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 No n

- 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

ex ceptions 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, Fres no 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 differe nt 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 onassuring 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 Assi stance Foundation Sacramento, CA akatten@crlaf.org

Caroline Cox Center for Environmental Health Oakland CA caroline@ceh.org

Tracey Brieger Californians for Pesticide Ref orm Oakland, CA tracey@pesticidereform.ortg