Local and regional authorities have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. The control of vehicular sources, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be the responsibility of the State Air Resources Board. Except as otherwise provided in this division, including, but not limited to, Sections 41809, 41810, and 41904, local and regional authorities may establish stricter standards than those set by law or by the state board for nonvehicular sources. However, the state board shall, after holding public hearings as required in this division, undertake control activities in any area wherein it determines that the local or regional authority has failed to meet the responsibilities given to it by this division or by any other provision of law.
Added Stats 1975 ch 957 § 12.
Former Sections: Former § 39002, similar to present § 39022, was added by Stats 1967 ch 1545 § 5 and repealed by Stats 1975 ch 957 § 11.
Historical Derivation: Former § 39012, as added by Stats 1967 ch 1545 § 5.
Cross References: “Nonvehicular sources”: H & S C § 39043.
Air pollution control districts: H & S C §§ 40000 et seq.
Nonvehicular air pollution control: H & S C §§ 41500 et seq.
Emission limitations: H & S C §§ 41700 et seq.
Disposal of Russian thistle: H & S C § 41809.
Nonagricultural burnings on islands: H & S C § 41810.
Sandblasting standards: H & S C § 41904.
Vehicular air pollution control: H & S C §§ 43000 et seq.
Vehicle pollution emission regulations and standards: Veh C §§ 27157, 27157.5.
Collateral References: Am Jur 2d (Rev) Pollution Control §§ 50 et seq.
Law Review Articles:
Federal air pollution control, and local regulations. 22 Hast LJ 662.
Administrative adjudication of air pollution disputes: the work of air pollution control district hearing boards in California. 17 UCD LR 1117.
Attorney General's Opinions: Local air pollution control districts have the authority under state law to administer a preconstruction permit procedure, but do not have the authority to redesignate areas from class II to class I as specified in §§ 7474 and 7475 of Title 42 of the United States Code. Additionally, the State Air Resources Board has the authority under state law to administer a preconstruction permit procedure if a local air pollution control district fails to do so, but does not have the authority to redesignate areas from class II to class I as specified in §§ 7474 and 7475. Moreover, the legal status of the Rule for Siting of New and Modified Stationary Sources in California adopted by the California Air Pollution Control Officers' Association and California Air Resources Board Committee is that of a model which a local air pollution control district may follow in adopting a source siting rule. 65 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 435.
A city may enact an ordinance restricting vehicle engine idling for the purpose of controlling or mitigating vehicle emissions if (1) the city has been delegated authority to do so by an air pollution control district or by an air quality management district, (2) the ordinance imposes more stringent engine idling requirements than imposed by such district and is otherwise authorized by law, or (3) the ordinance seeks to abate a nuisance. 87 Cal. Ops. Atty. Gen. 96.
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.