To: Docket # EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0194

Author: Nancy Levin

Date: August 10, 2012

Subject: Summary of July 16, 2012 conference call between EPA, Region 9 and California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This document memorializes the key points of discussion among conference call participants on 

July 16, 2012 and follow-up clarifications. The basis for the conversation was a list of questions 

that EPA sent to DPR on July 3, 2012 in order to better understand the DPR regulatory and 

enforcement process for fumigants. Not all of the questions were discussed on the call.

Participants:

 EPA Region 9: Frances Wicher, Nancy Levin; Fabiola Estrada, Bill Lee, Katy Wilcoxen

 DPR: Randy Segawa, Pam Wofford, Joe Marade, Regina Sarracino, Jim Shattuck, Ken 

Everett, George Farnsworth

1. What data and information on pesticide use and calculations of adjustment factors are 

available to the public, when is the data available, and how can public access it? 

a. Individual applicator PURs – Are the actual reports available to the public?

Answer: Yes they are. Whoever makes the fumigant application must file Pesticide 

Use Report (PUR) with the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). The CAC

keeps the submitted copy of the PUR, compiles that data and periodically sends the 

data to DPR. DPR enters the PUR data into an annual statewide PUR database. The 

farm operator must file the PUR by 10th day after the beginning of the following 

month. Pest Control businesses must file within 7 days. 

o How and from whom can they request the PUR?

Answer: A member of the public can request the PUR from the CAC by 

making a public record request, either in writing or personal visit. The CAC 

has 10 days to respond. About 2 million records/reports come in every year 

statewide. PUR reports are available for request as soon as they get to the 

CAC. The public can obtain specific and summary data from DPR’s free 

online system (http://cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm) after CAC submits the 

PUR to DPR. DPR can also extract specific records from an electronic 

database upon request. Grower-specific use reports must be obtained from the 

CAC. 

o Is there a fee?

Answer: Possibly for copying/retrieval. If the PUR is electronic, then the CAC 

can send it via email with no fee. There is no waiver of fees for NGOs. The 

use of the database is free, but DPR may charge a fee for special queries of the 

electronic database.

b. PUR Database - Is there a deadline for DPR to publish annual PUR? 
Answer: There is no legal deadline, but by policy DPR gets data from counties by 

August of the following year. DPR generally publishes the annual database within a 

year after the growing season ends. DPR is having software issues for reporting years 

2011 and 2012, so there may be a delay in publishing the annual PUR database for 

those reporting years. 

c. Emissions Inventory Report – When is it available to public for the 45-day 

comment period? How is public noticed? Is there an option to sign up for 

notification? 

Answer: DPR sends draft Emissions Inventory Report to VOC list server. If someone 

is not already on the list, then they can contact DPR and they would send a hard copy.

d. Are Application Method Adjustment Factors (AMAF) available on line? Does 

DPR notice changes to these factors? 

Answer: AMAFs are online. The changes to AMAFs are summarized in annual 

inventory report. No AMAF changes have been made to date, but there have been 

new AMAFs added to reflect new allowed methods. If changes are made, they are

specifically listed in the Report. 

2. Two- year retention time of PUR –

a. After PUR form is submitted to CAC or DPR, what happens to the actual PUR 

document? 

Answer: DPR asked a few CACs what they did with the PURs. One CAC said 

they held PURs for 7 years, another CAC held PURs for 3 years, but it depends 

on the county. 

b. Is it submitted electronically? If not, is electronic PUR data submission

anticipated?

Answer: Effective January 2012, more than half of the PUR data are now 

submitted electronically to DPR, with an increase in the use of electronic 

submission anticipated over the next year. 

3. How is compliance ensured?

a. Do users have to certify they used an allowed method?

Answer: PUR does not have requirement for signature, but does have 

requirements for the name of the applicator, supervisor, or person who prepared 

the report, depending on the type of submission. There are several types of PUR 

forms. Two forms are used for production agriculture. The PUR would require 

identifying information, numbers, etc. but don’t require signature. 

b. Are they subject to civil or criminal penalties for violations? 
Answer: Yes, under state law. FAC 12996, Civil 6128, 6130. License could be 

taken back, DPR/CAC could withhold permit.

4. Funding – How are the fumigant inspections and enforcement funded? Funding 

mechanism? MOAs? On-going source of funds?

5. Answer: DPR collects an assessment, 21 mills = .021 cents per dollar of pesticide sales. Of 

that, 0.076 goes to CACs (FAC 12841) as reimbursement for costs incurred associated with 

pesticide enforcement. Funds are allocated to the CACs based on criteria set forth in FAC 

Section 12844 and apportioned according to criteria set forth in CCR 6393 which includes #

of inspections, licenses, PURs, registrations, etc. Special funding for NAA counties is 

allocated pursuant to FAC 12841.3.

a. Did DPR use all available studies? Why did they exclude certain studies? What 

is the basis for excluding a study? 

Answer: See RACT analysis p.22; Attachment 1A (Barry memo, Sept 29, 2007) 

b. Are AMAFs updated? Have there been petitions to update them? Will DPR 

consider these? How? What info, if any, is disclosed to the public and when?

Answer: DPR hasn’t updated initial AMAF methods, have looked at data on new 

methods. See RACT analysis Attachment 1B.

c. Are the estimates/studies from Sept 29, 2007 Barry memo are out of date, or still 

good? Are there other studies they should consider, per the commenter?

Answer: See Barry memo Attachment 1E for the studies excluded and the 

rationale for each exclusion.

d. Calculations of adjustment factors (AMAF’s) – Are these and the data used to 

come up with the AMAF’s available to public? 

Answer: Yes. Most of the data was generated by pesticide registrants and copies 

of the original studies can be obtained from DPR through a Public Records Act 

request.

6. How were the historical base year MUFs derived – who was interviewed, rationale for 

choices of what surveys and studies to use (also see Barry memo)

Answer: Barry 2007 spells out how the data were derived. Since PURs did not 

track application methods, DPR used a number of ways (e.g. Stangellhini (2006), 

Lawson (2006) grower survey of metam sodium practices. 1,3 D registrant data)

7. Alternatives to fumigants: What is DPR doing? 
Answer: See website, also RACT analysis p. 20

8. Monitoring

a. What does the CAC do with the reports/data when they get them? Do they 

check data against the permits they issue/QA? 

Answer: This comes up in phase 2 – observing – restricted material. A Notice of 

Intent (NOI) is required prior to an application of a permitted restricted material.

CAC goes out and does a pre-site to make a determination whether it’s OK to proceed 

with application – sign simple inspection form, may go back out and inspect actual

application to see if it complies with permit/label DPR does oversight. Cross 

checking/error checking of NOIs and PURs done by CAC – check back with 

applicant. 5% of NOIs must be inspected – considered official inspections. Would 

report pre-sites, but not broken down to detail regarding # of presites on fumigations.

Pre-sites are formal inspections. DPR does evaluation on counties at least every 3 

years. Fumigant applications are high priority for counties – tend to send inspectors 

out for them. The inspection form ENF- 106 used for field fumigant inspections a 

data entry field to identify the fumigation method for that application. Counties 

realize this is important. There is a 48- hour advance notification requirement for 

fumigant NOIs; 24-hour advance notification for other pesticides.

b. When do inspections occur and what type of into do the inspectors check for?

(See above)

9. Section 6452 (Directors Discretion): How many times has it been used since 2008? Answer: 

4 times – in 3 requests.

10. Restricted Use Permits Questions

a. Do they impose legally binding requirements on pesticide users, violation of 

which would expose them to civil and criminal penalties? Answer: Yes. See FAC 

14006.5 and sections that follow it – legally binding requirements, civil and criminal 

penalties. Also see FAC 11792 and 12991.

b. Is there somewhere in DPR’s regs that states that applicators have to comply 

with terms of a permit? or When CAC’s issue restricted use permits, can the 

CAC’s enforce those permit conditions on the recipients of the permits? Yes. 

FAC 12973

c. Would compliance be monitored and ensured through the existing restricted 

materials permit program?

d. Does existing law provide access to records?

e. Does existing law require users to comply with all permit conditions? Yes

f. Do permit conditions specify application method that would be used? Yes

11. Are there any readily available statistics on how many PUR are received for the SJV 

area? Ventura area? How many restricted use permits are issued for these areas?