Via Email and U.S. Mail

June 7, 2012

Linda Irokawa-Otani

Regulations Coordinator

Department of Pesticide Regulation

1001 I Street

Post Office Box 4015

Sacramento, California 95812-4015

Re: COMMENTS OF SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC IN RESPONSE TO 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION RELATED TO VOLATILE 

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA

Dear Ms. Irokawa-Otani:

On April 20, 2012, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (“DPR”) 

published a Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action (the “Notice”) related to “Volatile 

Organic Compounds in the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Non-Attainment Area” 

(“Regulation No. 12-001” or the “proposed regulation”). That same day, DPR also 

released its rulemaking file related to the Notice, and solicited comments on the proposed 

regulation to be submitted no later than June 7, 2012.

The following comments are submitted by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC 

(“Syngenta”). For the reasons stated below, Syngenta believes that the proposed 

regulation is flawed and should not be adopted in its current proposed form. If the 

regulation is adopted at all, it should be amended to take into account alternatives and 

possible exceptions to certain provisions. With respect to the proposed regulation of 

abamectin in particular, the proposed threshold of 35% volatile organic compound 

(“VOC”) content as the upper bound of abamectin products considered to be “low VOC” 

is fundamentally unfair, contrary to sound science and public policy, and unsupported by 

any evidence of environmental or economic necessity. Therefore, if “low VOC” 

formulations of abamectin are to be a part of any final regulation along the lines of this 

proposed regulation, the maximum VOC content of such low VOC abamectin products 

should be no more than 20%, and possibly as low as 6%.

Debbie Stubbs

Senior Regulatory Manager

Tel: 336.632.2449

Debbie.Stubbs@syngenta.com

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC

410 S. Swing Road

Greensboro, NC 27409

www.syngenta.com
Linda Irokawa-Otani

June 7, 2012

Page 2

1. THE PROPOSED REGULATION

For the sake of brevity, these comments will not summarize or extensively quote 

the proposed regulation. Syngenta concurs generally with the summary of the proposed 

regulation in the written comments submitted to DPR by Dow AgroSciences on this same 

date.

2. LEGAL BASES FOR SYNGENTA’S OBJECTIONS

The requirements for adopting, amending, or repealing regulations are established 

under the California Administrative Procedure Act (“CAPA” or “the Act”). See Gov. 

Code § 11340 et seq. Any regulation or amendment to a regulation not promulgated in 

compliance with these requirements is void and has no effect. Tidewater Marine 

Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 559.

Even where an agency complies with the CAPA, a regulation adopted pursuant to 

statutory authority is not valid or effective unless it is (1) “consistent and not in conflict 

with the statute” and (2) “reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.” 

Gov. Code § 11342.2. The first criterion requires judicial construction of the claimed 

source of the agency’s rulemaking authority to determine whether the regulation is 

“consistent and not in conflict” with that authority. As to the second criterion, when 

assessing whether the regulation is “reasonably necessary” to effectuate the purpose of 

the statute, a reviewing court must determine whether the agency’s action is “arbitrary, 

capricious, lacking in evidentiary support, or contrary to procedures provided by law 

including the requirement of an accurate accounting of the economic impact of the 

regulation as a whole.” Santa Cruz v. State Bd. of Forestry (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 826, 

835. Regarding the economic impact requirement, DPR must provide in the record any 

“facts, evidence, documents, testimony, or other evidence” upon which it relies for its 

initial determination and must base its evaluation on facts and not speculation. California 

Ass’n. of Medical Products Suppliers v. Maxwell-Jolly (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 286.

3. SYNGENTA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REGULATION

Syngenta understands that the underlying purpose of the proposed regulation is to 

achieve reductions in total VOC emissions caused by applications of pesticides in the San 

Joaquin Valley, as one component of the State Implementation Plan’s (“SIP”) regimen to 

reduce VOC emissions from all significant sources in the San Joaquin Valley Ozone 

Non-Attainment Area. Syngenta acknowledges that DPR has done extensive studies of 

the many VOC-containing pesticides used in the San Joaquin Valley, of the crops on 

which these products are used and the value of those crops, and of potential alternatives 

to various VOC-containing pesticides for such crops. The proposed regulation represents 

a calculated effort on DPR’s part to create a system of restrictions and prohibitions that 
Linda Irokawa-Otani

June 7, 2012

Page 3

will result in significant reductions of VOC emissions from the application of pesticides, 

and particularly “nonfumigant” pesticides. Yet, the proposed regulation addresses VOC 

emissions only indirectly, imposing restrictions and prohibitions on just four pesticide 

active ingredients while leaving others totally unrestricted, and giving too little weight to 

the economic importance of the four targeted ingredients. More specifically, Syngenta 

believes DPR has made the following errors and unjustified decisions in the proposed 

regulation:

 A fundamental mathematical error in calculating estimated current 

VOC emissions from pesticides in the San Joaquin Valley;

 Reliance on data to estimate VOC emissions that are unreliable and 

in fact, are known to overestimate VOC emissions under “real 

world” conditions; and

 Unjustified and irrational assumptions in deciding to focus all the 

restrictions and prohibitions of the proposed regulation on just 

chlorpyrifos, abamectin, gibberellins and oxyfluorfen.

Further,

 The exemptions embodied in the proposed regulation are too 

narrow and too static; the proposed regulation does not provide 

DPR with the necessary discretion and flexibility to achieve the 

intended purpose; and

 The proposed 35% concentration limit as the upper boundary for 

“low VOC” abamectin formulations that would be exempt from all 

use restrictions is arbitrary, contrary to public policy, unsupported 

by evidence and unfair to Syngenta.

4. THE ENTIRE PROPOSED REGULATION IS BASED ON A CRITICAL 

MATH ERROR THAT OVERSTATES THE LIKELIHOOD OF EXCESSIVE 

VOC EMISSIONS FROM PESTICIDES

On May 17, 2012, DPR issued a one-page e-mail memorandum to the regulated 

community, indicating that a fundamental data point underlying the asserted need for the 

proposed regulation is incorrect. DPR’s previous calculations showing that the 

hypothetical VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley NAA were in danger of 

exceeding the triggers imposed under the SIP were mistaken. Total VOC emissions for 

2010 were not 16.8 tons per day, but rather were 15.5 tons per day, resulting in a 24% 

reduction in VOC emissions from 1990, rather than an 18% reduction as previously 

calculated. The source of the error was a mistake in a calculation of the hypothetical 
Linda Irokawa-Otani

June 7, 2012

Page 4

VOC emissions from use of nonfumigant products containing the active ingredient 

bifenthrin. With the calculations corrected, hypothetical VOC emissions from products 

containing bifenthrin dropped from 1.55 tons per day to .24 tons per day, and total VOC 

emissions from all pesticides dropped from 16.8 tons per day to 15.5 tons per day.

The importance of this correction cannot be overstated. DPR has announced that 

the “goal in the pesticide element of the SIP is at least a 12% reduction from 1990, 

equivalent to emissions no greater than 18.1 tons per day.”

1

 With total estimated VOC 

emissions in 2010 now calculated at 15.5 tons per day, equivalent to a 24% reduction 

from 1990 emissions, it is difficult to conclude from the data in the rulemaking record 

that VOC emissions from pesticide products are in danger of exceeding those allowed 

under the SIP. If the asserted goal of the rulemaking, as indicated in the Initial Statement 

of Reasons, is to achieve an additional reduction of 2 tons per day, the discovery that 

VOC emissions were overstated by 1.31 tons per day (from bifenthrin products), means 

that the goal is no longer compelling, and that the methods by which DPR intended to 

reduce emissions by 2 tons per day are not nearly as necessary. By the logic that caused 

DPR to try to achieve a reduction of 2 tons per day, a reduction of only .69 tons per day 

should be sufficient.

Similarly, one of the principal reasons for the proposed regulation was the 

perceived increase of VOC emissions to 16.8 tons per day in the 2010 VOC emissions 

inventory, compared to 13.77 tons per day in the 2009 inventory, and the concern that 

emissions could exceed the 17.2 tons per day trigger, thus requiring restrictions on 

fumigant use. The miscalculated 2010 inventory showed that total VOC emissions were 

within 0.4 tons per day of the trigger, and 93% of the target imposed under the SIP. With 

the VOC emissions from bifenthrin products now corrected, total VOC emissions are 

now 1.7 tons per day below the trigger and only 85% of the SIP target. Thus, the concern 

that precipitated the proposed regulation itself has been addressed.

At a minimum, DPR should reconsider the entire proposed regulation, including 

the necessity for draconian prohibitions on abamectin and other nonfumigant pesticides. 

According to the announcement, however, DPR does not intend to do so. Rather, DPR 

indicates that the “change will cause no revision to DPR’s proposed regulations for VOC 

emissions from nonfumigant pesticides.”

2

 Based on the reasoning above, Syngenta

requests that DPR reconsider that decision.

5. THE DATA RELIED ON BY DPR ARE UNRELIABLE AND UNTIMELY

Even aside from the foregoing issue related to the bifenthrin data, Syngenta 

believes the VOC emissions data on which DPR relies overstate the actual extent of VOC 

 

1 Email memorandum from DPR to “Interested Parties,” dated May 17, 2012.

2

Id.
Linda Irokawa-Otani

June 7, 2012

Page 5

emissions from pesticide applications, calling into question the necessity of the 

restrictions and prohibitions in the proposed rule. In addition, if the proposed rule were 

adopted in its current form, the real world limitations on the collection, reporting and 

analysis of annual pesticide usage and estimated VOC emissions are such that the 

restrictions and prohibitions imposed on “high VOC” pesticides by proposed Section 

6884(c) would invariably be imposed in any given year not on the basis of that year’s 

conditions, but on the basis of data from three or even four or five years earlier.

The problem of overstated emissions estimates results from the proposed rule’s 

reliance on “hypothetical” VOC emissions figures based on laboratory analyses of each 

pesticide formulation using a method known as “Thermogravimetric Analysis” (the 

“TGA Method”). Syngenta will not discuss the technical issues related to the TGA 

Method in these comments; Syngenta concurs with Dow AgroSciences’ discussion of the 

TGA Method in its comments submitted this same date. In summary, however, the TGA 

Method inevitably results in an estimate of hypothetical VOC emissions for any given 

product that is certain to exceed actual VOC emissions from actual applications of that 

product under normal ambient temperature and other climatic conditions. To its credit, 

DPR has conceded as much, and DPR has made certain statements of intent to make 

“adjustments” to the emission rates calculated by the TGA Method in certain cases. 

There is no indication in the proposed regulation or the rulemaking record as a whole that 

any such adjustments have been made in calculating the “baseline” hypothetical VOC 

emissions data on which the proposed rule is based, however. Thus, it appears that the 

emissions estimates on which DPR is relying as the scientific basis for the proposed 

regulation are certain to be in excess of actual pesticide VOC emissions and thus, are 

inadequate to support the proposed rule as a whole, as well as inadequate to make 

scientifically defensible determinations as to whether SIP target VOC emission levels in 

the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Non-Attainment Area have been exceeded in future years.

The issue of stale and untimely data is also discussed in Dow AgroSciences’ 

comments filed this same date. Syngenta concurs in those comments, and further states 

that the implementation and enforcement of the restrictions and prohibitions of proposed 

Section 6884(c) will be gravely handicapped and, likely, scientifically indefensible 

because DPR will always be in the position of imposing current restrictions based on 

stale data.

6. THE BASIS ON WHICH DPR HAS SELECTED ONLY FOUR ACTIVE 

INGREDIENTS

FOR RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS

Syngenta generally concurs with the comments submitted by Dow AgroSciences

on this point. More particularly, Syngenta concurs with Dow AgroSciences that DPR 

appears to have given excessive weight to its own administrative convenience in selecting 

just four chemicals that had relatively high total VOC emissions because they are used in 

relatively large volumes, while not considering other factors such as the possible ready 
Linda Irokawa-Otani

June 7, 2012

Page 6

availability of satisfactory low-VOC alternatives for many of the other pesticides DPR 

has chosen not to include in the proposed regulation. Syngenta also concurs that the 

selection of these four chemicals for restrictions due to their relatively high volume of 

usage is a poor policy choice because that high level of usage reflects the fact that these 

four chemicals are much more important to agriculture than the many other VOCcontaining pesticides that are used in smaller volumes. The greater usage reflects their 

greater value. By restricting the use of these four chemicals and not others, DPR is 

restricting the use of the most valuable crop protection products at the expense of less 

valuable products.

7. THE PROHIBITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF SECTION 6884(C) ARE TOO

RIGID AND LACK NEEDED DISCRETION

Again, Syngenta generally concurs in the comments of Dow AgroSciences on the 

subject of the many deficiencies in Section 6884(c). Syngenta believes that the Section’s 

rigid formula requiring a minimum two year period in which restrictions, once imposed, 

must remain in effect could produce grossly irrational results. One example is suggested 

by DPR’s recently discovered “math error” involving bifenthrin products. It is possible 

that a similar math error in the future could lead to a conclusion that total VOC emissions 

had exceeded the trigger level, requiring the restrictions and prohibitions of Section 

6884(a) to be put in place. Suppose that happened, and that the math error was then 

discovered in the first month of the first year of the two year period defined in 6884(c), 

leading to the clear conclusion that the trigger had not been exceeded and the restrictions 

and prohibitions should not have been imposed. According to the current language of 

6884(c), DPR would have no discretion, much less an obligation, to lift the restrictions 

that should never have been imposed until the two year period expired, and even then 

only if the formula in the section is satisfied. Clearly, DPR should have that discretion or 

obligation to lift restrictions for that reason or any other reason indicating that total 

pesticide VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Non-Attainment Area were in 

fact within allowable SIP limits.

More generally, Syngenta agrees with Dow AgroSciences that DPR should have 

the discretion both to impose similar VOC-content restrictions on other pesticide active 

ingredients if data indicate that such ingredients are producing significant and increasing 

VOC emissions contributing to total pesticide VOC emissions above the SIP trigger 

level, and to allow critical use exemptions on reasonable grounds.
Linda Irokawa-Otani

June 7, 2012

Page 7

8. THE PROPOSED 35% UPPER BOUNDARY FOR “LOW VOC”

FORMULATIONS OF ABAMECTIN IS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS,

CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSES OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION,

CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY, AND UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL 

EVIDENCE IN THE RULEMAKING RECORD

As DPR is aware, while this proposed regulation has only recently been issued for 

public comment, the underlying project of identifying high-VOC pesticides used in the 

San Joaquin Valley and encouraging or requiring pesticide manufacturers to develop lowVOC alternatives has been underway for several years. DPR issued a “Notice to Begin 

Reevaluation of Certain Agricultural and Commercial Use Pesticide Products” on 

February 16, 2005. This Notice was essentially a data call-in, requiring product 

registrants to submit VOC emission-potential data based on the TGA method for all 

liquid products actively registered as of August 30, 2004 for which DPR did not already 

have TGA-based emission potential data on file. The purpose of this requirement was to 

enable DPR to accurately assess the VOC emission potential of each product and thus, 

eventually, to better estimate the total VOC emissions resulting from the use of all the 

products in the San Joaquin Valley and elsewhere.

DPR issued a subsequent notice on May 31, 2005, entitled “Notice of Decision to 

Begin Reevaluation of Certain Pesticide Products.” This Notice applied to all 

agricultural and commercial structural-use pesticide products that were formulated as 

liquids and actively registered with DPR as of April 30, 2005, that had a TGA Value of 

greater than 20%. DPR explained that the “list of pesticides included in this reevaluation 

differs somewhat from the list of products included in the previous VOC data call-in 

reevaluation . . . . The goal of the earlier reevaluation was to obtain data on emissions . . . 

. The goal of this reevaluation is to reduce VOC emissions.”

More specifically, the purpose was to “reduce the VOC emission potential of the 

pesticide products included in this reevaluation to 20% or less.” The Department thus 

required all registrants of the products described above to comply with one of the 

following three options:

 Submit a written commitment to reformulate the pesticide product 

to a VOC emission level of 20% or less . . .

 Submit a request for an exemption . . . or

 Submit a detailed explanation as to why the pesticide product 

cannot be reformulated, including why reformulation is not 

chemically feasible or proof that reformulation would be contrary 

to VOC reduction and pest management goals.
Linda Irokawa-Otani

June 7, 2012

Page 8

The initiative stayed on this course until February 11, 2010, when the Department 

sent a letter to registrants announcing a “New Direction for DPR’s VOC Reformulation 

Reevaluation.” In this notice, DPR abandoned its initiative to impose VOC limits on all 

products, and announced instead its intention to impose requirements on products 

containing seven active ingredients: abamectin, chloryrifos, dimethoate, gibberellins, 

oxyfluorfen, permethrin, and trifluralin. The February 11, 2010 notice informed 

registrants of products that contained other active ingredients that they no longer would 

be required to do anything to reduce VOC emissions to comply with the SIP. Nothing in 

this notice stated or implied, however, that registrants of nonfumigant products 

containing any of the seven active ingredients named above would not still be required to 

reformulate their liquid products to achieve an emissions potential of less than 20%.

Like other responsible pesticide manufacturers with products subject to these 

DPR notices and the underlying DPR program to encourage and require development of 

products with reduced VOC emissions potential, Syngenta participated actively in the 

reevaluation project between 2005 and the present. In response to the 2005 Notices, 

Syngenta communicated to DPR its lengthy prior experience in attempting to develop 

low VOC formulations of abamectin, and the difficulties Syngenta had encountered in 

developing such formulations that did not suffer unacceptable efficacy defects. 

Syngenta’s product development efforts between 1998 and 2005 had cost at least $5 

million, and had resulted in a series of formulations that had proved unsatisfactory due to 

one or more of the following factors: reduced efficacy (knock down and/or residual), 

increased crop phytotoxicity, unacceptable cost, unacceptable handler toxicity, 

unsatisfactory product stability, unacceptable crop residues, increased VOC emissions 

potential and undesirable or non-registerable inert ingredients. Based on this experience, 

Syngenta’s initial communications to DPR in 2005 expressed a low degree of confidence 

in the probability of ever meeting DPR’s target of a VOC emissions potential below 20%.

Still, DPR remained insistent on the 20% upper limit, and Syngenta renewed and 

continued formulation development efforts to attempt to meet DPR’s target while at least 

maintaining the desirable performance characteristics of Syngenta’s Emulsifiable 

Concentrate product. Years of additional effort and expenditure culminated in the 

development of the aqueous-based formulation Agri-Mek SC which met or exceeded all 

aspects of the targeted product design including a VOC emissions potential of just 5.6%, 

significantly below DPR’s 20% target. Agri-Mek SC was registered with DPR in 2010. 

Syngenta has subsequently developed and registered (with EPA) Epi-Mek SCL, another 

abamectin low VOC product with the same performance and emissions potential as AgriMek SC. Epi-Mek SCL is currently pending registration approval with DPR.

Syngenta’s development costs between 2006 and 2011 for these low VOC 

products conservatively exceeded $5 million including manufacturing refit costs, in 

addition to the $5 million spent prior to 2005, which provided Syngenta with a substantial 

body of experience in attempting to develop a satisfactory low VOC formulation. 

Throughout the duration of this costly and time-consuming effort, Syngenta understood 
Linda Irokawa-Otani

June 7, 2012

Page 9

that DPR was insistent on its target of 20% VOC emissions potential or less. Syngenta 

made its ultimately successful investments based on that understanding. Had DPR even 

once communicated that a less aggressive VOC emissions target of 35% would be 

satisfactory, Syngenta would likely have made entirely different investments and may 

well have developed a reformulated product with 30-35% VOC content at far less 

expense than was actually incurred.

The only discussion Syngenta has been able to find in the rulemaking record that 

purports to explain the abrupt change from 20% to 35% as the upper boundary of what 

would be considered a “low VOC” abamectin product is a single phrase stated in a 

memorandum dated March 26, 2012 from Randy Segawa to David Duncan. After some 

general discussion of DPR’s perceived options to obtain the desired VOC emissions 

reductions by various means, and DPR’s discretion to set particular percentage thresholds 

for “low VOC” versions of products containing different active ingredients, the 

memorandum states:

Two abamectin liquid products from a single registrant have EPs of 

approximately 6%. Three liquid products from two other registrants 

have EPs of approximately 30%. All other abamectin liquid products 

have EPs of 55% or greater. An abamectin EP threshold of 10% would 

achieve the most VOC reduction, but this could cause market disruptions 

because products would only be available from one registrant. An 

abamectin EP threshold of 35% would be less stringent and achieve less 

VOC reduction, but have less market disruption.

Segawa memo, at p. 10.

Syngenta objects strenuously to the establishment of an EP thresholds of 35% for 

“low VOC” abamectin products, on what appears to be the sole basis of potential “market 

disruption.” Given the history of this project dating back to at least 2005, a 35% 

threshold is indefensible for several reasons, including:

 It is fundamentally unfair and contrary to public policy to “force” 

registrants to develop, at high cost, technological advances to meet 

the 20% VOC target, and then to reward parties that did not meet 

that threshold at the conforming party’s expense. It would not be 

unfair or violate public policy to allow a raised ceiling if the 20% 

target had been unattainable, but that is not the case here –

Syngenta attained it.

 It is contrary to the purposes of the proposed regulation to allow 

30% VOC abamectin formulations as “low VOC” when 

formulations below 6% are available for use. If and when triggers 

are exceeded and use restrictions are imposed pursuant to the 
Linda Irokawa-Otani

June 7, 2012

Page 10

proposed regulation, the purpose of the restrictions and 

prohibitions is to reduce VOC emissions, and the greater the 

reductions, the better. See, e.g., Clean Air Constituency v. Cal. 

State Air Resources Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 801 (Board’s discretion 

in granting exceptions and delays limited to purposes consistent 

with intent of Act to achieve substantial pollution reductions.) It is 

obvious that far greater VOC reductions would be achieved by use 

of only 6% VOC abamectin formulations than by use of 30% 

formulations.

 There is nothing in the statute that suggests that DPR should be 

concerned about potential “market disruptions” resulting from the 

restrictions and prohibitions it may impose, at least as long as there 

is not substantial evidence of significant adverse effects on farmers 

and crops, such as might result if no acceptable pest control 

product or alternative is available in a particular case. In this 

regard, there is no indication in the record or otherwise the 

Syngenta’s low-VOC abamectin formulation, in our view the only 

product that meets the low-VOC criteria, is not available in 

sufficient amounts to meet the market need, and thus to ensure that 

California growers have adequate access to a low-VOC abamectin 

product do protect California crops. If DPR is referring to the 

possible absence of price competition in one product line during 

potential “trigger” periods, this is not evidence of damage to 

agriculture. DPR as an agency is not charged with attempting to 

ensure that there are at least two or three vendors for all pesticide 

active ingredients. Moreover, the absence of price competition in 

this product would provide other registrants to produce genuine 

low-VOC products to fill this need. DPR’s concern for “market 

disruptions” instead creates an inappropriate market incentive for 

registrants not to produce a genuine low-VOC product, and to 

emulate the 30% formulation instead.

 As discussed above, a fundamental principle of rulemaking is that 

key decisions, such as the establishment of a particular VOC limit, 

be based not only on sound principles and reasons but also on 

adequate evidence in the rulemaking record. There is nothing in 

the record here to substantiate the claim that there will be “market 

disruptions” unless DPR arbitrarily raises the VOC limit for low 

VOC abamectin products to 30% so that two other vendors whose 

products have over 5 times the VOC content of Syngenta’s low 

VOC product will be allowed to sell in competition with Syngenta.
Linda Irokawa-Otani

June 7, 2012

Page 11

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Syngenta suggests that DPR consider 

withdrawing the proposed regulation in its entirety due to the proposal’s fundamental 

reliance on an incorrect calculation of estimated total pesticide VOC emissions in the San 

Joaquin Valley Ozone Non-Attainment Area, and its intended continuing reliance on a 

method for estimating hypothetical VOC emissions that is known to be inaccurate. If 

DPR decides to continue with some version of the proposed regulation, Syngenta submits 

that the proposed regulation should be modified substantially to allow more flexibility for 

exceptions and for the elimination or adjustment of the restrictions and prohibitions of

proposed Section 6884(c). Finally, Syngenta submits that the proposal to define

abamectin formulations containing in excess of 20% VOCs as “low VOC” and as such, 

exempt from any use restrictions under Section 6884(c) is clearly unlawful.

Respectfully submitted,

Debra S. Stubbs

Senior Regulatory Manager

Regulatory Affairs Department

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC