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, 2012
i

For further information on this technical 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 documents 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. Requirements 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 22

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 method 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 amended 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 guideline

DPR: California Department of Pesticide Regulation

EP: emission potential

EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

Fine particulate: PM2.5

FR: Federal Register

N/A: not applicable

MeI: methyl iodide (a fumigant)

NAA: nonattainment area

NAAQS: national ambient air quality standard

NOx: oxides of nitrogen

NPRM: notice of proposed rulemaking

O3: ozone

PM: particulate matter

PM10: particulate matter with a diameter of 10 μm or less, includes PM2.5

PM2.5: 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: reasonable 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 support document

VOC: volatile organic compounds
Air 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 

controlling 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 

Pesticide 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. October 12, 2009 submittal of regulations adopted by the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation (CDPR):

1

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

6447.3-6452 pertaining to field fumigation methods;

Portions of 3 CCR sections 6452.1 and 6452.4 and sections 6624 and 6626 pertaining to 

emission inventory;

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

the Ventura ozone nonattainment area.

2

2. October 12, 2009 submittal of a revised ―Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment 

for the San Joaquin Valley.‖

3

This submittal caps VOC emissions from the use of agricultural 

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

restrictions on non-fumigant pesticides in the SJV by 2014. 

 

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 Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, October 12, 2009 and State of California, Air Resources Board, Executive Order S09-011 Relating to Approval of Regulations to Achieve Pesticide Volatile Organic Compound Emission Reductions, 

October 12, 2009. 

2

 CARB did not submit for inclusion into the SIP those portions of 3 CCR sections 6452.2 and 6452.3 

pertaining to field fumigation limits and allowances in the South Coast, SED, SJV, and Sacramento Metro ozone 

nonattainment areas.

3

 As part of this submittal, CARB 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‖) that 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.4This 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 pertaining to fumigation method restrictions.

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

allowances in the Ventura ozone nonattainment area. 

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

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

1. CDPR Regulations

The submitted CDPR regulations can be divided into four distinct but related parts. The 

first part (revisions to 3 CCR sections 6447 through 6452) establishes 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 mechanism 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 report on pesticide VOC emissions in each of the five nonattainment 

areas and establishes requirements for the report. The fourth part (3 CCR sections 6624 and 

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

with the other parts. EPA describes 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, limiting 

fumigant application rates (pounds/acre); specifying application methods (e.g., minimum 

injection depth below soil surface, number of water treatments, minimum hours to leave 

tarpaulin in place); and requiring plans to address damaged tarpaulins). 3 CCR section 6452 

 

4

 See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, August 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 (Restricted 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 section 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 methyl 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 apply only to the Ventura ozone 

nonattainment area. This 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 nonattainment 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 Element. 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 regulations requires CDPR to issue an annual emissions 

inventory report which reports 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 website.

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 requires 

anyone using pesticides in specific applications to maintain certain records for two years and 

requires operators of property which produce an agricultural commodity and agricultural pest 

control businesses to report the use of pesticides to the county agricultural commissioner. 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,6to establish the 1990 pesticide VOC 

emission levels and evaluate compliance with the provisions in the 1994 Pesticide 

Element for SJV;

implement restrictions on agricultural fumigation methods and by 2014 implement 

restrictions on VOC emissions of non-fumigant pesticides; and

manage VOC emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticide use to 

ensure that they do not exceed 18.1 tons-per-day in the SJV area (which is equivalent to a 

12 percent reduction in pesticide VOC emissions from 1990 levels).

 

6

 For tracking compliance with the overall VOC limit in the SJV, CDPR proposes to use the emissions 

estimation methodology described on page 2-4 (in the section ―Procedure for Calculating Unadjusted and Adjusted 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions) of 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 either approve or revise 

provisions of the California SIP Pesticide Element. EPA briefly describes 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 submitted 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 nonattainment 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 Strategy – In 2003, CARB updated the statewide 

strategy that was part of the 1994 Ozone SIP. One of the measures in the 2003 State 

Strategy was PEST-1 (―Implement Existing Pesticide Strategy‖), which retained the 

provisions of the 1994 Pesticide Element. EPA approved PEST-1 into the SIP as part of 

its action to approve in part and disapprove in part the 2003 South Coast Air Quality 

Management Plan (AQMP). See 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 2009), codified at 40 CFR § 

52.220(c)(339)(ii)(A)(1).8

2007 Ventura Pesticide Element – 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 § 52.220(c)(355)(i)(A)(1).

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

Element

The field fumigant regulations pertaining to restricted materials and fumigation methods 

restrictions (3 CCR sections 6447.3, 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 

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

memorandum‖). See El Comité 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 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Wells 

memorandum relied on by El Comité and the subsequently by the District court in its decision 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. EPA, No. 09-71383, the 9

th Circuit Court of 

Appeals determined that EPA had erred 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 

requirements of the CAA. As discussed in section IV the proposed rule that this TSD supports, EPA has reevaluated 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 therefore 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 Coast

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 County

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)

The 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 Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley‖

applies solely to the San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, as described above.

On Table 1 below, EPA lists the current attainment status for the national ambient air 

quality standards for ozone and particulate matter of the five areas 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 recordkeeping 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 lists the current status of 

each area‘s ozone and (if applicable) particulate matter plans. It provides 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 CFR § 50.15

73 FR 16511 (March, 27, 2008)

1997 PM2.5 standards

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) 

annual arithmetic mean and 

65 μg/m3 24-hour average 

40 CFR § 50.7 

62 FR 38711 (July 18, 1997)

2006 PM2.5 standards

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) 

annual arithmetic mean concentration, and 

35 μg/m324-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

TABLE 1 - ATTAINMENT AND PLAN STATUS OF AREAS SUBJECT TO THE PESTICIDE ELEMENT

OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER NAAQS

STANDARD 1-HOUR OZONE 8-HOUR OZONE PARTICULATE MATTER

AREA

ATTAINMENT 

STATUS

PLAN STATUS

ATTAINMENT 

STATUS

PLAN STATUS

ATTAINMENT 

STATUS

PLAN STATUS

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

PM10: Redesignation 

to attainment

requested

PM10: Approved

Southeast 

Desert

Nonattainment/

Finding of failure to 

attainment

Approved

Nonattainment/

pending severe 

classification per 

State‘s request

Pending action 1997: Attainment/ 

unclassifiable 1997: N/A

2008: proposed 

Nonattainment N/A

2006: Attainment/ 

unclassifiable 2006: N/A

PM10: Redesignation 

to attainment 

requested (Coachella 

Valley) 

PM10: 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/

Finding of failure to 

attainment

Approved

Nonattainment/

extreme Approved 1997 PM2.5: Nonattainment

1997 PM2.5: 

Approved

2008: proposed 

Nonattainment N/A

2006 PM2.5: 

Nonattainment

2006 PM2.5: Due 

December 14, 2012

PM10: attainment PM10: Approved
TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

 

Air Division EPA- Region 9 Page 7

TABLE 1 - ATTAINMENT AND PLAN STATUS OF AREAS SUBJECT TO THE PESTICIDE ELEMENT

OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER NAAQS

STANDARD 1-HOUR OZONE 8-HOUR OZONE PARTICULATE MATTER

AREA

ATTAINMENT 

STATUS

PLAN STATUS

ATTAINMENT 

STATUS

PLAN STATUS

ATTAINMENT 

STATUS

PLAN STATUS

Sacramento 

Metro

Nonattainment/

Finding of 

attainment 

Approved

1997: 

Nonattainment/

severe

Pending action 1997: Attainment/ 

unclassifiable 1997 PM2.5: N/A

2008: proposed 

Nonattainment N/A

2006: Nonattainment 2006 PM2.5: Due 

December 14, 2012

PM10: redesignation 

to attainment 

requested

PM10: pending 

action
TSD for the Proposed Approval of

Revisions to the CA SIP Pesticide Element April 16, 2012

 

Air Divisions EPA- Region 9 Page 8

D. Pesticide Emissions 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 five 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 area 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 sources in the area.

TABLE 2 - VOC EMISSIONS FROM PESTICIDES 

TARGET LEVEL AND EMISSIONS IN 1990 AND 2004-2010

TONS PER AVERAGE DAY MAY 1-OCTOBER 31

1990 GOAL 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

TABLE 3 - PESTICIDE EMISSIONS AS PERCENT OF OVERALL VOC EMISSIONS

2010 PESTICIDE VOC

EMISSIONS

TONS PER SUMMER DAY

TOTAL 2011 VOC

INVENTORY 

TONS PER SUMMER DAY

PESTICIDE AS PERCENT 

OF TOTAL VOC

EMISSIONS

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: Total 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. Total 2011 VOC inventory 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 previous 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 the 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 established 

in the annual report and based on available scientific data documenting the VOC emissions. See

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

In its ―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, November 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 memorandum‖).12 The emissions calculation procedures in 3 CCR 

section 6452.4(a)(1) and the Neal memorandum are essentially the same and follow standard 

inventorying practice. See, for example, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html.

EPA interprets CDPR‘s regulations in CCR section 6452.4(a) and commitment to use the 

emissions estimation methodology in the Neal 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, California 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 provides

a summary of the submittals and its actions on them in order to place this proposal in context.

TABLE 4 – PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS AND ACTIONS ON THE CALIFORNIA SIP

PESTICIDE ELEMENT

DATE SUBMITTAL/ACTION

November 15, 1994

California submits ―The State Implementation Plan for Agricultural and 

Commercial 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, CARB, 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.

June 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 letter‖).

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 submittal 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

TABLE 4 – PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS AND ACTIONS ON THE CALIFORNIA SIP

PESTICIDE ELEMENT

DATE SUBMITTAL/ACTION

January 9, 2004

California submits the 2003 State Strategy which includes the PEST-1 

measure. PEST-1 continues implementation of the 1994 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 Strategy including 

the PEST-1 measure. 75 FR 10420.

1. The 1994 Pesticide Element in the 1994 Ozone SIP13

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 Under this plan, known as the 1994 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 

pesticidal VOC emissions 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 emissions 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 requiring 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 rescinding 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 

than the 1990 PUR reports. The SIP outlined the methodology that would be used to develop 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 develop 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 achieved. The decision whether additional 

regulatory measures were needed was to be made by 1997. 

After reviewing the initial submittal, EPA requested CDPR clarify and revise certain 

aspects of the 1994 Pesticide SIP including to identify the percent reductions in emissions 

expected in specific years for each nonattainment area and the date by which CDPR would 

adoption any additional regulations that might be needed to achieve those reductions.15

California responded with the requested clarifications and revisions.

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 specific years in five nonattainment areas. CDPR listed these 

percentage reductions in a table:

REDUCTIONS FROM 1990 BASELINE

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 memorandum, 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 letters, 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, Regional 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 from 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 commitment. (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 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

specific percentages of the 1990 base year emissions, (Ftn 6: In a March 31, 1995 letter 

from Wells 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 proposed 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, ―Reductions from 1990 

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

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

each area.

REDUCTIONS FROM 1990 PESTICIDE EMISSIONS BASELINE

Ozone nonattainment area

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

REDUCTIONS FROM PESTICIDES MEASURE

(Tons per day of ROG)

1999 ( 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

Sacramento Metro 0 0 2.7

San Joaquin Valley 13

San Diego 0.2

The pesticide component of California‘s SIP also describes education 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 that 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

sections 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 regulations are required and are submitted, in separate 

rulemakings.

In its May 2, 1996 comment letter on the proposed approval, California 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 commitment 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 credits from the Pesticide 

Element for each area in their attainment year. Id., Attachment C. EPA listed these credit (which 

are all expressed in the 1994 SIP currency20) in its final rule approving the 1994 Ozone SIP in 

 

17

 Letter, James M. Strock, Secretary for 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 Sacramento 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, 2010. 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. 

Because inventories vary from SIP to SIP for reasons unrelated to controls (e.g., improved activity estimates or

emissions factors), the estimated emissions reductions from a control measure in tons per day can change from SIP 

to SIP even if the effectiveness of the control measure as a percentage of the emissions category does not 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 attainment year. As a result, to compare whether emissions 
TSD 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 ―REDUCTIONS FROM PESTICIDES MEASURE‖ at 62 FR 1150, 1170 (January 8, 

1997). In that final rule, EPA provided the following 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 promulgation 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 included 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, which 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 structural 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, and 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 reductions 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

REDUCTIONS FROM PESTICIDES MEASURE

(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 Joaquin 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 

regulatory action on the State‘s Pesticides regulations, if any regulations are 

required and are submitted, in separate rulemakings.

Although Wells memorandum was referenced in the preamble to EPA‘s final approval of 

the 1994 , it was not included in the materials 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 and incorporation (i.e., without modification) problematic because the Wells 

memorandum contained interim year emissions reduction commitments that the California 

comment letter and Boyd Letter specifically excluded.

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, 

200421) (―2003 State Strategy‖). 22 The 2003 State Strategy identified California‘s regulatory 

agenda to reduce ozone and PM10 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 agency commitments to pursue a set 

of defined near-term statewide control measures and several emissions reduction commitments 

specific to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard and the PM10 standards in the South Coast 

and the PM10 standards in the San Joaquin Valley. One of these defined measures was PEST-1 

(―Implement Existing Pesticide Strategy‖), which retained the provisions of the 1994 Pesticide 

Element. As submitted in January 2004, the 2003 State Strategy only described the measure as it 

applied to the South Coast. See 2003 State Strategy, section III-C.

 

21

 See CARB Board Resolution 03-22 (October 23, 2003) and letter, Catherine Witherspoon, 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 Strategy. These withdrawals did not affect the measure in the 2003 State 

Strategy related to VOC controls for pesticides. See letter, 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 PM10 plans, the 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 

reclassification 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 Strategy 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 Department 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 measures 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 interpreted its approval of PEST-1 as maintaining the status quo with respect to the 

existing pesticide strategy, that is, the California SIP would continue to reflect the strategy as 

approved by EPA in 1997. Id at 63413. After reviewing and responding to comments received on 

the proposal (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 standpoint 

of the California SIP, namely the 1994 Pesticide Element. See 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 2009).

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

decision that approval or disapproval of PEST-1 amounted to the same thing and remanded the 

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

See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), revised January 27, 

2012 (AIR). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held, given its earlier finding in the Warmerdam case 

that the Wells memorandum was not approved and incorporated into the California SIP, that 

EPA must determine whether the approved 1994 Pesticide Element has sufficient enforcement 

mechanisms to satisfy the requirements of the CAA. 

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 short-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 the 1994 Ozone SIP for the Ventura 

 

23

 CARB, Staff Report, Proposed 2004 State Implementation Plan For Ozone in the 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.

Under the 1994 Pesticide Element, CDPR had committed 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 tpd (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 for Ventura. Under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, 

CARB reduced 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.

This phase in resulted in a declining overall cap on pesticide VOC emissions in the Ventura 

ozone nonattainment area between 2008 and 2012 as shown below:

PHASE IN OF PESTICIDE VOC LIMITS FOR THE VENTURA OZONE 

NONATTAINMENT AREA

Tons per Day

2008 2009 2010 2011 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 rule).
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 Revisions 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 110(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. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and a public 

hearing was held consistent with EPA‘s implementing regulations in 40 CFR § 51.102.

CDPR has satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable 

public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal (thorough CARB) of its field fumigant 

regulations and revisions to its ―Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley.‖ Each SIP 

submittal contains evidence of adequate public notice and public hearing. See memorandum, 

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

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

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

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, October 5, 2009, Subject: Amendment to the Pesticide 

Element of the Ozone State Implementation Plan, Enclosures 3 and 4; and memorandum, 

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

CARB, July 20, 2011, Subject: Additional Fumigant Volatile Organic Compound Regulations, 

Enclosure 2-2. 

2. Completeness Determinations

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 needs to act on it.

EPA makes 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 information 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 needs to determine the impact of the proposed revision on attainment and 

maintenance of the air quality standards.

EPA notifies a state of its completeness determination by letter unless the submittal 

became complete by operation of law. A finding of completeness does 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 submittals of the field fumigant regulations and the revised SJV 

Pesticide commitment became complete by operation of law on April 12, 2010. 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. 

TABLE 5 – ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND COMPLETENESS TIMELINE FOR 

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA SIP PESTICIDE ELEMENT

DATE ACTION

September 27, 

2007

CARB adopts 2007 State Strategy including the CDPR ́ Proposed SIP Commitment 

for San Joaquin Valley (found on page 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 withdrew this version of CDPR Proposed SIP 

Commitment for San Joaquin Valley on October 12, 2009.)

January 25, 

2008

CDPR revises title 3 of the California Code of Regulations to incorporate regulations 

to limit emissions 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 submits portions of CDPR‘s adopted fumigant regulations (VOC-1) for 

inclusion in California‘s State Implementation Plan (SIP). (CARB withdrew these 

regulations on October 12, 2009.)

September 3, 

2008

CDPR revises the fumigant regulations (3 CCR section 6452.2) to phase-in the 

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

this set of revisions as VOC-2.)

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

April 20, 

2009

CDPR revises 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 VOC-3.)

October 12, 

2009

CARB submitted portions of the fumigant regulations to EPA (VOC-1, VOC-2, and 

VOC-3). This submittal superseded the January 28, 2008 submittal, and included:

• 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 CARB‘s October 12, 2009 submittals 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

TABLE 5 – ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND COMPLETENESS TIMELINE FOR 

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA SIP PESTICIDE ELEMENT

DATE ACTION

April 7, 2011 CDPR adds or revises these fumigant regulations: 3 CCR sections 6448.1, 6449.1, 

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

limits); 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 CDPR adds or revises these 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 CARB submitted portions of the fumigant regulations (VOC-4 and VOC-5). This 

submittal revised and added to the October 12, 2009 submittal, and included 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 submittal 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

CARB‘s August 2, 2011 submittal became complete by operation of law pursuant to 

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

B. Enforceability

1. CAA Requirements for Enforceability of Rules and Commitments

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) require that SIP ―shall include enforceable 

emissions limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (...) as well as 

schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate for attainment....‖

In order to be enforceable, SIP regulations and commitments must be clear regarding, for 

example, who must comply, by what date, the standard of compliance, the methods used to 

determine compliance, and the process and criteria for obtaining any variation from the normal 

mode of compliance.

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

and ―the Little Bluebook.‖

25

 

24 ―Review of State Implementations Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency‖ 

(Enforceability Guidance), Craig Potter, 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 the 
TSD 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- October 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 each 

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 response 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 by scientific data documenting 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 field 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 reporting requirement is the provision 

that requires any person who uses a fumigant in any of the five ozone nonattainment areas must 

record and report a description of the application method. See 3 CCR sections 6624(f) and

6626(d). The requirements for methods 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 track 

compliance 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 the Neal memorandum 

and 3 CCR section 6452.4(a)(1) and the requirement for sources (e.g., pesticide applicators) to 

keep and report the data necessary for preparing the annual emissions inventory report is 

required by 3 CCR section 6624 (Pesticide Use Records) 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, 1988 (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 committed to implement restrictions on VOC emissions from nonfumigant regulations by 2014. EPA interprets ―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 nonfumigant pesticide; however, the restrictions are part of CDPR‘s regulatory program to ensure 

that the inventory target of 18.1 tpd in the SJV is not exceeded (Id. at page 1), which effectively 

defines the needed stringency. This commitment is sufficiently clear and adequate to ensure that

is enforceable as required by CAA section 110(a)(1)(A). 

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Requirements (RACM/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, onroad and non-road emissions source categories that meets certain criteria. These criteria include 

whether the measure is technologically and economically feasible and either individually or 

collectively with other such measures can advance the attainment date by at least one year. See

57 FR 13498, 13560 (April 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 plans and not on a rule-by-rule basis.

For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) 

requires the implementation of reasonably available control technologies (RACT) on all major 

sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for which EPA has issued a Control 

Techniques Guideline (CTG). CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) 

also apply to major stationary sources of NOx. In areas classified as severe (such as SED 

(classification pending), Ventura, and Sacramento), a major source is a stationary source that 

emits or has the potential to emit at least 25 tons of VOC or NOx per year. See CAA sections 

 

26

 See also “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval 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, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air Directors, November 30, 1999, and 

memorandum, 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 14, 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 potential to emit at least 10 tons of VOC or NOx

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, SED, Ventura, SJV, and 

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

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

need to address controls for sources of VOC emissions for PM2.5 standard attainment unless the 

state and/or EPA make a technical demonstration that such controls would significantly 

contribute to reducing PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. See 40 CFR § 

51.1002(c)(3). Such a determination would be made in the context of each area‘s plan for 

attainment of the PM2.5 standards.

2. RACM/RACT Evaluation and Conclusion

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

and Sacramento Metro

CARB‘s 2009 submittal of the field fumigant regulations did not include a demonstration 

of how the field fumigation methods implement reasonably available control technology 

(RACT).27 In response to EPA comments, CDPR 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 from fumigants and an evaluation of field 

fumigation method options, including the basis for those accepted and those rejected by CDPR 

for inclusion in its regulations. It discusses current research on fumigant VOC emissions

reduction methods, including a reevaluation of fumigants to obtain additional data to replace 

surrogate data used in developing the adopted regulations. 

Field fumigation emissions are considered fugitive emissions because they are emissions 

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

opening.‖29 As noted above,, CAA section 182(b)(1) requires RACT be applied to all major 

stationary sources in an ozone 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 application of section 182(b)(1) RACT requirement; however, EPA believes, 

based on the information provided in the CDPR‘s alternatives analysis, and the research cited to 

support it, that CDPR has demonstrated that the proposed regulations are stringent enough to 

implement RACT-level controls on the application of pesticides.

On January 10, 2012, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the section 

182(b)(1) RACT SIP submitted by California on June 18, 2009 for the SJV ozone nonattainment 

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

 

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 Pesticides: Analysis of Alternatives for Field Fumigation Methods, June 28,

2011.

29

 See 40 CFR 70.2 (Definitions).
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 CDPR‘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 PM2.5 SIP for the South Coast

(which did include VOC reductions in its RFP and attainment demonstrations).

30 These 

demonstrations relied in part on VOC control measures in the 2007 State Strategy; however,

EPA‘s approval of these demonstrations did not rely on emissions reductions from CDPR‘s field 

fumigant regulations. Therefore, their approval into the SIP is consistent with the approved 

RACM demonstrations.

CARB has submitted SIPs to address attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the 

SED, Ventura County, and Sacramento Metro nonattainment. EPA has not yet acted on these 

plans although we note that none rely on reductions from controls on pesticides.

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

As noted above, the demonstration that a SIP provides for the implementation of RACM 

as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) is done as part of an area‘s attainment and reasonable 

further progress plans and not on an individual rule or commitment basis. 

EPA recently approved the 2007 8-hour ozone SIP for the San Joaquin Valley, including 

the SIP‘s RACM demonstration. 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012). To demonstrate that the SIP 

provided for RACM, California relied in part on measures in the 2007 State Strategy, including 

the ―Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley‖ (as revised 

April 17, 2009) that is being proposed for approval here. However, because it had not yet 

approved the commitment into 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 tpd, its approval into 

the SIP is consistent with the approved RACM demonstration.

 

30

 See 76 FR 69928 (November 9, 2011) (South Coast PM2.5 Plan), 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012) (SJV 

2007 8-hour Ozone SIP), and 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012) (South Coast 8-hour Ozone Plan). EPA has also 

recently approved the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP which relied in part on measures in the 2007 State Strategy. In approving 

that SIP, EPA concurred with the State‘s determination that VOC did not need to be controlled for PM2.5 attainment 

in the SJV and therefore the plan did not include did not need to evaluate VOC control measures as part of its 

RACM demonstration. See 76 FR 69896, 69924 (November 9, 2011). The PM2.5 plan for the Sacramento Metro area 

is not due until late 2012.
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 relevant part: 

―The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision 

would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined in [section 171]) or any other applicable 

requirement of [the CAA].‖31

EPA interprets 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 interprets section 110(l) to require a demonstration 

addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result 

of the SIP revision. The scope and rigor of an adequate section 110(l) demonstration of 

noninterference depends on the air quality status of the area, the potential impact of the revision 

on air quality, the pollutant(s) affected, and the nature of the applicable CAA requirements.

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

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

emissions reduction measures, its generally concludes that the revision will not interfere with any 

applicable requirement related to attainment or RFP if the revised SIP will provide the same or 

more emissions reductions on the same or similar schedule as the existing SIP. EPA notes, 

however, that CAA section 110(l) does not bar approval of SIP revisions that may result in 

higher levels of emissions than would potentially occur under the unrevised SIP; only that such 

revisions do not result in the applicable SIP no longer providing for expeditious attainment or 

RFP or complying with any other applicable requirements of the CAA.

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

and coarse (PM10) particulate matter.

32 At this time only the South Coast‘s SIPs rely on VOC 

controls for PM2.5 or PM10 attainment and none of its adopted particulate matter plans rely on 

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

 

31

 CAA section 110(l) also provides that each SIP revision submitted by a state must be adopted by the 

state after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA addresses 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 requirement 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 areas‘ implementation plans for the current ozone and particulate matter standards

and the revoked 1-hour ozone standard.

33 In section I.F, EPA provides a more detailed discussion 

of the 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 regulations are the first such regulations incorporated into the 

California SIP. Their approval will strengthen the SIP by providing SIP-enforceable measures 

and compliance procedures to reduce emissions from the application of fumigants in the five 

ozone nonattainment areas covered by the regulations. Their approval will also aid compliance 

with the approved California SIP Pesticide Element‘s provisions for reducing VOC emissions by 

20 percent from 1990 baseline levels in the South Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura and 

Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment areas. Their approval will also aid compliance with the

proposed 18.1 tpd limit on pesticide VOC emissions in the San Joaquin. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to find that approving the field fumigant regulations into the California SIP will not 

interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress 

or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

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 Element was to reduce VOC 

emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticide applications by a maximum of 

20 percent from the 1990 baseline emission inventory by 2005 in areas that relied on VOC 

reductions from pesticides in their attainments plans with reductions occurring linearly from 

1990 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 emissions reductions in 

1999.

34,35 At the same time, EPA noted that California had committed to adopt and submit any 

 

33

 EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas of the 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 standard planning 

requirements continue to apply to 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR § 51.900(f). The 1994 Pesticide 

Element 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 retained the provisions of the 1994 Pesticide Element. In 2004, CARB submitted 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 Strategy 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 CFR § 

52.220(c)(339)(ii)(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 as 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 from 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 of the Boyd Letter. For the 

1994 Ozone SIP, the State estimated that VOC emissions from pesticide use in 1990 in the San Joaquin Valley were 

62.5 tpd. A 12 percent reduction from this level would require reducing overall pesticide emissions to be no more 

than 55.0 tpd in 1999. The State further estimated that without controls, VOC emissions from pesticides in the SJV 

would increase to 67.9 tpd by 1999, thereby requiring a reduction of 12.9 tpd (67.9 tpd minus 55.0 tpd, rounded to 

13 tpd) in 1999 in order to meet the target level for a 12 percent reduction. See CDPR, Staff Report on the 

Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley,‖ undated, p. 1, ftn 1.

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 in a 12 percent 

reduction by 1999 (9 years times 1.33 percent per year) .

37

 CARB, Staff 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 emissions 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,‖ undated (enclosure 2 to Memorandum, Christopher W. Reardon, Chief Deputy Director, CDPR, to 

James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, October 5, 2009; subject: Amendments to the Pesticide Element of the 

Ozone State Implementation Plan).
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 finds 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 applicable requirement of the CAA.

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

Attainment Plan (74 FR 33933(July 14, 2009)), several non-governmental organizations argued 

that the 1994 Pesticide Element requires a 20 percent reduction in VOC emissions from 1990 

levels by 2005 in the SJV40 citing to the Boyd letter 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 that the 

―commitment is for a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2005 in each SIP area, except [San 

Diego]. [CARB] only took credit in the attainment year: SJV 1999 = 12%; Sac 2005 = 20%; Ven 

2005 = 20%; SED 2007 = 20%; SC 2010 = 20%.‖

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

to the State‘s commitment for SJV, not only because it is immediately contradicted by the 

statement that a 12 percent credit was taken only in the attainment year of 1999 but also because 

it is not entirely consistent with the more extensive language describing the emissions reductions 

target in other parts of the approved 1994 Pesticide Element and does not reflect the reductions 

relied on in the SIP.

The 1994 Pesticide Element committed CDPR to a ―maximum of 20 percent‖ reduction 

in pesticide VOC emissions from 1990 baseline levels in areas ―which reference VOC 

reductions‖ from the element in their plans. See 1994 Pesticide SIP, p. 1. With this language, the 

percent reduction required in an area is tied to the emissions reductions referenced, that is, relied 

on, in that area‘s plan. As approved, the 1994 Pesticide Element also allowed for reductions of 

less than 20 percent if fewer VOC reductions from pesticide were needed. Id. As noted above, 

the reductions relied on in the 1994 Ozone SIP in its attainment demonstration for SJV in 1999 

were 13 tpd (in 1994 SIP currency) which equates to 12 percent reduction from 1990 baseline in 

1999 (when anticipated growth in pesticide VOC emissions between 1990 and 1999 is excluded) 

and no additional reductions have been relied on in any SIP for SJV subsequent to the 1994 one. 

Approval of the revised ―Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San 

Joaquin Valley‖ (submitted in 2009) will not interfere with any applicable requirement related to 

attainment or reasonable further progress for any PM2.5 or PM10 standard in the SJV. EPA has 

determined that VOC controls are not required for particulate matter control in the SJV. See 72 

FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007), 69 FR 30006, 30007 (May 26, 2004), and 76 FR 69896, 

69924 (November 9, 2011).

Approval of the ―Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction Commitment for the San Joaquin 

Valley‖ will not interfere with any applicable requirement related to attainment or reasonable 

 

40

 See letter, Brent Newell, Legal Director, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, August 31, 2009, 

―Comments on Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan for San 

Joaquin Valley, CA (Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0693),‖ pp. 16-20. 
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 PM2.5 or PM10 standard in the SJV. EPA has determined that VOC 

controls are not required for particulate matter control in the SJV. See 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 PM2.5 SIP for the 

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

demonstrations in the PM10 SIPs for South Coast and SED. 41 The proposed 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 The proposed 

approvals of the fumigant regulations and the ―Revised Pesticide Emission Reduction 

Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley‖ are consistent with these approved RACM 

demonstration and therefore will not interfere these SIP‘s compliance with the RACM 

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 approval 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, EPA's 

interpretation of section 110(l) is that an area‘s compliance with any applicable Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 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 MACT standards applicable to pesticide application and pesticides43 are not 

regulated under the air toxic component of the FMVCP; therefore, these SIP revisions will not 

interfere with any MACT or FMVCP that apply in of these areas 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 requirements relative to air toxics.

 

41

 76 FR 69928 (November 9, 2011) (South Coast PM2.5); and 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012) (South Coast 

8-hour ozone); and 70 FR 69081 (November 14, 2005) (South Coast and Coachella (SED) PM10).

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 ingredients, 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 following 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., labels), state, or local requirements, those 

requirements that result in the lowest VOC emissions apply.

2. In future revisions of the rule, EPA recommends that CDPR consider expanding the 

period for requirements from May-October to include the full year even though there are 

few exceedances of the ozone standards in March-April timeframe.44 EPA bases 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 modified 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 recommends that CDPR explain the process for notifying 

the public of this availability and the 45-day public comment period. EPA also 

recommends 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 established 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. See, e.g., ―Guidance Document 

for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,‖ (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA 

Region 9, August 21, 2001 and 52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987). However, some 

discretion can be appropriate for activities like field fumigation that can vary significantly 

among sources or that have limited 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. However, 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 submission (see sections 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 neither 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 section 6000 for SIP 

approval and referencing it within the fumigant requirements. Other terms are also not 

defined in section 6000 (e.g., air fan dilution system, broadcast, closing shoes, 

fumigation-handling activities, hot gas, raised-tarpaulin, soil capping, and tarpaulin 

cutting). EPA recommends adding definitions for all these terms in the SIP to improve 

clarity. However, these terms are generally understood by the regulated community, and 

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

7. The submitted fumigation methods 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 6770 regarding field entry after pesticide 

applications; sections 6447.3(c), 6448.1(e), 6449.1(e), 6450.1(e), 6450.2(c) and 6451.1(b) 

reference section 6260 regarding research authorizations; section 6452.1 reference 

section 6624 regarding reporting information; section 6624(a)(1) references sections

11408 and 18663 regarding definitions of agricultural use and livestock, and section 

6624(a)(2) references section 6400 regarding restricted materials. EPA recommends

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 does

not believe this omission significantly undermines rule enforceability at this time.

8. Consistent with CAA Title V and the federal statute of limitations, EPA recommends that 

section 6624(g) require that records be maintained for five years instead of two years.
Air Divisions EPA- Region 9 Page 33
Technical Support Document for the Proposed Approval of Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan Pesticide Element

Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9 —April 10, 2012