United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

November 02, 2010

Transmittal of EPA Rule Review Comments

To: Frank Spurlock, California Department Of Pesticide Regulation

fcspurlock@cdpr.ca.gov

Mike Guzzetta, California Air Resources Board

mguzzett@arb.ca.gov

From: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief

steckel.andrew@epa.gov

Re: California Field Fumigant Methods, Revisions scheduled for public hearing on November 17, 

2010

We are providing comments based on our preliminary review of the draft rule identified above. We 

recognize that many of these comments address rule provisions that are not proposed for revision. We 

also note that we may identify additional concerns when we formally review this rule for inclusion into 

California's State Implementation Plan. Please direct any questions in this regard to me at (415) 

947-4115.

1. The submittal does not include a demonstration of how the field fumigation methods implement all 

reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control methods (RACM) 

as required by the federal Clean Air Act. This should include discussion of all general strategies 

feasible for controlling VOC emissions from pesticides, and the basis for selecting some and rejecting 

others. It should also include analysis of whether the specific limits, thresholds and requirements in 

the fumigant field methods represent all reasonably available controls. We do not see a basis, for 

example, to apply requirements in the rule (e.g., paragraph 6447.3(a)) only between May and October 

in light of RACT/RACM requirements and violations of federal Ozone and PM-2.5 NAAQS in 

California in other months. Some issues are discussed in DPR’s various “Statement of Reasons,” 

responses to comments, and other documents included in the submittal, but there is no 

comprehensive RACM/RACT analysis. 

2. In light of California's limited experience implementing these fumigant requirements and in order to 

retain the integrity of DPR's fumigant program, we encourage DPR to maintain the 80% threshold 

currently described in section 6452.2, instead of changing it as proposed to 95%.

3. In order to ensure clarity and enforceability of the field fumigant methods, the SIP submittal should 

include requirements to report details (e.g., date, location, fumigant, etc.) before fumigants are 

applied, such as described in the notice of intent requirements in section 6434 and associated 

provisions. 

4. 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, air fan dilution system 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). We recommend adding definitions for 

all these terms in the SIP to improve clarity and enforceability. 

5. The submitted fumigation methods reference other provisions which are not submitted. E.g., 

6447.3(a)(3)(F) and (5)(F) reference 6784(b)(4) regarding tarpaulin cutting; 6447.3(b) references 6770 

regarding field entry after pesticide applications; 6447.3(c), 6448.1(e), 6449.1(e), 6450.1(e), 6450.2(c) 

and 6451.1(b) reference 6260 regarding research authorizations; 6624(a)(1) references section 11408 

and 18663 regarding definitions of agricultural use and livestock, and 6624(a)(2) references 6400 

regarding restricted materials. We recommend including all referenced sections in the SIP to improve 

clarity and enforceability. 

6. We understand that DPR intends to update the fumigant requirements as needed to avoid conflict with 

federal pesticide labels pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 

U.S.C. §136). Nonetheless, to reduce potential confusion, we recommend inserting language in 

DPR’s fumigant requirements clarifying that the more restrictive requirements apply in case of conflict 

between state and federal requirements.

7. Consistent with CAA Title V and the federal statute of limitations, we recommend that Section 6624(g) 

require that records be maintained for five instead of two years to improve enforceability.