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 Regul ation (DPR) provide you with a description of how the pestic ide regulatory program meets its obligation to comply with sections 601 and 602 of Title VI of the Civil Righ ts Act of 1964 (Title VI) that govern recipients

of federal financial assistance. The Title VI im plementing regulations codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 7, provide that recipient regulatory agencies may not inte ntionally 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 pursu ant to the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and R odenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA requires a determination by the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (U.S. EPA) Administrator before registration of a pestic ide product that the use of the produc t under the approved label and other restrictions imposed by the Act will not re sult 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 secti on 136(bb)]. Therefore, the first and most comprehensive action taken by DPR to protect huma n health is to register a product for use in

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

DPR is prohibited by federal law fr om 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 sect ion 12824). If that evaluation concludes that the federallyapproved label does not adequate ly protect human health or the environment under CaliforniaMr. 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 approve d by U.S. EPA under the FIFRA process

Continuous Reevaluation

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

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

adverse effect on human health or the environm ent that was not anticipated at the time of registration (Food and Agricultural Code secti on 12824). This obligation is implemented in numerous ways throughout DPR’s program. The pr imary elements of DPR’s program that carry out this requirement are outlined below.

DPR has adopted regulations that set forth a form al reevaluation of regist ered 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, Ca lifornia Code of Regulations [CCR] sections 6220- 6226). Actions that are possible at the conclusion of the reeval uation process include further restrictions on use by regulation or cancellation. In addition, on an on-going basis, DPR conducts comprehensive risk assessments of registered pest icides selected by a prio ritization process that

involves consultation with the Air Resources Bo ard and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and that include s considerations of relative toxi city 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, pr imarily received by the county agricultural commissioners (CACs) or to the California Po ison Control System, is fully investigated. DPR maintains a Pesticide Illness Surveillance Progra m (PISP) to gather a nd evaluate information obtained during these investigatio ns and maintains a Web-based se arch engine (CalPIQ) that allows users to review their results. Separate from the risk assessment process and illness reporting process, DPR also conducts air mon itoring, both application site and ambient air monitoring in communities, and water monitori ng, 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 regulator y restrictions on registered pest icides 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 monitori ng network it established in 2 011. The network monitors for 34 pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products in three communities. The selection of communities and the chemicals targeted was guide d by the amount of use and the potential for

adverse health effects. In a ddition, 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 be en released. Both DPR and the Air Resources Board’s monitoring showed pesticide levels well below those establ ished 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 pe sticide use provided by the federally-approved label and state law and regulat ions, further restrictions on use can be imposed on certain agricultural pesticides that DPR designates by re gulation as restricted materials based on the level of potential hazard th ey present (Food and Agricultu ral Code section 14004.5 and 3 CCR section 6400). Before a restricted material pestic ide can be used, a time and place specific permit must be obtained by the CAC. The CAC may impos e further restrictions on use based upon local conditions (Food and Agricultural Code s ection 14006.5 and 3 CCR sections 6420-6432).

The outcome of the pesticide registration proces s and the continuous evaluation of registered pesticides results in a regulato ry program designed to protect a ll individuals who apply or work with regulated pesticides or live near areas wher e they may be used, from the potential adverse effects of their use. Enforcement is a key el ement to assure the protection extends to all individuals who could be potenti ally 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 pl ans. 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 th e counties are targeti ng 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 adopte d regulations in 2006 to assure that CACs uniformly enforce violations of the pesticide laws and regula tions 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 comprehens ive 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 Informa tion Portal (CalPIP) on DPR’s Web site. This data provides critical information to DPR for us e in the development of measures to mitigate any adverse effects that come to light as a result of the continuous ev aluation 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 fr om the potential of adverse impacts from the toxic im pact of pesticide use that is addressed through the registration and continuous evaluation process, DPR contribut es to meeting the state’s compliance with the requirements of the federal Clean Air Ac t targeting the reducti on of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. VOCs contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, which is harmful to human health and vegetation when pr esent 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 sta ndards for ozone. An ozone nonattainment area (NAA) is a geographical region th at does not meet federal ambien t air quality standards. For each NAA, the SIP includes includes an element th at requires DPR to trac k and reduce pesticidal

sources of VOCs in five NAAs--Sacramento Metr o, 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 overa ll state plan. DPR has achieved pesticide VOC reductions over and above t hose specified in the pesticide element of the SIP since the implementation of those regula tions. In April 2012, DPR proposed additional regulations to reduce VOC emissions from nonfum igant pesticide products in the San Joaquin Valley NAA. While this NAA complies with the pest icide 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 beca use pesticides contribute a small portion of the total VOC emissions (approximately 2 percent on a statewide basis and 6 percent in the SanMr. Jared Blumenfeld August 7, 2012 Page 5

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

the other chemical that contributes to the form ation of ozone. Significant decreases in emissions from other VOC sources and nitrogen oxides so urces are needed to achieve the air quality

standard. California’s Air Res ources Board and local air po llution 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 regulato ry 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 an d its outreach activities to inform, educate, and involve the public in its program.

Conclusion

From this summary, you can see th at by striving to protect the a ll members of the public and the

environment from the adverse environmental an d health effects of pesticide use, DPR is administering its program in a manner that comp lies 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)