EPA Comments (May 6, 2014) on 3‐27‐2014 Draft for Discussion with ARB

and EPA Only ‐CDPR’s Analysis of Alternatives for Nonfumigant Pesticide

Products

Page 14 (bottom) ‐‐  In the section “Options Considered for Reducing Pesticide VOC Emissions,”  DPR states

“Based on the evaluation described above, DPR concluded that reformulation of certain nonfumigant products is

the best alternative for reducing pesticide VOC emissions, in addition to the fumigant reduction measures

previously implemented.”  DPR’s new nonfumigant regulations incentivize reformulation by adding sales and use

restrictions on certain high‐VOC products, but do not mandate reformulation of high‐VOC products to low‐VOC

products.  

 We recommend that the statement be clarified by, for example, adding the underlined words: “Based

on the evaluation described above, DPR concluded that incentivizing reformulation of certain

nonfumigant products through sales and use restrictions is the best alternative for reducing pesticide

VOC emissions ...”

Pages 15 and 19‐20 ‐‐ DPR’s decision on which pesticide products to regulate is based on its determination

that active ingredients abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen are consistently among the top

nonfumigant VOC contributors in the San Joaquin Valley.  DPR recognizes that the intended effect of these

nonfumigant regulations could be undermined if other pesticide products increase in usage to become among

the highest VOC contributors, or if operators switch to other high‐VOC products that are not restricted in these

regulations.  

- On page 15, DPR notes that contributions from other pesticides that were relatively low contributors in

earlier years, such as products containing bifenthrin and fenpyroximate, have recently increased.  

- On pages 19‐20, DPR states that regulating only pesticide products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos,

gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen could “provide incentive for growers to switch to products with other active

ingredients that have higher VOC emissions, negating the anticipated VOC reductions.” If that were the

case, DPR states that “the regulations can be revised later if the SIP goal is exceeded due to growers

switching to other active ingredients with higher VOC products.”  

We recommend that DPR:

 Develop and/or describe an “early warning” process that can be used to flag a potential problem before

the trigger threshold is reached.   

 Describe the process and timeline for revising regulations to address the issues identified above.

 Describe any other existing authorities that DPR could use to more quickly implement changes if new

PAIs become relatively high VOC contributors or product switching occurs.

Page 20 – In the section “DPR prefers to exclude some nonfumigant products and uses from any VOC

restrictions,” DPR states the following: “A product emission potential threshold based on the primary active

ingredient may be infeasible for products that contain the pesticide, but also contain another active ingredient

with a higher percentage.”  

 Please clarify. It is not clear what “the pesticide” is referring to, or whether “the pesticide” is the

primary active ingredient.