ATTACHMENT A

1

SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

Comments Received During the 45-Day Public Comment Period

No. Comment and Response Commentor

1 Low-VOC formulations, oxyfluorfen and chlorpyrifos, are not adequate 

alternatives. For low-VOC oxyfluorfen to get similar performance, a grower must 

add tank mixtures like Rely or Treevix. This adds $18-$40/acre. For low-VOC 

chlorpyrifos, higher rates of the formulation must be used, resulting in additional 

costs, and increased pesticide use.

A recent report, "Evaluation of Low VOC Oxyfluorfen Plus "Kicker"

Treatments for Postemergence Preharvest Weed Control in Nut Orchards" by 

UC Extension on the efficacy of both low- and high-VOC formulations of 

oxyfluorfen found no significant difference in weed control. However, this one 

study may not be conclusive and some low-VOC products may prove to be less 

effective in some weed genera in some orchards and vineyards. If this is the 

case, limiting use to low-VOC products may result in herbicide resistance in 

some weed genera. Therefore, DPR modified the regulation to add an exception

for the use of high-VOC products at low application rates to address the 

concern. This report was added to the rulemaking file as a "document relied 

upon."

An earlier analysis by UC Extension noted general consensus that the lowVOC formulations of chlorpyrifos are as efficacious as the high-VOC 

formulation for most pests. The regulations include an exception for aphids on 

cotton which were identified as harder to control in the analysis.

1

2 These regulations place an administrative burden upon businesses by requiring 

them to provide written information on the VOC regulations, tracking the 

intended use period, providing written recommendations and maintaining records 

for two years. 

The information required can be a simple form or addition to an invoice. The 

dealer is not required to follow the use period but only needs to supply 

information to purchaser. The two- year requirement for maintaining records 

is the same procedure that growers and pest control advisers do currently for 

other records.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

6, 7, 8, 11,

12

3 Goal 2XL is needed in summer post emergent weed programs for effective inseason control. GoalTender and other low-VOC oxyfluorfen formulations are not 

viable substitutes for Goal 2XL and other EC oxyfluorfen products. Eliminating

these formulations will result in cost increase and weed or pest control decreases. 

The decreased control could result in additional trips across the field and 

increased pesticide use.

A recent report, "Evaluation of Low VOC Oxyfluorfen Plus "Kicker"

Treatments for Postemergence Preharvest Weed Control in Nut Orchards" by 

2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

7, 8, 9, 10, 

11, 12, 28
ATTACHMENT A

2

UC Extension on the efficacy of both low- and high-VOC formulations of 

oxyfluorfen found no significant difference in weed control. However, this one 

study may not be conclusive and some low-VOC products may prove to be less 

effective in some weed genera in some orchards and vineyards. If this is the 

case, limiting use to low-VOC products may result in herbicide resistance in 

some weed genera. Therefore, DPR modified the regulation to add an exception 

for the use of high-VOC products at low application rates to address the 

concern. This report was added to the rulemaking file as a "document relied 

upon."

4 Reliable data doesn’t exist that support "kickers" as the answer to using 

GoalTender in place of Goal 2XL. Glyphosate is already in the foundation of the 

spray mix. Paraquat is a restricted use pesticide due to acute toxicity. Human 

toxicity and worker exposure make Paraquat a poor choice. Rely costs $46/acre 

and was in short supply. Treevix costs $16/acre and recommends an "adjuvant 

system" adding additional costs.

See response to comment no. 3

2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 

12

5 Who and how will applications of oxyfluorfen be monitored to be certain that 

only non-VOC formulations will be applied during the time periods should that 

be determined necessary? This will put additional financial burden on 

monitoring agencies to be certain everyone is in compliance.

Enforcement of the regulations will fall within the normal procedures that are 

currently administered.

8

6 Add an exemption to section 6884(b) to include low rates of high-VOC 

formulations of oxyfluorfen for spring and summer orchard floor weed control 

prior to harvest. 

The use pattern could be consistent with the supplemental label for GOAL 

2XL in almond that allows up to 0.125 lb active ingredient per acre as a tank mix 

partner in orchard middles and tree rows. 

DPR modified the regulations to include an exception for oxyfluorfen at low 

applications rates (0.125 pounds of active ingredient per acre) of the high-VOC 

product.

9, 13, 14, 15, 

16, 17, 28

7 The regulations add additional paperwork. A better idea is to include your 

requirement on the county restricted materials permit. Recommendations are 

available through our counties, and should be retrievable by DPR.

Including the products in the restricted materials permit would over-burden 

county personnel. The regulations require pest control advisers (PCAs) to 

retain recommendations which would be retrievable for enforcement purposes.

9

8 DPR must question the validity of the annual VOC emissions report, from the 

formulas used in calculating the VOC levels to the way growers were allocated to 

difference ozone nonattainment areas. This matter is too costly for agriculture to 

implement without the base assurance the people deciphering the data actually 

11
ATTACHMENT A

3

knew what they were doing. DPR should hire a disinterested, third party 

accounting firm to audit the numbers, formulas, and processes DPR used in its 

original interpretation of pesticide use report data to assure the entire integrity of 

the VOC numbers in the report.

The emissions report goes through a 45-day public comment period process. 

The use data and emission potential of products is available for anyone who is 

interested in checking the calculations conducted by DPR.

9 Several alternatives to high-VOC formulations of oxyfluorfen have been 

proposed. Documentation relied upon during development of the regulations are 

incomplete or were not intended to address post weed control use pattern. The 

report "Emulsifiable Concentrate Alternatives Analysis" by UC researchers 

focused on PRE applications of oxyfluorfen (prior to Feb 15th). Low-VOC 

formulations could replace high -VOC formulations this time of the year but the 

report did not address the POST use pattern that would be impacted by the 

regulations and is irrelevant in this case. 

See response to comment no. 3

14, 28

10 The report "Proposed Exemptions to San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment 

Area Use Restriction" by UC focused on the economics of adding low doses of 

other POST herbicides to the low-VOC formulation oxyfluorfen during the ozone 

season. There are no data available that these alternatives are equally efficacious 

for this use pattern. There is not sufficient efficacy data to state that these are 

viable alternatives for all tree and vine use patterns currently relying on highVOC formulations of oxyfluorfen. It is not reasonable to base a regulation on our 

discussion of possible alternatives rather than sound scientific data.

UC submitted their recent findings, "Evaluation of Low VOC Oxyfluorfen Plus 

"Kicker" Treatments for Postemergence Preharvest Weed Control in Nut 

Orchards" on the efficacy of both low- and high-VOC formulations of 

oxyfluorfen which found no significant difference in weed control. This 

document was added to the rulemaking file as a "document relied upon."

14, 28

11 Research is needed on the low rate tank mix partners proposed in the economic 

analysis document. Several trials were implemented Spring 2012; time is needed 

to develop a robust and scientifically valid data set. Multiple locations in tree nut 

production areas and evaluation of multiple weed species under field conditions 

for two to three years is the scientific standard.

See response to comment no. 3

14, 22

12 Regulations should be based on sound science to minimize short-term harm to 

several important tree and vine cropping systems of the regions. A measured 

approach to regulating oxyfluorfen, a key herbicide active ingredient, is even 

more warranted when one considers that the proposed "...restrictions on 

nonfumigant products will provide minimal overall reduction in VOC emission 

and resulting ozone air concentrations" (Initial Statement of Reason and Public 

Report, page 4) yet could present a significant challenge to summer weed 

14
ATTACHMENT A

4

management programs in San Joaquin Valley orchard cropping systems.

See response to comment no. 12

13 Based on the correction to the 2010 emissions inventory report, it appears DPR 

can take additional time to refine the regulations with a goal to implement 

restrictions by May 1, 2014.

DPR has revised the regulations to implement the dealer requirements in 2013 

and the PCA and grower requirements in 2014.

17, 18, 22, 

23, 27

14 The restriction of liquid formulations of gibberellins to 8 grams or less active 

ingredient per acre will adversely affect variety specific cultural practices for 

table grapes. An additional exemption is needed for use of liquid gibberellins at 

higher rates.

DPR modified the regulations to allow for liquid high-VOC gibberellins at an 

application rate up to 16 grams of active ingredient per acre or less.

17, 18, 19, T1, T-2

15 There should be a process to remove an active ingredient and change the list of 

crops when they are no longer significant contributors and re-focus on active 

ingredients and crops that may have become more significant. 

In the second modification, DPR made changes to the regulations to allow the

Director to propose interim removal of an active ingredient or crop for up to 

three years unless implemented through California and federal rulemaking 

while not affecting the ability to meet the emission level of 17.2 tons per day

(tpd).

17, 18, 20,

22, 23, T-1, 

T-2

16 The written provision requirements of the regulations for licensed pest control 

advisers and notification by pest control dealers have costs involved and should 

only apply to products and crops when necessary to meet VOC emission 

benchmarks, not on a permanent basis. 

DPR felt that the current plan for dealers to always supply information to 

persons purchasing high-VOC products and requiring recommendations for 

high-VOC products by PCAs would result in the least confusion between 

restricted years and non-restricted years and would have the least adverse effect 

to the dealers and PCAs. Moreover, the PCA requirements encourage the 

voluntary use of low-VOC products.

17

17 Written recommendations for high-VOC products will immediately increase the 

cost of pest control for San Joaquin Valley growers. In years, the trigger is 

exceeded additional costs will accrue for a minimum of two years. This is in 

addition to the increased costs associated with the fumigant method restrictions 

already in place. 

DPR was told that growers usually get recommendations for the active 

ingredients listed even though they are not restricted materials, so the increase 

should be minimal. DPR does acknowledge that the regulations may result in 

increased costs for growers.

17
ATTACHMENT A

5

18 Imposing restrictions and prohibitions at any level below the benchmark goal 

lowers the benchmark below the emission level goal established in the SIP, and 

penalizes growers, when in fact an exceedance of VOC emissions has not 

occurred. Restrictions and prohibitions should be imposed when an actual 

exceedance of the benchmark occurs. All language referencing a trigger of five 

percent or less of the benchmark should be removed from the amendment. 

The only restrictions that would occur in years with emissions lower than the 

benchmark are for the dealer to provide information and a recommendation for 

use of a high-VOC product from May-October in the SJV. An exceedance of 

the benchmark would indicate that the Department was out of compliance with 

the Federal Clean Air act and could face penalties.

19, T-1

19 The amendment is flawed in how the prohibitions in Section 6884 are applied. 

Emissions from the citrus industry decreased from 2009 to 2010. Had the 2010 

increase in emissions triggered the prohibitions in Section 6884, the citrus 

industry would have been subject to prohibitions, even though the industry 

contributed positively to reducing emissions. DPR should use detailed 

information from the current use reporting system on the material used and crops 

used on data to determine which commodities are actually contributed to the 

increase in emissions and target the prohibitions in section 6884 to those 

commodities. To do otherwise imposes additional regulatory burdens and costs 

on those commodities and individuals who are having a positive impact.

DPR is required to put restrictions in place to assure emissions are below the 

benchmark. Although the emissions decreased for citrus, it was still the 7th

highest contributor to total emissions in 2010. Growers who have moved to lowVOC products already would not be affected by the restrictions. Regulating 

different commodities during different years would add unnecessary confusion 

and complexity, making compliance and enforcement more difficult. If 

emissions from citrus continue to decrease, DPR made changes to the 

regulations to allow the Director to propose interim removal of a crop while not 

affecting the ability to meet the emission level of 17.2 tpd.

19, T-1

20 We object to the complete prohibition in section 6884 of nonfumigant products 

designated as high-VOC. This singles out and discriminates against a few 

commodities, exempting all others. It dictates how a grower must farm, 

potentially to the determent of his farms economic viability. In some cases 

growers can use low-VOC material, in other cases such as gibberellins the highVOC formulation may be the only alternative for necessary efficacy and 

beneficial result.

The regulations are directed towards the crops which contribute the most to the 

total emissions from May-October. The active ingredients selected also had 

alternative product that were lower in VOC emission and efficacious and would 

have the least adverse impact economically.

19
ATTACHMENT A

6

21 Gibberellin should be exempted from the requirements under sections 6577 and 

6883.

Gibberellins account for a large amount of the total VOC emissions. Since 

there are lower VOC products available for use, and exception for applications 

that would allow the use of high-VOC product at a low application rate, there is 

no reason to exempt gibberellins from the regulation.

19

22 We are concerned as to whether the manner DPR is collecting and reporting the 

use data accurately differentiates between pounds of active ingredient applied in 

the form of high-VOC formulations and the pounds of active ingredient applied 

in the form of low-VOC formulations. DPR should implement reporting 

procedures that accurately differentiate and track high-VOC and low-VOC usage 

where the active ingredient is the same.

Pesticide use reports include information on the product applied. Each product 

registered in California has a designated emission potential, so the emissions 

calculated in the emissions inventory report are determined for each individual 

application reported.

19, T-1

23 We object to the use of the words and phrases "hypothetical VOC emissions" and 

"calculated by assuming the relative mixture of high and low-VOC products"

contained in section 6884(6)(c). Regulations should not be based on 

hypotheticals or assumptions.

The calculations would give DPR the ability to estimate emissions if the 

prohibitions were lifted. Unless hypothetical emissions are calculated, DPR has 

no assurance that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) goal would be met if the 

prohibitions are lifted. Therefore, if prohibitions were triggered they would 

always remain in effect.

19

24 We object to the criteria that an exceedance in one year results in the prohibitions 

being implemented for two years. This exceedance usually is the result of pest 

pressure in a particular year and not an indication of a trend of growers 

intentionally over using high-VOC materials. DPR should use a three to five year 

rolling average and impose prohibitions when the average exceeds the 

benchmark. DPR could also impose prohibitions when there is an exceedance for 

two consecutive years.

The SIP requires DPR to maintain VOC emission levels below a standard set in 

the plan each year. A rolling average would not comply with the SIP. Frequent 

changes to the restrictions would add confusion and complexity, making 

compliance and enforcement more difficult. Requiring prohibitions for at least 

two years will allow DPR to better evaluate trends.

19
ATTACHMENT A

7

25 While the regulation may result in immediate reductions from products 

containing the four active ingredients, it is likely to result in a simultaneous 

increase in emissions from products that remain unregulated. The net reduction is 

therefore questionable, even in the short term, and the long-term results are even 

less clear.

See response to comment no. 15. Additional active ingredients can be added 

through rulemaking.

20

26 With the correction in DPR’s annual emissions report, DPR has the latitude to 

withdraw the proposed regulations as it is not necessary to achieve compliance 

with the State Implementation Plan.

DPR is required by the SIP to implement restrictions to reduce VOC emissions 

from nonfumigant products by 2014.

20, 21

27 Data from studies conducted using the Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA) 

method do not support the proposed rules in the field.

The TGA method is part of the SIP. The method can only be changed with a 

SIP amendment and is beyond the scope of this regulation. 

20, 21, 22

28 The emissions figures that DPR proposes to use to determine if VOC triggers 

have been reached are not timely. It is not good policy to base ongoing regulatory 

decisions regarding prohibitions on the use of these products, which are vital to 

agriculture, on data that are four to five years old. If this regulation is to be 

adopted, it should be amended so decisions are based on more recent use and 

emissions data. 

Restrictions would go into place based on use data from two years prior to 

prohibitions. Based on the timing of submission of use data, this is the closest 

period to actual prohibition as possible.

20, 21, 24, T2

29 DPR's approach in selecting products for regulation on the basis of their active 

ingredients, rather than their VOC emissions, is inappropriate. Instead of 

regulating the most widely used, and therefore, the most needed active 

ingredients, DPR should consider identifying products by their VOC content or 

emission potential alone or set clear and uniform standards for VOC emissions.

DPR is not regulating active ingredients, rather it is regulating certain products 

containing the active ingredients. Regulating active ingredients in products 

with high-VOC content, but low use would be ineffective in achieving the SIP 

goal. Most pesticide VOC emissions come from products with both high-VOC 

content and high use. DPR had several criteria for selecting the four active 

ingredients. First, many products containing the selected active ingredients 

have high use and high-VOC content, and are consistently among the highest 

pesticide VOC contributors in San Joaquin Valley. Second, low-VOC 

alternatives for these active ingredients are available and being used, 

demonstrating their feasibility. Moreover, UC has evaluated and confirmed the 

efficacy and feasibility of the low-VOC alternatives for these four active 

20
ATTACHMENT A

8

ingredients. Other active ingredients with low-VOC alternatives have not been 

evaluated for efficacy and feasibility. Third, DPR estimates that switching to 

low-VOC products for these active ingredients will achieve the needed VOC 

reductions even for the highest use years. Other active ingredients may meet 

the first two criteria, but regulating them is not necessary because the 

additional VOC reductions are not needed to achieve the SIP goal. 

30 It is inappropriate to select products that contain only four active ingredients for 

restrictions. DPR, in the Initial Statement of Reasons, selected products 

containing these four active ingredients because they are used in volumes 

sufficient that a reduction would result in reduction in VOC emissions; yet are 

not so great as to be considered a significant source of VOC emissions in the San 

Joaquin Valley NAA, taking into account other sources. The high volume of 

usage reflects that these active ingredients are more important to agriculture. DPR 

data indicates that active ingredients DPR has chosen not to regulate have 

products with high-VOC emission potentials; some with alternative low-VOC 

formulations. The decision to target products containing the four active 

ingredients (to the exclusion of others) is not a rational basis to regulate. 

See response to comment 29. Regardless of the contribution from other 

sources, the SIP requires specific VOC reductions from pesticide products. 

Those reductions cannot be consistently achieved unless some of the products 

and uses containing these active ingredients are included in the regulations.

20, 21

31 The regulation does not include a mechanism to address emergencies, or grant 

exemptions, such as critical uses. The regulation does allow for the use of 

products under Section 18 and 24(c) of FIFRA and we infer DPR intends to allow 

for exemptions where the use of a product is not registered under FIFRA Section 

3, might be prohibited under the proposed regulation. These processes are not 

appropriate when the product is already registered under Section 3. An 

application under Section 18 or 24(c) would be burdensome. This section of the 

regulation should be redrafted to include a mechanism to address emergencies 

and exemptions that would include criteria that are appropriate to this rule.

The regulation includes an exception for applications made under the direction 

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the California Department of Food and 

Agriculture, or a county agricultural commissioner (CAC) for suppression or 

eradication of pests. Section 18 or 24(c) are for use under emergency or special 

local needs use. These exceptions are sufficient to address emergencies and 

critical uses.

20

32 Section 6884(b) could be amended by providing for additional exemptions for 

products in their uses on additional crops; exemptions for products that are 

applied under conditions as so to minimize VOC emissions; and allowing the 

Director to grant exemptions upon application by the companies that produce 

regulated products, agricultural producers, or university research and extension 

20
ATTACHMENT A

9

specialists, and in accordance with criteria set forth in the new section, or at the 

discretion of the Director. 

DPR modified the proposed regulations that would allow for the addition of an 

exception as long as the emission level of 17.2 tpd is not affected.

33 The regulations will cause users of products containing high-VOC formulations 

of the regulated active ingredients to switch to other products. Because the 

alternatives include high-VOC formulations with unregulated active ingredients, 

it is likely that customers will chose those products. There will be no significant 

reduction in total VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley NAA; rather the only 

change will be to the sources of those emissions.

It is unlikely that growers will switch to products with higher VOCs containing 

other active ingredients. DPR is regulating these four active ingredients 

because in most cases the low-VOC products are as effective and cost the same 

or slightly higher than the high-VOC products. Since the efficacy and cost are 

usually the same, growers have little incentive to switch to other active 

ingredients. DPR will continue to track emissions and take additional actions in 

the unlikely event that growers switch to products containing other active 

ingredients with higher VOCs, resulting in exceedance of the 18.1 tons/day SIP 

goal.

20, 26

34 In the absence of provisions to remove or add active ingredients that are being 

regulations, there will be no incentive to for registrants reformulate their highVOC emitting products to lower VOC emitting alternatives.

See response to comment no. 15

20

35 The UC Extension Report errs in its analysis of alternatives for many crops, 

including application rates, use patterns, and other basic assumptions, as well as 

its identification of many products as substitutes for high-VOC products.

DPR has not received any information that contradicts the analysis of 

alternatives conducted by UC Extension. Exceptions were added to the 

regulation for pest control scenarios noted as areas of concern until further 

analysis can be completed.

20

36 The economic analysis was based in substantial part on the UC report. Many of 

the erroneous data and conclusions in the UC Report flow through to the 

economic analysis. The UC report should be revaluated and revised, and the 

economic analysis revised to reflect those changes.

See response to comment no. 35

20

37 DPR should consider a regulation that imposes restrictions and prohibitions on 

the use of products that contributed the most to the VOC emission load in the 

preceding year. This provision allows the addition of products whose 

20, 21, 24
ATTACHMENT A

10

contribution to VOC increases and removal of products whose contribution to 

VOC decreases.

Changing restrictions on products from year-to-year would be extremely 

confusing and difficult to enforce. DPR modified the language to allow active 

ingredients to be removed when the emission inventory indicates that the use 

patterns have change significantly to maintain compliance with the SIP.

38 Expanding the list of active ingredients could enlarge the volume of the 

anticipated decrease in VOC emissions presenting DPR with greater flexibility in 

granting exemptions from the prohibitions, in order to meet changing needs of 

growers and the agricultural community.

DPR decided that the limitation of the number of active ingredients and 

exceptions makes the regulations more understandable and enforceable. DPR 

has the option of adding more active ingredients to the regulations in the future 

if it is needed to comply with the SIP goal.

20, 21

39 DPR should propose a regulation that imposes restrictions on products whose 

manufacturers did not submit TGA data. 

This comment is outside the scope of the proposed regulations. However, a 

regulation is not needed for TGA data. DPR has a registration requirement for 

all liquid agricultural and liquid commercial structural-use pesticides to submit 

TGA data. DPR has the authority to cancel a product if TGA data is not 

submitted.

20

40 DPR should consider exemptions for high-VOC products whose emissions can be 

controlled or mitigated in their application. VOC emissions from many products 

whose use will be prohibited or restricted can be controlled by methods such as 

low-pressure ground application, incorporation in soil, application to water, and 

chemigation.

DPR is not aware of any studies that would provide necessary data on the 

emission of VOC reduction due to application methods of the nonfumigant 

products. Additionally, this would require a change to the method for 

estimating pesticide VOC emissions, which can only be done with a SIP 

amendment.

20

41 DPR could implement a two tier regulation of nonfumigant pesticide products. 

Tier I would take effect if the VOC inventory exceeded 90 percent of the SIP 

goal. At Tier I the top contributors based on most recent annual pesticide 

inventory report would be identified and treated as high-VOC products, with a 

requirement for a written recommendation from a PCA. Dealers would provide 

written information on the VOC emissions, and the recordkeeping provision of 

the proposed regulation would be in effect. Tier II would be triggered if the VOC 

inventory were to exceed 95 percent of the SIP goal. Then, use of the products 

20, 22
ATTACHMENT A

11

designated as high-VOC in Tier I would be prohibited during May-October. 

Changing restrictions on products from year-to-year would be extremely 

confusing and difficult to enforce.

42 With respect to abamectin, the proposed threshold of 35 percent VOC considered 

to be low is unfair, contrary to sound science and public policy, and unsupported 

by any evidence of environmental or economic necessity.

Under the current regulatory environment, it is unnecessary to set the threshold 

at the level originally targeted by the nonfumigant reevaluation that was 

designed to achieve specific emission reductions through reformulation. The 

reevaluation of nonfumigants pesticides began before and continued after a 

concurrent effort by DPR to reduce VOC emissions through restrictions on 

fumigants. While all registrants subject to the nonfumigant reevaluation 

eventually met their obligation, the implementation of restrictions and resulting 

reduction in VOC emissions from the use of fumigant pesticides allows DPR to 

achieve the additional reductions necessary to meet its obligations from 

nonfumigants with the thresholds we have set. The threshold allows multiple 

products to qualify as low-VOC providing more product options to users when 

restrictions are in place and causes less market disruption for registrants. In 

setting the emission potential thresholds for abamectin products and the other 

products included in the regulation, DPR also considered the number of 

pesticide products (by active ingredient) included, the crops included, and the 

exceptions included. DPR must balance these four factors to achieve the 

needed VOC reductions. 

21

43 The prohibitions and exceptions of section 6884(c) are too rigid and lack needed 

discretion. As recently discovered by DPR, a "math error", in the future could 

lead to a conclusion that VOC emissions had exceeded the trigger level, requiring 

restrictions and prohibitions. If the math error was discovered in the first month 

of the two year period defined in section 6884(c), leading to a conclusion that the 

trigger had not been exceeded, DPR would have no discretion or obligation to lift 

the restrictions that should never have been imposed. DPR should have 

discretion or obligation to lift restrictions for any reason that the total pesticide 

VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley Ozone NAA were in fact within 

allowable SIP limits.

The error occurred because an incorrect density was assigned to a product with 

high use and high-VOC content. The error has been corrected. DPR has the 

discretion to lift the high-VOC prohibitions if a math error causes DPR to 

trigger the prohibitions incorrectly.

21

44 DPR's conclusions on economic impact are inconsistent. The Notice concludes 

that the actions do affect small businesses, then states that the regulations will not 

have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting 

businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with 

businesses in other states. The proposed regulation will increase costs to business 

and increase costs to county agricultural commissioners and DPR.

22
ATTACHMENT A

12

The Notice identifies small businesses as defined by Government Code section 

11342.610 as a type of business that would be affected by the regulations. DPR 

made the initial determination of the cost impacts the regulation would have on 

businesses, CACs and DPR.

45 Rather than single out individual active ingredients, DPR should establish in 

regulation performance-based criteria that would qualify contributors of concern. 

Identification or listing of AI’s would be through executive order, so DPR has 

flexibility to list or delist products. Establishing analytical performance-criteria 

would allow DPR to focus on current high-use formulations without permanently 

having those formulations included in regulation. This may allow DPR flexibility 

to take into account exceptions needed by growers and research taking place.

A complete response is not possible because the meaning of "performancebased criteria" in this context is unknown. However, limiting the regulations 

to a subset of products containing the four active ingredients would be 

ineffective in reducing VOC emissions. Growers and applicators would simply 

switch from a low-VOC product to a high-VOC product with the same active 

ingredient.

22

46 What is the rationale for selecting only these four high-VOC types of pesticides 

and not including other nonfumigants in products that may be as high or higher in 

VOC emission potential (ex. bifenthrin, glyphosate, isopropylamine salt).

See response to comment 29

25

47 Why do the prohibitions apply to a subset of San Joaquin Valley's seven crops 

rather than all crops that currently use or could use potentially high -VOC 

emitting nonfumigant pesticides.

Restriction of high- VOC products in the seven crops would give the necessary 

reduction. The efficacy and feasibility of using low-VOC products for other 

crops is unknown. 

25

48 In section 6884 "hypothetical emissions" calculation, it appears DPR assumes the 

pounds of VOC emitted per pound of active ingredient applied are constant from 

year to year. Please explain the bases for that assumption.

This is incorrect. DPR assumes that the pounds of VOCs emitted per pound of 

active ingredient applied vary from year to year, particularly if high-VOC 

prohibitions are in effect or not. 

25

49 Please extend the retention time for licensed pest control office recommendations 

should be extended from two to five years.

The two-year requirement for maintaining records is consistent with other 

recordkeeping requirements for growers and pest control advisers.

25
ATTACHMENT A

13

50 For clarification, please include the word "primary" before "active ingredient" in 

the first sentence of section 6880.

DPR has modified the language to include this change.

25

51 Section 6452(b)(1)(A) should refer to section 6881, rather than 6452.4.

DPR modified the regulation to cite the correct reference section.

25

52 The total VOC Emissions Inventory Benchmark for the San Joaquin Valley 

should not be deleted from the table in section 6452.2(a) and needs to be 

increased to reflect a 20 percent emissions reduction requirement from 1990 

levels. We support the concept of limiting nonfumigant pesticide VOC emissions 

but conclude that limits need to be in place to drive reduction of both fumigant 

and non-fumigant pesticide VOC emissions to help clear the valley’s air. 

For the San Joaquin Valley, DPR’s SIP commitment is to reduce pesticide 

VOC emissions to no more than 18.1 tpd, equivalent to a 12 percent reduction 

from the 1990 base year. DPR is not legally obligated to reduce pesticide VOC 

emissions by 20 percent. 

If the high-VOC prohibitions specified by the regulations are triggered, DPR 

estimates that San Joaquin Valley pesticide VOC emissions would be 

approximately 16 tpd for the highest emission year. Additional reductions from 

fumigant pesticides are not needed.

26, T-3

53 Section 6577: Pesticide dealer businesses would be required to keep record of 

sales of selected high-VOC products for two years. Section 6883: Pest Control 

Advisors would be required to provide written recommendation for use of highVOC products during the smog season. With diminishing resources how could 

the Department possibly do enough dealer or grower audits, let alone field 

inspection.

Most audits are performed by CACs, not DPR. CACs already perform routine 

audits, and these regulations will not increase their workload. The documents 

audited will simply be checked for additional information.

26, T-3

54 Pesticide products should be classified as "high-VOC" and "lower VOC"

products containing designated active ingredients rather than "low-VOC" because 

it is a misnomer to classify products containing 15 to 35 percent as "low-VOC"

and are only classifying products containing four active ingredients. 

Designating products as either "high-VOC or "lower-VOC" would add 

unnecessary confusion to the regulations. The regulations specify two product 

categories. The suggested change implies that there is a third non-existent 

category of "low-VOC" products. Moreover, it’s unclear what VOC content the 

commenter would consider low-VOC.

26

55 Products which contain one of the four designated active ingredients as a 

secondary active ingredient should not be exempted because this creates a 

loophole which could undermine reductions in nonfumigant VOC emissions. 

26
ATTACHMENT A

14

The only effective way to reduce nonfumigant VOC emissions is to remove a 

wide range of high-VOC products from the market by cancelling their 

registrations.

The solvents used in pesticide formulations must dissolve the active ingredient 

in order function. Different active ingredients have different solubilities, and a 

solvent or solvent amount that works for one active ingredient may not work for 

a different active ingredient. Achieving the VOC content thresholds specified in 

the regulations may not be feasible for the regulated pesticides if they are 

present as secondary active ingredients. DPR will continue to track emissions 

and take additional actions if these regulations do not achieve the 18.1 tpd SIP 

goal, regardless if the reason for the increased emissions is due to new products 

formulations with secondary active ingredients, or increased use of other 

pesticide products not included in the regulations (e.g., diazinon products).

56 We also have concerns about the accuracy of the VOC content estimates for the 

pesticide emissions inventory. The Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA) tests 

should be conducted with aqueous tank mixtures.

This comment is beyond the scope of the regulations. The TGA method is part 

of the SIP. The method can only be changed with a SIP amendment. That said, 

the TGA test is conducted at 115° C, well above the boiling point of water. 

Adding water to the test procedure will have no effect on the results.

26

57 If the four active ingredients were also designated as restricted materials the 

recommendations for use would be submitted to the county agricultural 

commissioner so that use under exceptions would be reviewed during the Notice 

of Intent process and would become part of the state's electronic pesticide data 

base.

DPR considered designating these pesticides as restricted materials, but 

determined that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. A key 

disadvantage is the need for some growers to obtain a restricted materials 

permit and become certified applicators for the first time. Certified applicators 

are unnecessary for VOC purposes because special equipment, procedures, or 

precautions are not needed. Workload would increase for CACs because an 

evaluation of local conditions is required for all restricted materials. The 

additional work would have little value because an evaluation of local 

conditions would not be needed for VOC purposes.

26

58 Use of most proposed exceptions and substitutions of other pesticide products 

with high-VOC content will undermine VOC emission reduction. Prohibiting use 

of high-VOC products containing a broad range of active ingredients is the only 

effective way to reduce nonfumigant VOC emissions.

The amount of VOC reductions achieved from nonfumigant restrictions depend 

on four factors: the pesticide products (by active ingredient) included, the VOC 

content thresholds selected, the crops included, and the exceptions included. 

26
ATTACHMENT A

15

DPR must balance these four factors to achieve the needed VOC reductions. If 

the high-VOC prohibitions specified by the regulations are triggered, DPR 

estimates that San Joaquin Valley pesticide VOC emissions would be 

approximately 16 tons per day for the highest emission year. The pesticide 

products, VOC content thresholds, crops, and exceptions specified in the 

regulations are sufficient to achieve the SIP goal, with a margin of safety. 

More stringent requirements are not needed. DPR will continue to track 

pesticide VOC emissions and take additional actions if emissions from other 

products increase to unprecedented levels resulting in exceedance of the SIP 

goal.

59 All pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos should be cancelled to reduce both 

VOC emissions and toxic air contamination.

This comment is not relevant to the regulation -no response necessary.

26, T-3

60 We recently identified possible efficacy issues with low-emission oxyfluorfen 

products recommended in the UCCE report. Field trials of low-emission 

oxyfluorfen products are being conducted. It would be practical to postpone the 

oxyfluorfen rules until results from the experiments can help address efficacy 

questions.

DPR modified the regulations to include an exception for oxyfluorfen at low 

applications rates (0.125 pounds of active ingredient per acre) of the high-VOC 

product.

27

61 The economic impact report says the costs are not significant. It does not address 

the issue of how much food is produced. If the amount of pesticide used is 

decreased it will decrease the crop yield.

Since the low-VOC products have been found to be as efficacious as the highVOC products, crop yield should not decrease. In case where they are suspected 

of being less efficacious, DPR has included exceptions in the regulations.

T-4
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

Response to 45-day comments

Comment No. 12: Regulations should be based on sound science to minimize short-term harm 

to several important tree and vine cropping systems of the regions. A measured approach to 

regulating oxyfluorfen, a key herbicide active ingredient, is even more warranted when one 

considers that the proposed "...restrictions on nonfumigant products will provide minimal overall

reduction in VOC emission and resulting ozone air concentrations" (Initial Statement of Reason 

and Public Report, page 4) yet could present a significant challenge to summer weed 

management programs in San Joaquin Valley orchard cropping systems. 

Response: See response to comment no. 3. 

Comment No. 47: Why do the prohibitions apply to a subset of San Joaquin Valley's seven crops 

rather than all crops that currently use or could use potentially high -VOC emitting nonfumigant 

pesticides.

Response: Abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen products are used for several 

dozen crops. The top ten crops account for more than 96 percent of the emissions from these 

pesticide products in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA and approximately 92 percent of the 

agricultural applications are applied to alfalfa, almonds, citrus, cotton, grapes, walnuts, and 

pistachios. Most of the minor crops have low emissions and the efficacy of the low-VOC 

products is uncertain in many cases. Restriction of high- VOC products in the seven crops would 

give the necessary reduction. The efficacy and feasibility of using low-VOC products for other 

crops is unknown.

Comment No. 59: All pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos should be cancelled to reduce 

both VOC emissions and toxic air contamination.

Response: It is not necessary to cancel all pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos to achieve 

the necessary reductions in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA. The restrictions on use of highVOC products containing chlorpyrifos would give the necessary reduction.

Response to 15-day comment

Richard Matoian's Comment: No suitable substitute for high-VOC oxyfluorfen. It will be 

necessary to supplement with additional herbicides resulting in an economic hardship for 

pistachio growers.

Response: Not relevant to the modified text. The modified text allowed for an exemption to use 

oxyfluorfen at a reduced application rate. This comment addresses the language originally 

proposed which placed restrictions on high-VOC oxyfluorfen products.