainment of the SJV 
by 1999 with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard, we have concluded 
that, consistent with EPA's language in approving the 1994 Pesticide 
Element, that the commitment is a 12 percent commitment in SJV. Thus, 
we do not view our approval of the revised SIP commitment for SJV as a 
relaxation in the California SIP because it would result in the same 
emissions reductions as would result under the existing approved 
California SIP Pesticide Element.
    Our conclusion in this regard is not contrary to the Ninth 
Circuit's decision in the Safe Air case cited by El Comit[eacute]. As 
noted by El Comit[eacute], in Safe Air, the Ninth Circuit held that the 
content of a SIP is based on its ``plain meaning when such a meaning is 
apparent, not absurd, and not contradicted by the manifest intent of 
EPA, as expressed in the promulgating documents available to the 
public.'' Safe Air for Everyone v. EPA, 488 F.3d 1088, at 1100 (9th 
Cir. 2007). In this instance, the meaning of the 1994 Pesticide 
Element's percent reduction SIP commitment for SJV is not ``plain,'' 
and even if it were, it is ``contradicted by the manifest intent of 
EPA, as expressed in the promulgating document available to the 
public,'' i.e., EPA's 1997 final rule approving the 1994 Pesticide 
Element into the California SIP. Thus, EPA's interpretation of the 
Element's percent reduction SIP commitment for SJV in the context of 
this rulemaking is consistent with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Safe 
Air and consistent with EPA's stated interpretation in 1997 of this 
same commitment.
    As to CAA section 110(l), relative to California's and EPA's 
interpretation of the Pesticide Element to require a 12 percent 
reduction in pesticide VOC emissions in (rather than 20 percent) from a 
1990 baseline, we have concluded that the revised SIP

[[Page 65298]]

commitment for SJV would result in, at a minimum, the same emissions 
reductions that are currently required under the approved SIP, and 
neither the approved 8-hour ozone plan nor the approved 
PM2.5 plan for SJV rely on emissions reductions due to the 
Pesticide Element. As such, we have also concluded, as we did for the 
proposed rule, that our approvals of the fumigant regulations and 
revised SIP commitment for SJV will not interfere with attainment and 
RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA and thus comply with 
the requirements of CAA section 110(l). See 77 FR 24441, at 24447.
    Comment: El Comit[eacute] comments that an approval of the revised 
SIP revision would violate CAA section 110(l) because neither CDPR nor 
CARB has demonstrated that the SIP revision does not backslide when it 
changes the manner by which the 1990 baseline inventory is calculated. 
They contend that the 1994 Pesticide Element committed CDPR to using 
the 1991 Pesticide Use Report (PUR) data to estimate the 1990 baseline 
inventory because ``such data is more accurate than 1990 PUR data.''
    Response: CAA section 110(l) does not prohibit any backsliding and 
does not bar approval of a SIP revision based solely on a state's 
failure to accompany the revision with a demonstration of non-
interference. Section 110(l) only prohibits backsliding that would 
interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA.
    As stated above, we have concluded that the emissions reduction 
commitment in SJV under the existing SIP is 12 percent from 1990 
levels, not 20 percent, and thus, the establishment of a 18.1 tpd limit 
(which represents a 12 percent reduction from 1990) through this SIP 
revision would result in the same emissions reductions from pesticide 
VOC emissions as required under the existing SIP.
    We reviewed the language of the existing Pesticide SIP itself to 
see whether it could be reasonably interpreted to allow for use of 1990 
PUR data, rather than 1991 PUR data, to determine whether the 
establishment of the 18.1 tpd limit (determined using 1990 PUR data) 
represents a revision to the SIP that would result in an emissions 
impact. If the existing SIP could be reasonably interpreted to allow 
for use of 1990 PUR data, then no emission impact would result.
    The 1994 Pesticide SIP requires that a 1990 baseline inventory be 
used to determine the level of emissions reductions needed: ``[t]his 
plan is designed to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions 
from agricultural and commercial structural pesticide applications by a 
maximum of 20 percent from the 1990 baseline * * *.'' p. 1. The 1994 
Pesticide SIP is clear that this 1990 baseline inventory is to 
represent conditions in 1990:
     ``The base year inventory will be created from the 1991 
Pesticide Use Report and then adjusted by a factor to represent the 
1990 base year.'' p. 5;
     ``In cooperation with DPR, [CARB] will develop a baseline 
inventory of estimated 1990 pesticidal VOC emissions based on 1991 
pesticide use data, adjusted to represent the 1990 base year.'' p. 6;
     ``The baseline inventory will be calculated by summing the 
estimated 1990 emissions of each agricultural and commercial structural 
use pesticide.'' p. 6;
     ``[Estimated 1990 e]missions will be calculated by 
multiplying the VOC Emissions Factor value for each product by the 
adjusted use of that product in 1990.'' p. 5.
    The 1994 Pesticide SIP also emphasizes the use of the best 
available information to calculate the inventory, including in the 
rationale for using the 1991 PUR data in lieu of the 1990 data. It also 
allows (on page 6) for ``further adjust[ments] by additional VOC 
Emission Factors if additional information becomes available.'' While 
this statement applies to VOC emission factors, it would be counter-
intuitive to limit adjustments to just this type of data if the primary 
interest is to produce the best possible assessment of pesticide VOC 
emissions in the 1990 base year.
    In the 1994 Pesticide SIP (page 5), CDPR stated it would use the 
1991 PUR data (backcasted to represent 1990) as the starting point for 
calculating the 1990 baseline inventory because ``[i]t is believed that 
the 1991 pesticide use report would be a more accurate source to 
determine 1990 pesticidal VOC emissions.'' CDPR did not concede that 
the 1991 PUR data was more accurate and thus left open the option to 
use 1990 PUR data to calculate the 1990 baseline inventory if that data 
was determined to be more or similarly accurate. CDPR would later 
determine that the data for the two years was in fact of similar 
accuracy. This determination weakens any reading that the SIP mandates 
the use of the 1991 PUR data, given the SIP's emphasis on the 1990 
baseline inventory reflecting 1990 conditions and on the use of the 
best available data.
    We also observe that the use of unbackcasted 1991 PUR data to 
calculate the baseline inventory results in a 1991 baseline inventory. 
Using a 1991 baseline inventory to set SJV's (or any area's) pesticide 
VOC emission limit, as El Comit[eacute] advocates, would conflict with 
the plain language of the 1994 Pesticide SIP, which indisputably 
requires that these emission limits be set from a 1990 baseline.
    For these reasons, we conclude that the existing Pesticide Element 
does allow for the use of 1990 PUR data to determine 1990 baseline 
emissions, and thus, the establishment of an 18.1 tpd emission limit in 
the Valley that derives from 1990 PUR does not represent a revision to 
the SIP that results in higher emissions than would be allowed under 
the existing Pesticide Element.
    For the purposes of this response, we have also investigated 
further the possibility that unbackcasted 1991 PUR data is required 
under the existing SIP and that use of 1990 PUR data would result in a 
higher limit than one resulting from the use of unbackcasted 1991 PUR 
data to establish the baseline emissions. To do this, we used 
information from the CDPR staff report on the revised SIP commitment 
for SJV to isolate the potential emissions impact of using 1990 PUR 
data rather than unbackcasted 1991 PUR data and calculated the 
difference to be 0.7 tpd.\10\ In other words, if unbackcasted 1991 PUR 
data were required to be used in connection with establishing baseline 
VOC emissions from agricultural and commercial structural applications, 
then, based on data in the CDPR staff report, the corresponding limit 
in SJV (ensuring a 12 percent reduction) would be 17.4 tpd, 0.7 tpd 
lower than the 18.1 tpd limit developed using 1990 PUR data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CDPR staff report, p. 4. The 0.7 tpd is calculated as 
88 percent of 20.6 tpd minus 88 percent of 19.8 tpd. The value of 
20.6 tpd represents 1990 baseline emissions estimated using 1990 PUR 
data and 19.8 tpd represents 1991 baseline emissions estimated using 
1991 PUR data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, based on this analysis, we find that, even if the 
existing SIP required the use of unbackcasted 1991 PUR data to 
calculate the baseline and the use of the 1990 PUR data represented a 
revision to the SIP, we find that the potential emissions impact (0.7 
ton per day of VOC higher limit) of using 1990 PUR data instead would 
not interfere with RFP or attainment of the NAAQS, for the following 
reasons.\11\ As to ozone, we note that the approved 1997 8-hour ozone 
plan for SJV shows how the plan provides for VOC and NOX 
reductions that surpass RFP requirements and provides for

[[Page 65299]]

expeditious attainment even without considering any VOC reductions from 
pesticides. See 76 FR 57846, 57861 and 57858 (September 16, 2011) and 
77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012). The SJV area has recently been designated 
as extreme nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but the 
nonattainment plan for that standard is not due until 2015. See 77 FR 
30088 (May 21, 2012) and 40 CFR 51.908.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes of comparison, VOC emissions in SJV are 
expected to decline to 339 tpd by 2023 under the EPA-approved 2007 
Ozone Plan. See 76 FR 57846, 57850 (September 16, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to particulate matter (PM), we reiterate our observation from 
our proposed rule (at page 24447) that EPA has determined that VOC 
controls are not required for PM 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). In addition, we note that while the 
EPA-approved PM plans do not address the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 
for which the SJV has also been designated as ``nonattainment,'' 74 FR 
58688 (November 13, 2009), the nonattainment plan for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS is not due until December 2012.
    Comment: El Comit[eacute] asserts that because the 1994 Pesticide 
Element calls for year-round reductions, approval of the revisions 
would violate CAA section 110(l) because neither CDPR nor CARB has 
demonstrated that the SIP revision does not backslide when the SIP 
revision only calls for seasonal (May through October) controls.
    Response: CAA section 110(l) does not prohibit any backsliding and 
does not bar approval of a SIP revision based solely on a state's 
failure to accompany the revision with a demonstration of non-
interference. Section 110(l) only prohibits backsliding that would 
interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA.
    El Comit[eacute] provides no support for their position that the 
1994 Pesticide Element requires year-round reductions. They do not cite 
to specific language in the Element and make no arguments as to why it 
should be interpreted to require year-around reductions. In our review 
of the 1994 Pesticide Element, we find nothing in it that directly 
addresses the issue of year around versus seasonal controls. Even with 
the most generous reading, the 1994 Element is at best ambiguous on the 
subject. This issue is also not directly addressed in EPA's rulemakings 
on the 1994 Ozone Plan. For these reasons, we have looked to 
California's stated purpose for including the 1994 Pesticide Element in 
its SIP and how the State relied on the emissions reductions from the 
Element to discern the best interpretation of its requirements 
regarding seasonality.
    California submitted the 1994 Pesticide Element as part of its 
comprehensive plan to meet the 1-hour ozone standard and included 
reductions from this measure in the attainment demonstrations for the 
South Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura County, SJV, and Sacramento 
nonattainment areas. From the language of the 1994 Pesticide Element 
itself, the reason for including a measure to reduce pesticide VOC 
emissions in the SIP was to address pesticide's contribution to ozone 
formation. See 1994 Pesticide SIP, p. 1.
    Ozone is a seasonal pollutant with unhealthy levels being recorded 
mainly in the summer months when conditions are most conducive to its 
formation. The seasonality of ozone standard exceedances is reflected 
in EPA's policies and regulations that require ozone SIPs to include 
summer season inventories. See, for example, EPA's General Preamble at 
57 FR 13498, 13502.
    We described California's definition of its ``summer season'' (that 
is, its ozone season) in our proposed approval of the 1994 Ozone SIP as 
being from May through October. See 61 FR 10920, 10937. Consistent with 
the summer season being the period of concern for ozone, all the 
emissions inventories, the rate of progress demonstrations, and the 
attainment demonstrations in the 1994 Ozone SIP are expressed in tons 
per summer day. See, for example, 61 FR 10920, 10943-44. Estimates of 
emissions reductions from measures are also expressed in tons per 
summer day.
    Taken together, these facts argue that the 1994 Pesticide Element 
as approved can be reasonably interpreted to apply only to the ozone 
season. As we noted above, this ozone season was defined by California 
in its 1994 Ozone SIP as being from May to October, the exact period 
that the fumigant regulations and the revised pesticide commitment for 
SJV cover. We, therefore, find that approval of these SIP revisions 
does not violate CAA section 110(l) on the basis that they provide for 
seasonal controls only.

D. Enforceability of the Fumigant Regulations

    Comment: El Comit[eacute] alleges that the fumigant regulations are 
not enforceable because they do not guarantee that citizens and EPA 
have access to data to evaluate pesticide users' compliance with the 
fumigant application methods or permits issued by County Agricultural 
Commissioners (CAC).
    Response: Under the fumigant regulations, applicators (farm 
operators or pest control businesses) are required to limit their use 
of fumigant-specific application methods during May 1- October 31 to 
those methods specified in the regulations. An applicator demonstrates 
compliance with the regulations by reporting the details of each 
fumigant application (e.g. the permittee/property operator, operator 
ID/permit number, acres planted, acres treated, application method, 
crop, date, time, and location) to the CAC, which in turn, provides the 
data to CDPR. As El Comit[eacute] acknowledges, the public can obtain 
PUR data by making a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request to 
the CAC or CDPR. In addition, CDPR makes the PUR data available 
electronically to the public for free at the California Pesticide 
Information Portal (CalPIP) Web site at http://calpip.cdpr.ca.gov/main.cfm. The fact that the public has free online access to individual 
and summary PUR data enhances enforceability as compared to other SIP 
regulations, for which the data may be only accessible through a CPRA 
request.
    We note again that citizens are not limited to enforcing based 
solely on records reported by sources. Under applicable CAA and 
regulatory provisions, any credible evidence of violation may be used. 
Such credible evidence might include, for example, photographs of a 
fumigant application taken from a public road.
    Comment: El Comit[eacute] states that the two-year record retention 
time in 3 CCR section 6624(g) severely undermines enforceability of the 
fumigant regulations because PUR data may no longer be available by the 
time CDPR publishes its Annual Emissions Inventory Report, up to two 
years later.
    Response: The PUR data used to determine compliance with the 
fumigant regulations and to support enforcement is available to 
regulators and the public well before the two-year user retention 
provision ends. The fumigant regulations require the property operator 
to submit a PUR to the CAC by the 10th of the month following each 
fumigant application. Pest control businesses must submit the PUR to 
the CAC within 7 days of the application. See 3 CCR section 6626(a) and 
(b). The public can request PUR data from the CAC as soon as the PUR is 
submitted. The CAC must submit to CDPR a copy of each PUR received, and 
any other relevant information required by CDPR, within one calendar 
month after the CAC receives it. See California Food and Agricultural 
Code (CFAC) section 14012(b). CDPR publishes the PUR data online 
approximately one year after the

[[Page 65300]]

growing season ends.\12\ The PUR data, which is an input to the Annual 
Emissions Inventory Report, is not destroyed after two years, but 
rather it is retained and available on an on-going basis in CDPR's 
publicly-available, free and online PUR database at http://calpip.cdpr.ca.gov/main.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Memorandum, Nancy Levin, EPA Region 9, to Docket EPA-R09-
OAR-2012-0194, August 10, 2012, Subject: Summary of July 16, 2012 
conference call between EPA and California Department of Pesticide 
Regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: El Comit[eacute] states that there are no monitoring 
provisions that would allow for an evaluation of whether the pesticide 
user met the emissions reductions specified for each fumigant 
application method or whether the user complied with a fumigant VOC 
emission limit.
    Response: No such monitoring provisions are needed because the 
fumigant regulations do not require that an individual pesticide user 
meet either specific emissions reductions or the fumigant emission 
limit. Rather, they prohibit the use of certain fumigant application 
methods during the peak ozone season. In this way the fumigant 
regulations are similar to other regulations that require (or prohibit) 
use of certain control measures or work/management practices but do not 
otherwise require the source to meet specific numerical emission 
limits.\13\ EPA has approved many regulations that require the use of 
specific control methods, rather than a specific emission limit. For 
example, SIP regulations require gasoline stations to install pre-
approved vapor recovery devices but do not concurrently require them to 
meet an emission limit.\14\ SIP rules for confined animal feeding 
operations, open burning, and agricultural fugitive dust are examples 
of regulations that require the use of specific management practices 
rather than compliance with a specific emission limit, similar to 
CDPR's pesticide regulations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CAA section 302(k) defines the terms ``emission 
limitation'' and ``emission standard'' to include a design, 
equipment, work practice or operational standard.
    \14\ See, for example, SJVUAPCD Rule 4622 Gasoline Transfer Into 
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks (amended December 20, 2007), approved 74 FR 
56120 (October 30, 2009).
    \15\ See, for example, SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 Confined Animal 
Facilities (amended October 21, 2010), approved 77 FR 2228 (January 
17, 2012); Rule 4103 Open Burning (amended May 14, 2010), approved, 
77 FR 214 (January 4, 2012); Rule 4550 Conservation Management 
Practices (amended August 19, 2004), approved 71 FR 7683 (February 
14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the SIP, fumigant VOC emission limits will apply only in 
Ventura County. 3 CCR section 6452.2. Ventura County's overall 
pesticide VOC emission limit is monitored through the annual emissions 
inventory that is calculated by CDPR and not by individual pesticide 
users. Section 6452.4(a)(2). If pesticide VOC emissions in a given year 
approached or exceeded the limit, then CDPR and Ventura County CAC are 
required to implement a fumigant limit/allowance system and to 
condition or deny restricted use permits to limit fumigant VOC 
emissions until overall pesticide VOC emissions, as reported in the 
annual emissions inventory, fall back below the limit for two 
consecutive years. Id.
    Comment: El Comit[eacute] states that the regulations are not 
federally enforceable because they fail to require sources to comply 
with new permit conditions should the fumigant VOC emission limit and 
allowance system be triggered under 3 CCR section 6452.2.
    Response: The requirement to condition permits to comply with a 
fumigant VOC emission limit is only applicable to Ventura County under 
the SIP. Section 6452.2(e) prohibits a person from applying a field 
fumigant during the ozone period once the fumigant VOC emission limit 
is established unless their restricted material permit includes a field 
fumigant emission allowance or the notice of intent (NOI) to apply a 
fumigant is approved in writing. In addition, section 6452.2(c) 
requires that if Ventura County's fumigant VOC limit is triggered, the 
CAC must condition or deny permits in such a manner to assure that the 
fumigant VOC emission limit is not exceeded. These sections, which are 
being incorporated into the SIP, are sufficient for federal 
enforceability.
    Comment: El Comit[eacute] argues that 3 CCR section 6452(b) 
provides for improper director's discretion for alternative methods, 
noting, in particular, the lack of explicit and replicable procedures 
for determining whether the scientific data demonstrates that the 
alternative method's emissions rates are no greater than other methods 
allowed under the regulations.
    Response: EPA has determined that the director discretion in 
section 6452(b) is not a basis for disapproval given the restrictions 
placed on the CDPR Director's ability to approve alternative methods 
and given the limited history of regulating fumigant application 
methods to reduce VOC emissions. See TSD, section II.E.
    EPA's general policy regarding director's discretion is stated in 
52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987). Provisions allowing for a degree of 
state director discretion may be considered appropriate if explicit and 
replicable procedures within the rule tightly define how the discretion 
will be exercised to assure equivalent emissions reductions.\16\ Under 
section 6452(b), a request for approval of an alternative application 
method must be accompanied by scientific data documenting the VOC 
emissions reductions (section 6452(b)(1)) and no alternative method may 
be approved if its emission rate and the maximum emission rate are 
greater than those for any method already specified in the regulations 
for use in the area for that fumigant (section 6452(b)(1)(A) and (B)). 
Section 6452(c) also explicitly requires the CDPR Director to evaluate 
the submitted scientific data to determine whether: (1) The data and 
information provided are sufficient to estimate emissions; (2) the 
results are valid as indicated by the quality control data; and (3) the 
conditions studied represent agricultural fields fumigated. A notice of 
interim approval of an alternative method must be published on CDPR's 
Web site (section 6452(d)) and interim approvals expire after three 
years (section 6452(e)). In addition, we note that all pesticide users 
are required by law to follow the federal label, state regulations, and 
permit conditions at the county level (CFAC section 12973). These 
provisions appropriately limit the CDPR director's discretion.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA Region 9, Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & 
Other Rule Deficiencies, (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), August 21, 2001.
    \17\ We note that EPA has approved a limited number of other SIP 
rules addressing similar regulatory programs allowing for director's 
discretion to approve alternate methods of compliance, provided that 
emissions are no greater than other approved methods. See, for 
example, SJVUAPCD Rule 4550 Conservation Management Practices 
(amended August 19, 2004), Section 6.2.3.2; approved 71 FR 7683 
(February 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Pesticide Emissions Inventories

    Comment: El Comit[eacute] comments the Method Usage Fractions (MUF) 
for the 1991 and 2004 inventories do not have a factual foundation in 
the PUR. They also comment that the validity of the MUF for the 1991 
inventory for all fumigants but 1,3-dichloropropene are not verifiable 
and that CDPR has not presented any evidence supporting its estimates 
of historical fumigant application methods, nor has it made public the 
details of the process by which this information was obtained.
    Response: The PUR reports were not required to list the fumigation 
application method prior to 2008; therefore, it is not possible to base 
the MUF of the PUR prior to that year.\18\ We

[[Page 65301]]

note that the 1990, 1991 and 2004 inventories do not have any relevance 
to today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Usually there are several different types of application 
methods used for a particular fumigant in any particular NAA. Each 
method of use (e.g. drip, sprinkler, shank, tarp, etc.) represents a 
fraction of the total number of methods used and is referred to as 
the Method Use Fraction (MUF). The sum of all MUFs for any 
particular (NAA/fumigant AI) combination is one. See Rosemary Neal, 
Ph.D., Frank Spurlock, Ph.D., and Randy Segawa, California 
Department of Pesticide Regulation, ``Annual Report on Volatile 
Organic Compound Emissions from Pesticides: Emissions For 1990--
2010,'' Revised, June, 2012 (``Revised 2010 Pesticide VOC Emissions 
Report''), p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CDPR has provided a detailed explanation of its process for 
determining the frequency of use of historical fumigant methods for the 
1991 inventory as well as the 1990 inventory (which is the basis for 
calculating reductions) in the Barry memorandum.\19\ Prior to 2008, the 
MUF were based on grower/applicator surveys, use data, expert opinion, 
and regulatory history. Since 2008, applicators have been required to 
report application methods on the PUR, so recent MUF calculations are 
based on empirical data. EPA has been presented with no evidence to 
dispute that CDPR used best available data to develop the MUF for the 
baseline inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Memorandum, Terrell Barry, Ph.D., et al., CDPR, to John 
Sanders, Ph.D., CDPR; ``Pesticide Volatile Organic Compound Emission 
Adjustments for Field Conditions and Estimated Volatile Organic 
Compound Reductions-Revised Estimates;'' September 29, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: El Comit[eacute] comments that CDPR's Application Method 
Adjustment Factors (AMAF) are based on unrepresentative field 
fumigation studies conducted in other states under cool soil conditions 
and therefore do not provide an accurate estimate of emissions from 
California fumigations conducted at high temperatures in the Central 
Valley during the peak ozone season from May to October. They also 
comment that studies conducted under worst-case scenarios have been 
excluded from the group of studies on which the fumigant application 
regulations are based.
    Response: Similar comments were raised to CDPR during the comment 
periods prior to the adoption of the 2008 fumigant regulations and to 
CARB during the comment period prior to the adoption of the 2007 State 
Strategy (specifically on the revisions to the 1994 Pesticide Element 
for Ventura County that were included as Appendix H to the State 
Strategy). CDPR responded to these comments in the final Barry 
Memorandum (pp. 15-17) and in its response to comments on its proposed 
regulations.\20\ CARB also provided responses.\21\ Both stated that the 
studies included had been reviewed and accepted as sufficient to 
provide reliable data and were conducted under a variety of conditions 
and locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See CDPR, Rulemaking File For Regulations Filed and in 
Effect on January 8, 2008; Final Statement of Reasons, Attachment A: 
Summary of Comments Received During the 45-Day Comment Period and 
DPR's Response.
    \21\ CARB, Environmental Analysis for the Proposed Revision to 
the Pesticide Commitment of the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura 
County Nonattainment Area, Revised August 13, 2007 (``CARB August 
2007 Environmental Analysis'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: El Comit[eacute] comments that (1) the field studies of 
AMAF have highly variable results even among similar studies and are 
therefore highly uncertain and that previous reviews have noted 
uncertainties in AMAF estimates and concluded that some AMAF proposed 
by CDPR were not conservative enough. They also comment that because 
the natural variability in flux rates (the rate at which the fumigant 
escapes from the soil) is large, a single study (or even several 
studies) will not provide an accurate estimate of actual emissions.
    Response: CDPR responded to similar comments made during the 45-day 
comment period on the initial proposal of the fumigant regulations in 
July 2007. It agreed that flux rates vary and that the Department has 
chosen to average flux rates to get the most accurate picture of 
overall emissions. Their response, which is supported by CARB, is as 
follows:

    DPR agrees that the variability in flux rates (emissions) 
between applications is large. For fumigants and application methods 
with multiple studies, the standard deviations of the emissions are 
approximately 50 percent. DPR has chosen to use the average flux 
rates to estimate emissions for three reasons. First, the emissions 
inventory represents the aggregate emissions from all agricultural 
and structural pesticide applications within a region over several 
months. The average flux rates represent the most accurate estimate 
of aggregate emissions. Second, all pesticide applications included 
in DPR's inventory represent its most accurate and consistent 
estimate of emissions, for both the base year and subsequent years. 
Using a consistent method to estimate emissions is essential for 
making relative comparisons and determining compliance with the SIP 
commitments. Using the most accurate estimates for some applications 
and high-end estimates for other applications would skew the 
inventory and make relative comparisons unreliable. Third, even if 
DPR were to use high-end emission estimates, they would affect both 
current emissions and emissions for the 1991 base year. Estimates of 
the 1991 base year emissions are generally more uncertain, than 
current emissions. DPR would likely apply a larger uncertainty 
factor to the 1991 base year than current emissions, and the 
emissions reductions achieved would be larger than currently 
estimated using the average flux rates.

    See CDPR, Rulemaking File For Regulations Filed and in Effect on 
January 8, 2008; Final Statement of Reasons, Attachment A: Summary of 
Comments Received During the 45-Day Comment Period and DPR's Response.
    Therefore, we conclude that CDPR took a reasoned approach to 
establishing AMAF based on the available science.

F. Necessary Assurances Under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(e)

    Comment: El Comit[eacute] states that the fumigant regulations are 
unenforceable because they do not provide a funding mechanism, and 
because CDPR has not demonstrated under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) that 
the state and CAC have adequate personnel, funding and authority to 
implement and enforce the regulations.
    Response: We disagree that the fumigant regulations are 
unenforceable if they do not provide a mechanism to fund enforcement. 
Nothing in the CAA or EPA regulations require a SIP rule to include a 
rule-specific funding mechanism in order to be enforceable. If that 
were so, every SIP-approved rule would need to contain a specific 
funding mechanism before EPA could incorporate into SIP, which is not 
the case.
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(e) requires states to provide ``necessary 
assurances that the State * * * will have adequate personnel, funding, 
and authority under State (and, as appropriate, local) law to carry out 
such implementation plan.'' CDPR has provided sufficient assurance that 
it has adequate funding (as well as personnel and authority) to 
implement the regulations.
    CDPR funds CAC on an annual basis to conduct inspections and 
enforcement activities. Funding derives from an assessment on pesticide 
sales. CDPR collects 21 mill (or 2.1 cents) per dollar, of which 
approximately 7.6 mill is designated for CAC pesticide use inspection 
and enforcement activities (3 CCR section 6386; CFAC sections 12841 and 
12841.3). In 2006 CDPR and the California Agricultural Commission and 
Sealers Association entered into a Memorandum of Understanding that 
explains the process for distributing funds.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ CDFA, Disbursement of Residual Mill Assessment Funds To 
Enhance Local Pesticide Enforcement Programs, May 2006, found at 
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/exec/county/documents/DISBURSMENT_OF_RESIDUAL_MILL_ASSESSMENT_FUNDS_TO_ENHANCE.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAC have conducted 3,154 field fumigant inspections since 
January 1, 2008.\23\ In 2010-2011, CAC made 724 field fumigant 
inspections and 2,130 structural fumigation inspections

[[Page 65302]]

statewide.\24\ In addition, CAC must conduct pre-application site 
evaluation inspections for at least 5 percent of all sites identified 
in permits or notices of intent (NOI) to apply pesticides for 
agricultural use (3 CCR section 6436). In 2010-2011, CAC's conducted a 
total of 7,941 pre-application inspections out of a total of 136,491 
NOI,\25\ or 5.8 percent of NOI reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Email and attachment from Ken Everett, CDPR to Nancy Levin, 
EPA, August 1, 2008.
    \24\ See CDPR, California Statewide Pesticide Regulatory 
Activities Summary Between July 2010 and June 2011 (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/enforce/prasr/10-11prasr.pdf), page 31.
    \25\ See CDPR, California Statewide Pesticide Regulatory 
Activities Summary Between July 2010 and June 2011, pp. 31 and 33 
(found at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/enforce/prasr/10-11prasr.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both CDPR and CAC enforcement authority is derived from State law 
and regulation. See CFAC section 14004; see also, CFAC section 2281 and 
11501.5 and 3 CCR sections 6140 and 6128. Beyond its enforcement 
authorities, California law provides CDPR with the authority to place 
limitations on the quantity, area, and manner of application to reduce 
pesticide emissions through restricted materials permit conditions. See 
CFAC section 14006.5 and 3 CCR section 6412. Permits to use restricted 
materials are issued by the CAC, who has broad discretion to condition 
the permits on additional use restrictions. See CFAC section 14006. 
CDPR has oversight of the permit process and recommends conditions to 
be included in the CAC's permits. It can also enact use restrictions by 
regulation. See CFAC section 14005. In addition, for products 
containing a new active ingredient, CDPR may place appropriate 
restrictions on a product's use, including limitations on the quantity, 
area, and manner of application, and require low VOC formulations as a 
condition of registration. See CFAC section 12824.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ CDPR describes its authorities on page 1 of the revised SIP 
commitment for the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: El Comit[eacute] asserts that approval of the revised SIP 
commitment for the SJV and the fumigant regulations would be arbitrary 
and capricious and a violation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) because 
neither CDPR nor CARB have provided a demonstration that the commitment 
and regulations are not prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
and EPA's regulations implementing Title VI.
    Response: In addition to requiring a state to provide necessary 
assurances regarding adequate resources and authority for 
implementation, CAA section 110 (a)(2)(E) also requires a state to 
provide ``necessary assurances that the State * * * is not prohibited 
by any provision of Federal or State law from carrying out such 
[SIP].''
    El Comit[eacute] asserts that California failed to provide a 
``demonstration'' that its proposed revisions are not prohibited by 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.\27\ Section 110(a)(2)(E), however, 
does not require a state to ``demonstrate'' it is not prohibited by 
Federal or State law from implementing its proposed SIP revision. 
Rather, this section requires a state to provide ``necessary 
assurances'' of this. Courts have given EPA ample discretion in 
deciding what assurances are ``necessary'' and have held that a general 
assurance or certification is sufficient. (``EPA is entitled to rely on 
a state's certification unless it is clear that the SIP violates state 
law and proof thereof * * * is presented to EPA.'' BCCA Appeal Group v. 
EPA, 355 F.3d 817, 830 fn 11 (5th Cir. 2003)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 
discrimination by entities receiving federal funds. 42 U.S.C. 2000d. 
Section 601 provides that no person shall, ``on the ground of race, 
color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be 
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any 
program or activity'' covered by Title VI. Id. Section 602 
authorizes federal agencies that provide federal funding assistance 
to issue regulations to effectuate the anti-discrimination 
provisions of Title VI. Id. at 2000d-1. Pursuant to section 602, EPA 
promulgated regulations prohibiting EPA funding recipients from 
engaging in discrimination. See 40 CFR 7.30 and 7.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    El Comit[eacute] does not allege a violation of Title VI by either 
CDPR or CARB nor does it provide evidence that either the revised SIP 
commitment for the SJV and/or the fumigant regulations would result in 
any adverse environmental impacts. While El Comit[eacute] includes in 
their letter several statements on fumigant usage and fumigant VOC 
emissions in Ventura County and the SJV (citing various CDPR documents 
as the sources), it provides no evidence that these usage rates or 
pesticide VOC emissions rates are either the result of implementing the 
revised SIP commitment and/or fumigant regulations or would not have 
resulted absent the implementation of the commitment and 
regulations.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ It is also worthy of note that, to EPA's knowledge, none of 
the groups that signed the El Comit[eacute] letter raised Title VI 
concerns during CDPR's rulemaking process to adopt and amend the 
fumigant regulations or adopt the revised SIP commitment for SJV nor 
did they raise any Title VI concerns to EPA while CDPR and CARB were 
going through their respective rulemaking processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, California has provided multiple evaluations 
that show the revised SIP commitment for SJV and the fumigant 
regulations will improve California's air quality by reducing VOC 
emissions from pesticides, will not result in any significant adverse 
environmental impacts, and in fact, by reducing VOC, will improve air 
quality and assist the areas in their progress toward attainment of the 
ozone standards.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ For a list of these, see TSD, Section III.F. Response F-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both CDPR and CARB receive annual grants from EPA and have done so 
for many years. As grant recipients, both agencies must certify their 
compliance with Title VI and have done so in every year since the 
revised commitment and fumigant regulations were first adopted by CDPR 
in 2007 and submitted by CARB in 2009.\30\ In addition, by letter dated 
August 7, 2012, CDPR provided EPA a further description of the ways in 
which its pesticide regulatory program, including the VOC rule EPA is 
approving today, complies with sections 601 and 602 of Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) that govern recipients of federal 
financial assistance.\31\ Thus, EPA concludes California has provided 
the necessary assurances pursuant to 110(a)(2)(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, for example, EPA Form 4700-4, Preaward Compliance 
Review Report for All Applicants and Recipients Requesting EPA 
Financial Assistance for CDPR, May 10, 2010 and EPA Form 4700-4, 
Preaward Compliance Review Report for All Applicants and Recipients 
Requesting EPA Financial Assistance for CARB, August 13, 2010.
    \31\ Letter, Brian R. Leahy, Director, CDPR to Jared Blumenfeld, 
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 7, 2012, which can be 
found in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. EPA's Response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Remand in 
Association of Irritated Residents Case

    Comment: El Comit[eacute] asserts that EPA offered no factual basis 
or reasoned explanation for concluding that, with the addition of the 
fumigant regulations, the revised SIP commitment for SJV is 
sufficiently enforceable, and because EPA has failed to provide an 
explanation, its approval of the fumigant regulations and the revised 
SIP commitment as enforceable in tandem is arbitrary and capricious.
    Response: On page 24450 of our April 24, 2012 proposed rule, we 
concluded that:

* * * there is no need to rescind or otherwise modify our 1997 
approval of the Pesticide Element or our 2009 approval of PEST-1 
notwithstanding the deficiencies in enforceability in the 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 San Joaquin Valley provide the enforceable 
mechanism that would otherwise be lacking in the Pesticide Element. 
If EPA approves the regulations and commitment, as proposed herein, 
then the Pesticide Element would be fulfilled. If, after 
consideration of comments, EPA concludes that the regulations and 
commitment do not

[[Page 65303]]

meet the applicable CAA requirements, then the decision regarding 
EPA's previous actions on the Pesticide Element would need to be 
reconsidered.

    As explained further here and in other sections of this document, 
EPA is concluding CDPR's regulations and the commitment meet the 
applicable CAA requirements, and thus, we are finalizing our 
determination that the commitments in the 1994 Pesticide Element have 
been fulfilled, which in turn, forms the basis for our final decision 
not to rescind or otherwise modify our 1997 approval of the Pesticide 
Element or our 2009 approval of PEST-1. Specifically, as to SJV, we 
stated:

    For 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 San Joaquin Valley 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 emissions reduction target would be met in the 
San Joaquin Valley. 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 San Joaquin Valley. 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 vague. 
Considered in isolation, the revised commitment for San Joaquin 
Valley changes the form of the commitment in the Pesticide Element 
for the valley 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 Pesticide Element would be achieved in San Joaquin Valley.

77 FR 24441, 24450.
    Factual support for our conclusion is found in the CDPR staff 
report on the revised SIP commitment for SJV which provides a table of 
baseline pesticide emissions in SJV (19.3 tpd) and an estimate of the 
VOC emissions reductions (1.5 tpd) due to CDPR's fumigant regulations 
(that are being approved as part of this action). Based on the data in 
CDPR's table, the fumigant regulations reduce baseline pesticide 
emissions to 17.8 tpd, which is 0.3 tpd less than the 18.1 tpd 
emissions cap (that derives from the 12 percent emissions reduction 
commitment from the existing California SIP Pesticide Element). 
Therefore, in most years, CDPR's fumigant regulations alone would 
safeguard the emission limit.
    CDPR acknowledges, however, that fumigant use varies from year to 
year and could in some years be unusually high, raising the potential 
for the emission limit to be exceeded. This is why CDPR commits (1) to 
implement restrictions to reduce VOC emissions from non-fumigant 
pesticides by 2014 and (2) to commit to manage pesticide VOC emissions 
in SJV through annual emissions inventories and take further steps to 
reduce pesticide VOC emissions if necessary to bring such emissions 
back down below the emission limit.
    Comment: El Comit[eacute] argues that EPA's rationale for finding 
the combination of the revised SIP commitment for SJV and the fumigant 
regulations enforceable is unfounded because three quarters of all 
adjusted pesticide VOC emissions in the SJV in 2010 came from non-
fumigants and SJV exceeded the 18.1 tpd emissions cap in 2005 and 2006 
``despite CDPR's use of an adjusted inventory for fumigants in the 
Valley.'' They argue further that controlling only one-quarter of the 
pesticide VOC inventory in the Valley with the fumigant regulations 
does not ensure that the revised SIP commitment meets the CAA 
requirement for enforceability.
    Response: El Comit[eacute] cites CDPR's 2010 annual inventory of 
pesticide VOC emissions as the source for their claim that VOC 
emissions in SJV exceeded the 18.1 tpd limit in 2005 and 2006 and that 
fumigant VOC emissions represent only 25 percent of the overall total 
pesticide emissions in SJV. Based on our review of CDPR's Revised 2010 
Pesticide VOC Emissions Report, we confirm El Comit[eacute]'s factual 
statements but believe that the report supports EPA's conclusion that 
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 Pesticide Element would be achieved in SJV. This is because (1) the 
emissions cap of 18.1 tpd has not been exceeded since adoption of 
CDPR's fumigant regulations in 2008; and (2) the percentage of 
pesticide VOC emissions due to fumigant use has declined from an 
average of 34 percent during the 3-year period (2005-2007) prior to 
implementation of CDPR's fumigant regulations to an average of 24 
percent during the 3-year period (2008-2010) after implementation. See 
tables 5 and 6a of CDPR's Revised 2010 Pesticide VOC Emissions Report. 
This decline in the percentage of pesticide VOC emissions due to 
fumigant use is exactly the effect that would be expected in light of 
the implementation of CDPR's restrictions on the use of higher-emitting 
application methods, and it demonstrates that CDPR's fumigant 
regulations are effective at reducing pesticide VOC emissions in the 
SJV and to maintaining in compliance with the 18.1 tpd emission limit.
    Comment: El Comit[eacute] argues that because the SIP revision 
lacks a commitment to retain the fumigant regulations, EPA's rationale 
for using the fumigant regulations as its basis for finding the SIP 
revision enforceable is ``illusory.'' El Comit[eacute] asserts that 
CDPR could rescind the fumigant regulations and CARB could offer new 
VOC controls applicable to other sources to support a section 110(l) 
demonstration.
    Response: The SIP revision does not need to include a commitment to 
retain the fumigant regulations. If CDPR were to rescind the fumigant 
regulations, such rescission must be approved by EPA as a SIP revision 
to be rescinded as a part of the California SIP. The CAA does not allow 
unilateral changes to SIPs by states. Moreover, EPA has determined that 
the fumigant regulations are required to meet the section 182(b)(2) 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirement in the SJV, 
so for at least for SJV, California would need to demonstrate that the 
SIP still provides for RACT in SJV absent the fumigant regulations. 
Simple substitution of the fumigant regulations with new VOC emissions 
controls may not suffice in SJV due to the RACT requirement for the 
pesticide use source category.
    In addition, to approve any rescission of CDPR's fumigant 
regulations submitted as a SIP revision, we would need to find that 
such rescission would not interfere with RFP and attainment of the 
NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act pursuant to CAA 
section 110(l), and would therefore need to consider the effect of the 
rescission on the continued enforceability of the California SIP 
Pesticide Element and would need to consider the emissions impacts in 
the context of the RFP and attainment needs of the areas for which the 
regulations provide emissions reductions. Lastly, we note that any 
action EPA would take on such a rescission of the fumigant regulations 
would be subject to the normal public

[[Page 65304]]

notice and comment procedures that EPA follows for all actions on SIPs 
and SIP revisions.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving 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 (with the exception of the provisions related to 
methyl iodide). These revisions include CDPR's fumigant regulations and 
its revised SIP commitment for the SJV. Our approval will incorporate 
these revisions into the California's federally-enforceable SIP. This 
approval also satisfies California's obligation to implement RACT for 
field fumigation operations in the SJV under CAA section 182(b)(2) for 
the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards and thereby terminates 
both the sanctions clocks and the Federal Implementation Plan clock for 
this source category triggered by our January 10, 2012 partial 
disapproval action. See 77 FR 1417 (January 10, 2012).
    EPA provided its preliminary response to the remands by the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals in Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 
632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), revised January 27, 2012 (AIR) in the 
proposal for this rule. See 77 FR 24441, 24447. The Association of 
Irritated Residents remand required EPA to evaluate the California SIP 
Pesticide Element for enforceability under the CAA. In the proposed 
rule, EPA found that there is no need to either rescind or modify our 
prior approvals of the Pesticide Element because it had concluded that 
the SIP revisions fulfilled the commitments of the original Pesticide 
Element, thus obviating the need to address the deficiencies in 
enforceability of those original commitments. We are finalizing our 
response from the proposal without change.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Our final response to the remand in Association of 
Irritated Residents also represents our final response to the Ninth 
Circuit's July 2, 2012 remand order in El Comit[eacute] Para El 
Bienestar De Earlimart v. EPA (No. 08-74340). Because both remands 
necessitate the same type of evaluation for the same portion of the 
California SIP, our rationale for our response to both remands is 
the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA Administrator is required to 
approve a SIP submittal 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 submittals, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 
this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements 
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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 action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, 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 December 26, 2012. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action 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.

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

    Dated: August 14, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(413) and (c)(414) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (413) The following plan revisions were submitted on October 12, 
2009, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
    (1) California Code of Regulations, Title 3 (Food and Agriculture), 
Division 6 (Pesticides and Pest Control Operations), Chapter 2 
(Pesticides), Subchapter 4 (Restricted Materials), Article 4 (Field 
Fumigation Use

[[Page 65305]]

Requirements), sections 6447, ``Methyl Bromide-Field Fumigation--
General Requirements,'' the undesignated introductory text (operative 
January 25, 2008; as published in Register 2010, No. 44); 6447.3, 
``Methyl Bromide-Field Fumigation Methods'' (operative January 25, 
2008); 6448, ``1,3, Dichloropropene Field Fumigation--General 
Requirements'' (operative January 25, 2008); 6449, ``Chloropicrin Field 
Fumigation--General Requirements'' (operative January 25, 2008); 6450, 
``Metam-Sodium, Potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate (metam-potassium), 
and Dazomet Field Fumigation--General Requirements'' (operative January 
25, 2008); 6450.2, ``Dazomet Field Fumigation Methods'' (operative 
January 25, 2008); 6451, ``Sodium Tetrathiocarbonate Field Fumigation--
General Requirements'' (operative January 25, 2008); 6451.1, ``Sodium 
Tetrathiocarbonate Field Fumigation Methods'' (operative January 25, 
2008); 6452, ``Reduced Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Field 
Fumigation Methods'' (operative January 25, 2008); 6452.1, ``Fumigant 
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Records and Reporting'' (operative 
January 25, 2008).
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
    (1) Decision, ``In the Matter of Proposed Ozone SIP Commitment for 
the San Joaquin Valley,'' signed by Mary-Ann Warmerdam, April 17, 2009, 
including Exhibit A, ``Department of Pesticide Regulation Proposed SIP 
Commitment for San Joaquin Valley.''
    (2) Memorandum, Rosemary Neal, Ph.D., California Department of 
Pesticide Regulation to Randy Segawa, California Department of 
Pesticide Regulation, November 5, 2008; Subject: Update to the 
Pesticide Volatile Organic Inventory. Estimated Emissions 1990-2006, 
and Preliminary Estimates for 2007.
    (414) The following plan revisions were submitted on August 2, 
2011, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
    (1) California Code of Regulations, Title 3 (Food and Agriculture), 
Division 6 (Pesticides and Pest Control Operations), Chapter 2 
(Pesticides), Subchapter 4 (Restricted Materials), Article 4 (Field 
Fumigation Use Requirements), sections 6448.1, ``1,3-Dichloropropene 
Field Fumigation Methods'' (operative April 7, 2011); 6449.1, 
``Chloropicrin Field Fumigation Methods'' (operative April 7, 2011); 
6450.1, ``Metam-Sodium and Potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate (Metam-
Potassium) Field Fumigation Methods'' (operative April 7, 2011); 
6452.2, ``Fumigant Volatile Organic Compound Emission Limits'' 
(excluding benchmarks for, and references to, Sacramento Metro, San 
Joaquin Valley, South Coast, and Southeast Desert in subsection (a) and 
excluding subsection (d))(operative April 7, 2011); 6452.3, ``Field 
Fumigant Volatile Organic Compound Emission Allowances'' (operative 
April 7, 2011); 6452.4, ``Annual Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 
Inventory Report'' (excluding reference to section 6446.1 in 
subsection(a)(4))(operative April 7, 2011).
    (2) California Code of Regulations, Title 3 (Food and Agriculture), 
Division 6 (Pesticides and Pest Control Operations), Chapter 3 (Pest 
Control Operations), Subchapter 2 (Work Requirements), Article 1 (Pest 
Control Operations Generally), sections 6624, ``Pesticide Use Records'' 
(excluding references in subsection (f) to methyl iodide and section 
6446.1) (operative December 20, 2010); section 6626, ``Pesticide Use 
Reports for Production Agriculture'' (operative April 7, 2011).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-26311 Filed 10-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```