# Technical Support Document

Proposed Rule on the

Revisions to Pesticide Element
of the California State Implementation Plan

Air Division U.S. EPA Region 9 April 16, 2012i

For further information on this technic al support document, please contact:

Fumigant Regulations:

Nancy Levin Rules Office (AIR

- 4) (415) 972

- 3848 levin.nancy@epa.gov

Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley:

Frances Wicher Office of Air Planning (AIR

- 2) (415) 972

- 3957 wicher.frances@epa.gov

Air Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105

Most d ocuments referenced in this technical support document may be found on www.regulations.gov in the docket for this rulemaking , docket no. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2012

- 0194

. Documents that are not available in an electronic format may be found at the address above.

## Table of Contents

ii I. Summary Information and Background 1

A. Submitted Revisions to the California SIP Pesticide Element 1

1. CDPR Regulations 1

2. CDPR‘s Revised Emissions Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley 2

C. Areas Affected by the Proposed Revisions to the California SIP Pesticide Element 3

D. Pesticide Emissions Inventory 8

E. History of the California SIP Pesticide Element 10

1 . The 1994 Pesticide Element in the 1994 Ozone SIP 11

2. ―PEST

- 1‖ Measure in the 2003 State Strategy 16

3. 2007 Revisions to the Pesticide Element for Ventura 17

II. Evaluation of the Proposed Revisions to the California SIP Pesticide Element 19

A. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements Applicable to SIP Submittals and Revisions. 19

1. Require ments for Public Notice and Hearing for SIP Submittals 19

2. Completeness Determinations 19

B. Enforceability 21

1. CAA Requirements for Enforceability of Rules and Commitments 21

2. Evaluation and Conclusions 2 2 a. CDPR Regulations 22 b. Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley 22

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Requirements (RACM/RACT) 23

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT 23

2. RACM/RACT Evaluation and Conclusion 24 a. Field Fumigant Regulations: South Coast, Ventura, Southeast Desert, San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento Metro 24 b. Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley 25

D. Finding of Non

- Interference with Applicable Requirements of the CAA under Section 110(l) 26

1. CAA Section 110(l) Requirements 26

2. Evaluation and Conclusion 26

## Table of Contents

iii a. Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress for Ozone and Particulate Matter 27 i. Field Fumigant Regulations 27

ii. Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley 27

b. RACM for Ozone and Particulate Matter 30 c. Air Toxics/Stratospheric Ozone 30

E. Additional Recommendations for the Next Rule Revision 31

## List of Acronyms

iv μ: micron (one millionth) AMAF: application met hod adjustment factor

ARB: California Air Resources Board (also CARB)

APCD: air pollution control district AQMD: air quality management district AQMP: Air Quality Management Plan

BACM: best available control measure

CAA: Federal Clean Air Act as ame nded in 1990 CAC: County Agricultural Commissioners

CARB: California Air Resources Board (also ARB)

CCR: California Code of Regulations CDPR: California Department of Pesticide Regulation

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations CTG: control techniques guid e line

DPR: California Department of Pesticide Regulation EP: emission potential

EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency Fine particulate: PM 2.5 FR: Federal Register N/A: not applicable MeI: methyl iodide (a fumigant)

NAA: nonattainment ar ea NAAQS: national ambient air quality standard

NO

x : oxides of nitrogen NPRM: notice of proposed rulemaking

O 3 : ozone PM: particulate matter

PM 10 : particulate matter with a diameter of 10 μm or less, includes PM 2.5 PM 2.5 : particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less ppm: parts per million

RACM: reasonably available control measures

RACT: reasonably available control technology

RFP : reasonab le further progress ROP: rate of progress

SC: South Coast

SED: Southeast Desert

SIP: state implementation plan

SJV: San Joaquin Valley

SJVAPCD /SJVUAPCD : San Joaquin Valley (Unified) Air Pollution Control District tpd: tons per day

TSD: technical suppor t document

VOC: volatile organic compoundsAir Division EPA

- Region 9 Page 1



## I. Summary Information and Background

This document provides supporting information and analysis for EPA‘s proposed approval of revisions to the provisions of California state implementation plan (SIP) for

cont rol l ing volatile organic compounds (VOC) from pesticide usage in five California ozone

nonattainment areas : South Coast, Southeast Desert (SED), Ventura County, San Joaquin Valley (SJV) , and Sacramento Metro

. These provisions are referred to collectively as the California SIP

P esticide Element.



### A. Submitted Revisions to the California SIP Pesticide Element

EPA is proposing to approve the following submittals made by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as revisions to the California SIP :

1. Octobe r 12, 2009 submittal of r egulations adopted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) : 1

Title 3 California Code of Regulations (CCR), s ections 6447 (first paragraph) and

6447.3

- 6452 pertaining to field fumigation methods;

Portions of 3 CC R sections 6452.1 and 6452.4 and sections 6624 and 66 2 6 pertaining to emission inventory ;

3 CCR sections 6452.2 and 6452.3 pertaining to field fumigation limits and allowances in

the Ventura ozone nonattainment area

. 2

2. October 12, 2009 submittal of a re vised ― Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley

. ‖ 3 Th is submittal caps VOC emissions from the use of agricultural

and commercial structural pesticides in the SJV to 18.1 tpd and commits CDPR to implement

restrictions on no n

- fumigant pesticides in the SJV by 2014

.

1 As part of this submittal, CARB withdrew its January 28, 2008 submittal of an earlier version of the field fumigant regulations. See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Laura Yoshii, Acting Re gional Administrator, EPA Region 9, October 12, 2009 and State of California, Air Resources Board, Executive Order S

09

- 011 Relating to Approval of Regulations to Achieve Pesticide Volatile Organic Compound Emission Reductions, October 12, 2009.

2 CARB d id not submit for inclusion into the SIP those portions of 3 CCR sections 6452.2 and 6452.3 pertaining to field fumigation limits and allowances in the South Coast, S ED, SJV, and Sacramento Metro ozone

nonattainment areas.

3 As part of this submittal, CAR B withdrew the ― Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley that was included on page 131 of the CARB‘s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (as adopted September 27, 2007) (―2007 State Strategy‖ ) t hat it submitted on November 15,

2007. See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, October 12, 2009 and State of California, Air Resources Board, Executive Order S

- 09

- 005 Relating

to Approval of Amendments to the 2007 Ozone Plan for the San Joaquin Valley to Achieve Pesticide Emission Reductions, October 12, 2009.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Division EPA

- Region 9 Page 1 3. August 2, 2011 submittal of revisions to CDPR regulations. 4 This submittal revised and added to the October 12, 2009 submittal, and included the following : 5

3 CCR sections 6448.1, 6449.1, and 6450.1 pertainin g to fumigation method restrictions.

Portions of 3 CCR sections 6452.2 and 6452.3 pertaining to field fumigation limits and

allowances in the Ventura ozone nonattainment area.

3 CCR section 6452.4 pertaining to the annual VOC emissions inventory report.

3 CCR sections 6624 and 6626 pertaining to pesticide use records and reports.

1. CDPR Regulations

The submitted CDPR regulati ons can be divided into four distinct but related parts . The first part (revisions to 3 CCR section s 64 47 through 6452) establish es standards for fumigant application and restricts the use of certain higher

- emitting application methods in the five nonattainment areas between May 1 and October 31 of each year. The second part ( 3 CCR

sections 6452.2 and 6452.3 ) provides a contingency me chanism to limit VOC emissions from field fumigant applications in the Ventura nonattainment area to ensure that the area‘s overall limit on pesticide VOC emissions limit is not exceeded. The third part ( 3 CCR section 6452.4 ) requires CDPR to annually repo rt on pesticide VOC emissions in each of the five nonattainment areas and establishes requirements for th e report. The fourth part ( 3 CCR sections 6624 and

6626 ) establishes the recordkeeping and reporting requirements necessary to ensure compliance

with t he other parts. EPA describe s each part in more detail below.

The first part of the submitted regulations establishes, by fumigant and method, requirements for the field application of seven fumigants and restricts to the lowest

- emitting ones, the methods that may be used to apply field fumigants in the in the South Coast, SED, Ventura, SJV, and Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment areas during the period May 1 to October 31. Requirements are described for the field fumigants: methyl bromide (sections 6447 and 6447.3) ; 1,3

- dichloropropene (sections 6448 and 6448.1) ; chloropicrin (sections 6449 and 6449.1) ; metam

- sodium, potassium N

- methyldithiocarbamate and dazomet (sections 6450, 6450.1 and 6450.2) ; and sodium tetrathiocarbonate (sections 6451 and 6451.1).

Specific requirements for applying these fumigants include, for example

, l imiting fumigant application rates (pounds/acre) ; s pecifying application methods (e.g., minimum injection depth below soil surface, number of water treatments, minimum hou rs to leav e tarpaulin in place); and r equiring plans to address damaged tarpaulins )

. 3 CCR section 6452

4 See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, Aug ust 2, 2011 and State of California, Air Resources Board, Executive Order S

- 11

- 015

, Relating to Approval of Regulations to Achieve Pesticide Volatile Organic Compound Emission Reductions, August 2, 2011.

5 CARB also submitted 3 CCR section 6400 (Restricte d Materials), section 6446 (Methyl Iodide Field

– General Requirements) and section 6446.1 (Methyl Iodide Field Fumigation Methods) and related portions of provisions section 6452.2 (a)(4) (Annual Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Inventory Report) and s ection 6624 (f) (Pesticide Use Records)

. EPA is deferring action on these provisions due to California‘s cancellation, effective March 21, 2012, of the registration of all products containing the active ingredient methyl iodide. CDPR adopted

this set of me thyl iodide

- related regulations on May 11, 2011, after and separately from its April 7, 2011 regulations

that are also included in CARB ‘s August 2, 2011 submittal.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Division EPA

- Region 9 Page 2 allows CDPR to approve alternative fumigation methods under certain conditions and based on specific criteria

. As submitted, the second part of the regulations ap ply only to the Ventura ozone

nonattainment area. Th is part requires CDPR set a field fumigant VOC emissions limit for Ventura in its annual VOC emissions inventory report if overall pesticide emissions (not just fumigant emissions) in the Ventura nonattai nment area are found to be within 5 percent of or exceed the listed benchmark. The benchmark is equivalent to the 20 percent reduction in pesticide VOC emissions from 1990 emissions levels that is required in the area by the

California SIP Pesticide Elemen t. This part further requires that the county agricultural commissioner add conditions to field fumigation permits or other take other actions that will prevent the field fumigant limit from being exceeded.

The third part of the submitted regulation s requi res CDPR to issue an annual emissions inventory report which report s the total agricultural and commercial structural (fumigant and nonfumigant) pesticide VOC emissions for the previous years in each of the five nonattainment

areas and evaluates compliance with the emissions reduction targets in each area

. These regulations specify the method for calculating emissions and requires the CDPR make a draft emissions inventory available to the public for 45

- day comment period and post the final report

on its web site

. The fourth part of the submitted regulations establish the pesticide use recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to assure compliance with the other parts. This part require s anyone using pesticides in specific applications to maintain certai n records for two years and requires operator s of property which produc e an agricultural commodity and agricultural pest

control business es to report the use of pesticides to the c ounty a gricultural c ommissioner. These regulations require the recording and reporting of the method for fumigant application in the five

nonattainment areas.

2. CDPR ‘s Revised Emissions Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley

CDPR has revised its previous commitments to limit VOC emissions from commercial

structural and pesticides in the SJV. Specifically, it is now committing to

use the specified emissions estimation methodology , 6 to establish the 1990 pesticide VOC emission levels and evaluate compliance with the provisions in the 1994 Pesticide Element for SJV;

implem ent restrictions on agricultural fumigation methods and by 2014 implement

restrictions on VOC emissions of non

- fumigant pesticides; and

manage VOC emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticide use to ensure that they do not exceed 18.1 to ns

- per

- day in the SJV are a (which is equivalent to a 12 percent reduction in pesticide VOC emissions from 1990 levels)

.

6 For tracking compliance with the overall VOC limit in the SJV, CDPR proposes to use the e missions estimation methodology described on page 2

- 4 (in the section ―Procedure for Calculating Unadjusted and Adjusted Volatile Organic Compound Emissions) of the November 5, 2008 memorandum from Rosemary Neal, CDPR to Randy Segawa, CDPR, Subject: Update to the Pesticide Volatile Organic Inventory. Estimated Emissions 1990

- 2006, and Preliminary Estimates for 2007‖ (―Neal memorandum‖).TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Division EPA

- Region 9 Page 3 B. Currently

- Approved Provisions of the California SIP Pesticide Element

Prior to today‘s proposal, EPA has taken three actions to eith er approve or revise provisions of the California SIP Pesticide Element. EPA briefly describe s each action below and

discuss each action and its background in more detail in section I. E. of this TSD.

1994 Pesticide Element

– The 1994 Pesticide Element was s ubmitted by California in November 1994 as part of the State‘s comprehensive 1

- hour ozone attainment plan and included, among other things, a commitment by CDPR to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and structural pesticide emissions in five ozone nona ttainment areas by a maximum of 20 percent from 1990 baseline levels

. EPA approved the 1994 Pesticide Element on January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150) and codified it at 40 CFR § 52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)(6) and § 52.220(c)(236)

. 7

PEST

- 1 Measure in CARB’s 2003 State Str ategy

– In 2003, CARB updated the statewide strategy that was part of the 1994 O zone SIP. One of the measures in the 2 003 State Strategy was PEST

- 1 (―Implement Existing Pesticide Strategy‖), which retained the provisions of the 1994 Pesticide Element. E PA approved PEST

- 1 into the SIP as part of its action to approve in part and disapprove in part the 2003 South Coast A ir Quality Management Plan (A QMP )

. See 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 2009) , codified at 40 CFR § 52.220(c)(339)(ii)(A)( 1 ). 8

2007 Ventura Pesticide E lement

– In 2007, CARB submitted a revision to the 1994

Pesticide Element that reduced in part and temporally the emissions reduction

commitments in Ventura County. EPA approved this revision in 2008. See 73 FR 41277 ( July 18, 2008), codified at 40 CFR § 5 2.220(c)(3 55 )(i)(A) ( 1 )

.



### C. Areas Affected by the Proposed Revisions to the California SIP Pesticide

Element

The field fumigant regulation s pertaining to restricted materials and fumigation methods restrictions (3 CCR sections 6 447.3, 6448.1, 6449.1, 6450

. 1 , 6450.2, 6451.1 , 6452 )

, to annual VOC emission inventory report requirement (3 CCR section 6452.4); and to the pesticide use

7 In 2004, litigation was brought against CDPR in federal district court to enforce the 1994 Pesticide Element. In 2006, the District court ordered the Department to adopt , implement regulations to achieve the

emission s reduction goals as set forth in the May 9, 1995 memorandum from James Well s to James Boyd ( ― Wells

memo randum‖ )

. See El Comit é Para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. Helliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d 912 [E.D. Cal. 2006] . In its review of District court‘s decision and order, the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Wells memorandum relied on by El Comi t é a nd the subsequently by the District court in its decisio n was not included in

the SIP and vacated the District court‘s order. See El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam , 539 F.3d 1062, 1069

- 1072 ( Warmerdam )

.

8 As part of its decision in Association of Irritated Residents v. EP A , No. 09

- 71383 , t he 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that EPA had e rred in approving the PEST

- 1 measure without first evaluating the approved 1994 Pesticide Element, particularly as to whether the Element had sufficient enforcement mechanisms to satisfy the requirem ents of the CAA. As discussed in section IV the proposed rule that this TSD supports, EPA has re

evaluated the 1994 Pesticide Element in light of the State‘s subsequent submittals and found that it meets the enforceability requirements of the CAA and are t herefore proposing to re

- affirm its 2010 approval.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Division EPA

- Region 9 Page 4 reports requirements (3 CCR sections 6624 and 6626) apply to the following five California

ozone nonattainment areas : 9

South C oast Orange County
Los Angeles County (part)
Riverside County (part)
San Bernardino County (part)

Southeast Desert (SED) Riverside County (Coachella Valley portion)
San Bernardino County (part)
Los Angeles County (Lancaster/Palmdale)

Ventura Ventura Coun ty

San Joaquin Valley San Joaquin County
Stanislaus County
Merced County
Madera County
Fresno County
Tulare County
Kings County
Kern County ( valley portion)

Sacramento Metro Sacramento County
Yolo County
El Dorado County (part)
Placer County (part )
Solano County (part)
Sutter County (part)

T he provisions in 3 CCR sections 6452.2 and 6452.3 which pertain to field fumigation

limits and allowances as submitted are only applicable to the Ventura ozone nonattainment area.

The ― Revised Pesticide Emissi on Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley ‖

a pplies solely to the San Joaquin Valley 1

- hour ozone nonattainment area , as described above

.
On Table 1 below

, EPA list s the current attainment status for the national ambient air quality standards for o zone and particulate matter of the five area s that are affected by the

9 CDPR‘s regulations establishing the parameters for field fumigant application methods (but not the restrictions on which methods may be used during certain periods of the year) and pesticide use record keeping and reporting requirements apply statewide; however, EPA is limiting its approval of these provisions to just the five

listed nonattainment areas.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Division EPA

- Region 9 Page 5 proposed revisions to the California SIP Pesticide Element

. EPA also list s the current status of each area‘s ozone and (if applicable) particulate matter pl ans. It provide s information for both the ozone and particulate matter standards because VOC emissions are considered precursors emissions for both pollutants ; however, we note that not all areas are required to control VOC for particulate matter attainment

.

The applicable standards are:

1

- hour ozone standard 0.12 parts per million (ppm)

40 CFR § 50.9
Revoked, effective June 15, 2005; 69 FR 23951
(April 30, 2004)

1997 8

- hour ozone standard 0.08 ppm

40 CFR § 50.10
62 FR 38894 (July 18, 1997)

2008 8

- hour ozone standard 0.075 ppm

40 CF R § 50.15
73 FR 16511 (March, 27, 2008)

1997 PM 2.5 standards 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 )

annual arithmetic mean and 65 μg/m3 24

- hour average

40 CFR § 50.7

62 FR 38711 (July 18, 1997)

2006 PM 2.5 standards 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ( μg/m3)

annual arithmetic mean concentration, and 35 μg/m 3 24

- hour average concentration

40 CFR §50.13
71 FR 61224 (October 17, 2006)

PM

- 10 standard 150 (μg/m3) 24

- hour average concentration

40 CFR § 50.6
52 FR 24663 (July 1, 1987) as amended at 62

FR 38711 (July 18, 1997), 65 FR 80779
(December 22, 2000) and 71 FR 61224
(October 17, 2006)TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Division EPA

- Region 9 Page 6



### T ABLE 

### 1

- A TTAINMENT AND 

### P LAN 

### S TATUS OF 

### A REAS 

### S UBJECT TO THE 

### P ESTICIDE 

### E LEMENT



### O ZONE AND 

### P ARTICULATE 

### M ATTER 

### NAAQS

S TANDARD 1

- HOUR O ZONE 8

- H OUR O ZONE P ARTICULATE M A TTER

A REA A TTAINMENT
S TATUS P LAN S TATUS A TTAINMENT
S TATUS P LAN S TATUS A TTAINMENT
S TATUS P LAN S TATUS

South Coast Nonattainment/

Finding of failure to

attainment Approved Nonattainment/

extreme Approved 1997: Nonattainment 1997: Approved

2008: proposed

Nonattainment N/A 2006: Nonattainment 2006: Due December 14, 2012

PM 10 : Redesignation

to attainment requested PM 10 : Approved

Southeast

Desert Nonattainment/

Finding of failure to

attainment Approved Nonattainment/ pending severe

classification per S tate ‘s request Pending action 1997: Attainment/

unclassifiable 1997: N/A

2008: proposed

Nonattainment N/A 2006: Attainment/

unclassifiable 2006: N/A

PM 10 : Redesignation

to attainment requested (Coachella Valley) PM 10 : Approved

(Coachella Valley )

Ventura Nonattainment/

Finding of

attainment Approved Nonattainment/

severe Pending action 1997: Attainment/

unclassifiable 1997: N/A

2008: proposed

Nonattainment N/A 2006: Attainment/

unclassifiable 2006: N/A

San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment/

F inding of failure to

attainment Approved Nonattainment/

extreme Approved 1997 PM 2.5 : Nonattainment 1997 PM 2.5 :

Approved

2008: proposed

Nonattainment N/A 2006 PM 2.5 : Nonattainment 2006 PM 2.5 : Due

December 14, 2012

PM 10 : attainment PM 10 : ApprovedTSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Division EPA

- Region 9 Page 7



### T ABLE 

### 1

- A TTAINMENT AND 

### P LAN 

### S TATUS OF 

### A REAS 

### S UBJECT TO THE 

### P ESTICIDE 

### E LEMENT



### O ZONE AND 

### P ARTICULATE 

### M ATTER 

### NAAQS

S TANDARD 1

- HOUR O ZONE 8

- H OUR O ZONE P ARTICULATE M A TTER

A REA A TTAINMENT
S TATUS P LAN S TATUS A TTAINMENT
S TATUS P LAN S TATUS A TTAINMENT
S TATUS P LAN S TATUS

Sacramento

Metro Nonattainment/

Finding of

attainment Approved 1997:

Nonattainment/

severe Pending action 1997: Attainment/

unclassifiable 1997 PM 2.5 : N/A

2008: proposed

Nonattainment N/A 2006: Nonattainment 2006 PM 2.5 : Due December 14, 2012

PM 10 : redesignation

to attainment requested PM 10 : pending

actionTSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 8 

### D

. Pesticide E missions Inventory

As required by 3 CCR section 6452.4(a), CDPR annually reports on VOC emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticide applications in the fi ve areas subject to the provisions of the California SIP Pesticide SIP. The most recent report

, with emissions estimates for 1990 and 2004 through 2010

, was issued on March 29, 2012

. 10 Table 2 shows the estimates of VOC emissions from pesticides in each are a as well as the SIP target level from this report

. The inventory represent daily average emissions for period May 1 and October 31 of each year. Table 3 compares current estimated emissions from pesticides in each area to total VOC

emissions from all sour ces in the area

.



### T ABLE 

### 2

- VOC E MISSIONS FROM 

### P ESTICIDES


### T ARGET 

### L EVEL AND 

### E MISSIONS IN 

### 1990 AND 

### 2004

- 2010

TONS PER AVERAGE DAY M AY 1

- O CTOBER 31

1990 G OAL 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

SJV 20.5 18.1 17.3 20.7 21.3 17.2 14.5 13.5 16.8

Ventura 3.8 3.0 3.9 3.6 3.7 3.4 1.7 2.1 2.6

South Coast 10.8 8.7 1.9 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2

SED 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.5

Sacramento

Metro 2.8 2.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.1

Source: 2012 Pesticide VOC Emissions Report, p. 19

10 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,‖ March 29, 2012 (―2012 Pesticide VOC Emissions Report‖).TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 9 

### T ABLE 

### 3

- P ESTICIDE 

### E MI SSIONS AS 

### P ERCENT OF 

### O VERALL 

### VOC E MISSIONS

2010 P ESTICIDE VOC

E MISSIONS

TONS PER SUMMER DAY T OTAL 2011 VOC

I NVENTORY

TONS PER SUMMER DAY P ESTICIDE AS P ERCENT

OF TOTAL VOC

E MISSIONS

SJV 16.8 354 4.7%

Ventura 2.6 48.3 5. 3 %

South Coast 1.2 580 0.2%

SED 0.5 88.1 0.6%

Sacramento

Metro 1.1 121 0.9%

Source: T otal 2011 VOC inventory for SJV and SC: CARB, 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, July 21, 2011, Appendix B. To t al 2011 VOC invent ory for Ventura, SED, and Sacramento Metro: 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A.

CDPR Procedures for Calculating VOC Emissions from Pesticides

Section 3 CCR section 6452.4(a)(1) as amended in May 2011 establishes the basic procedures for calculating pesticide VOC emissions for the annual report and thus for determining compliance with the SIP pesticide reduction goals :

(1) report the total agricultural and structural (fumigant and nonfumigant) pesticide volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions for the previo us years. Nonfumigant pesticide product emissions will be the summation of the pounds of each pesticide product used multiplied by the VOC content (emission potential) for the specific product. Fumigant product emissions will be the summation of the pounds of each pesticide product used multiplied by the emission potential for that specific product and VOC emission rating for the application method, as specified in (5). 11

The emission potential ( EP ) of a pesticide product is th e fraction of the product that is

assumed to contribute to atmospheric VOC

. The procedure that CPDR uses to determine EP is

documented in the memorandum , Frank Spurlock, CDPR to John Sanders, CDPR, January 7, 2002, subject: Methodology for determining VOC emission potential of pesticide products (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/intro.pdf). The VOC emission rating for the fumigant application method (the application method adjustment factor (AMAF)) are establish ed in the annual report and based on available scientific data d ocumenting the VOC emissions

. See 3 CCR section 6452.4(a)(4) and 2012 Pesticide VOC Emissions Report, p. 14 and Appendix 1a.

In it s ― Revised Emissions Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley ‖

, CDPR proposes to track compliance with the overall VOC limit in the SJV by using the emissions estimation methodology described on page 2

- 4 (in the section ―Procedure for Calculating Unadjusted and Adjusted Volatile Organic Compound Emissions) in the memorandum Rosemary Neal, CDPR to Randy Segawa, CDPR, Nove mber 5, 2008

, Subject: Update to the

11 Subsection (5) of 3 CCR 6452.4(a) was renumbered to (4) in the May 2011 revisions to this section.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 10 Pesticide Volatile Organic Inventory. Estimated Emissions 1990

- 2006, and Preliminary Estimates for 2007 (―Neal m emorandum‖). 12 The emissions calculation procedures in 3 CCR section 6452.4(a)(1) and the Neal m emorandum ar e essentially the same and follow standard inventorying practice. See , for example, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html.

EPA interpret s C DPR‘s regulations in CCR section 6452.4(a) and commitment to use the emissions estimation methodology in the N eal memorandum to calculate base year VOC emission levels and compliance replace the calculation methodology in the 1994 Pesticide

Element.



### E

. History of the California SIP Pesticide Element

Prior to the submittals that are the subject to this proposal, C alifornia has made five submittals and EPA has taken three rulemaking actions related to the California SIP Pesticide

Element. These submittals and actions are listed below in Table 4 . In this section

, EPA provide s

a summary of the submittals and its actio ns on them in order to place this propos al in context

.



### T ABLE 

### 4

– P REVIOUS 

### S UBMITTALS AND 

### A CTIONS ON THE 

### C ALIFORNIA 

### SIP

P ESTICIDE 

### E LEMENT

D ATE S UBMITTAL /A CTION

November 15 , 1994 California submits ―The State Implementation Plan for Agricultural and

Commer cial Structural Pesticides,‖ November 15, 1994 as part of the 1994 California State Implementation Plan for Ozone (―1994 Pesticide SIP‖)

May 11, 1995 California submits the memorandum

, James W. Wells, Director, CDPR

to James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, CA RB, May 9, 1995, re: 1994 State Implementation Plan (―Wells memorandum‖) which clarifies and revises certain aspects of the 1994 Pesticide SIP document

.

March 18, 1996 EPA proposes to approve 1994 Ozone SIP including the pesticide

measure . 61 FR 10920

.

J une 13, 1996 California submits additional information including emissions reductions

credit taken for the pesticide measure. See , letter, James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, CARB to David Howekamp, Air Division Director, EPA Region 9, June 13, 1996 (‖ Boyd l etter ‖).

January 8, 1997 EPA finalizes approval of the 1994 Ozone SIP including the 1994

Pesticide Element. 62 FR 1150.

12 The Neal memorandum was included as part of October 12, 2009 subm ittal of the ―Revised Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley‖

, and EPA intends to include it as additional material in the

California SIP should it finalizes its proposed approval of CDPR‘s commitment.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 11 

### T ABLE 

### 4

– P REVIOUS 

### S UBMITTALS AND 

### A CTIONS ON THE 

### C ALIFORNIA 

### SIP

P ESTICIDE 

### E LEMENT

D ATE S UBMITTAL /A CTION

January 9, 2004 California submits the 2003 State Strategy which includes the PEST

- 1

measure. PEST

- 1 continue s implementation of the 1 994 Pesticide

Element

. November 30, 2007 California submits revisions to the Pesticide Element for Ventura

.

April 23, 2008 EPA proposes to approve the revisions to the Pesticide Element for

Ventura. 73 FR 21885.

July 18, 2008 EPA finalizes approval of the revisions to the Pesticide Element for

Ventura. 73 FR 41277.

March 10, 2009 EPA proposes to approve portions of the 2003 State Strategy including

the PEST

- 1 measure. 74 FR 10176

.

March 8, 2010 EPA finalizes approval of portions of the 2003 State Str ategy including

the PEST

- 1 measure. 75 FR 10420

.

1. The 1994 Pesticide Element in the 1994 Ozone SIP 13

On November 15, 1994, California submitted a comprehensive SIP to attain the 1

- hour

ozone standard in the State. As part of this comprehensive SIP, the State included a plan to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticide applications in five California ozone nonattainment areas by a maximum of 20 percent from 1990 baseline emissions by 2005. 14 U nder this plan, known as the 19 94 Pesticide SIP , the reductions in VOC emissions were to occur on a linear basis from the 1990 baseline emissions inventory. The plan also offered the flexibility to achieve reductions of less than 20 percent by the year 2005 in air districts if less

pest icidal VOC emission s reductions were needed. See 1994 Pesticide SIP , p. 1. The 1994 Pesticide Element was to be implemented in several steps: 1) re

- evaluation of pesticide products; 2) establishment of a 1990 pesticidal VOC base year inventory and emissio ns tracking program; and 3) development of a program to reduce pesticide VOC emissions if necessary.

The first step of the 1994 Pesticide SIP ―Re

- evaluation of Pesticide Products‖ was designed to determine the amount of VOC in each pesticide product by re quiring registrants of agricultural and structural pesticides to submit data on the VOC Emission Factor of their products. This step was began in April 1994.

13 EPA starts this history with California‘s first submittal of a pesticide measure for SIP approval. This submittal, however, was preceded by an EPA proposal to regulate pesticide emissions statewide as part of a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the South Coast, Ventura, and Sacramento Metro 1

- hour ozone nonattainment areas

. See 59 FR 23263, 23320 (May 5, 1994). Prior to publication of the final FIP in the Federal Register

, legislation was enacted rescindin g the FIP

. See Public Law 104

– 6, Defense Supplemental Appropriation, H.R. 889, enacted April 10, 1995 ) and 60 FR 43468 (August 21, 1995).

14 ― The State Implementation Plan for Agricultural and Commercial Structural Pesticides, ‖ November 15,

1994

.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 12 The second step of the 1994 Pesticide SIP ―Establishing the 1990 Base Year Inventory and Tracking ‖ included using the 1991 Pesticide Use Report and then adjusting it to 1990. The 1991 PUR were used instead of the 1990 because they were then believed to be more accurate

tha n the 1990 PUR reports. The SIP outlined the methodology that would be used to de velop the baseline inventory and stated that this methodology would be used for subsequent years.

The third step of the 1994 Pesticide SIP ―Reducing Pesticide VOC Emissions‖ included analysis of the 1990 and subsequent annual emission inventories to devel op detailed pesticidal VOC emission inventories over time, encouraging reductions in pesticidal VOC emissions through a series of non

- regulatory steps, and development of regulatory measures as necessary to ensure that reductions in pesticidal VOC were ach ieved. The decision whether additional regulatory measures were needed was to be made by 1997.

After reviewing the initial submittal, EPA requested C DPR clarify and revise certain aspects of the 1994 Pesticide SIP including to identify the percent reducti ons in emissions expected in specific years for each nonattainment area and the date by which C DPR would adoption any additional regulations that might be needed to achieve those reductions. 15
California responded with the requested clarifications and revis ions

. 16 These revisions including

a commitment from to adopt and submit to EPA by June 15, 1997 any regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and commercial pesticides by specific percentages of the 1990 base year emissions, by specifi c years in five nonattainment areas. C DPR listed these percentage reductions in a table:



### R EDUCTIONS FROM 

### 1990 B ASELINE

Ozone nonattainment area 1996 1999 2002 2005

Sacramento Metro 8% 12% 16% 20% San Joaquin Valley 8% 12% 16% 20%

South Coast 8% 12% 16% 20%

Southeast Desert 8% 12% 16% 20%

Ventura 8% 12% 16% 20%

Source: Wells memo randum , p. 1.

EPA proposed to approve the 1994 California SIP in March, 1996 (61 FR 10920, 10935 (March 18, 1996)). In its proposal EPA stated in regard to the pesticides measure :

4. Pesticides

a. Review of Measure. California‘s 1994 SIP submittal includes a commitment

to reduce VOC emissions from the application of agricultural and structural pesticides. The submittal describes relevant authority in Section 6220 of Title 3 of

15 See let ters, David P. Howekamp, EPA to James W. Wells, Director, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, March 20, 1995 and April 21, 1995.

16 See letter, James W. Wells to David P. Howekamp, March 31, 1995 and letter, James D. Boyd to Felicia Marcus, Regi onal Administrator, EPA Region 9, May 11, 1995 transmitting memorandum , James W. Wells, Director, CDPR to James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, CARB, May 9, 1995, re: 1994 State Implementation Plan (―Wells memorandum‖).TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 13 the California Code of Regulations that has been granted to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). However, since CARB has overall responsibility for developing the SIP, California‘s pesticide commitment is

described in a letter fro m DPR to CARB, (Ftn. 4: James Wells (DPR) to James Boyd

(CARB), dated November 15, 1994) which CARB then submitted to EPA with the

balance of the 1994 SIP. In May 1995, California used a similar mechanism to clarify technical details of the pesticide comm itment. (Ftn. 5: May 9, 1995 letter from
Wells to Boyd under a May 11, 1995 cover letter from Boyd to Felicia Marcus (EPA)) . This

clarification is considered part of California‘s SIP

b. Emission Reductions. As described in the SIP, California has committe d to adopt and submit to U.S. EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticides by specific percentages of the 1990 base year emissions, (Ftn 6: In a March 31, 1995 letter

from We lls to David Howekamp (EPA), California clarified its commitment to limit future VOC emissions from pesticides to the target percentages of the 1990 base year emissions, regardless of future growth in emissions that might otherwise occur. ―Therefore, the p roposed 20 percent reduction goal could be considered to be greater than 20 percent if one includes growth in
pesticidal VOC emissions.‖(March 31 letter, page 2.) by specific years, and in specific

nonattainment areas as listed in the table labeled, ― Reduc tions from 1990

Pesticide Emissions Baselines. ‖ The table labeled ― Reductions from Pesticides

Measure ‖ shows reductions counted toward the ROP milestones and attainment in

each area.



### R EDUCTIONS FROM 

### 1990 P ESTICIDE 

### E MISSIONS 

### B ASELINE

Ozone nonattainment are a 1996 (percent) 1999

(percent) 2002

(percent) 2005

(percent)

Sacramento Metro 8 12 16 20 San Joaquin Valley 8 12 16 20

South Coast 8 12 16 20

Southeast Desert 8 12 16 20

Ventura 8 12 16 20



### R EDUCTIONS FROM 

### P ESTICIDE S 

### M EASURE

(Tons per day of ROG)

1 999 ( 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

South Coast 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.7

Southeast Desert 0 0 1.2 1.5

Ventura 0 0 2.4

Sacrament o Metro 0 0 2.7 San Joaquin Valley 13 San Diego 0.2

The pesticide component of California‘s SIP also describes e ducation and outreach programs intended to achieve these emission reductions voluntarily.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 14 EPA strongly encourages these programs, and hopes to work with DPR and the

affected industries to make them successful. In the event, however, that additional

control strategies are needed, California‘s commitment to adopt and submit any

necessary pesticide regulations is sufficient to ensure those emission reductions described in the table labeled,  ̳ ̳Reductions from 1990 Pesticide Emissions

Baselines. ‖ (Ftn 7: Note t hat for purposes of ROP and attainment demonstrations in the SIPs, California has not claimed emission reduction credit for the 8% pesticide emission reductions planned for 1996.)

c. EPA Action. EPA is proposing to approve the Pesticides measure under

sect ions 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and assign credit to the measure as part

of the [rate of progress] and attainment demonstrations for appropriate

nonattainment areas. EPA will take regulatory action on the State‘s Pesticides regulations, if any regula tions are required and are submitted, in separate rulemakings.

In its May 2, 1996 comment letter on the proposed approval, Cal i fornia stated that it took SIP credit for pesticide reductions only in the applicable attainment year for the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Metro , Ventura County, the Southeast Desert and the South Coast and that

EPA‘s action ―should reflect this information. ‖ 17 CARB subsequently submitted additional detail in the Boyd letter that was intended to supplement the technical corrections identified in the State‘s formal May 2 comment letter. 18

On the specific proposal to approve the 1994 Pesticide Element, CARB requested that that EPA delete the table showing the reductions from the 1990 Pesticide Emissions Baseline, stating that the comm itment is for 20 percent reduction from 1990 levels in each SIP area, except SD and that CARB only took credit in the attainment year, giving these years and percent values as SJV 1999 = 12%; Sac 2005 = 20%; Ven 2005

– 20%, SED 2007

– 20%; and SC 2010 =

20 %. 19 Id . CARB also requested that no credit be assigned the pesticide measure prior to

attainment. Id

. Finally, CARB provided specific emissions reduction credit s from the Pesticide Element for each area in their attainment year. Id

. , Attachment C. EPA list ed t h ese credit (which are all expressed in the 1994 SIP currency 20 ) in its final rule approving the 1994 Ozone SIP in

17 Letter, James M. Strock, Secretary fo r Environmental Protection, to Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, May 2, 1996, Attachment 1, p. A

- 3.

18 See letter, James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, CARB to David Howekamp, Air Division Director, EPA Region 9, June 13, 1996, Attachment A, p. A

- 2 and Attachment C.

19 These dates corresponded to the applicable attainment date for each area‘s then

- current classification for

the 1

- hour ozone standard: SJV was classified as serious with an attainment date of November 15, 1999; Ventura

and Sa cramento Metro were classified as severe

- 15 with an attainment date of November 15, 2005; SED was

classified as severe

- 17 with an attainment date of November 15, 2007, and the South Coast was classified as extreme with an attainment date of November 15, 20 1 0. See 61 FR 10920, 10925.

20 A SIP‘s ―currency‖ is the emissions inventory on which it is based. An emissions reduction expressed in a particular ―SIP currency‖ is an emissions reduction calculated using the inventory included in that particular SIP.

Bec ause inventories vary from SIP to SIP for reason s unrelated to controls (e.g., improved activity estimates or emissions factors), the estimated emissions reductions from a control measure in tons per day can change from SIP

to SIP even if the effectiveness of the control measure as a percentage of the emissions category does not change. Here, the 1994 SIP currency for the pesticide reductions includes, unusually, anticipated growth in pesticide emissions from the base year of 1990 to the applicable attainme nt year. As a result, to compare whether emissionsTSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 15 the table entitled ― R EDUCTIONS FROM P ESTICIDES M EASURE ‖ at 62 FR 1150, 1170 (January 8, 1997)

. In that final rule, EPA provided the follow ing discussion on the 1994 Pesticide Element:

4. Pesticides

a. Review of Measure. California‘s 1994 SIP submittal includes a commitment

to reduce VOC emissions from the application of agricultural and structural pesticides. The submittal describes relevant authority in Section 6220 of Title 3 of

the California Code of Regulations that has been granted to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).

b. Response to Comments. The Environmental Defense Center (EDC) questioned whether the pesticides measure should be granted credit. EDC stated that pest management research alone will not create any reductions and the SIP is entirely vague as to how these air quality benefits will be accomplished. While the

NPRM refers to a June 1997 date for promulgat ion of regulations should the voluntary measures fail, the SIP itself recites a possible, not obligatory, 1998 date.

Finally, EDC recommends that the rule that was included in EPA‘s 1995 Federal Implementation Plan (or some comparable rule) must be include d in the

SIP.

On May 11, 1995, CARB submitted a clarification by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (Memo from James W. Wells to James D. Boyd) to the pesticide element of the SIP, submitted on November 15, 1994. This SIP clarification, whi ch was cited in the NPRM, states, in part, that ― The Department of Pesticide Regulation commits to adopt and submit to U.S. EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce volatile organic compound emissions from agricultural and commercial struc tural pesticides by specific percentages of the 1990 base year emissions, by specific years, and in specific

nonattainment areas * * * as listed in the following table * * *.‖ California assigns to the pesticides measure less emission reductions than were associated with EPA‘s proposed FIP rule but the SIP reductions are sufficient to meet progress

and attainment requirements in each area for this control category.

c. Emission Reductions 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

Metro , Ventura, Southeast Desert, an d the South Coast, and by 12 percent in 1999 for the San Joaquin Valley. The table labeled  ̳ ̳Reductions from Pesticides

Measure‘‘ shows reductions counted toward attainment in each area. EPA has

revised the table to reflect CEPA‘s request that emission red uctions for interim years be excluded from the SIP, since CARB elects not to assign credit to the pesticides measure except for purposes of attainment. If reductions from the measure are, in the future, needed to meet ROP milestones, CARB must resubmit

the measure and interim reduction estimates as an SIP revision.

reductions are equivalent between different SIPs for here, the emissions increases due to growth would need to be

removed first.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 16



### R EDUCTIONS FROM 

### P ESTICIDE S 

### M EASURE

(Tons per day of ROG)

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

South Coast 0 0 0 0 0 1.7

Southeast Desert 0 0 0 1.5

Ventura 0 0 2.4

Sacrament 0 0 2.7

San Jo aquin Valley 13

d. EPA Action. EPA is approving the Pesticides measure under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and assigning credit to the measure as part of the

attainment demonstrations for appropriate nonattainment areas. EPA will take

re gulatory action on the State‘s Pesticides regulations, if any regulations are required and are submitted, in separate rulemakings.

Although Wells memo randum was referenced in the preamble to EPA‘s final approval of the 1994 , it was not included in the mat erials that were incorporated by reference into the

California SIP

. While EPA‘s failure to approve and incorporate the Wells memorandum into the SIP may have been inadvertent, California‘s May 2, 1996 comment letter and the Boyd Letter made such approval a nd incorporation (i.e., without modification) problematic because the Wells memorandum contained interim year emissions reduction commitments that the California comment letter and Boyd Letter specifically excluded.

2. ―PEST

- 1‖ Measure in the 2003 State Strategy

On October 23, 2003, CARB adopted the ―2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan‖ (adopted October 23, 2003 and submitted January 9,

2004 21 ) (―2003 State Strategy‖). 22 The 2003 State Strategy identified Californi a‘s regulatory agenda to reduce ozone and PM 10 levels . It was submitted to update and replace the State‘s control measure commitments in the 1994 Ozone SIP (as modified in 1999 for the South Coast).

As submitted, the 2003 State Strategy includes State agen cy commitments to pursue a set
of defined near

- term statewide control measures and several emission s reduct ion commitments specific to attainment of the 1

- hour ozone standard and the PM 10 standards in the South Coast

and the PM 10 standards in the San Joaqu in Valley. One of the se defined measure s was PEST

- 1 ( ― Implement Existing Pesticide Strategy ‖ ), which retain ed the provisions of the 1994 Pesticide Element. As submitted in January 2004, the 2003 State Strategy only described the measure as it applied to th e South Coast. See 2003 State Strategy, section III

- C.

21 See CARB Board Resolution 03

- 22 (October 23, 2003) and letter, Catheri ne With erspoon, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, January 9, 2004.

22 On February 13, 2008, CARB withdrew from EPA consideration certain commitments related to the

South Coast Air Basin in the 2003 State S trate gy

. These withdrawals d id not affect the measure in the 2003 State Strategy related to VOC controls for pesticides. See l etter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, February 13, 2008.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 17 In addition to addressing emissions reductions needed for the South Coast 1

- hour ozone

and SJV PM 10 plans, t he 2003 State Strategy was also intended to provide state strategies and

emissions reductions for the SJV‘s then

- under development 1

- hour ozone plan. This plan was initially required by the area‘s reclassification to severe as a result of its failure to attain by its serious attainment date of November 15, 1999 and then required as a result of its voluntary

re classification to extreme. See 66 FR 56476 (November 8, 2001) and 69 FR 20550 (April 16, 2004).

In 2004, CARB submitted the 2004 Extreme [1

- hour Ozone] Attainment Plan for the SJV which, as anticipated, relied in part on the 2003 State Strateg y for the reductions needed for attainment. On page 27 of its staff report for that plan, 23 CARB discusses the measures in the 2003 State Strategy and provides an interpretation of the PEST

- 1 measures as it related to the

SJV:

• Continuation of the Departmen t of Pesticide Regulation‘s approved SIP

obligation to reduce volatile emissions from pesticides. For the San Joaquin Valley, this means a pesticide VOC emissions target of 12 percent less than

1990 levels.

In 2008, EPA proposed to approve the measure s in the 2003 State Strategy including

PEST

- 1 as part of its proposed partially approval/partially disapproval of the 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. See 73 FR 63408 (October 24, 2008)

. EPA noted in that proposal

that it interpret ed its approval o f PEST

- 1 as maintaining the status quo with respect to the existing pesticide strategy , that is, the California SIP w ould continue to reflect the strategy as approved by EPA in 1997

. Id a t 63413 . After reviewing and responding to comments received on the p roposal (including comments on the proposed approval of PEST

- 1e), EPA finalized the approval of the PEST

- 1 measure. 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 2009)

. In acting on PEST

- 1, EPA reasoned that approval or disapproval of PEST

- 1 amounted to the same thing from the s tandpoint of the California SIP, namely the 1994 Pesticide Element

. See 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 2009)

. EPA‘s approval of PEST

- 1 was challenged and the Ninth Circuit disagreed with EPA‘s decision that approval or disapproval of PEST

- 1 amounted to the same t hing and remanded the approval of PEST

- 1 back to EPA for an evaluation of the Pesticide Element for enforceability.

See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA

, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 201 1), rev ise d January 27, 2012 ( AIR )

. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held, give n its earlier findin g in the Warmerdam case that the Wells memorandum was not approved and incorporated into the California SIP, that EPA must determine whether the approved 1994 Pesticide Element has sufficient enforcement mechanisms to satisfy the requirements of the CAA.

3. 2007 Revisions to the Pesticide Element for Ventura

In 2007, California revised the Pesticide Element for Ventura to reduce in part, and temporarily, the VOC emissions reduction commitments for Ventura County to avoid sho rt

- term,
but potentially significant, economic losses by strawberry farmers in the area and the potential for long

- term loss of farmland to urban development. On November 30, 2007, CARB submitted

the ― Revised Proposed Revision to the Pesticide Element of t he 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura

23 CARB, S taff Report, Proposed 2004 State Implementation Plan For Ozone i n t he San Joaquin Valley

, Release Date: September 28, 2004

.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 18 County Nonattainment Area (August 13, 2007) ‖ ( ― Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura ‖ ) to EPA for approval as a revision to the existing Pesticide Element in the California SIP.

Un der the 1994 Pesticide Element

, C DPR had c ommitted to reduce VOC emissions resulting from agricultural and commercial structural pesticides in Ventura County by 20 percent of the 1990 base year emissions and by 2.4 t pd (in 1994 SIP currency) by 2005. Under the

Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura , CARB proposed to substitute specific ― surplus ‖

emissions reductions from California‘s ongoing mobile source emission control program for a portion of the 1994 Pesticide Element commitment for Ventura County

. See Table 3 of the

Revised Pesticide Element f or Ventura. Under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura,

CARB reduce d the amount of the substitution each year until 2012 , resulting in the restoration of

the full 20 percent reduction and 2.4 tpd VOC commitment under the 1994 Pesticide Element

. Th is p hase in resulted in a declining overall cap on pesticide VOC emissions in the Ventura

ozone nonattainment area between 2008 and 2012 as shown below:



### P HASE 

### I N OF 

### P ESTICIDE 

### VOC L IMITS FOR THE 

### V ENTURA 

### O ZONE



### N ONATTAINMENT 

### A REA Tons per Day

2008 2009 2010 20 11 2012+

4.3 4.0 3.6 3.3 3.0

After evaluating the revisions for compliance with applicable CAA requirements, EPA approve the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura. See 73 FR 21885 (April 23, 2008) (proposed rule) and 73 FR 41277 (July 18, 2008) (final r ule).TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 19 

## II. Evaluation of the Proposed R evisions to the California

SIP Pesticide Element

A

. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements Applicable to SIP Submittals and

Revisions.

1. Requirements for Public Notice and Hearing for SIP Submittals

CAA sections 1 10(a) and (l) require a state to provide reasonable public notice and hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. T o meet this requirement

, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and a p ublic hearing was held consistent with EPA‘s implementing regulations in 40 CFR § 51.102.

CDPR ha s satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal (thorough CARB) of its fi eld fumigant regulations and revisions to its ― Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley

. ‖ E ach SIP

submittal contain s evidence of adequate public notice and public hearing. See memorandum

, Christopher Reardon, Chief Deputy Director, CDPR to James Gol dstene, Executive Officer,

CARB

, October 5, 2009, Subject: Fumigant Volatile Organic Compound Regulations

, Enclosures 2 and 3; m emorandum , Christopher Reardon, Chief Deputy Director, CDPR to James

Goldstene , Executive Officer, CARB

, October 5, 2009, Subjec t: Amendment to the Pesticide Element of the Ozone State Implementation Plan , Enclosures 3 and 4; and m emorandum

, Christopher Reardon, Chief Deputy Director, CDPR to James Goldstene, Executive Officer,

CARB

, July 20, 2011 , Subject: Additional Fumigant Vola tile Organic Compound Regulations

, Enclosure 2

- 2.

2. Completeness Determination s

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt

. This section also provides that any SIP submittal that EPA

has not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six months after the day of submittal

. A completeness review allows EPA to determine if the submittal includes all the necessary items and information it need s to act on it.

EPA make s completeness determinations using criteria that it established in

40 CFR part 51, Appendix V

. These criteria fall into two categories: administrative information and technical support information

. The administrative informati on provides documentation that

the state has followed basic administrative procedures during the SIP

- adoption process and thus

EPA has a legally

- adopted SIP revision in front of it

. The technical support information provides

the information EPA need s to de termine the impact of the proposed revision on attainment and maintenance of the air quality standards.

EPA notif

ies a state of its completeness determination by letter unless the submittal

bec a me complete by operation of law

. A finding of completeness doe s not approve the submittal as part of the SIP nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable

. It does start the 12

- month

clock under CAA section 110(k)(2) for final EPA action on the SIP submittal

.
The October 12, 2009 submittal s of the field fumig ant regulations and the revised SJV

Pesticide commitment became complete by operation of law on April 12, 20 10

. The August 2,TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 20 2011 submittal of revisions to the field fumigant regulations became complete by operation of

law on February 2, 2012

.



### T ABLE 

### 5

– A DOPTION 

### , S UBMITTAL 

### , AND 

### C OMPLETENESS 

### T IMELINE FOR


### P ROPOSED 

### R EVISIONS TO THE 

### C ALIFORNIA 

### SIP P ESTICIDE 

### E LEMENT

D ATE A CTION

September 27,

2007 CARB adopts 2007 State Strategy including the CDPR  ́ Proposed SIP Commitment

for San Joaquin Valley ( found on p age 131 of the 2007 State Strategy ).

November 16,

2007 CARB submits the 2007 State Strategy including CDPR Proposed SIP Commitment

for San Joaquin Valley. ( CARB withdr ew this version of CDPR Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley on October 12, 2009. )

January 25,

2008 CDPR revise s title 3 of the C alifornia C ode of R egulations to incorporate regulations

to limit emission s of VOC from the application of fumigants in five California ozone nonattainment areas. This regulations include 3 CCR section 6447 (first paragraph only) and sections 6447.3

— 6452 pertaining to field fumigation methods . (CDPR refers to this set of regulations as VOC

- 1 .)

January 28,

2008 CARB submit s portions of CDPR‘s adopted fumigant regulations (VOC

- 1) for

inclusion in California‘s State Implementation Plan (SIP). ( CARB withdrew th ese regulations on October 12, 2009. )

September 3,

2008 C DPR revise s the fumigant regulations (3 CCR section 6452.2 ) to phase

- in the

fumigant VOC emission allocation system applicable in the Ventura. (CDP R refers to

this set of revisions as VOC

- 2 .)

April 17, 2009 CDPR adopts ― Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley

. ‖

April 20,

2009 C DPR revise s the fumigant regulations (3 CCR section 6452.2) to recalculate the

emission benchmarks for each of the five applicable nonattainment areas

. (CDPR

refers to this set of revisions as V OC

- 3 .)

October 12,

2009 C ARB submitted portions of the fumigant regulations to EPA (VOC

- 1, VOC

- 2, and

VOC

- 3) . This submittal supersede d the January 28, 2008 submittal, and inc lude d :

• 3 CCR section 6447 (first paragraph only) and 3 CCR sections 6447.3

- 6452 pertaining to field fumigation methods.

• 3 CCR sections 6452.1 and 6452.4 and 3 CCR sections 6624 and 6626 pertaining to the emissions inventory.

• Portions of 3 CCR sections 6452 .2 and 6452.3 pertaining to field fumigation limits and allowances only as applicable to the Ventura ozone nonattainment area

. October 12,

2009 CARB submits ―Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley

. ‖

April 12

, 2010 C ARB‘s October 12, 2009 submitta l s became complete by operation of law pursuant

to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B).TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 21 

### T ABLE 

### 5

– A DOPTION 

### , S UBMITTAL 

### , AND 

### C OMPLETENESS 

### T IMELINE FOR


### P ROPOSED 

### R EVISIONS TO THE 

### C ALIFORNIA 

### SIP P ESTICIDE 

### E LEMENT

D ATE A CTION

April 7, 2011 C DPR add s or revise s the se fumigant regulations: 3 CCR sections 6448.1, 6449.1,

6450.1 (fumigation method restrictions); section 6452.2 (fumigant VOC emission

lim its); section 6452.3 (field fumigant VOC emission allowances); section 6452.4 (annual VOC emissions inventory report); and section 6626 (pesticide use reports for production agriculture) . (CDPR refers to this set of revisions as VOC

- 4 .)

May 11, 2011 C DPR add s or revise s the se fumigant regulations: 3 CCR section 6400 (restricted

materials); section 6446 (general requirements); section 6446.1 (methyl iodide field fumigation methods); section 6452.4 (annual VOC emissions inventory report); and

section 6624 ( pesticide use records) . (CDPR refers to this set of revisions as VOC

- 5 .)

August 2, 2011 C ARB submitted portions of the fumigant regulations (VOC

- 4 and VOC

- 5) . This

submittal revised and added to the October 12, 2009 submittal

, and includ ed the following:

• 3 CCR section 6400 pertaining to restricted materials.

• 3 CCR sections 6446, 6446.1, 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 federal ozone NAA. The portions of sections 6452.2 and 6452.3 pertaining to field fumigation limits and allowances in the Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, and Southeast Desert

federal ozone NAAs are not included for submitt al to U.S. EPA

.

• 3 CCR section 6452.4 pertaining to the annual VOC emissions inventory report.

• 3 CCR sections 6624 and 6626 pertaining to pesticide use reports.

February 2,

2012 C ARB‘s August 2, 2011 submittal became complete by operation of law pursuant t o

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



### B. Enforceability

1. CAA Requirements for Enforceability of Rules and Commitments

CAA s ection s 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) require that SIP ―shall include enforceable emissions limitations, and such other control measures, me ans or techniques (...) as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate for attainment.... ‖

In order to be enforceable, SIP regulations and commitments must be clear regarding, for example, who must comply, by what d ate, the standard of compliance, the methods used to determine compliance, and the process and criteria for obtaining any variation from the normal mode of compliance

. 24 Guidance used to help evaluate enforceability includes the ― Bluebook ‖

and ― the Little B luebook. ‖ 25

24 ―Review of State Implementations Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency‖ (Enforceability Guidance), Craig P otter, EPA, September 23, 1987. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/ policies/civil/caa/stationary/review

- enf

- rpt.pdf

. See also General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of theTSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 22 2. Evaluation and Conclusions

a. CDPR Regulations

The CDPR‘s regulations are clear and specific. They describe the specific requirements related to field fumigation and methods , by fumigant, for five ozone nonattainment areas during May 1

- Oc tober 31, the peak ozone season. See portions of sections 6447

– 6452. For example,

section 6337.3 (Methyl Bromide Field Fumigation Methods) specifies that of six allowable methyl bromide application methods, the Nontarpaulin/Shallow Bed; Nontarpaulin/Deep Broadcast; Tarpaulin/Shallow/Bed; Drip System and, in specific circumstances, Tarpaulin/Shallow/Broadcast and Tarpaulin/Deep Broadcast methods are prohibited in the SJV, SED and Ventura nonattainment areas from May 1 through October 31. Provisions for eac h fumigant specify maximum application rates, and, as applicable, soil moisture requirements, minimum injection depths and spacing, type of equipment used, post water treatment rates and timing, tarpaulin application requirements, and ―tarpaulin repair res ponse plans.‖

Section 6452 establishes a process and criteria for requesting and approval of an alternate

method on a 3

- year interim basis. The request to implement a method not described in the regulations must be accompanied b y scientific data documenti ng the VOC emissions , and that

the method will not result in emissions greater than any one of the methods described and permitted in the regulations. The director must consider criteria such as data sufficiency and validity, and representativeness of fiel d conditions studied.

The regulations include recordkeeping requirements in 3 CCR section 6624 (Pesticide Use Records) and the reporting requirements in 3 CCR section 6626 ( Pesticide Use Reports for Production Agriculture ). Among these recordkeeping and r eporting requirement is the provision that require s any person who use s a fumigant in any of the five ozone nonattainment areas must record and report a description of the application m ethod

. See 3 CCR sections 6624(f) and 6626(d). The requirements for met hods used, alternate methods, recordkeeping and report requirements and other rule provisions in the submitted regulations are clear and adequate to ensure that California‘s submitted fumigant regulations are enforceable as required by of CAA

section 110(a )(2)(A)

.

b. Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley

CDPR‘s commitment to ensure that VOC emissions from commercial structural and agricultural pesticide use do not exceed 18.1 tpd in the SJV is clear. The mechanism to t rack

c ompliance with the limits is an annual emissions inventory report which is required by both the

Commitment and 3 CCR section 6452.4. ( Annual Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Inventory Report )

. Procedures for calculating emissions are included in t he Neal memorandum

and 3 CCR section 6452.4(a)(1) and the requirement for sources (e.g., pesticide applicators) to keep and report the dat a necessary for preparing the annual emissions i n ventory report is required by 3 CCR section 6624 (Pesticide Use Recor ds) and section 6626 ( Pesticide Use

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 57 FR 13498, 13502 and 13541 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble) and CAA

sections 110(a)(2) and 172(c)(6).

25 ―Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations ,‖ U.S. EPA, OAQPS, May 25, 19 8 8 (The Bluebook) and ―Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies,‖ U.S. EPA Region IX, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 23 Reports for Production Agriculture ) These provisions are adequate in combination with the fumigant regulation and the to ensure the limit for the SJV is enforceable as required by CAA Section 110(a) (1)(A)

.
CDPR has also commit ted to implement restrictions on VOC emissions from non

fumigant regulations by 2014. EPA interpret s ―by 2014‖ to mean by May 1, 2014 given that CDPR projects emissions reductions from these restrictions in 2014

. See ―Proposed SIP

Commitment for San Joaquin Valley,‖ page 2. To achieve reductions in 2014, the restriction

would need to be implement by the beginning of summer ozone season (May 1) in that year. CDPR does not commit to a specific emissions reduction from the additional restrictions on non

fumigant pesticide; however, the restrictions are part of CDPR‘s regulatory program to e nsure that the inventory target of 18.1 tpd in the SJV is not exceeded ( Id

. at page 1), which effectively defines the needed stringency

. This commitment is sufficiently clear and adequate to ensure that is enforceable as required by CAA section 110(a)(1)(A).



### C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Requirements (RA C M/RACT)

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan ―provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption , at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ RACM is a requirement only for nonattainment areas.

EPA defines RACM as any potential control measure for application to point, area, on

road and non

- road emission s s ource categories that meets certain criteria . These criteria include

whether the measure is technologically and economically feasible and either individu a lly or collectively with other such me asures can advance the at tainment date by at least one year. See

57 FR 13498, 13560 (A pril 16, 1992)

. 26 The determination as to whether a SIP provides for the implementation of RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) is done as part of an area‘s attainment and reasonable further progress pl ans and not on a rule

- by

- rule basis.

For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) requires the implementation of reasonably available control technologies ( RACT ) on all major sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for which EPA has issued a Control

Tech niques Guideline (CTG). CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major stationary sources of NO

x . In areas classified as severe (such as SED (classification pending), Ventura, and Sacramento), a major source is a stationa ry source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 25 tons of VOC or NO

x per year. See CAA sections

26 See also “ State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on A pproval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas,‖ 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979)

, memorandum entitled ―Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,‖ John Seitz, Dire ctor, OAQPS to Regional Air Directors, November 30, 1999, and

m emorandum , John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, ―Additional Submission

on RACM from States with Severe One

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs

, ‖ December 1 4, 2000

.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 24 182( d ) and (f) . For areas classified as extreme (South Coast and San Joaquin Valley) , a major stationary sources is one that emits or has the potent ial to emit at least 10 tons of VOC or NO

x per year. See CAA sections 182( e ) and (f)

.
The proposed revisions to the California SIP Pesticide Element that we are evaluating

here are intended to reduce VOC emissions in the South Coast, S ED, Ventura , SJV, and

Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment areas. VOC emissions cont ribute to the formation of

ozone and secondary particulate matter. EPA , though, has determined by rule that states do not

need to address controls for sources of VOC em issions for PM 2.5 standard attainment unless the

state and/or EPA make a technical demonstration that such contr ols would significantly contribute to reducing PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. See 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(3 )

. Such a determination would be made in the context of each area‘s plan for

attainment of the PM 2.5 standards.

2. RACM/RACT Evalua tion and Conclusion

a. Field Fumigant Regulations: South Coast, Ventura, Southeast Desert, San Joaquin Valley,

and Sacramento Metro

C ARB‘s 2009 submittal of the field fumigant regulations did not include a demonstration of how the field fumigation methods implement reasonably available c ontrol technology (RACT). 27 In response to EPA comments, C DPR provided a document containing more detailed

information on its RACT evaluation of fumigation methods. 28 This document contains a general discussion of strategies for controlling VOC emissions fro m fumigants and an evaluation of field fumigation method options, including the basis for those accepted and those rejected by CDPR

for incl usion in its regulations . It discusses current research on fumigant VOC emission s reduction methods, including a reevaluation of fumigants to obtain additional data to re place surrogate data used in developing the adopted regulations.

Field fumigation emissions are considered fugitive emissions because the y are emissions

that ― could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally

- equivalent opening .‖ 29 As noted above,

, CAA section 182 (b)(1) requires RACT be applie d to all major stationary sources in an oz one nonattainment area

, EPA has not yet defined by rule whether fugitive emissions must be included in determination of major source status for the purposes determining the applicati on of section 182 (b)(1) RACT requirement ; however

, EPA believes,

b ased on the information provided in the CDPR ‘s alternatives analysis, and the research cited to support it, that C DPR has demonstrated that the proposed regulations are stringent enough to

i mplement RACT

- level controls on the application of pesticide s

. On January 10, 2012, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the section 182(b)(1) RACT SIP submitted by California on June 18, 2009 for the SJV ozone nonattainment

area . The partial d isapproval was based in part on our conclusion that the State had not fully

27 See letter , Andrew Steckel, EPA Region 9 to Frank Spurlock, CDPR and Mike Guzzetta, CARB, November 2, 2010

.

28 See letter and attachments, Randy Segawa, CDPR to Andrew Steckel, EPA

- Region 9, Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Pes ticides: Analysis of Alternatives for Field Fumigation Methods, June 28

, 2011.

29 See 40 CFR 70.2 (Def initions)

.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 25 satisfied CAA section 182 (b) RACT requirements for the application of fumigants

. See 77 FR 1417, 1425 (January 10, 2012). Based on our proposed finding here that C DPR‘s field fumigant regulations provide RACT

- level controls on this source category, final approval of these regulations would satisfy California's obligation to implement RACT under CAA section

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

- hour ozone and 1997 8

- hour ozone standards for the

SJV RACT SIP

. EPA has recently approved the attainment, RFP and RACM demonstrations in the 8

- hour ozone SIPs for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley and the PM 2.5 SIP for the South Coast (which did include VOC reductions in its R FP and attainment demonstrat ions )

. 30 These demonstrations relied in part on VOC control measures in the 2007 State Strategy ; however, EPA‘s approval of these demonstration s did not rely on emissions reductions from CDPR‘s field fumigant regulations . T heref ore, their approval into the SIP is consistent with the approved

RACM demonstrations.

CARB has submitted SIPs to address attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard in the

S ED , Ventura County , and Sacramento Metro nonattainment

. EPA has not yet act ed on t hese plans although we note that none rely on reductions from controls on pesticides

.

b. Revised P esticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley

As noted above, the demonstration that a SIP provides for the implementation of RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) is done as part of an area‘s attainment and reasonable further prog ress plans and not on an individual rule or commitment basis.

EPA recently approved the 2007 8

- hour ozone SIP for the San Joaquin Valley , including

the SIP‘s RACM demonstration

. 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012). T o demonstrate that the SIP provided for RACM, California relied in part on m easures in the 2007 State Strategy, including

the ― Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley ‖ (as revised April 17, 2009) that is being propos ed for approv al here

. However, because it had not yet approved the commitment int o the SIP, EPA did not grant any emissions reductions credit to the

commitment in either the RFP or attainment demonstration nor did it rely on the commitment to
make the determination that the 2007 SIP provided for RACM

. See Air Division, EPA Region 9,

― Final Technical Support Document and Response to Comments Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the 2007 State Strategy,‖ December 15, 2011, p. 51

- 57. Because EPA‘s approvals of the attainment, RFP, and RACM

demonstrations in the SJV 2007 8

- hour ozone SIP did not rely on emissions reductions from CDPR‘s commitment to limit pesticide VOC emissions in the SJV to 18.1 t pd, its approval into the SIP is consistent with the approved RACM demonstration

.

30 See 76 FR 69928 (November 9, 2011) (South Coast PM 2.5 Plan), 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012) (SJV

2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP), and 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012) (South Coast 8

- hour Ozone Plan). EPA has also recently approved the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP which relied in part on measures in the 2007 State Strategy. In approving that SIP, EPA concurred with the State‘s determination that VOC did not need to be controlled for PM 2.5 attainment in the SJV and therefore the plan did not include did not need to evalua te VOC control measures as part of its

RACM demonstration. See 76 FR 69896, 69924 (November 9, 2011). The PM 2.5 plan for the Sacramento Metro area

is not due until late 2012.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 26 

### D. Finding of Non

- Interference with Applicable Requirements of the CAA

under Section 110(l)

1. CAA Section 110(l) Requirements

Revisions to the SIP , including revisions to SIP

- approved control measure

, must meet the requirements of CAA section 110(l) to be approved by EPA. CAA section 110(l) ―Plan Revisions‖ provides in relevan t part :

―The A dministrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in [ section 171] ) or any other applicable requirement of [t he CAA] .‖ 31

EPA interpret s section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria pollutants. It also interpret s section 110(l) to require a demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. The scope and rigor of an adequate section 110(l) demonstration of noninterference depends on the air qual ity status of the area, the potential impact of the revision on air quality, the pollutant(s) affected, and the nature of the applicable CAA requirements.

In reviewing a modification to an approved SIP provision, EPA look s to see to what

extent the existi ng SIP has relied on that provision to meet applicable CAA requirements. For

emissions reduction measures, its generally conclude s that the revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement related to attainment or RFP if the revised SIP will pro vide the same or

more emissions reductions o n the same or similar schedule as the existing SI P. EPA note s
, however, that CAA section 110(l) does not bar approval of SIP revisions that may result in higher levels of emissions than would potentially occur un der the unrevised SIP; only that such

revisions do not result in the applicable SIP no longer providing for expeditious attainment or RFP or complying with any other applicable requirements of the CAA.

2. Evaluation and Conclusion

The SIP submittals that are being evaluating in this proposal for inclusion into the

California SIP control VOC emissions in five California areas: South Coast, Southeast Desert,
Ventura, San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment areas . Neither the field fumigant regulations nor the SJV pesticide SIP commitment explicitly regulated any other pollutant besides VOC. VOC is a pr ecursor pollutant for ozone as well as for both fine (PM 2.5 ) and coarse (PM 10 ) particulate matter

. 32 At this time o nly the South Coast‘s SIPs rely on VOC

c ontrols for PM 2.5 or PM 10 attainment and n one of its adopted particulate matter plans rely on

reductions from the California SIP Pesticide Element (either as already approved or proposed for

31 CAA section 110(l) also provides that e ach SIP revision submitted by a s tate must be adopted by the

state after reasonable notice and public hearin g. EPA address es this provision in section II.A. of this TSD.

32 While EPA considers VOC to be a precursor to PM, it does not require control of VOC emissions for

PM standard attainment in most instances. See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007) and 57 FR 13498, 13538 (April 16, 1992).TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 27 approval here) to demonstrate attainment , RFP, or RACM or to meet any other requiremen t of

the CAA.

Each area‘s current attainment designation for the current ozone and particulate matter (PM) standards is shown on Table1 above. This table also provides information on the current
status of the ar ea s ‘ implementation plans for the current ozon e and particulate matter standards

and the revoked 1

- hour ozone standard

. 33 In section I. F

, EPA provide s a more detailed discussion

of th e relationship (or lack thereof) of the California SIP‘s Pesticide Element to each area‘s nonattainment area plans

.

a. Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress for Ozone and Particulate Matter

i. Field Fumigant Regulations

The CDPR‘s field fumigant regulat ions are the first such regulations incorporated into the

California SIP. The ir approval will strengthen the SIP b y providing SIP

- enforceable measures and compliance procedures to reduce emissions from the application of fumigants in the five ozone nonattainment areas covered by the regulation s . Their approval w ill also aid compliance

with the approved California SIP P esticide Element ‘ s provisions for reducing VOC emissions by 20 percent from 1990 baseline levels in the South Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura and

Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment areas

. Their approval will also a id compliance with the proposed 1 8.1 tp d limit o n pesticid e VOC emissions in the San Joaquin

. T herefore , EPA proposes to find that approving the field fumigant regulations into the California SIP will not interfere with any applicable requirement conc erning attainment and reasonable further progress or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

ii. Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley

In 1997, EPA approved the 1994 Pesticide Element into the California SIP

. See 62 FR

1150 , 1170 (January 8, 1997)

. As approved, the 1994 Pesticide E lement was to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticide applications by a maximum of 20 percent from the 1990 baseline emission inventory by 2005 in areas that relied on VOC

reduc tions from pesticides in their attainments plans with r eductions o ccur ring linear ly from

1 990 to 2005 but it allowed for less than 20 percent if fewer VOC reductions from pesticide were

needed

. See 1994 Pesticide SIP

, p. 1

.
The attainment demonstration for the SJV in the 1994 Ozone SIP relied in part on reductions of 12 percent from 1990 emissions levels from the 1994 Pesticide Element to demonstrate attainment by the area‘s then

- applicable attainment deadline of November 15, 1999

. In approving the 1994 Pesticide Element and the SJV ozone attainment demonstration, EPA

credited the element with 13 tpd ( in 1994 SIP currency) in VOC emissi ons redu ctions in

1999

. 34

, 35 At the same time, EPA noted that California ha d committed to adopt and submit any

33 EPA revoked the 1

- hour ozone standard in all areas of t he country, including the five areas subject to the pesticide element, effective 2005. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). Under EPA‘s implementation rule for the 8

- hour ozone standard, certain ―applicable requirements‖ that applied under 1

- hour ozone standa rd planning requirements continue to apply to 8

- hour ozone nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR § 51.900(f). The 1994 Pesticide

Elemen t is not one of the applicable requirements under the 8

- hour implementation rule

.

34 The 13 tpd figure was provided by CARB on page A

- 2 and in Attachment C of the June 18, 1996 Boyd

Letter . EPA incorporated the Boyd letter into the SIP. See 40 CFR § 52.220(c)(236)

.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 28 regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticides by 12 percent in 1999

. 36 See 61 FR 10920, 10935 (March 18, 1996).

In 2003, CARB updated the strategy that was part of the 1994 Ozone SIP . One of the measures in the 2003 State Strategy was PEST

- 1 ( ― Implement Existing Pesticide Strategy ‖ ),

which retain ed the provisions of the 1994 Pesticide Element. In 2004, CARB sub mitted the 2004 Extreme [1

- hour Ozone] Attainment Plan for the SJV which relied in part on the 2003 State Strategy for the reductions needed to demonstrate attainment by SJV ‘ s new applicable attainment date of November 15, 2010. On page 27 of its staff report for that plan, 37 CARB

discusses the measures in the 2003 State Strate gy and provides an interpretation of the PEST

- 1

measures as it related to the SJV including PEST

- 1. It described the measure as a ― [c ] ontinuation of the Department of Pesticide Regulation‘s approved SIP obligation to reduce volatile emissions from pesticides [which f] or the San Joaquin Valley,

... means a pesticide VOC emissions target of 12 percent less than 1990 levels. ‖

EPA approved PEST

- 1 into the SIP as part of its action to approve in part and disapprove in part the 2003 South Coast AQMP. See 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 2009), codified at 40 C FR § 52.220(c)(339)( i i)(A)( 1 )

.
EPA has not approved any other changes to the SJV

- related provisions of 1994 Pesticide

Element nor have it granted any emissions reductions credit for the 1994 Pesticide Element beyond the 13 tpd (in 1994 SIP currency) approved a s part of its action on the 1994 Ozone SIP.

38

California is now proposing to revise its SIP Pesticide Element for the SJV to replace the requirement to achieve a reduction in VOC emissions from pesticides with a limit on overall

VOC emissions fro m pesticides in the SJV of 18.1 tpd of VOC during the high ozone season of May 1 and October 3

. The 18.1 tpd cap equates to a reduction of 12 percent from the current

estimate of 1990 pesticide VOC emissions in the SJV

. 39

35 The 13 tpd figure was provided by CARB on page A

- 2 and in Attachment C o f the Boyd Letter. For the 1994 Ozone SIP, the State estimated that VOC emissions from pesticide use in 1990 in the San Joaquin Valle y were 62.5 tpd. A 12 percent reduction from this level would require reducing overall pesticide emissions to be no more than 55.0 tpd in 1999. The State further estimated that without controls, VOC emissions from pesticides in the SJV

would increase to 67 .9 tpd by 1999, thereby requiring a reduction of 12.9 tpd (67.9 tpd minus 55.0 tpd, rounded to 13 tpd) in 1999 in order to meet the target level for a 12 percent reduction. See CDPR, Staff Report on the Department of Pesti cide Regulation’s Proposed SIP Com mitment for San Joaquin Valley ,‖ undated , p. 1, ftn 1.

36 A 20 percent reduction that was to occur linearly over the fifteen years between 1990 and 2005 would accrue reductions at a rate of 1.33 percent per year (20 percent divided by 15 years) resulting i n a 12 percent reduction by 1999 (9 years times 1.33 percent per year) .

37 CARB, S taff Report, Proposed 2004 State Implementation Plan For Ozone In The San Joaquin Valley

, Release Date: September 28, 2004

.

38 We have approved two ozone plans for the SJV since the 1997: the 2004 Ozone Plan in 2010 and the second, the 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan in 2012. See 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010) and 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012). Neither plan nor our approval of them relied on reductions in pesticide emission s to meet any applicable CAA requirement.

39 See CDPR, Staff Report on the Department of Pesticide Regulation’ s Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley ,‖ un date d (enclosure 2 to Memorandum , Christopher W. Reardon , Chief Deputy Director, CDPR, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, October 5, 2009; subject: Amendments to the Pesticide Element of the

O zone State Implementation Plan).TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 29 Based on its review of the proposed revision, EPA find s that the revision will result in

, at
minimum

, the same emissions reductions that are currently required by the approved SIP and will not delay those reductions given that the limit is currently effective. EPA , therefore, proposes to find that approving CDPR‘s commitment to manage VOC emissions from commercial structural and agricultural pesticide use to ensure that they do not exceed 18.1 tpd in into the California SIP will not interfere with any applicable CAA requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other ap plicable requirement of the CAA

.

In comment s that EPA received on its proposed approval of the SJV 2004 Extreme ozone

Attainment Plan (74 FR 33933(July 14, 2009)), several non

- governmental organization s argued that the 1994 Pesticide Element requires a 20 percent reduction in VOC emissions from 1990 levels by 2005 in the SJV 40 citing to the Boyd lette r on page A

- 2. In the Boyd letter, CARB provided EPA with suggested revisions to its March 18, 1996 (61 FR 10920, 10935) proposed approval of the 1994 Ozone SIP. In reference to the Pesticide Element, CARB stated th at the ―commitment is for a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2005 in each SIP area, except [San Diego]. [CARB] only took credit in the attainment year: SJV 1999 = 12%; Sac 2005 = 20%; Ven 2005 = 20%; SED 2007 = 20%; SC 2010 = 20%.‖

EPA does not find the ― commitment is for a 20% reduction‖ statement determinative as

to the State‘s commitment for SJV

, not only because it is immediately contr adicted by the statement that a 12 percent credit was taken only in the attainment year of 1999 but also because

it is not entirely consistent with the more extensive language describing the emissions reductions target in other parts of the approved 1994 Pesticide Element and does not reflect the reductions

relied on in the SIP.

The 1994 Pesticide Element committed CDPR to a ― maximum of 20 percent‖ reduction in pesticide VOC emissions from 1990 baseline levels in areas ―which reference VOC reductions‖ from the element in their plans. See 1994 Pesticide SIP , p. 1. With this language, the percent reduction required in a n area is tied to the emissions reductions referenced, that is

, relied on, in that area‘s plan. As approved, the 1994 Pesticide Element also allowed for r eductions of less than 20 percent if fewer VOC reductions from pesticide were needed. Id

. As noted above,

the reducti ons relied on in the 1994 Ozone SIP in its attainment demonstration for SJV in 1999 were 13 tpd (in 1994 SIP currency) which equates to 12 percent reduction from 1990 baseline in 1999 (when anticipated growth in pesticide VOC emissions between 1990 and 1999 is e xcluded) and no additional reductions have been relied on in any SIP for SJV subsequent to the 1994 one.

Approval of the revised ― Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley‖ (submitted in 2009) will not interfere with any a pplicable requirement related to attainment or reasonable further progress for any PM 2.5 or PM 10 standard in the SJV. E PA has determined that VOC controls are not required for particulate matter control in the SJV. See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007), 69 FR 30006, 30007 (May 26, 2004), and 76 FR 69896,

699 24 (November 9, 2011).

Approval of the ―Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley ‖ will not interfe re with any applicable requirement related to attainment or reasonabl e

40 See letter, Brent Newell, Legal D irector, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, August 31, 2009, ―Comments on Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: 1

- Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin Valley, CA (Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2008

- 0693),‖ pp. 16

- 20.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 30 further progress for any PM 2.5 or PM 10 standard in the SJV. E PA has determined that VOC controls are not required for particulate matter control in the SJV. See 69 FR 30006, 30011 ( 72

FR (May 26, 2004) and 76 FR 20586, 20589 (November 9, 2011 )

.

b. RACM for Ozone and Particulate Matter

EPA has approved the RACM demonstrations in the 8

- hour ozone PM 2.5 SIP for the

South Coast. EPA has also approved RACM/best available control measure (BACM)

demonstrations in the PM 10 SIPs for South Coast and SED. 41 The pr oposed approval of the fumigant regulations is consistent with these approved RACM /BACM demonstrations and therefore will not interfere these SIPs‘ compliance with the RACM/BACM requirements.

EPA has approved the 8

- hour ozone SIP for San Joaquin Valley. 42 T he proposed approvals of the fumigant regulations and th e ―Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley ‖ are consistent with these approved RACM

demonstration and therefore will not interfer e these SIP‘s compliance with the RA CM requirements.

CARB has submitted SIPs to address attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard in

Sacramento Metro

, SED , and Ventura County. EPA has yet to act on these plans . Because there is no approved RACM demonstration for the 8

- hour SIP and approva l of the fumigant regulations will strengthen the SIP, its approval does not interfere with the applicable requirement for RACM in these areas.

c . Air Toxics

/Stratospheric Ozone

Since the CAA does not have ambient air quality standards for air toxics, EP A's interpretation of section 110(l) is that an area ‘ s compliance with any applicable M aximum Achievable Control Technology (M ACT ) standards, as well as any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP) air toxic requirements under CAA sections 112 or 202(l) constitutes an acceptable demonstration of noninterference for air toxics.

There are no MA CT standards applicable to pesticide application and pesticides 43 are not regulated under the air toxic component of the FMVCP; therefore, th ese SIP r e vision s will not interfere with any MACT or FMVCP that apply in of these area s affected by this proposed SIP

revisions . For these reasons, the EPA proposes to find that this concurs, that the VEI SIP Revision would not interfere with any applicable CAA req uirements relative to air toxics.

41 76 FR 69928 (November 9, 2011) (South Coast PM 2.5 ); and 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012) (South Coast

8

- hour ozone); and 70 FR 69081 (November 14, 2005) ( South Coast and Coachella (SED) PM 10 ).

42 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012) (SJV 8

- hour ozone)

.

43 EPA has promulgated a MACT standard for pesticide active ingredient production at 40 CFR part 63, Subpart MMM

– National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pesticide Active Ingredient

Production . This MACT standard applies to the production of pesticide active ingr edients, which is not regulated by the proposed revisions to the California SIP Pesticide Element, and not to their application to agricultural fields and products or their commercial application to structures, which is regulated by the 1994 Pesticide Element. See 40 CFR § 63.1360.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 31 d. Other Applicable CAA Requirement

EPA is unaware of any other CAA requirements that would be adversely affect by its approval of these SIP revisions.



### E. Additional Recommendations for the Next Rule Revision

The follow ing revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are

recommended for the next time the rule is amended.

1. Please insert language in the next CDPR field fumigant rule revision clarifying that, in case of conflict between federal (e.g., lab els), state, or local requirements, those requirements that result in the lowest VOC emissions apply.

2. In future revisions of the rule, EPA recommend s that CDPR consider expanding the period for requirements from May

- October to include the full year even th ough there are

few exceedances of the ozone standards in March

- April timeframe. 44 EPA base s its recommendation on the following: 1) Ozone standards are more stringent now than when the 1994 SIP was approved, so there is a potential for more exceedances in the ―shoulder‖

months and 2) expanding the restrictions outside the May

- October time period could lead

to additional VOC reductions.

3. Section 6452.4(b) provides for a 45

- day public comment period on the draft annual emissions report, which may include modi fied emission ratings ( section 6452. 4(c)). The rule is not clear as to how the public will be notified that the draft report and ratings are

available for comment. EPA recommend s that CDPR explain the process for notifying the public of this availability a nd the 45

- day public comment period. EPA also

recommend s that the rule specify the annual date by which the final report will be issued.

4. Section 6452(a) allows the Director to approve alternate field fumigation methods based on the emission ratings establ ished by the Director pursuant to sections 6452(c) and 6452.4(a)(5). Long

- standing national policy discourages SIP provisions that allow director‘s discretion to independently interpret the SIP

. S ee , e.g., ―Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Oth er Rule Deficiencies,‖ (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 and 52 FR 45109 (November 24, 19 87 ) . However, some discretion can be appropriate for activities like field fumigation that can vary significantly among sources or that have lim ited regulatory history. In such cases, discretion should be limited by clarifying the procedures that the Director will use in exercising discretion.

Section 6452(c) includes reasonable limitations given the limited regulatory history of the activity. How ever, EPA would expect that this discretion should be further limited in the

future as CDPR gains more implementation experience.

5. The 2011 submission eliminated the ―ribbon‖ test for soil moisture in fine texture soils that was present in the 2009 submiss ion ( s ee s ections 6448.1, 6449.1, and 6450.1), but

44 About 3 percent of total exceedance days during the period 2005 to 2011 in Ventura and San Joaquin Valley occurred outside of the May 1 to October 31 period. See Environmental Protection Agency, Violation Day Count Report (Ventura County 2005

- 2011), April 16, 2012 and Environmental Protection Agency, Violation Day Count Report (San Joaquin Valley 2005

- 2011), April 16, 2012

.TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 32 did not replace it with another test. Other soil types listed have associated tests. Please

include a test for fine textured soil when the rule is amended.

6. Several terms used in the fumigant rules are neit her defined nor referenced within the submittal. Section 6000 defines some of these (e.g., application block and restricted

- entry interval), so this issue could be partly addressed by submitting s ection 6000 for SIP approval and referencing it within the f umigant requirements. Other terms are also not

defined in s ection 6000 (e.g., air fan dilution system, broadcast, closing shoes, fumigation

- handling activities, hot gas, raised

- tarpaulin, soil capping, and tarpaulin cutting). EPA recommend s adding definiti ons for all these terms in the SIP to improve clarity. However, these terms are generally understood by the regulated community, and

it do es not believe this omission significantly undermines rule enforceability at this time.

7. The submitted fumigation metho ds reference other provisions which are not submitted,

e.g., sections 6447.3(a)(3)(F) and (5)(F) reference section 6784(b)(4) regarding tarpaulin cutting; section 6447.3(b) references section 6 770 regarding field entry after pesticide applications; section s 6 447.3(c), 6448.1(e), 6449.1(e), 6450.1(e), 6450.2(c) and 6451.1(b)

reference section 6 260 regarding research authorizations; section 6 452.1 reference section 6624 regarding reporting information; section 6 624(a)(1) references section s 11408 and 18663 re garding definitions of agricultural use and livestock, and section

6 624(a)(2) references section 6 400 regarding restricted materials. EPA recommend s including all referenced sections in the SIP to improve clarity. However, these sections are generally not critical to implementation of the fumigant regulations, and EPA do es not believe this omission significantly undermines rule enforceability at this time.

8. Consistent with CAA Title V and the federal statute of limitations, EPA recommend s that section 6624(g ) require that records be maintained for five years instead of two years.Air Divisions EPA

- Region 9 Page 33Technical Support Document for the Proposed Approval of Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan Pesticide Element

Air Di vision, U.S. EPA Region 9

— April 10, 2012