As used in this chapter:
(a) “Toxic air contaminant” means an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(b)) is a toxic air contaminant. A toxic air contaminant which is a pesticide shall be regulated in its pesticidal use by the Department of Pesticide Regulation pursuant to Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 14021) of Chapter 3 of Division 7 of the Food and Agricultural Code.
(b) “Airborne toxic control measure” means either of the following:
(1) Recommended methods, and, where appropriate, a range of methods, that reduce, avoid, or eliminate the emissions of a toxic air contaminant. Airborne toxic control measures include, but are not limited to, emission limitations, control technologies, the use of operational and maintenance conditions, closed system engineering, design, equipment, or work practice standards, and the reduction, avoidance, or elimination of emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications.
(2) Emission standards adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 112 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412).
(c) “Pesticide” means any economic poison as defined in Section 12753 of the Food and Agricultural Code.
(d) “Federal act” means the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (P.L. 101-549), and as the federal act may be further amended.
(e) “Office” means the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Added Stats 1992 ch 1161 § 2 (AB 2728).

Former Sections: Former § 39655, similar to the present section, was added Stats 1983 ch 1947 § 1 and repealed Stats 1992 ch 1161 § 1 (AB 2728).

Historical Derivation: Former §§ 39656, 39657, as added Stats 1983 ch 1047 § 1.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

In environmental litigation, in which a fumigation company cross-complained against the county air pollution control district for declaratory relief that the district had no jurisdiction to regulate fumigation activities at a port facility, the trial court did not err in declaring that the district had authority to regulate emissions. Health & Saf. Code, § 39655, subd. (a) (toxic air contaminant which is pesticide shall be regulated in its pesticidal use by State Department of Pesticide Regulation), was ambiguous, meaning either that the department had exclusive authority over emissions of pesticides, or that it had authority over the use of pesticides, but not over emissions after pesticidal use was complete. Health & Saf. Code, § 44324 (statutes imposing requirements on facilities that pollute air is inapplicable to facilities that employ poisons in their pesticidal use, unless such facilities are subject to local district permit requirements), shows a legislative intent that facilities in which pesticides are used be subject to local district regulation of emissions. Under Health & Saf. Code, § 39002 (local authorities' primary responsibility for control of nonvehicular air pollution), the district had jurisdiction over emissions from facilities in which pesticides are used. Harbor Fumigation, Inc. v. County of San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist. (1996, 4th Dist) 43 Cal App 4th 854, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 874, 1996 Cal App LEXIS 239.

In environmental litigation, in which a fumigation company cross-complained against the county air pollution control district for a declaration that the district had no jurisdiction to regulate fumigation activities at a port facility, the trial court did not err in declaring that the district had authority to regulate emissions from the facility. Under Health & Saf. Code, § 39655, subd. (a) (toxic air contaminant which is pesticide shall be regulated in its pesticidal use by State Department of Pesticide Regulation), the local district was not precluded from regulating emissions of pesticides and toxic air contaminants. The district's primary responsibility, under Health & Saf. Code, § 39002 (local authorities' primary responsibility for control of nonvehicular air pollution), gave it jurisdiction over emissions from facilities in which pesticides are used. The state's exclusive jurisdiction to regulate a pesticide in its pesticidal use was limited to the pesticide's actual application or use; after such use, the state had, at best, concurrent jurisdiction over emission of the pesticide or toxic air contaminant. The state's primary purpose was to regulate the use of pesticides in a manner safe to human beings and the environment, while the district's primary purpose was to regulate emissions into the ambient air to protect human beings and the environment. Harbor Fumigation, Inc. v. County of San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist. (1996, 4th Dist) 43 Cal App 4th 854, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 874, 1996 Cal App LEXIS 239.