3/19/2008 comment letter from the California Farm Bureau Federation

March 19, 2008 Gerardo Rios (Air-3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Mr. Rios: RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0122 The California Farm Bureau Federation (?the Farm Bureau?) submits the following comments in support of EPA?s Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (EPA-R09-OAR- 2007-0122), which was published in 73 Federal Register 9260 (February 20, 2008). The California Farm Bureau is a voluntary, non-profit corporation formed to promote and protect agricultural interests throughout the state of California. The Farm Bureau is California?s largest farm organization, comprised of 53 county farm bureaus currently representing approximately 91,000 members in 56 counties. The Farm Bureau strives to protect and improve the ability of farmers and ranchers engaged in production agriculture to provide a reliable supply of food through responsible stewardship of California?s resources. The Farm Bureau has been following with interest the process for inclusion of agricultural sources in the new source air permitting process in the San Joaquin Valley. As you are aware, while agricultural sources have been making air quality improvements for many years, they have been exempt from having to obtain air pollution permits under California law. When the California state law that exempted agricultural sources from air pollution permitting requirements was repealed in 2003 as part of California Senate Bill 700 (?SB 700?), the Farm Bureau understood that, in order to comply with federal law, major agricultural sources, as defined by the federal Clean Air Act, would thereafter be subject to permitting as new sources. As enacted, SB 700 made a number of changes to the provisions of how agricultural permitting would be governed throughout California. For example, one requirement, enacted in SB 700 as California Health & Safety Code ? 42301.18(c), exempted agricultural emissions sources from being required to purchase offsets until such time as the air district enacted a district-wide regulatory program providing for the quantification and ?banking? of emissions reduced by facility shutdowns and/or modernizations. In short, until a source is able to receive emission reduction credits for reducing emissions and/or shutting down agricultural operations, the district cannot require a new agricultural source to provide such offsets or credits. This ?can?t get-can?t give? requirement is absolutely vital to the fairness of any permitting scheme for agricultural sources; there are numerous instances in which crop, fowl or animal production sources have reduced emissions or ceased operating, but there is no current system for obtaining credits for those reductions. The Farm Bureau understands the action by EPA will expressly approve the versions of the permitting rules adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District that incorporate the limited agricultural exemptions that were enacted as part of SB 700. This clarification is appreciated by the agricultural community in California and is entirely consistent with our prior understanding that after SB 700, although agricultural sources would no longer be subject to a ?blanket? exemption, that major new sources would be subject to permitting consistent with the requirements of SB 700. To our knowledge, EPA, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, and our members have long shared this view and been subject to this interpretation of these rules. Consequently, the clarification now being proposed by EPA does not represent any change in the type of agricultural projects that are subject to clean air permits in the San Joaquin Valley or the scope of the permits. The clarification being proposed by EPA does not in any way reduce the air pollution protections in place in the Valley. The Farm Bureau appreciates EPA?s effort to clarify this issue, especially in light of confusing claims that have been raised in recent litigation in the San Joaquin Valley. We urge EPA to issue a final rule approving the proposed amendments to District Rules 2020 and 2201 as proposed in EPA?s Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 73 Fed. Reg. 9260 (Feb. 20, 2008). Sincerely, Richard Matteis Administrator