INITIAL STATEMENT OF REAS ONS AND PUBLIC REPORT

DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION

Title 3. California Code of Regulations

Amend Sections 6452 and 6452.2 Amend Section 6452.4 and Renumber to 6881,

Renumber section 6890 to 6864 Adopt Sections 6558, 6577, 6880, 6883, 6884, and 6886 Pertaining to Volatile Organic Compounds in the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area

This is the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISR) required by Government Code section 11346.2 and the public report specified in se ction 6110 of Title 3, California C ode of Regulations (3 CCR). Section 6110 meets the requirements of Title 14 CCR section 15252 and Public Resources Code section 21080.5 pertaining to certified stat e regulatory programs under the California Environmental Quality Act.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION/PESTICID E REGULATORY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

AFFECTED

The Department of Pesticid e Regulation (DPR) proposes to amend sections 6452, 6452.2, and 6864; amend section 6452.4 and renumber to 68 81; renumber section 6890 to 6864; and adopt sections 6558, 6577, 6880, 6883, 6884, and 6886 of 3 CC R. The pesticide regulatory program activities that will be affected by the proposal ar e those pertaining to environmental monitoring and pesticide enforcement. In summary, the proposed action would require prohibitions on the use of certain nonfumigants on certain crops in the Sa n Joaquin Valley ozone no nattainment area (NAA) during May 1 through October 31 if the volat ile organic compound (VOC) emission limit is triggered. These prohibitions would apply to agricultural use products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen. Also, when purchasi ng or using certain products containing these four active ingredients, th e proposed action woul d require a written recommendation from a licensed pest control advise r and require pest control dealers to provide VOC information to the purchaser.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND FACTUAL BASIS

State and federal law mandates th at DPR protect human health a nd the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use and by fostering reduced-risk pest management.

VOCs contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, which is harmful to human health and vegetation when present at high enough concentrat ions. 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 NAA is a geographical region in Ca lifornia that does not meet federal ambient air quality standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) designates NAAs in Title 40, Code of Fe deral Regulations (CFR) section 81.305.2 California’s SIP 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--to meet the ozone standa rd. The tracking of emissions a nd control measures are focused on the period between May 1 and October 31, because that is the peak "ozone forming" season in

California.

Since 1990, DPR maintains an annual emissions inve ntory to track pesticid e VOC emissions, based on the amount of pesticide products applied (f rom pesticide use reports ) and the VOC content (emission potential) of pesticide products. Most pe sticide VOC emissions are from fumigants and products formulated as emulsifiab le concentrates. Fumigants are gaseous pesticides, applied in relatively high amounts. Emulsifiable concentrates (nonfumigants) contain solvents that keep pesticides in liquid form, so that mi xing and applying the product are easier.

Sacramento Metro and South Coast ozone NAAs have consistently achieved a reduction of pesticide VOC emissions from the 1990 base year . Prior to 2008, San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert, and Ventura NAAs did not always meet the reduction goals. In January 2008, DPR adopted regulations (Office of Admini strative Law File No. 2007-1219-01S ) to achieve a reduction of pesticide VOC emissions from 1990 levels in the five NAAs. Those regulations, in part, focused exclusively on fumigant VOC emissions to achie ve reductions through cont rols requiring "lowemission" application methods and the benchmarks th at trigger a cap and allowance system to force

reductions if needed.

With the current fumigant controls in place, the emissions inventory indicates that DPR will consistently achieve the SIP re duction goals for the Sacramento Metro, South Coast, Southeast Desert, and Ventura ozone NAAs. However, the em issions inventory indicat es that DPR may not consistently achieve the SIP emi ssion level goal of 18.1 tons per day average for the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA since most pesticide VOC emissions are due to the use of nonfumigants. Fumigants account for approximate ly one-quarter of the pesticide emissions in the San Joaquin Valley NAA, and nonfumigants account for three-qua rters. Since fumigants have a relatively smaller contribution, additional fumigant reductions would have minimal impact on total pesticide VOC emissions. Under the 2009 proposed SIP revisi on, DPR is obligated to reduce VOC emissions from nonfumigant pesticides. These reductions will be more effective in reducing total pesticide VOC emissions, since nonfumigants make up the ma jority of pesticide VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA.

It is possible that current regul ations would require a major decr ease or a total prohibition of fumigants, and still not achieve the pesticide SIP goal for the San Joaquin Valley due to increased nonfumigant emissions. Under the current regulati ons, a fumigant limit is triggered even if emissions exceed a specified level due to an incr ease in nonfumigants. Therefore, a fumigant limit program is a less efficient reduction measure fo r the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA compared to the other NAAs. DPR proposes to replace fumigant limits in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA with nonfumigant use restrictions and prohibitions wh en emissions reach levels five percent or less

below the benchmarks or exceeds the benchmar k of 6,700,000 pounds (18.1 tons per day average).

As mentioned above, most pesticide VOC emi ssions in the San Joaquin Valley NAA are from nonfumigant products formulated as emulsifiable concentrates. The liqui d products have higher3 emission potentials, while solid products (e.g., dust s, powders, and granules) have lower emission potentials. In 2005, DPR initiated a reevaluation (regulatory process to request actions by pesticide manufacturers and formulators [registrants]) for several hundred nonf umigant products. The reevaluation required registrants to submit plans for reformulating the inert ingredients in the products to reduce VOC emissions. Some registra nts responded to the reevaluation or earlier informal DPR requests by successfully reformulating several products.

Pesticide products containing abamectin, chlorp yrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen have consistently been among the hi ghest nonfumigant VOC contribut ors in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA. Although products with lower VOC emissions are available for these active ingredients, current voluntary e fforts to use lower VOC products may not consistently achieve the SIP reduction goals. Therefore, restrictions on nonfumigant VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley NAA are needed to: ensure that the SIP re duction goal is achieved in a worst-case year; comply with the SIP commitment to implement restrictions on nonfumig ant pesticides by 2014; and reduce the regulatory burden on fumigant s and avoid triggering a fumigant limit.

DPR will need to balance four factors to achieve the needed VOC reductions from the nonfumigant

restrictions--active ingredients, setting product emission potential limits, crops, and exemptions. DPR proposes to designate products with agricu ltural uses containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen as their primary ac tive ingredient as a "l ow-VOC" or "high-VOC" contributor based on the product' s emission potential. DPR proposes to require nonfumigant use prohibitions on certain crops in the San Joa quin Valley ozone NAA when using these active ingredients during May 1 through October 31 if the VOC emission limit is triggered. With a few exceptions, products that are designated as "high- VOCs" will not be allowed to be applied to alfalfa, almonds, citrus, cotton, grapes, pistac hios, and walnuts duri ng this time period.

Additionally, when agricultural use of a high-VOC product is allowed, DPR proposes to require a written recommendation from a licensed pest contro l adviser (PCA) as a condition use on the seven crops during May 1 through October 31. A PCA r ecommendation is currently optional for all pesticides. The operator of the property and the PCA will be requi red to retain a copy of the recommendation for two years after the applicat ion. Also, whenever selling certain high-VOC products, a licensed pest control d ealer will be required to provide written VOC information to the purchaser who has an opera tor identification number i ssued by a county agricultural commissioner (CAC) in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA.

In developing the proposed regulations, DPR disc ussed the proposal with representatives from groups that will be directly a ffected by the restrictions incl uding registrants, agricultural commodity organizations, PCAs, pest control deal ers, applicators, and growers. DPR invited several environmental and worker organizations to discuss the regulatory op tions, but all declined the invitation. We received comments at several pub lic meetings with DPR’s Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee, Agricult ural Pest Control Advisory Co mmittee, and Pest Management Advisory Committee.

The adoption of these proposed regulations woul d assure that smog-producing emissions from pesticide use in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA will not exceed the pesticide SIP goal, reducing the ozone level that may be harmful to human health and vegetation when present at high4 concentrations. The regulations should reduce VOC emissions by approximately two tons/day during a worst-case year, less than a one percent reduction in total VOC emissions from all sources in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA because pe sticide products only c ontribute approximately six percent of the total VOC emissions. Restricti ons on nonfumigant products will provide minimal

overall reduction in VOC emissions and resultin g ozone air concentrations. However, even the largest sources contribute less than 15 percent to the total VOC emissions, and pesticide products are consistently among the top ten VOC sources in the San Joaquin Valley. Reductions from many

sources are needed to achieve th e ozone air quality standard.

DPR proposes the following regulatory amendments:

• Amend Section 6452(a) - Reduced Volatile Or ganic Compound Emissions Field Fumigation

Methods.

Subsection (a) is being amended to reflect the correct section reference based on the proposed changes.

• Amend Section 6452.2 - Volatile Orga nic Compound Emission Limits.

As mentioned above, with the curren t fumigant controls in place, the emissions inventory indicates that DPR will consistently achieve the SIP reducti on goals for the Sacramento Metro, South Coast, Southeast Desert, and Ventura NAAs, but may not c onsistently achieve the SIP emission level goal of 18.1 tons per day average for the San Joa quin Valley ozone NAA since most pesticide VOC

emissions are due to the use of nonf umigants. It is possible that cu rrent regulations would require a major decrease or a total prohibi tion of fumigants, and still not achieve the pesticide SIP goal for the San Joaquin Valley due to increased nonfumigan t emissions. Under the current regulations, a fumigant limit would be triggered even if emissions exceed a specified level due to an increase in nonfumigants. Therefore, a fumigant limit program is a less efficient reduction measure for the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA. DPR proposes to replace fumigant limits in the San Joaquin Valley NAA with nonfumigant use restrictions and prohibiti ons when emissions reach levels five percent or less below the benchmarks or exceeds the benchmark of 6,700,000 pounds (18.1 tons per day average). Subsection (a) would require a fumigant limit only for the Sacramento Metro, South Coast, Southeast Desert or Ventura ozone NAAs if emissions exceed a specified level.

Proposed subsection (f) has been added to specify provisions of section 6884 would apply only in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA. The use prohibit ions and restrictions for nonfumigants would be more appropriately cited under Chapter 4. Envi ronmental Protection, Subc hapter 2. Air, Article 2. Volatile Organic Compounds, instead of Chap ter 2. Pesticides, Subchapter 4. Restricted Materials, Article 4. Field Fumigation Use Requireme nts, instead of under Subchapter 4. Restricted Materials. Unlike fumigants, these nonfumigant products are not state restricted materials. Restricted materials may only be used by certified applicators that have demonstrated skills to properly use pesticides, and under a permit issued by the CAC. Food and Agricultural Code (FAC)

section 14004.5 authorizes the Direct or, by regulation, to designate and establish a list of restricted materials based upon criteria. Certified applicat ors are unnecessary fo r these nonfumigant VOC products because special equipment, procedures, or precautions are not needed, nor would the5 evaluation of local conditions by CACs, required before issuing a permit, be needed for VOC

purposes.

These specific restrictions and prohibitions for nonfumigants are further discussed below in the

ISR.

The proposed amendments to subsection (a) remove from the benchmarks for "Ventura in 2011" since they no longer apply, as well as the phrase "in 2012 and later" since this benchmark is already in effect; move the benchmarks for the San Jo aquin Valley NAA to proposed subsection (f); make a clarifying change to subs ection (a)(1); revise the title of the se ction to remove "Fumigant" as this section is proposed to also address nonfumigants ; and correct the reference in subsection (e).

• Adopt Section 6558 - Recommendation for Use of Nonfumigants in the San Joaquin Valley

Ozone Nonattainment Area.

As proposed in section 6883, an operator of proper ty is required to obtain a licensed PCA written recommendation if a high-VOC nonfumigant pro duct specified in the Annual VOC Emissions Inventory Report is to be applie d to one of the following during Ma y 1 through October 31: alfalfa, almonds, citrus, cotton, grapes, pistachios, and wa lnuts. DPR proposes to prohibit the PCA from recommending a use in violation with the proh ibitions set forth in proposed section 6884. Requiring a licensed PCA recomme ndation is further discussed in section 6883 of this ISR on page 8.

Also, a PCA will be required to retain the re commendation for at least two years. PCAs are currently required to retain reco mmendations for one year. The extra retention time is needed to

allow for enforcement audits of the recommenda tions by DPR and/or CAC staff. Some audits would be initiated based on information in pest icide use reports and th e Annual VOC Emissions Inventory Report. It takes DPR approximately one year to complete proc essing of pesticide use reports, and calculation of the emission invent ory for the previous year. Retaining PCA recommendations for high-VOC products for two year s will provide a one year window to conduct

audits.

• Adopt Section 6577 - Sales of Nonfumigants for Use in the San Joaquin Valley Ozone

Nonattainment Area.

Prohibitions and restrictions on hi gh-VOC products may be in effect for some years, but not others. The Annual VOC Emissions Inventory Report would be used to determine if the trigger level is exceeded. However, because high-VOC products may be purchased before DPR determines whether the trigger level has been reached, the purchaser needs to be aware that the high-VOC product(s) purchased may have use pr ohibitions, as well as restrictions even if the trigger level is not reached. Proposed subsection (a) would require all licensed pest control dealers selling a highVOC product with agricultural us es specified in the Annual VOC Emissions Inventory Report to provide VOC information when sale is made to or for the operator of the property with an operator identification number issued by a CAC in the Sa n Joaquin Valley ozone NAA. This requirement would apply to all dealers because the amount of pesticides purchased outside the San Joaquin Valley for use inside the San Joaquin Valley NAA is unknown.6 The information must be in writing and provided at time of purchase or delivery. The information should provide the purchaser with the four active ingredients a nd seven crops subject to use restrictions during May 1 thr ough October 31, and use prohibition that may apply are found in section 6884. Also, inform the pur chaser that a written recomm endation of a licensed PCA is required prior to use on the seven crops.

Proposed subsection (b) would require the pest control dealer to i ndicate on the invoice that he/she met the requirements in (a). This will assist in determining whether the requirement was complied with during an enforcement audit.

• Renumber Section 6890 - Criteria for Identify ing Pesticides as Toxic Air Contaminants.

Renumber section 6890 to 6864 in order to allow fo r additional section numbers to be added to

Article 2.

• Adopt Section 6880 - Criteria to Designate Lo w-Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) or HighVOC Nonfumigant Pesticide Products.

Emulsifiable concentrates containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellin s, or oxyfluorfen are consistently among the highest nonfumigant VOC c ontributors in the San Joaquin Valley NAA. Other nonfumigants are relatively hi gh VOC contributors in some y ears, but not other years. LowVOC products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen are available and feasible for the majority of uses, but voluntary effo rts to switch to the low-VOC products have had

limited results. The needed VOC reductions for the San Joaquin Valley can be achieved with restrictions on chlorpyrifos, th e largest nonfumigant VOC contribu tor. However, the agricultural impact may be lessened (or at least more certain) with less stringent restrictions on all four active ingredients.

DPR proposes to designate certain nonfumigan t products with agricu ltural uses containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellin s, or oxyfluorfen as their prim ary active ingredient as a lowVOC product based on the product's emission poten tial in the Annual VOC Emissions Inventory Report. Some products containi ng abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen also contain other active ingredients. Emission potenti al thresholds should only be set for products based on the "primary active ingredie nt." If a product contains more than one active ingredient, the primary active ingredient is the one present at the highest percentage in a product. This requirement would not apply to a product where one of thes e active ingredients is not the primary because restrictions would be placed on ot her "primary" active ingredients th at are not major contributors to VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley NAA. A dditionally, the emission potential thresholds may be inappropriate for products containing abam ectin, chlorpyrifos, gibb erellins, or oxyfluorfen as secondary active ingredients due to differences in product chemistry.

Use of low-VOC abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellin s, and oxyfluorfen produc ts likely ensures that the San Joaquin Valley SIP goal is consistently achieved. Pesticide VOC emissions for the San Joaquin Valley in 2006 were 21.3 tons per day, ex ceeding the SIP goal by 3.2 tons/day. If the 2008 fumigant regulations had been in effect for 2006, DPR estimates that the fumigant emissions would7 have been reduced by 2.5 tons per day (31 pe rcent reduction from lo w-emission fumigant application methods, 6 percent re duction from shifts outside Ma y 1 through October 31), resulting in total pesticide VOC emissions of 19.1 tons /day for 2006. If all abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen app lications in 2006 used low-VOC products, DPR estimates that total pesticide VOC emissions would have been 15.6 tons per day. The fumigant restrictions and nonfumigant restrictions combined would ensure that the SIP goal of 18.1 tons/day would be met each year, and the 17.2 tons/day trigger for a fumi gant allowance program would not be exceeded, assuming that 2006 had the worst-case emissions.

The proposed product VOC emission potentials (per cent) of each active i ngredient are based on achieving certain target VOC emi ssion reductions and availability of products with low emission potentials. DPR proposes to set a separate emissi on potential percentage for each active ingredient affected. DPR would designate each active pr oducts complying with the emission potential percentage as low-VOC and products not comp lying as high-VOC. Products with inactive registrations will be designated as high-VOC.

The product emission potential percentage used to designate a low-VOC or high-VOC has a much smaller impact on nonfumigant VOC reductions co mpared to the active ingredients or crops

included in the restrictions. Alt hough there are products with lowe r emission potential percentages, it is not necessary to set the produc t percentage at the lowest emi ssion percentage available because DPR is able to achieve the necessary reductions . Additionally, the market disruptions will be minimized because this will designate products fr om multiple registrants as low-VOC. DPR can make the emission potential limits more stringent in the future if needed. These nonfumigant VOC

restrictions will not result in th e prohibition of any active ingredients in the San Joaquin Valley.

• Renumber Section 6452.4 to 6881 and amend - Annual Volatile Organic Compound Emissions

Inventory Report.

Currently, DPR bases the fumigant emission limits on the most current annual emission inventory report. The report includes all the analysis of pesticide VOC emissions, emission potential, and regulatory strategies that will be imposed in the upcoming year to reduce VOC emissions. The report (the emission inventory and all the factors--emission potentials, emission ratings, and analyses) are subject to a 45-day public comment. Although the em issions inventory ensures that annual tracking of nonfumigant pesticide emissions ar e part of and accounted for in the strategy to reduce pesticide VOC, the proposed amendments will include additional restrictions and requirements on nonfumigant products. It would be mo re appropriate to place the requirements of the report in a more general Chapter (Chapter 2. Environmenta l Protection, Subchapter 2. Air,

Article 2.Volatile Or ganic Compounds).

The proposed changes will require the Director to include in this report the analyses of nonfumigant products with agricultural uses cont aining abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen as the primary active ingredients. This would include establishing a list of low-VOC and high-VOC products, and restrictions and prohibit ions that would be imposed if necessary to

reduce the VOC emissions in th e San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA.8 Additionally, there could be an in stance when an agricu ltural use product may be registered after the release of the Annual VOC Emissions Inventory Report. If the Director determines that the product is a low-VOC, proposed subs ection (c) would allow the Dire ctor to list the product in a supplemental report and post it on the Department's Web site. This would make the additional lowVOC product available for use si nce proposed section 6884(b) woul d prohibit use of a product not listed as a low-VOC during peak ozone season.

• Adopt Section 6883 - Pest Control Adviser R ecommendation Requirements in the San Joaquin

Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area.

This proposed section would prohibit the operato r of the property from applying a high-VOC nonfumigant product specified in section 6881 dur ing May 1 through October 31 to alfalfa, almonds, citrus, cotton, grapes, pistachios, and walnuts unless they ha ve obtained a written recommendation of a licensed PCA regardless if the VOC emission limit has been exceeded.

Currently, a PCA recommendation is optional for al l pesticides. PCAs must pass an examination and take continuing education course s to receive and maintain their li cense. This is to ensure that persons recommending the use of pesticides are knowledgeable in their safe use. A PCA is a professional who will be more know ledgeable and provide consistency in determining when a highVOC product can and cannot be used. As proposed in section 6558, PCAs would be prohibited from recommending a use in violation with 6884. Th is would also provide the PCA an opportunity to look at alternative measures to voluntarily recommend low-VOC products. Requiring a PCA recommendation along with the licensed pest cont rol dealer requirements in sections 6557 and 6886 will add another level to ensure compliance.

The operator of the property must retain the written recommendation for two years after the application occurs. This is consistent with other record keeping requirements.

• Adopt Section 6884 - San Joaquin Valley Oz one Nonattainment Area Use Prohibitions.

Since the high-VOC restrictions would not be tr iggered until the Annual VOC Emissions Inventory Report is finalized in March or April, high-VOC products could be purchased without restrictions until that time. However, the prohibitions on high- VOC products with agricultural uses would still be in effect by May 1. DPR proposes the following use prohibitions to achieve the needed VOC reductions in the San Joaquin Valley NAA from nonfumigants if the VOC emissions exceed the trigger.

Abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberell ins, and oxyfluorfen products are used for several dozen crops. The top ten crops account for more than 96 percen t of the emissions from these pesticide products in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA and appr oximately 92 percent of the agricultural applications are applied to alfalf a, almonds, citrus, cotton, grapes, wa lnuts, and pistachios. Most of the minor crops have low emissions and the efficacy of the low-VOC products is uncertain in many

cases.

In proposed subsection (a), no person may apply a nonfumigant product that has been designated as a high-VOC on the following crops: alfalfa, almond, ci trus, cotton, grape, pistachio, and walnut. In9 the memorandum Evaluation of Options and Recommendati ons for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Nonfumigant Pesticides , listed as a document relied upon, Table 11a-b

shows estimated VOC reductions from restrictio ns on various combinations of these active ingredients, crops, and exceptions for 2006. Table 12a-b shows the estimated VOC emissions for 2006 resulting from the various restriction scenario s. Even with exceptions, when combined with the fumigant requirements, the nonfumigant re strictions should reduce the pesticide VOC emissions for the worst-case year (21.3 tons per day in 2006) to a le vel less than the trigger for a fumigant limit (17.2 tons per day). The values in Tables 11 and 12 were calculated by assuming each application in 2006 that used a high-VOC pr oduct instead used a product with an emission potential at the emission potential limit.

Proposed subsection (b) would allow some excepti ons for use of high-VOC products. Analysis by UC indicates that low-VOC products are not as effective as high-VOC products in some instances. Low-VOC products are not as effective for cotton a phids or it is difficult to apply the correct amount of low-VOC (dust/powder) gibberellins when using low application rates. There may be other situations where low-VOC products have un certain efficacy or other problems, particularly for specialty crops. Additionall y, if low-VOC products are requi red in all cases, growers and applicators would likely use a greater amount of product, offsetting any VOC emission reductions from the lower emission potentials. More importa ntly, the amount of active ingredient applied would likely increase. The health and environmenta l risk of a greater amount of active ingredient could easily outweigh the benefits of any VOC reductions that might be achieved. In proposed subsection (b)(1), use of a high-VOC chlorpyrif os product to control aphids on cotton, and in proposed subsection (b)(2), use of high-VOC gibbere llins products when app lied at an application rate of eight grams of active ingred ient per acre or less are allowed.

Certain products and uses are exempted from regi stration under Section 18 or have a Special Local Need registration under Section 24(c ) of the Federal Inse cticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. These applications usually have low use because they are used to control unusual pests or for unusual crops. The efficacy of low-VOC products is uncertain for these atypical applications. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), or CACs may apply or require pesticide applic ations to eradicate or control exotic pests. These agencies have extensive activ ities to prevent establishment of invasive pests that do not normally occur in California. If detect ed, federal and state laws require quarantines and

other measures to contain and er adicate the pests. Pes ticide applications s oon after detection are often successful in avoiding greater pesticide use if the exotic pest becomes established. Low-VOC products may or may not be effective for exotic pe sts. In proposed subsections (b)(3), (4), (5) , high-VOC products used under a Se ction 18; a Section 24(c); or under the direc tion of USDA, CDFA, or CAC to control, suppress, or eradicate pests would be allowed.

In proposed subsection (b)(6), DPR would allow high-VOC applications using precision spray technology meeting the criteria of the California Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Environmental Quality Incentives Progra m. For example, "smart sprayers" use various sensing technologies to treat only the target plant or pest. The spra yer is automatically turned off when a target plant or pest is not detected. Sm art sprayers apply less pesticide product to achieve the same efficacy. This has the same effect as us ing a low-VOC product, with the added benefit of10 applying less active ingredient. Application of a high-VOC product with a precision sprayer would

be allowed.

Proposed subsection (c) describes the criterion and method to e nd the prohibitions, if high-VOC prohibitions are triggered pursuan t to section 6452.2(f). The prohi bitions end if the amount of active ingredient applied declines sufficiently so that VOC emissions will be less than the trigger level. The amount of active ingredie nt applied is independent of the product. That is, a grower will apply the same amount of active ingredient whet her he/she uses a low-VOC product or a high-VOC product. The amount of VOCs emitted with each pound of active ingredient varies depending on which product(s) are applied. When the high-VOC prohibitions are in effect, 100 percent of the applications must use a low-VOC product (unless one of the exceptions in (b) applies). When the high-VOC prohibitions are not in effect, either low-VOC or hi gh-VOC products can be used, so the

total VOC emissions consist of some combin ation of low-VOC and high-VOC products (e.g., 50 percent low-VOC and 50 percent high-VOC). DPR w ill use a series of two-step calculations to

estimate what the VOC emissions would have been if the high-VOC prohibitions were not in effect (hypothetical emissions). For each combination of active ingredient and crop included in the highVOC prohibitions, DPR will first divide the pounds of VOCs by the pounds of active ingredient for the year prior to the prohibitions. This is a measure of the pounds of VOCs emitted in the year without prohibitions for each pound of active ingr edient applied. Second, DPR will multiple this VOC emission value by the pounds of active ingr edient applied duri ng the year high-VOC prohibitions were in effect. Th is is the hypothetical emission fo r the active ingredient and crop combination. By totaling these hypothetical em issions for all of the active ingredient/crop combinations in the year with restrictions, a nd adding the actual emissions for all other active ingredients and crops, the total hypot hetical emissions are determined.

As an example, assume the following conditions for 2016:

• High-VOC prohibitions were not in effect for 2013

• High-VOC prohibitions were in effect for 2014 and 2015

• VOC emissions from abamectin products applied to almonds were 100,000 pounds in 2013

• The amount of abamectin active ingredient applied to almonds was 5,000 pounds in 2013

• VOC emissions from abamectin products ap plied to almonds were 50,000 pounds in 2014

• The amount of abamectin active ingredient applied to almonds was 4,000 pounds in 2014

In 2016, DPR would make the following calcu lation of hypothetical VOC emissions for abamectin/almond applications that occurred in 2014:

80,000 hypothetical

lbs VOC in 2014 = 100,000 lbs VOC in 2013

x 4,000 lbs active ingredient

in 2014 5,000 lbs active ingredient in 2013

• Adopt Section 6886 - Dealer Responsibilities fo r the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment

Area.

As discussed in proposed section 6577 on page 5 of this ISR, prohibitions and restrictions on highVOC products may be in effect for some years, bu t not others. This propose d section would require all licensed pest control dealers selling a high-VOC product with agricultural uses specified in the Annual VOC Emissions Inventory Report to provide VOC information when sale is made to or for11 the operator of the property with an operator id entification number issued by a CAC in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA. The specific VOC information required is in section 6577.

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES

DPR consulted with CDFA during the development of the text of proposed regulations, as specified in FAC section 11454, and the February 6, 1992, Me morandum of Agreement that was developed per FAC section 11454.2.

Additionally, DPR consulted with other agenci es including USDA, U.S. EPA, California Air Resources Board, the Office of Environmental H ealth Hazard Assessment, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State Water Resour ces Control Board, the California Department of Public Health, Cal/Recycle, th e San Joaquin Valley Air Polluti on Control District, CACs, and University of California during the de velopment of the proposed regulations.

ALTERNATIVES TO TH E PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION

DPR has not identified any feasible alternatives to the proposed regulatory action that would lessen any adverse impacts, including any impacts on sma ll businesses, and invites the submission of suggested alternatives. DPR considered products containing other active i ngredients, but none are consistently major contributors to VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA, and the low-VOC alternatives have greater agricultural imp act. DPR considered other crops/sites, but they

have lower VOC contribution in th e San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA, a nd the agricultural impact is uncertain. Additionally, compliance and enforcement are problematic because some use occurs on non-production agricultural sites (e .g., rights of way). DPR consid ered prohibiting use of highVOC products at all times, but this would result in agricultural impacts to achieve VOC reductions when they are not needed. DPR considered othe r methods to enforce the high-VOC prohibitions, such as designating additional restricted material s or other means of enforcement by CACs. This would increase the workload for CACs, and ensuri ng that all affected growers are aware of the requirements is problematic. CACs do not routinely in teract with all growers, but all growers must purchase pesticide products from licensed pest control dealers. Require ments on pest control

dealers is the most effective method to ensure all affected growers are informed of the requirements.

ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESSES

The proposed regulations will not have a signif icant adverse economic impact upon business. The document relied upon to make this determination is listed in the “Documents Relied Upon” section

of this ISR and is available from DPR.

ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT PU RSUANT TO SECTION 11346.3(b)

Creation or Elimination of Jobs w ithin the State of California: Th e proposed action would restrict the use of some products if the emission limit is triggered in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA, but chemical pest management will shift to other products to accomplish the same pest12 management purpose. There will be no reduction in applications, and therefore no creation or elimination of jobs.

Creation of New Business or the Elimination of Exis ting Businesses within the State of California: The proposed action would restrict the use of some products if the emission limit is triggered in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA, but chemical pest management will shift to other products to accomplish the same pest management purpose. Th e additional cost faced by producers should not significantly affect their operations or have a significant adverse economic impact on the sector.

The Expansion of Businesses Currently Doing Bu siness within the State of California: The proposed action would restrict the us e of some products if the emissi on limit is triggered in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA, but chemical pest management will shift to other products to accomplish the same pest management purpose. Th ere will be no reduction in applications, and therefore no expansion of busine sses currently doing business with the State of California.

The Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety,

and the State's Environment: The federal Clean Air Act requires each state to submit an SIP for achieving and maintaining federal ambient air quality standards for ozone. California's SIP contains an element to reduce pesticidal sources of VOCs. 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 adoption of these proposed regulations would assure that smog-producing emissions from pesticide use in the San Joa quin Valley ozone NAA will not exceed the California SIP goal, reducing the ozone level that may be harmful to human health and vegetation when present at high concentration. Adopt ion of these regulations will prov ide a benefit to public health and the environment by continuing to reduce VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley ozone

NAA.

IDENTIFICATION OF ANY SIGNIFICANT A DVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT THAT

CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO OCCU R FROM IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSAL

DPR's review of the proposed action showed that no significant adverse effect to California's environment can reasonably be expected to occu r from implementing the proposal. Therefore, no alternatives or mitigation measures are proposed to lessen any significant adverse effects on the

environment.

EFFORTS TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLIC ATION WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS

The proposed regulatory action does not duplicate or conflic t with any regulations contained within the CFR. There are no regulations within the CFR that address this issue.

As noted in this Initial Statement of Reasons, the federal Clean Air Act requires each state to submit a SIP for achieving and maintaining federal ambient air quality standards, including the standard for ozone. In 1994 (and revised in 2007 and 2009), the Air Resources Board and DPR developed a plan to reduce pestic idal sources of VOCs in NAAs as part of the California SIP to

meet the ozone standard.13 DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON

1. Evaluation of Options and Recommendations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Nonfumigant Pesticides. March 26, 2012. Memorandum from Randy Segawa, Pam Wofford, Rosemary Neal, and Frank Spurlo ck to Dave Duncan, Environmental Program Manager, Environmental Monitoring Branch, DPR.

2. Emulsifiable Concentrate Alternatives Anal ysis. University of California Cooperative

Extension. Revised March 2012.

3. Proposed Exemptions to San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area Use Restrictions. Robert Van Steenwyk, UC Berkeley, a nd Karen Klonsky, UC Davis. March 2012.

4. Annual Report on Volatile Organic Compound Em issions from Pesticides: Emissions for 1990-2010. Department of Pesticide Regu lation, Environmental Monitoring Branch.

Sacramento. March 2012.

5. Agricultural Pest Control Advisory Co mmittee Minutes, November 17, 2012 and Draft February 14, 2012.

6. Economic Analysis of Proposed Regulations a nd Amendments to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions. California Environmental Protection Agency, Agencywide Economic Studies Section, Air Resources Board. Memo randum from Tom Rosen-Molina to Linda Irokawa-Otani, DPR Regulations Coordinator. March 9, 2012.