Page	1	of	5 

### ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC

1415 L S TREET , S UITE 460 S ACRAMENTO , C ALIFORNIA 95814-3964 T ELEPHONE (916) 443-2793 F ACSIMILE (916) 443-3071

June	7,	2012

Submitted electronically

Linda	Irokawa‐Otani,	Regulations	Coordinator Office	of	Legislation	and	Policy Department	of	Pesticide	Regulation 1001	I	Street,	P.O.	Box	4015 Sacramento,	California	95812‐4015

RE: Comments on a Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action and Notice of Public Hearing On a Proposed Ozone State Implementation Plan Amendment Regarding Amendment of Title 3, California Code of Regulations (3 CCR) sections 6452, 6452.2, and 6864; amend section 6452.4 and renumber to 6881; renumber section 6890 to 6864; and adopt sections 6558, 6577, 6880, 6883, 6884, and 6886.

Dear	Ms.	Irokawa‐Otani,

I	am	submitting	these	comments	on behalf	of	members	of	The	Pest icide	Ag‐SIP	Workgroup (Workgroup),		the	California	Spec ialty	Crops	Council	(CSCC),	th e	Kern	County	Farm	Bureau,	the San	Joaquin	County	Farm	Bureau	a nd	the	Tulare	County	Farm	Burea u.			These	groups	welcome	the opportunity	to	comment	on	the proposed	regulatory	action. The	Pesticide	Ag‐SIP	Workgroup	is	an	ad	hoc	organization	of	com modity	group representatives	and	agricultural industry	organizations	created specifically	to	in teract	with	DPR,

ARB	and	the	USEPA	on	VOC	issues. Members	of	the	Ag‐SIP	Workgro up	affiliated	with	these

comments	include:			Almond	Board of	California,	California	Agri cultural	Aircraft	Association, California	Rice	Commission,	Cal ifornia	Cotton	Ginners	and	Growe rs	Association,	California	Fresh Carrot	Advisory	Board,	California Association	of	Winegrape	Grow ers,	California	Grape	&	Tree Fruit	League,	California	Walnut	Commission,	California	Farm	Bur eau	Federation,	and	Western

Plant	Health	Association. JAMES W. WELLS PRESIDENT E-Mail: jwells@esgllc.netPage	2	of	5 The	CSCC	is	a	coalition	represen ting	numerous	tree	fruit,	vine, root,	and	berry	crops	grown

in	the	state	of	California.		The CSCC	brings	together	technical experts	from	diverse	specialty	crop

commodities	in	order	to	collabo rate	on	shared	issues	and	needs related	to	pest	management	and environmental	stewardship.			To simplify	this	document,	I	will refer	to	the	Pesticide	Ag‐SIP Workgroup,	the	CSCC	and	the	Coun ty	Farm	Bureaus	as	the	“The	Wor kgroup”. Timing	of	the	Regulations. The	Workgroup	acknowledges	that	DPR	has	a	commitment under	the	proposed	2008	State	Implementation	Plan	to	implement restrictions	on	VOC	emissions from	non‐fumigant	pesticides	b y	2014.		In	the	recent	Federal	Re gister	Notice	entitled	“Approval and	Promulgation	of	Implementation	Plans;	California;	Revisions to	the	California	State Implementation	Plan	Pesticide Element”	(April	24,	2012),	the	EP A	interprets	this	to	mean	that restrictions	must	be	in	place	by	May	1,	2014.				Concerns	about an	apparent	rapid	increase	in	VOC emissions	based	on	the	2010	Pesticide	Use	Report	prompted	DPR	t o	push	the	regulations	forward

on	a	schedule	that	would	result in	promulgation	of	the	regulati ons	by	May	1,	2013	to	avoid	the possibility	of	triggering	further	restrictions	on	fumigant	VOC emissions.		However,	it	has	now come	to	light	that	the	2010	PUR,	and	thus	the	2010	Annual	Inven tory	Report,	over	estimated	VOC emissions	by	1.3	tons	per	day	(tpd).		With	the	correction	of	th is	error,	the	2010	emissions inventory	is	only	85%	of	the	18. 1	tpd	benchmark.		The	Workgroup agrees	that	additional restrictions	on	fumigant	emission s,	especially	the	implementati on	of	an	“allowance”	system	for fumigants	at	the	County	level,	s hould	be	avoided.		Administerin g	the	allowance	program	to	meet emissions	benchmarks	requires	su bstantial	state	and	local	gover nment	resources	and	is	extremely burdensome	on	agricultural	produ cers.		The	allowance	system	is costly,	requires	many	hours	of additional	paper	work	and	disrup ts	growers’	normal	crop	plannin g	process.		However,	it	now appears	that	DPR	can	take	some	a dditional	time	to	refine	the	re gulations	with	a	goal	to	implement restrictions	by	May	1,	2014. The	Workgroup	appreciates	the	fact	that,	in	the	development	of these	proposed regulations,	DPR	has	held	meetings	with,	and	made	presentations to,	a	broad	range	of stakeholders.		In	accommodating	s takeholder	input,	the	proposal has	been	modified	several	times. However,	the	Workgroup	believes	that	some	additional	refinement is	still	necessary.Page	3	of	5 Additional	Exemptions .		Specifically,	with	respect	to the	herbicide	oxyfluorfen,	pes t management	experts,	including	Dr.	Brad	Hanson	and	Dr.	Kurt	Hemb ree,	UC	Cooperative	Extension Weed	Specialists,	have	confirmed that	the	low	VOC	formulation	i s	not	equally	effective	as	the	high VOC	formulation	for	post	emergen ce	weed	control	in	orchards	and vineyards.		The	Workgroup supports	Dr.	Hanson’s	and	Dr.	Hembree’s	comments	and	proposal	t hat	DPR	include	an	additional exemption	for	low	rates	of	high VOC	formulations	of	oxyfluorfen for	spring	and	summer	orchard

floor	weed	control. In	addition,	the	Workgroup	notes that	the	restriction	of	liquid formulations	of	gibberellins to	8	grams	or	less	active	ingredient	per	acre	will	adversely	af fect	variety	specific	cultural	practices for	table	grapes.		There	is	a	ne ed	for	additional	exemptions	fo r	the	use	of	liquid	gibberellins	at higher	rates.		The	Workgroup	urg es	DPR	to	confer	with	experts	a t	the	California Grape	and	Tree Fruit	League	for	details	and	the supporting	information	for	exp anding	allowable	uses. Listing	Active	Ingredients and	Crops	in	Regulation .		The	proposed	regulations	will	create	a list	of	four	active	ingredients	for	which	permanent	restriction s	apply	to	designated	high	VOC products	when	used	on	seven	desi gnated	crops.		The	Workgroup	is concerned	that	the	cropping and	use	patterns	which	make	these	products	and	crops	a	priority for	restriction	may	change	over time	and	consequently	DPR	may	be regulating	products	and	crop	u ses	that	are	not	the	major

contributors	to	VOC	emissions. The	only	way	to	change	the	list s	is	to	amend	the	regulations;	a cumbersome	and	time	consuming	process	that	guarantees	a	signifi cant	lag	time	between	the determination	that	a	product	is, or	is	not,	a	significant	contr ibutor	and	the	establishment	or

relaxation	of	restrictions.		The Workgroup	suggests	that	there should	be	some	process	to	de‐list active	ingredients	and	perhaps	change	the	list	of	crops	when	th ey	are	no	longer	significant contributors	and	re‐focus	on	active	ingredients	and	crops	that may	have	become	more	significant.

Written	Recommendations .		The	Workgroup	is	not	opposed to	the	requirement	for	written

recommendations	from	licensed	Pest	Control	Advisors	when	and	if necessary	to	assure	that growers	are	cognizant	of	and	understand	the	nature	of	the	restr ictions	on	high	VOC	products. Similarly,	the	require ment	for	agricultural pest	control	dealer s	to	notify	purchasers	of	high	VOC products	of	potential	restrictions	on	use	will	help	to	make	sur e	growers	get	important	information about	the	provisions	of	the	regu lation.		However,	it	is	importa nt	to	note	that	there	are	costs involved	in	these	provisions	and	as	stated	above,	the	Workgroup believes	that	these	requirements should	only	apply	to	products	an d	crops	when	necessary	to	meet VOC	emission	benchmarks,	not on	a	permanent	basis.Page	4	of	5 Additional	Comments .		While	not	directly	related	to the	Notice	of	Proposed	Regulat ory Action	for	these	specific	amendm ents,	the	Workgroup	again	notes that	based	on	the	best	available science,	the	reduction	in	VOC	emi ssions	brought	about	by	the	Fi eld	Fumigant	Use	Requirements and	the	proposed	reductions	in	non‐fumigant	pesticide	emissions are	relatively	insignificant	in meeting	overall	air	quality	goal s	in	the	San	Joaquin	Valley	non ‐attainment	area.		For	instance,	Dr. Peter	Greene,	in	his	presentation	at	DPR’s	Research	Symposium	i n	May	of	2007	made	it	clear	that NOx	are	the	limiting	factor	in	o zone	formation	in	the	San	Joaqu in	Valley,	not	VOCs.		Dr.	Greene explained	that,	since	the	ratio of	NOx	to	VOCs	in	the	ozone	for ming	reaction	is	low,	the	naturally occurring	VOCs	will	always	be	in	excess	of	NOx. Requirements	for	written	recommendations	for	high	VOC	products whether	or	not emissions	exceed	the	trigger	level	provided	in	Section	6452.2	( f),	will	immediatel y	increase	the cost	of	pest	control	for	San	Joa quin	Valley	growers.		In	any	ye ar	that	the	trigger	is	exceeded,

additional	costs	will	accrue	and ,	because	of	the	provisions	of section	6884(c),	will	be	sustained	for

a	minimum of	two	years. These	new	costs	are	in	addition	to	the	increased	costs	associat ed	with the	fumigant	method	restrictions already	in	place	and	in	many	c ases	will	be	borne	by	the	same growers.		While	acknowledging	DPR’s	commitment	under	the	curren t	SIP	and	proposed	SIP amendments,	the	Workgroup	is	sti ll	compelled	to	comment	on	the implementation	of	scientifically unsupported	restrictions.

It	has	come	to	the	attention	of the	Workgroup	that	the	San	Joaq uin	Valley	Air	Pollution Control	District	(SJVAPCD)	has	made	a	formal	proposal	to	the	EP A	to	consider	a	health	protective risk‐based	approach.		The	objecti ve	is	to	insure	that	the	fundi ng	directed	to	clean‐air	efforts	get used	in	the	most	advantageous	wa ys,	while	avoiding	unrewarding or	even	minimally‐rewarding expenditures.		Although	the	ulti mate	goal	of	a	SIP	is	to	achiev e	a	standard	which	will	improve public	health,	the	individual	measures	have	not	always	been	pri oritized	based	on	public	health considerations.		In	implementing a	plan,	the	EPA	has	generally required	that	a	certain	tonnage	of

emissions	be	reduced	to	achieve	attainment.		The	EPA	has	also	r equired	that	the	reductions	be generally	linear	over	time.			Thu s	states	and	local	districts	h ave	been	guided	to	prioritize	the	rules that	achieve	the	biggest	reducti ons	without	taking	into	conside ration	parameters	such	as		how	and where	the	pollutants	are	released,	toxicity,	potency,	how	much exposure	results	or	how	much	if any	ozone	will	be	created.Page	5	of	5 The	health	based	risk	assessment proposed	by	the	SJVAPCD	would be	prioritized	by exposure	and	chemical	compositio n	not	mass	emissions.		New	cont rol	measures	would	be	aimed specifically	at	high	risk	emissions.		As	the	SJV	progresses	tow ard	attaining	the	1997	Ozone standard,	VOC	reductions	become less	and	less	effective	but	mus t	still	be	pursued	regardless	of their	contribution	to	public	heal th	improvement.		According	to the	2008	SJV	estimated	annual average	emissions	inventory,	pesticides	represent	0.012%	of	tot al	organic	gas	(natural	and manmade)	and	0.014%	if	is	limite d	to	manmade	total	organic	gas. As	a	portion	of	total	organic	gas that	is	reactive,	pesticides	rep resent	.04%.		If	limited	to	onl y	manmade	reactive	organic	gas, pesticides	are	0.06%	of	the	SJ V	emissions	inventory.		The	2009 SIP	obligations	dictate	that	steps

must	be	taken	to	reduce	these	sm all	VOC	pesticide	emission	perc entages	despite	the	SJV	air district	stating	they	can	obtain 20	times	more	ozone	reduction from	a	reduction	in	NOx	as opposed	to	an	equal	reduction	in	VOCs. We	urge	DPR	to	work	with	the	SJV APCD	in	their	request	to	the	EP A	to	craft	innovative implementation	strategies	that	enable	regions	with	mature	air	q uality	programs	to	focus	efforts on	meeting	new	standards	expediti ously	through	deployment	of	sc arce	resources	in	a	manner	that provides	the	most	benefit	to	pub lic	health.		While	we	understan d	this	will	not	impact	the implementation	of	this	proposed	pesticide	regulation,	it	could help	prevent	wasting	precious public	and	private	dollars	on	fu ture	strategies	that	hold	less public	health	benefit	but	must	be enacted	to	meet	an	arbitrary	linear	reduction	requirement. The	Workgroup	appreciates	the	o pportunity	to	comment	on	this	pr oposed	regulatory

action.

Sincerely,

James	Wells President