Brian R. Leahy 

Director

DPR of Pesticide Regulation

Edmund G. Brown Jr. 

Governor 

August 7, 2012 

Mr. Jared Blumenfeld 

Regional Administrator 

Region IX 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

75 Hawthorne St. 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Dear Mr. Blumenfeld: 

You have requested that the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) provide you with 

a description of how the pesticide regulatory program meets its obligation to comply with 

sections 601 and 602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) that govern recipients 

of federal financial assistance. The Title VI implementing regulations codified at 40 C.F.R. 

Part 7, provide that recipient regulatory agencies may not intentionally discriminate or use 

criteria or methods of administering its program that have a discriminatory effect based upon 

race, color, or national origin. In the context of environmental regulation, this means that the 

program cannot be administered in such a way that there is an adverse environmental effect that 

has a disparate impact on the protected class. This letter will outline the policies and programs of 

DPR that meet this obligation. 

Registration 

The major focus of DPR’s program is to protect human health and the environment by regulating 

the sales and use of pesticides that have been federally registered pursuant to the provisions of 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA requires a 

determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Administrator before 

registration of a pesticide product that the use of the product under the approved label and other 

restrictions imposed by the Act will not result in unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment, a term that includes unreasonable risk to human health [see title 7, U.S.C. 

section 136(c)(5) and the definition of section 136(bb)]. Therefore, the first and most 

comprehensive action taken by DPR to protect human health is to register a product for use in 

California under the federal label and to enforce the U. S. EPA label restrictions. 

DPR is prohibited by federal law from adopting a label different or in addition to that required 

under FIFRA [title 7, U.S.C. section 136(v)]. As required by statute, DPR conducts its own 

thorough evaluation of a pesticide product before it registers the product for use in California 

(Food and Agricultural Code section 12824). If that evaluation concludes that the federallyapproved label does not adequately protect human health or the environment under California 
Mr. Jared Blumenfeld 

August 7, 2012 

Page 2 

conditions or for some other reason, it must refuse to register the product until a label that meets 

DPR’s concerns is submitted and approved by U.S. EPA under the FIFRA process 

Continuous Reevaluation 

Once a pesticide product is registered, under its statutory mandate, DPR engages in a program of 

continuous evaluation to assure that the use of the registered pesticide does not have a significant 

adverse effect on human health or the environment that was not anticipated at the time of 

registration (Food and Agricultural Code section 12824). This obligation is implemented in 

numerous ways throughout DPR’s program. The primary elements of DPR’s program that carry 

out this requirement are outlined below. 

DPR has adopted regulations that set forth a formal reevaluation of registered products that is 

triggered by any report or information received that indicates use may have caused, or is likely to 

cause, a significant adverse effect (Title 3, California Code of Regulations [CCR] sections 6220-

6226). Actions that are possible at the conclusion of the reevaluation process include further 

restrictions on use by regulation or cancellation. In addition, on an on-going basis, DPR conducts 

comprehensive risk assessments of registered pesticides selected by a prioritization process that 

involves consultation with the Air Resources Board and the Office of Environmental Health 

Hazard Assessment, and that includes considerations of relative toxicity and use. (See statutory 

framework at Food and Agricultural Code sections 11454.1 and 14021 et seq.) Further, 

every report of pesticide illness or injury, primarily received by the county agricultural 

commissioners (CACs) or to the California Poison Control System, is fully investigated. DPR 

maintains a Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP) to gather and evaluate information 

obtained during these investigations and maintains a Web-based search engine (CalPIQ) that 

allows users to review their results. Separate from the risk assessment process and illness 

reporting process, DPR also conducts air monitoring, both application site and ambient air 

monitoring in communities, and water monitoring, both well monitoring and agricultural and 

urban run-off surface water monitoring. These program components are used to evaluate and 

assess the need for further regulatory restrictions on registered pesticides to protect human health 

and the environment beyond those protections provided by the U.S. EPA-approved label or 

existing state law and regulation. 

Regulation and laws implemented by DPR that go beyond or strengthen the federal label 

requirements include those directed at worker safety (3 CCR sections 6700 -6776), fumigant 

applications (3 CCR section 6780-6782 and 6445-6454), restrictions specific to particular 

pesticides (3 CCR sections 6443, 6457-6476, and 6486.7), and the protection of ground water 

(3 CCR sections 6487.1-6487.5, 6800, and 6804). Currently pending are regulations to protect 

surface water in the urban setting (DPR rulemaking 11-004 amending 3 CCR section 6000, 

adding sections 6970 and 6972). 
Mr. Jared Blumenfeld 

August 7, 2012 

Page 3 

DPR’s proactive efforts to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of its regulatory program 

beyond statutorily mandated risk assessments or responding to reports of adverse effects, is 

exemplified by the air monitoring network it established in 2011. The network monitors for 34 

pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products in three communities. The selection of 

communities and the chemicals targeted was guided by the amount of use and the potential for 

adverse health effects. In addition, in 2010, DPR asked the Air Resources Board to monitor for 

several fumigants (including methyl bromide) in two communities with high use, and added an 

additional site at the request of U. S. EPA in 2011. Draft reports of the first results from these 

monitoring efforts have just been released. Both DPR and the Air Resources Board’s monitoring 

showed pesticide levels well below those established as protective of human health. The only 

exception was the level found of a chemical that results from vehicle emissions and industrial 

use, and which was the most likely the source of the detections. 

Enforcement and Local Restrictions on Use 

Beyond the existing protective restrictions on pesticide use provided by the federally-approved 

label and state law and regulations, further restrictions on use can be imposed on certain 

agricultural pesticides that DPR designates by regulation as restricted materials based on the 

level of potential hazard they present (Food and Agricultural Code section 14004.5 and 3 CCR 

section 6400). Before a restricted material pesticide can be used, a time and place specific permit 

must be obtained by the CAC. The CAC may impose further restrictions on use based upon local 

conditions (Food and Agricultural Code section 14006.5 and 3 CCR sections 6420-6432). 

The outcome of the pesticide registration process and the continuous evaluation of registered 

pesticides results in a regulatory program designed to protect all individuals who apply or work 

with regulated pesticides or live near areas where they may be used, from the potential adverse 

effects of their use. Enforcement is a key element to assure the protection extends to all 

individuals who could be potentially impacted. The primary responsibility for pesticide use 

enforcement has been delegated to the CACs under the guidance of DPR. Each county is 

required to submit annual or multi-year work plans. Staff in DPR’s three regional offices 

evaluate the performance of each county in their area using objective-based performance 

measures. The evaluation focuses on how well the counties are targeting local problems and 

patterns of continuing violations, and DPR staff works with the counties to improve performance 

if any issues are detected. In addition, DPR developed and adopted regulations in 2006 to assure 

that CACs uniformly enforce violations of the pesticide laws and regulations across the state 

(3, CCR section 6128). 
Mr. Jared Blumenfeld 

August 7, 2012 

Page 4 

Pesticide Use Reporting- An Important Tool 

An important tool developed by DPR to accomplish its mandate to protect human health and the 

environment is its extensive and comprehensive mandatory pesticide use reporting (3 CCR 

sections 6624-6627). Customized information about pesticide use back to 1990 is available to the 

public by using the California Pesticide Information Portal (CalPIP) on DPR’s Web site. This 

data provides critical information to DPR for use in the development of measures to mitigate any 

adverse effects that come to light as a result of the continuous evaluation process and is also an 

important tool used by both DPR and the CACs to target enforcement efforts. 

Reduction of Volatile Organic Compounds from Pesticides 

Beyond its obligation to protect human health and the environment from the potential of 

adverse impacts from the toxic impact of pesticide use that is addressed through the registration 

and continuous evaluation process, DPR contributes to meeting the state’s compliance with 

the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act targeting the reduction of volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions. VOCs contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, which is 

harmful to human health and vegetation when present at high enough concentrations. The federal 

Clean Air Act requires each state to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) for achieving and 

maintaining federal ambient air quality standards for ozone. An ozone nonattainment area 

(NAA) is a geographical region that does not meet federal ambient air quality standards. For 

each NAA, the SIP includes includes an element that requires DPR to track and reduce pesticidal 

sources of VOCs in five NAAs--Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Southeast 

Desert, and Ventura—that in combination with reductions from other sources in the plan, will 

meet the ozone standard. Pesticides are only one source of VOC emissions that the SIP addresses 

and pesticide represent a very small percentage of the total. 

Beginning in 2008, DPR implemented a series of regulations to reduce VOC emissions from 

fumigant pesticide products in the NAAs as its contribution to the overall state plan. DPR has 

achieved pesticide VOC reductions over and above those specified in the pesticide element of the 

SIP since the implementation of those regulations. In April 2012, DPR proposed additional 

regulations to reduce VOC emissions from nonfumigant pesticide products in the San Joaquin 

Valley NAA. While this NAA complies with the pesticide VOC reductions specified in the SIP, 

it is a region where nonfumigant products contribute the majority of pesticide VOC emissions. 

The nonfumigant regulations will reduce pesticide VOC emissions even more and ensure that 

DPR meets the SIP obligation even in years with very high pesticide use. 

While DPR meets its SIP obligations, the ozone air quality standard continues to be exceeded in 

several California locations each year. This is because pesticides contribute a small portion of the 

total VOC emissions (approximately 2 percent on a statewide basis and 6 percent in the San 
Mr. Jared Blumenfeld 

August 7, 2012 

Page 5 

Joaquin Valley). Additionally, pesticide products emit a negligible amount of nitrogen oxides, 

the other chemical that contributes to the formation of ozone. Significant decreases in emissions 

from other VOC sources and nitrogen oxides sources are needed to achieve the air quality 

standard. California’s Air Resources Board and local air pollution control districts are 

responsible for reducing the emissions from the other sources. 

Public Participation, Education, and Outreach 

DPR has a robust program to assure that public that may be affected by pesticide use have 

information on the potential hazards, the regulatory program designed to protect them, and where 

to go to report violations or obtain assistance in case of exposure in a form they can understand. 

Enclosed with this letter is a summary of the tools developed by DPR and its outreach activities 

to inform, educate, and involve the public in its program. 

Conclusion 

From this summary, you can see that by striving to protect the all members of the public and the 

environment from the adverse environmental and health effects of pesticide use, DPR is 

administering its program in a manner that complies with of Title VI. Please contact me if you 

need additional information about any aspect of our program. 

Sincerely, 

Brian R. Leahy 

Director 

916-445-4000 

Enclosure 

cc: Mr. Enrique Manzanilla, Director (w/Enclosure) 

 Communities and Ecosystems Division, U.S EPA 

 Ms. Pamela Cooper, Manager (w/Enclosure) 

 Pesticides Office, U.S. EPA 

 Ms. Polly Frenkel, DPR Chief Counsel (w/Enclosure)