Page	1	of	5

ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC 

1415 L STREET, SUITE 460 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-3964 

TELEPHONE (916) 443-2793 

FACSIMILE (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	Pesticide	Ag‐SIP	Workgroup	

(Workgroup),		the	California	Specialty	Crops	Council	(CSCC),	the	Kern	County	Farm	Bureau,	the	

San	Joaquin	County	Farm	Bureau	and	the	Tulare	County	Farm	Bureau.			These	groups	welcome	the	

opportunity	to	comment	on	the	proposed	regulatory	action.		

The	Pesticide	Ag‐SIP	Workgroup	is	an	ad	hoc	organization	of	commodity	group	

representatives	and	agricultural	industry	organizations	created	specifically	to	interact	with	DPR,	

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

comments	include:			Almond	Board	of	California,	California	Agricultural	Aircraft	Association,	

California	Rice	Commission,	California	Cotton	Ginners	and	Growers	Association,	California	Fresh	

Carrot	Advisory	Board,	California	Association	of	Winegrape	Growers,	California	Grape	&	Tree	

Fruit	League,	California	Walnut	Commission,	California	Farm	Bureau	Federation,	and	Western	

Plant	Health	Association.			

JAMES W. WELLS 

PRESIDENT 

E-Mail: jwells@esgllc.net 
Page	2	of	5

The	CSCC	is	a	coalition	representing	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	collaborate	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	County	Farm	Bureaus	as	the	“The	Workgroup”.	

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	by	2014.		In	the	recent	Federal	Register	Notice	entitled	“Approval	

and	Promulgation	of	Implementation	Plans;	California;	Revisions	to	the	California	State	

Implementation	Plan	Pesticide	Element”	(April	24,	2012),	the	EPA	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	to	push	the	regulations	forward	

on	a	schedule	that	would	result	in	promulgation	of	the	regulations	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	Inventory	Report,	over	estimated	VOC	

emissions	by	1.3	tons	per	day	(tpd).		With	the	correction	of	this	error,	the	2010	emissions	

inventory	is	only	85%	of	the	18.1	tpd	benchmark.		The	Workgroup	agrees	that	additional	

restrictions	on	fumigant	emissions,	especially	the	implementation	of	an	“allowance”	system	for	

fumigants	at	the	County	level,	should	be	avoided.		Administering	the	allowance	program	to	meet	

emissions	benchmarks	requires	substantial	state	and	local	government	resources	and	is	extremely	

burdensome	on	agricultural	producers.		The	allowance	system	is	costly,	requires	many	hours	of	

additional	paper	work	and	disrupts	growers’	normal	crop	planning	process.		However,	it	now	

appears	that	DPR	can	take	some	additional	time	to	refine	the	regulations	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	stakeholder	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,	pest	

management	experts,	including	Dr.	Brad	Hanson	and	Dr.	Kurt	Hembree,	UC	Cooperative	Extension	

Weed	Specialists,	have	confirmed	that	the	low	VOC	formulation	is	not	equally	effective	as	the	high	

VOC	formulation	for	post	emergence	weed	control	in	orchards	and	vineyards.		The	Workgroup	

supports	Dr.	Hanson’s	and	Dr.	Hembree’s	comments	and	proposal	that	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	affect	variety	specific	cultural	practices	

for	table	grapes.		There	is	a	need	for	additional	exemptions	for	the	use	of	liquid	gibberellins	at	

higher	rates.		The	Workgroup	urges	DPR	to	confer	with	experts	at	the	California	Grape	and	Tree	

Fruit	League	for	details	and	the	supporting	information	for	expanding	allowable	uses.	

Listing	Active	Ingredients	and	Crops	in	Regulation.		The	proposed	regulations	will	create	a	

list	of	four	active	ingredients	for	which	permanent	restrictions	apply	to	designated	high	VOC	

products	when	used	on	seven	designated	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	uses	that	are	not	the	major	

contributors	to	VOC	emissions.		The	only	way	to	change	the	lists	is	to	amend	the	regulations;	a	

cumbersome	and	time	consuming	process	that	guarantees	a	significant	lag	time	between	the	

determination	that	a	product	is,	or	is	not,	a	significant	contributor	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	they	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	restrictions	on	high	VOC	products.		

Similarly,	the	requirement	for	agricultural	pest	control	dealers	to	notify	purchasers	of	high	VOC	

products	of	potential	restrictions	on	use	will	help	to	make	sure	growers	get	important	information	

about	the	provisions	of	the	regulation.		However,	it	is	important	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	and	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	Regulatory	

Action	for	these	specific	amendments,	the	Workgroup	again	notes	that	based	on	the	best	available	

science,	the	reduction	in	VOC	emissions	brought	about	by	the	Field	Fumigant	Use	Requirements	

and	the	proposed	reductions	in	non‐fumigant	pesticide	emissions	are	relatively	insignificant	in	

meeting	overall	air	quality	goals	in	the	San	Joaquin	Valley	non‐attainment	area.		For	instance,	Dr.	

Peter	Greene,	in	his	presentation	at	DPR’s	Research	Symposium	in	May	of	2007	made	it	clear	that	

NOx	are	the	limiting	factor	in	ozone	formation	in	the	San	Joaquin	Valley,	not	VOCs.		Dr.	Greene	

explained	that,	since	the	ratio	of	NOx	to	VOCs	in	the	ozone	forming	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	immediately	increase	the	

cost	of	pest	control	for	San	Joaquin	Valley	growers.		In	any	year	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	associated	with	

the	fumigant	method	restrictions	already	in	place	and	in	many	cases	will	be	borne	by	the	same	

growers.		While	acknowledging	DPR’s	commitment	under	the	current	SIP	and	proposed	SIP	

amendments,	the	Workgroup	is	still	compelled	to	comment	on	the	implementation	of	scientifically	

unsupported	restrictions.	

It	has	come	to	the	attention	of	the	Workgroup	that	the	San	Joaquin	Valley	Air	Pollution	

Control	District	(SJVAPCD)	has	made	a	formal	proposal	to	the	EPA	to	consider	a	health	protective	

risk‐based	approach.		The	objective	is	to	insure	that	the	funding	directed	to	clean‐air	efforts	get	

used	in	the	most	advantageous	ways,	while	avoiding	unrewarding	or	even	minimally‐rewarding	

expenditures.		Although	the	ultimate	goal	of	a	SIP	is	to	achieve	a	standard	which	will	improve	

public	health,	the	individual	measures	have	not	always	been	prioritized	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	required	that	the	reductions	be	

generally	linear	over	time.			Thus	states	and	local	districts	have	been	guided	to	prioritize	the	rules	

that	achieve	the	biggest	reductions	without	taking	into	consideration	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	composition	not	mass	emissions.		New	control	measures	would	be	aimed	

specifically	at	high	risk	emissions.		As	the	SJV	progresses	toward	attaining	the	1997	Ozone	

standard,	VOC	reductions	become	less	and	less	effective	but	must	still	be	pursued	regardless	of	

their	contribution	to	public	health	improvement.		According	to	the	2008	SJV	estimated	annual	

average	emissions	inventory,	pesticides	represent	0.012%	of	total	organic	gas	(natural	and	

manmade)	and	0.014%	if	is	limited	to	manmade	total	organic	gas.		As	a	portion	of	total	organic	gas	

that	is	reactive,	pesticides	represent	.04%.		If	limited	to	only	manmade	reactive	organic	gas,	

pesticides	are	0.06%	of	the	SJV	emissions	inventory.		The	2009	SIP	obligations	dictate	that	steps	

must	be	taken	to	reduce	these	small	VOC	pesticide	emission	percentages	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	SJVAPCD	in	their	request	to	the	EPA	to	craft	innovative	

implementation	strategies	that	enable	regions	with	mature	air	quality	programs	to	focus	efforts	

on	meeting	new	standards	expeditiously	through	deployment	of	scarce	resources	in	a	manner	that	

provides	the	most	benefit	to	public	health.		While	we	understand	this	will	not	impact	the	

implementation	of	this	proposed	pesticide	regulation,	it	could	help	prevent	wasting	precious	

public	and	private	dollars	on	future	strategies	that	hold	less	public	health	benefit	but	must	be	

enacted	to	meet	an	arbitrary	linear	reduction	requirement.		

The	Workgroup	appreciates	the	opportunity	to	comment	on	this	proposed	regulatory	

action.	

Sincerely,	

James	Wells	

President