December 6, 2012

Linda Irokawa-Otani

Regulations Coordinator

California Department of Pesticide Regulation

Via email: dpr12001@cdpr.ca.gov

RE: Comments on Modifications to Proposed Regulations Pertaining to Non-Fumigant 

Pesticide VOC Regulations for San Joaquin Valley

Dear Ms. Irokawa-Otani:

Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment. We have reviewed the proposed 

changes and are concerned to note that these proposed changes include two additional 

exceptions which we feel will undermine the goal of reducing VOC emissions. The need 

for reduction in pesticide VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley is urgent because the 

valley is an extreme non-attainment area for the ozone standard. Elevated levels of ozone 

and other pollutants aggravate asthma and other respiratory conditions, contribute to 

cardiac illness and increase hospital and emergency room visits, school and work 

absenteeism. The American Lung Association ranks the counties of Tulare, Kern, Fresno 

and Kings respectively as the third, fourth, sixth and seventh most ozone polluted 

counties in the country. 

We conclude that the added exception for low rate oxyflourfen applications is completely 

unjustified given the Department’s admission that the reference added does not support 

need for this exception. 

We are concerned that this proposed change doubles the allowable rate of application of 

high VOC gibberillin formulations both because this will increase VOC emissions and no 

explanation for the change has been provided. 

We also object to addition of unilateral language stating that the Director is authorized to 

remove active ingredients or crops or create other interim exceptions based on 

determination that the change will not affect ability to meet the VOC benchmark. We are 

concerned because the language does not apply to adding new active ingredients or crops 

or ending exceptions even though the Department acknowledges that growers could 

transition to use of a high VOC formulation of a different active ingredient, that cropping 

patterns could change over time, or that exceptions could be abused and that all these 

changes could affect ability to meet the VOC benchmark. The proposed revision 

inappropriately places a higher priority on convenience to agricultural producers than on 
assuring that VOC emission reductions are maintained. We are also puzzled because the 

Director currently already has this authority so this proposed language seems unnecessary 

and duplicative of existing regulation. 

As detailed in our previous comments, we remain concerned that the regulation as 

proposed and revised will not achieve the needed reductions in non-fumigant VOC 

emissions. In our opinion the only reliable way to reduce non-fumigant pesticide VOC 

emissions is to prohibit use of most of the high VOC non-fumigant pesticide products in 

the San Joaquin Valley and work towards complete phase out and removal from the 

market 

Sincerely,

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Anne Katten, MPH

Pesticide and Work Safety Project

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 

Sacramento, CA

akatten@crlaf.org

Caroline Cox

Center for Environmental Health

Oakland CA 

caroline@ceh.org

Tracey Brieger

Californians for Pesticide Reform

Oakland, CA

tracey@pesticidereform.ortg