CALIFORNIA OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

PESTICIDE ELEMENT 

ENCLOSURE 5 

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REGULATIONS 

AND RESPONSES TO SIP COMMENTS 

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND PUBLIC REPORT 

DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION 

Title 3, California Code of Regulations 

Amend Section 6452.2 

Pertaining to Field Fumigant Emission Limits 

UPDATE OF THE INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

The originally proposed regulatory action was noticed in the California Regulatory Notice 

Register on November 28, 2008. 

During the 45-day public comment period, the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) 

received comments on the originally proposed text. The comments are discussed under the 

heading “Summary and Response to Comments Received” of this Final Statement of Reasons. 

An additional document relied upon was added to the rulemaking file. DPR prepared a “Notice of 

Addition of Document to Rulemaking File.” This document was referenced in the Initial 

Statement of Reasons, and DPR determined that it should have been included in the rulemaking 

file. 

DPR has amended section 6452.2 of Title 3, California Code of Regulations (3 CCR). The 

pesticide regulatory program activities that will be affected by the proposal are those pertaining to 

environmental monitoring and pesticide enforcement. In summary, this regulatory action would 

revise the total pesticide (fumigant and nonfumigant) volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions 

benchmarks in the Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley (SJV), South Coast, Southeast Desert, 

and Ventura ozone nonattainment areas (NAAs), and will delay fumigant limits and allowances in 

all ozone NAAs except Ventura until 2011. 

Identification of Any Significant Adverse Environmental Effect That Can Reasonably Be Expected 

to Occur From Implementing the Proposal 

The levels set in the field fumigant regulations as adopted in January 2008, as amended in 

September 2008, have not yet been put into play to force reductions in fumigant emissions. 

Therefore, this “project” will only have an impact on the amount of reductions that may be forced 

in the future. The maximum potential impact on VOC levels in each NAA resulting from the 

proposed amendment is represented by the increase in potentially allowed emissions. The 

significance of that impact can be seen in the context by referring to a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) planning document referenced in the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISR) (now attached 

as a document relied upon for easy reference). In those areas where the upper limit is increased, 

the additional amount of pesticide VOC emissions allowed is such a small percentage of the total 

of projected VOC emissions from all sources that it will have little or no impact on the State’s 

efforts or progress in meeting federal ambient air quality standards. This fact, in addition to other 

considerations as discussed in the ISR and in the response to comments below, outweigh the 

potential adverse impact and support the exercise of DPR’s discretion to proceed with these 

proposed amendments. 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 2 

In the SJV, the amended benchmark could potentially allow an additional 2.1 tons per day (tpd), 

when compared to the emission reduction required by current regulations. As shown by the 

Emission Inventory Output Tables in the Air Resources Board’s (ARB’s) 2007 SIP planning 

documents, this represents only about one-half (0.5) of a percent of the total projected VOC 

emissions in the SJV in 2009 or 2011. The Staff Report on the Department of Pesticide 

Regulation’s Proposed SIP Commitment for the San Joaquin Valley noticed along with these 

proposed regulations, identified that the amended regulation will not prevent the State meeting its 

obligation to reduce total emissions because emission reductions resulting from control measures 

on other VOC sources are slightly greater than necessary to demonstrate attainment (reaching 

planned reductions). 

In the Ventura NAA, the amended yearly benchmarks leading to a final benchmark in 2012 could 

allow 0.4 tpd more emissions. As shown by the Emission Inventory Output Tables in ARB’s 2007 

SIP planning documents, this amount of emissions constitute only about four-fifths (0.8) of a 

percent of the total projected VOC emissions in the Ventura NAA in 2009 or 2011. When the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) approved the SIP amendment allowing the 

reductions in Ventura to be phased in over four years, they noted that its review of the air quality 

analysis in the Ventura County 2007 Air Quality Management Plan showed that the area will 

maintain reasonable further progress toward meeting the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards without the benefit of any VOC emissions reductions from pesticides (Federal Register, 

Vol. 73, No. 139, page 41280, July 18, 2008). 

In the Southeast Desert NAA, the amended benchmark could potentially allow 0.3 tpd more 

emissions. Again, as shown by the Emission Inventory Output Tables in ARB’s 2007 SIP 

planning documents, this represents only about one-third (0.35) of a percent of the total projected 

VOC emissions in the Southeast Desert NAA in 2009 or 2011. Since well over half of the 

pesticide VOC emissions in this area are from two fumigants that have virtually no (methyl 

bromide) or very low (metam sodium) photochemical reactivity that is required for ozone 

formation, the actual emissions that would contribute to ozone formation will be even less than the 

0.3 tpd number would suggest. In addition, the reduction in pesticide emissions resulting from the 

control on fumigant application methods and the new benchmark level will assure that the SIP 

requirement for pesticide emissions reductions are achieved. 

The formation of two secondary sources of Particulate Matter (PM) have the potential to be 

minimally impacted by VOC emissions, the formation of secondary ammonium nitrate, and the 

formation of secondary organic aerosols. ARB’s photochemical air quality modeling used to 

support the development of the SJV’s recently adopted 2008 PM2.5 Plan, indicated that secondary 

ammonium nitrate PM formation in the SJV was driven by emissions of nitrogen oxides and that 

reductions in VOC emissions are not effective in reducing ammonium nitrate concentrations. 

Further, photochemical modeling also showed that the secondary organic component (aerosols) 

contributes less than one-half of one percent to the organic carbon portion of fine PM, or PM2.5. 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 3 

State Implementation Plan 

In November 2007, ARB submitted a new SIP for the SJV that included a pesticide element 

reflecting the 20 percent reduction from 1991 levels that the district court ordered. That 

submission has not yet been approved by U.S. EPA. The State proposed a replacement for the 

pesticide element of that November 2007 submission that is consistent with these regulations. 

Opportunity to comment and hearings on the new pesticide element was provided in conjunction 

with this rulemaking. 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

DPR scheduled and held two public hearings to receive oral comments on the proposed 

regulations. The hearings were held in Bakersfield and Sacramento. Transcripts of the hearings 

and the hearing attendance registers are contained in the rulemaking file.

SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

Comments Received During the 45-Day Public Comment Period 

No. Comment and Response Commentor 

1 Science shows that the VOC regulation is not necessary in Ventura. The 

regulations' effect on ozone is minimal because most of the fumigants used in 

Ventura County have low reactivity, and therefore do not contribute to ozone 

formation. 

Some fumigants such as methyl bromide have low reactivity. However, others 

such as 1,3-dichloropropene have relatively high reactivity and contribute to 

ozone formation. In addition, the regulation is necessary to meet the State’s 

obligation under the SIP to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and 

commercial pesticide use. 

10 

2 The amount of VOCs reduced by the regulations will have no impact on ozone. 

 See response to comment #1. 

10 

3 Ventura has already achieved the 1994 SIP goal--the one-hour standard. 

Ventura is still designated as an ozone NAA because the 8-hour ozone standard 

has not been achieved. 

10 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 4 

4 DPR implies that the 1994 SIP has a phase-down schedule only for Ventura, and 

thus an allocation system is required. The regulation should be applied equitably 

and consistently to all affected areas. There is no need to arbitrarily exempt 

Ventura from the same phase-in that is afforded to the other NAAs. 

DPR has not arbitrarily delayed the fumigant limit and allowance system as a 

back up mechanism in other NAAs while requiring it in Ventura. There are a 

number of factors that are unique to the Ventura NAA. The sources and trends 

of pesticide VOC emissions in Ventura are different than the other NAAs, 

making a fumigant limit and allowances necessary to meet the proposed 

benchmarks specified in section 6452.2. Ventura growers have reduced 

fumigant VOC emissions on a per acre basis over the last several years by 

switching to fumigants and fumigation methods with lower emission rates. Most 

Ventura growers had already adopted “low-emission” fumigation methods prior 

to the implementation of DPR’s VOC regulations in 2008 that require them. 

However, the reductions on a per acre basis resulting from the adoption of 

lower emitting methods in Ventura have been more than offset by an increase in 

total fumigated acreage, particularly strawberry acreage. Fumigated acreage 

could continue to increase without a fumigant limit. At the request of the 

California Strawberry Commission, DPR and the Ventura County Agricultural 

Commissioner have developed a system to revoke and reallocate unused 

fumigant allowances to allow greater fumigated acreage, while still complying 

with the fumigant limit. 

In general, methyl bromide fumigations have higher emissions than the other 

fumigants, and methyl bromide was the dominant fumigant in the Ventura NAA 

during the 1990s. If all growers used a low-emission methyl bromide fumigation 

method, the proposed 2009 Ventura benchmark would be exceeded by 

approximately 100 percent. Most Ventura growers have achieved VOC 

reductions on a per acre basis and complied with the allowances by switching 

from fumigating with methyl bromide using tractor-mounted shanks to 

fumigating with 1,3-dichloropropene and/or chloropicrin using drip 

chemigation at lower application rates. However, the methyl bromide 

alternatives and/or fumigation methods may not be effective in controlling some 

diseases, such as macrophomina crown rot. Some growers may need to increase 

the acreage fumigated with methyl bromide or increase the application rate of 

the alternatives to control some emerging diseases, causing an increase in VOC 

emissions. Therefore, in addition to increases in fumigated acreage, the 

independent decision of individual growers to switch back to methyl bromide 

use could result in emissions over the fumigant limit. 

In contrast, most growers in the SJV and Southeast Desert NAAs had not 

switched to low-emission fumigation methods prior to the adoption of the VOC 

10 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 5 

regulations in 2008. DPR expects VOC emissions in these NAAs to decrease as 

a result of the requirement to use low-emission fumigation methods, specified 

by sections 6447.3, et seq. Moreover, the fumigated acreage in the SJV and 

Southeast Desert NAAs has remained steady over the last several years. As 

described in the ISR, DPR also expects additional VOC reductions from 

nonfumigant pesticides in the SJV. Since nonfumigants account for less than 

about 15 percent of the emissions in Ventura as opposed to approximately 55-60 

percent in the SJV, and only 1.3 percent of the emissions in Ventura are from 

the reformulated nonfumigant that we anticipate will result in reduced 

emissions as opposed to about 13 percent of emissions in the SJV, that factor 

will contribute much more to reducing emissions in the SJV than in Ventura. 

DPR’s emission inventory shows that all three NAAs complied with the 

proposed benchmarks during 2007. For the reasons discussed above, DPR 

expects pesticide VOC emissions in the SJV and Southeast Desert NAAs to 

decrease further even without fumigant limits and allowances, and continue to 

comply with the proposed benchmarks. The expected pesticide VOC emissions 

for the Ventura NAA are less certain. Information available to DPR indicates 

that Ventura emissions could increase relative to 2007, and the fumigant limit 

and allowances are necessary to ensure that the proposed benchmark is 

achieved. 

5 Support the proposed revision of the total pesticide VOC emissions benchmarks in 

the Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Southeast Desert, and 

Ventura NAAs. 

No response necessary. 

8 

6 Support decision to postpone the grower fumigant allowance system in four 

NAAs areas until 2011. 

No response necessary. 

1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 

9, 10,11, 12 

7 Support using the 1990 emissions as a base year to establish benchmarks. 

 No response necessary. 

2, 5, 8, 11, 12 

8 In the event there is an overestimation in requested fumigant treatments, resulting 

in excess emission allowances, it remains unclear as to how DPR plans address 

the unused emission allowances with no identified system for reallocating the 

emissions. 

DPR and the Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner have developed a 

system to revoke and reallocate unused fumigant allowances.

5 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 6 

9 The proposed regulation exempts the Ventura NAA until 2012 from the trigger 

mechanism, which requires a field fumigant VOC emissions limit and an 

allowance system if the projected inventory exceeds 80 percent of the benchmark. 

This exemption would require the imposition of an allowance system in 2009, 

2010 and 2011, even if emissions in Ventura NAA is projected to be well below 

the benchmark. As DPR acknowledges in the ISR, implementation of the 

allowance system is costly in terms of time and resources of state and local 

government. If the allowance system is not necessary to achieve the required 

reductions, it is an unjustifiable expense. For these reasons, a trigger mechanism 

should be in place for the Ventura NAA. 

See response to comment #4. 

5, 6, 9 

10 While the proposed amendment revises inventory benchmarks and timelines for 

fumigants it is notable that DPR signals in the “notice of proposed regulatory action” 

that “measures to reduce non-fumigants in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA should 

be implemented before” the allowance system is triggered. 

No response necessary. 

12 

11 Section 6452.2(b) imposes disproportionate responsibility for the overall pesticide 

VOC emission reduction upon the fumigant pesticide. Nonfumigant pesticide 

VOCs must share their proportionate responsibility for VOC reductions. 

No response necessary. However, reformulation of nonfumigant pesticides to 

reduce VOC content is being pursued through the reevaluation process. While 

DPR proposes to make the benchmarks no more stringent than the SIP goals, 

there are recent product reformulations and DPR’s commitment to take other 

actions that will further reduce pesticide VOC emissions from nonfumigant 

products, particularly in the SJV. See ISR pp. 2-3. 

8 

12 The proposed regulation violates the SIP because the SIP requires a 20 percent 

reduction from 1990 levels by 2005 in the San Joaquin Valley, and DPR proposes 

a mere 12 percent reduction. 

The SIP for the one-hour ozone standard requires a 12 percent reduction in 

pesticide VOC emissions from 1990 levels in the SJV ozone NAA. See 1996 

letter from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp, incorporated by reference in 

the SIP at 40 CFR section 52.220(c)(236)(i)(A)(1), 62 Fed. Reg. 1150, 1170 

(Jan. 8, 1997).

The proposed regulation amends the benchmark in section 6452.2 for the SJV 

NAA to reflect a 12 percent, rather than a 20 percent, reduction of pesticide 

VOC emissions from the 1990 levels. The purpose of this “benchmark” is to 

7, 15, 16, T1s, T-6s, T-7s
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 7 

trigger a scheme that would cap fumigant VOC emissions in the SJV NAA and 

allocate fumigant emissions to growers through permit conditions. This scheme 

is not a practical way to reduce overall pesticide VOC emissions in the SJV 

NAA, where fumigant emissions contribute only about one-third of the total 

pesticide VOC emissions. The purpose of changing the benchmark is to prevent 

unnecessary implementation of the cap and allowance system. See ISR pages 

3-4. DPR believes the restrictions on fumigant application methods will assure 

that benchmark levels are not to be exceeded in the short term. However, the 

provision for triggering the cap and allowance system was retained as a 

contingency measures beginning in 2011 to assure that the 12 percent reduction 

will be maintained. 

There are two more effective and practical methods to reduce pesticide VOC 

emission in the SJV NAA than relying on the fumigant cap and allowance 

scheme: (1) use of lower VOC emitting methods and technologies for applying 

fumigant pesticides, and (2) the reformulation of nonfumigant pesticides to 

lower their VOC content. Lower emitting fumigation methods are already 

required in the SJV NAA by regulation (3 CCR, sections 6447.3 -6451.1). 

Reformulation of nonfumigant pesticides to reduce VOC content is being 

pursued through the reevaluation process. While DPR proposes to make the 

benchmarks no more stringent than the SIP goals, there are recent product 

reformulations and DPR’s commitment to take other actions that will further 

reduce pesticide VOC emissions from nonfumigant products, particularly in the 

SJV. See ISR page. 2-3.

13 Proposed regulation violates the SIP because it delays implementation of fumigant 

emission limits to 2011, instead of maintaining the current 2008 implementation. 

See response to comment #12. 

7, T-3 

14 Proposed regulation violates the SIP because it applies to the May 1 to October 31 

time period, while the SIP requires annual reductions. 

The 1994 ozone SIP does not require annual reductions. See 1996 letter from 

James D. Boyd to David Howekamp, incorporated by reference in the SIP at 40 

CFR section 52.220(c)(236)(i)(A)(1). The SIP requires reduction of VOC 

emissions from pesticides, which are ozone precursors, in the summer. 

Controlling ozone precursor emissions during the summer high ozone months is 

done for other emission sources as well and so is not unique to pesticides. For 

example, section 211 of the Clean Air Act sets specifications for gasoline sold in 

certain ozone NAAs during the summer.

7, 15, T-8s 

15 The San Joaquin Valley needs to be consistent with the rest of the state in 

reducing emissions from VOC-emitting pesticides by at least 20 percent based on 

the 1990 levels, before May 2009. 

See response to comment #12.

Form letters 

(binder 2), 

postcards, 14 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 8 

16 Backsliding to 12 percent violates the EPA-approved SIP and the Clean Air Act. 

See response to comment #12. 

Form, T-1s 

17 It is unfair that the proposed reductions in the San Joaquin Valley to be at 12 

percent instead of the original 20 percent reductions. 

See response to comment #12. 

T-1, T-2, T-4, 

T-2s, T-4s 

18 The SIP requires a reduction by 2005, not 2011. The proposal says wait until 2011 

to apply these regulations. These regulations should have been adopted in 1997. 

The reductions should have been achieved in 2005. 

See response to comment #12. 

T-3, T-3s 

19 Support 20 percent reduction. 

No response necessary. 

T-11, T-12, 

T-13, T-14, 

13, 15 

20 DPR needs to meet 20 percent reduction of VOCs, implement those regulations 

now, and for year-round reductions. 

See response to comment #14. 

T-3, T-3s 

21 In the winter, VOC forms pesticides contributing to fine particulate matter 

pollution, what is known as PM 2.5, and in the summer VOCs from pesticides 

contribute smog. Pesticide use controls are needed all year around and not just 

during the smog season between May and October. The SIP requires year-round 

controlled air pollution. 

The formation of two secondary sources of PM have the potential to be 

minimally impacted by VOC emissions, the formation of secondary ammonium 

nitrat,e and the formation of secondary organic aerosols. ARB’s photochemical 

air quality modeling used to support the development of the SJV's recently 

adopted 2008 PM2.5 Plan, indicated that secondary ammonium nitrate PM 

formation in the SJV was driven by emissions of nitrogen oxides and that 

reductions in VOC emissions are not effective in reducing ammonium nitrate 

concentrations. Further, photochemical modeling also showed that the 

secondary organic component (aerosols) contributes less than one-half of one 

percent to the organic carbon portion of fine PM, or PM2.5. 

T-4 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 9 

22 DPR violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to 

adequately analyze the impacts of the proposed regulations 

DPR has adequately analyzed the impacts of the proposed regulation in the 

public report and in the manner required by its regulations that are certified as 

the functional equivalent of an environmental impact report. The action here is 

the exercise of DPR’s discretion to modify a portion of previously passed 

regulations designed to benefit the environment. The portions of the current 

regulations that DPR proposed to modify have not yet been used to impact the 

environment. DPR precisely quantified the maximum potential decrease in the 

benefit resulting from the proposed modification over the current regulations, 

discussed the impact of that change, explained that there is no alternative that 

would mitigate that impact and accomplish the purpose of the modification, and 

explained why it is nevertheless proposing to make the modifications. 

The environmental concern at the heart of this regulatory action is the emission 

of VOCs from fumigant pesticides that contribute to ground level ozone 

formation and their reduction as required by the federal Clean Air Act. As 

outlined in the ISR, the Clean Air Act requires each state to submit a SIP to 

achieve and maintain the federal ambient air quality standard for ozone in 

areas of the state where it has not been met (NAAs). ARB has the responsibility 

to prepare and submit this plan to assure compliance with federal law (Public 

Resources Code [PRC] section 39602). The state may choose what emission 

reductions will be obtained from commercial and agricultural pesticide users, 

and what emission reductions from other sources in order to achieve the 

standard Train v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U. S. 60 at 79 

(1975), Riverside Cement Co. v. Thomas, 843 F.2d 1246 (9th Cir. 1988). The 

state’s plan includes reductions from pesticides as one component of its overall 

plan to meet the federal standards in each NAA. This action neither contradicts 

the pesticide component of the SIP, nor impacts the ability of the state to reach 

the federal ambient air quality standards for ozone as required under the Clean 

Air Act. 

In January 2008, DPR adopted regulations to meet its SIP obligation to reduce 

VOC emissions from pesticides as those obligations were interpreted and 

ordered by the Federal District Court in El Comité de Earlimart v. Helliker. The 

regulations contained maximum levels of total pesticide emissions for each 

NAA as dictated by the District Court and put restrictions and controls in place 

on fumigant pesticides designed to reach the court mandated levels by 2008.1

 In 

4, T-6 

 

1

 The regulatory action taken January 2008 added sections 6445, 6445.5, 6448, 6448.1, 6449, 6449.1, 6450, 6450.1, 

6450.2, 6451, 6451.1, 6452, 6452.1, 6252.2, 5652.3, 6452.4, 6536; amended 6450, 6450.1, 6450.2, and 6450.3, and 

renumbered to 6447, 6447.1, 6447.2, and 6447.3; and amended sections 6000, 6400, 6450, 6450.1, 6450.2, 6450.3, 

6502, 6624, 6626, and 6784 of Title 3, California Code of Regulations. 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 10 

August 2008, the court order in El Comité de Earlimart v. Helliker was 

overturned. In September 2008, the state proposed and adopted a regulation 

implementing a U.S. EPA-approved amendment to the SIP allowing a phase-in 

of the reductions of pesticide emissions to meet the maximum emission level for 

all pesticides in the Ventura NAA over four years rather than forcing reductions 

down to that level in one year as ordered by the court. 2

The action proposed here is the modification of the current total pesticide 

emissions benchmarks used to trigger a cap and allocate scheme for fumigant 

emissions if necessary to meet the State’s legal obligations under the Clean Air 

Act. Specifically, the CEQA “project” is the amendment of section 6452.2 of 

field fumigant emission reduction regulations adopted in January 2008, as 

amended in September 2008. The field fumigant regulations as a whole were 

designed to reduce and maintain VOC emissions from all pesticides in specific 

areas of the state below specific levels by placing restrictions on field fumigant 

application methods, instituting a cap and allocation system on fumigant 

emissions in Ventura3

, and putting a mechanism in place to restrict fumigant 

emissions in other areas of the state if total emissions in those areas exceed the 

benchmark levels This action proposes no change to application method 

restrictions on fumigants, but only to adjust the benchmark levels to which the 

existing Ventura fumigant cap and allowance system and the back-up fumigant 

cap system in the other areas are keyed. The change in those levels or 

“benchmark,s, as discussed in the ISR, is a precise measure of the maximum 

potential impact of this action on the pesticide program’s contribution to the 

State’s continuing effort to improve air quality and meet ambient air standards 

of ozone. The benchmarks in the current regulations have not yet been used to 

force or maintain emissions in any NAA. 

The regulations, both as currently written and if amended, will force future 

emission reductions from fumigant pesticides by the implementation of a cap 

and allowance process designed to keep total emissions under benchmark levels 

set in the regulations (as written reflecting the overturned court order or if 

amended, as determined by the SIP) for all pesticides (fumigant and 

nonfumigant). The purpose of this amendment is to limit the reductions in 

fumigant emissions now forced by cap and allowance systems in Ventura, and 

potentially triggered in other areas in the years to come, to only those required 

to meet the current SIP requirements for all pesticide emissions. This is 

designed to leave further reductions as required by future SIP amendments to 

be obtained from restrictions on nonfumigant. There is no alternative to 

accomplish this purpose other than this proposed regulatory change to adjust 

 2

 In September 2008, DPR adopted this change to section 6452.4. This amendment allows more emissions than the 

previous regulations for each year until the 2011. 

3

 Ventura is the only NAA where restrictions on fumigant applications methods are not sufficient to reach the 

benchmark level, and allowances are necessary. 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 11 

the total pesticide emissions benchmark levels in the current regulations. DPR 

has an obligation to reduce overall VOC emissions from all pesticides under the 

Clean Air Act, but retains complete discretion to do so in a manner it believes is 

most efficient and responsible provided it meets the obligation. This is discretion 

that was temporarily suspended by a now overturned court order that forced 

greater reductions than the SIP and in a timeframe that forced DPR to target 

only fumigant pesticides. 

The levels set in the field fumigant regulations as adopted in January 2008, as 

amended in September 2008, have not yet been put into play to force reductions 

in fumigant emissions. Therefore, this “project” will only have an impact on the 

amount of reductions that may be forced in the future. The maximum potential 

impact on VOC levels in each NAA resulting from the proposed amendment is 

represented by the increase in potentially allowed emissions. The significance of 

that impact can be seen in the context by referring to a SIP planning document 

referenced in the ISR (now attached as a document relied upon for easy 

reference). In those areas where the upper limit is increased, the additional 

amount of pesticide VOC emissions allowed is such a small percentage of the 

total of projected VOC emissions from all sources that it will have little or no 

impact on the State’s efforts or progress in meeting federal ambient air quality 

standards. This fact, in addition to other considerations as discussed in the ISR, 

outweigh the potential adverse impact and support the exercise of DPR’s 

discretion to proceed with these proposed amendments. 

In the SJV, the amended benchmark could potentially allow an additional 

2.1 tpd, when compared to the emission reduction required by current 

regulations. As shown by the Emission Inventory Output Tables in ARB’s 2007 

SIP planning documents, this represents only about one-half (0.5) of a percent 

of the total projected VOC emissions in the SJV in 2009 or 2011. The Staff 

Report on the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Proposed SIP Commitment 

for the San Joaquin Valley noticed along with these proposed regulations, 

identified that the amended regulation will not prevent the state meeting its 

obligation to reduce total emissions because emission reductions resulting from 

control measures on other VOC sources are slightly greater than necessary to 

demonstrate attainment (reaching planned reductions). 

In the Ventura NAA, the amended yearly benchmarks leading to a final 

benchmark in 2012, could allow 0.4 tpd more emissions. As shown by the 

Emission Inventory Output Tables in ARB’s 2007 SIP planning documents, this 

amount of emissions constitute only about four-fifths (0.8) of a percent of the 

total projected VOC emissions in the Ventura in 2009 or 2011. When U.S. EPA 

approved the SIP amendment allowing the reductions in Ventura to be phased 

in over four years, they noted that its review of the air quality analysis in the 

Ventura County 2007 Air Quality Management Plan showed that the area will 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 12 

maintain reasonable further progress toward meeting the 8-hour National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards without the benefit of any VOC emissions 

reductions from pesticides (Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 139, page 41280, July 

18, 2008). 

In the Southeast Desert, the amended benchmark could potentially allow 0.3 tpd 

more emissions. Again, as shown by the Emission Inventory Output Tables in 

ARB’s 2007 SIP planning documents, this represents only about one-third 

(0.35) of a percent of the total projected VOC emissions in the Southeast Desert 

in 2009 or 2011. Since well over half of the pesticide VOC emissions in this area 

are from two fumigants that have virtually no (methyl bromide) or very low 

(metam sodium) photochemical reactivity that is required for ozone formation, 

the actual emissions that would contribute to ozone formation will be even less 

than the 0.3 tpd number would suggest. In addition, the reduction in pesticide 

emissions resulting from the control on fumigant application methods and the 

new benchmark level will assure that the SIP requirement for pesticide 

emissions reductions are achieved. 

The formation of two secondary sources of PM have the potential to be 

minimally impacted by VOC emissions, the formation of secondary ammonium 

nitrate and the formation of secondary organic aerosol ARB’s photochemical 

air quality modeling used to support the development of the SJV’s recently 

adopted 2008 PM2.5 Plan, indicated that secondary ammonium nitrate PM 

formation in the SJV was driven by emissions of nitrogen oxides and that 

reductions in VOC emissions are not effective in reducing ammonium nitrate 

concentrations. Further, photochemical modeling also showed that the 

secondary organic component (aerosols) contributes less than one-half of one 

percent to the organic carbon portion of fine PM, or PM2.5. 

23 DPR’s statement of overriding considerations is not supported by substantial 

evidence in Ventura and the San Joaquin Valley. 

DPR has provided adequate facts to support its policy decision to proceed with 

these amendments to the field fumigant regulations despite the fact that higher 

fumigant emissions from pesticides may be allowed in the future under the 

proposal. An overarching consideration is that the current benchmark levels 

have not yet been used to force or maintain fumigant emission levels. When the 

proposed benchmarks are used to implement a cap and allowance process, they 

will operate to improve the environmental status quo, not worsen it. Further, the 

change in benchmarks will not impact state’s progress toward meeting federal 

ambient air quality standard for ozone.

4, 7, T-6 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 13 

23 

(cont) 

In addition, DPR has included as a document relied upon an economic analysis 

(October 9, 2008 memo from Fereidun Feizollahi to Linda Irokawa-Otani) 

detailing the calculations that show the potential for reduction of lost profits in 

Ventura resulting from the additional emissions allowed by the amended 

regulations. Potential losses resulting from the current regulations in Ventura 

would be reduced by approximately $7.5 million in 2012 (when the lowest level 

to which the allowances are keyed is reached). Given that the increase in 

pesticide emissions allowed is slight compared to total emissions, and that such 

an increase will have no impact on the state’s ability to reach its planned 

progress to meet federal ambient air quality standards, DPR believes its decision 

to proceed with this action to amend the field fumigant regulations to conform 

the benchmark target to the SIP requirement is a rational exercise of its 

regulatory discretion. 

In SJV, the ISR noted that changing the benchmark to the level required by the 

current SIP would likely mean that allocation of fumigant emissions would not 

be necessary to achieve the regulatory target in the near term, saving DPR and 

the county agricultural commissioner’s approximately $1.08 million to 

administer the allocation system over two years. Further, only about one-third 

of emissions in the SJV are from fumigants pesticides (see Neal memo attached 

as a document relied upon). Forcing an allocation of fumigants emissions alone 

to achieve reductions beyond that currently required by the SIP would create 

the potential for economic disruption in fumigant use, without a corresponding 

impact on nonfumigants pesticides that contribute two-thirds of the pesticide 

emissions. Given that increase in pesticide emissions potentially allowed is such 

a small amount of total VOC emissions in this NAA, and that it will have no 

impact on the State’s ability to reach its planned progress to meet federal 

ambient air quality standards, the more rational and responsible regulatory 

approach is to obtain any further reductions from nonfumigants. On this basis, 

DPR has determined that it is a reasonable exercise of its discretion to proceed 

with the proposed amendment. 

Not only will the benchmark change not impact the state’s plan to reduce ozone, 

the potential of allowing a higher level of fumigant emissions will be 

substantially offset by other facts discussed in the ISR4

. As noted, further 

pesticide emission reductions will likely result from the registration in August 

2008 of the reformulated nonfumigant pesticide chlorpyrifos product, Lorsban 

Advanced. Chlorpyrifos pesticides contributed about 13 percent of pesticide 

emissions in the SJV in 2007 (see Neal to Segawa memo). As described in the 

ISR, the new product could decrease emissions approximately 45 percent per 

 

4

 Commentor confuses evidence of a potential adverse environmental impact with evidence supporting a decision that 

overriding considerations justify proceeding despite that potential environmental impact. An analysis of the economic 

cost of not proceeding is certainly relevant to the latter, as is an assessment of how likely it is that the potential impact 

would materialize, how adverse it would be if it did, and what options will be available in the future to mitigate it. 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 14 

acre due to the difference in VOC content. Also, as discussed in the ISR, other 

programs designed to encourage practices and product reformulation are 

anticipated to reduce emissions from nonfumigants. Finally, DPR has submitted 

a proposed SJV SIP amendment to implement restrictions on nonfumigant 

pesticides to assure VOC reductions by 2014, as noticed and incorporated in this 

rulemaking. It is anticipated that fumigant controls will keep emissions below 

SIP-required levels in the near term, and developing restrictions on 

nonfumigants that are workable and effective requires careful development. 

There are hundreds more nonfumigant VOC-contributing products than 

fumigant products, and the regulatory tool provided by the restricted material 

permit system used in the field fumigant regulations is currently unavailable to 

DPR to control the emissions of the vast majority nonfumigant products. 

24 The ISR does not include a description of the alternative to the activity. 

The current field fumigant regulations are designed to achieve and maintain a 

level of emissions from fumigant pesticides only. The purpose of the “activity” 

(the amendment of the regulations) is to limit the reduction of pesticide VOC 

emissions maintained or forced from fumigant pesticides to those levels 

necessary to comply with the pesticide component of the SIP, leaving any 

further reductions to be obtained from future restrictions on the use of 

nonfumigant pesticides. There is no feasible alternative other than that 

proposed that will accomplish this purpose and the commentor suggests none. 

The commentor only suggests making no change or putting the level somewhere 

between the benchmark imposed by a now vacated court order and that required 

by the SIP. The discussion in the ISR explaining why the amendments are being 

proposed despite the fact that it potentially could allow fumigant emissions at 

higher levels than the current regulations sets forth facts that support DPR’s 

determination that the benefits to changing the benchmarks to the levels 

required by the SIP outweigh the potential adverse environmental impact. 

Setting benchmarks anywhere between the two levels (SIP and court ordered) as 

suggested would diminish the outlined benefits of the proposed change that 

would be outweighed by any increased benefit from pesticide VOC reductions to 

total VOC emissions. 

4, 7, T-6 

25 The ISR does not include a description of mitigation measures to minimize the 

significant adverse effect that the activity will have on the environment. 

As noted in the ISR, there are no feasible mitigation measures. DPR is working 

on further controls of nonfumigant emissions that would mitigate the adverse 

impact it identified. However, as the commentor noted, those controls have not 

been implemented, and are not enforceable, and DPR cannot, and does not, rely 

on them as a “mitigation measure.” See ISR page 10. 

4, 7, T-6 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 15 

It may be helpful to remember that the alternatives and mitigation available are 

more limited in this case than in a typical “project,” such as building a housing 

development, where the purpose of the project and its potential environmental 

impacts are unrelated. In those situations, there may be numerous ways to 

change the project design or how it is implemented to mitigate significant 

adverse impacts that have been identified that will still serve the projects 

purpose. In this instance, the “project” is the modification of a regulation that 

the agency has adopted to implement restrictions on fumigants to reduce the 

adverse environmental impact of their use by entities subject to the agency’s 

regulatory authority. This project involves changing the level of environmental 

benefit to which the agency is keying its environmental regulations based on its 

federal obligation rather than an overturned court order, and doing so as part 

of its CEQA certified regulatory program. The potential adverse impact of the 

project (allowing more pesticide VOC emissions) and the purpose of the project 

(limiting the potential emission VOC reductions required of fumigant pesticides) 

are closely related. 

26 DPR does not qualify for certification under the PRC section 21080.5 and must 

submit an Environmental Impact Report because its regulations do not meet the 

criteria set forth for a certified program under that section. 

The Secretary of the Resources Agency certified DPR’s pesticide regulatory 

program, including the procedure outlined in 3 CCR section 6110, as 

meeting the criteria outlined in PRC section 21080.5 in December 1979. PRC 

section 21080.5 provides “that an action or proceeding to attack, review, set 

aside, void, or annul a determination of the Secretary of the Resources Agency 

to certify a regulatory program pursuant to this section on the basis that the 

regulatory program does not comply with this section shall be commenced 

within 30 days from the date of certification by the secretary.” The commentor’s 

request that DPR be stripped of it certification is not only unsubstantiated, but 

barred by statute. 

Under DPR’s certified pesticide regulatory program, DPR is required to prepare 

a public report when the Director proposes to adopt, amend, or repeal a 

regulation of the regulatory program, and allow 45 days for the public to review 

each proposal, a requirement that essentially dove-tails with the rulemaking 

process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The Secretary of the 

Resources Agency determined that section 6110 satisfies the requirements of 

PRC section 21080.5. Therefore, the section 6110 report is the document DPR is 

to use as a substitute for an environmental impact report or negative 

declaration. In this rulemaking, the public report was combined with the initial 

statement of reasons and the combined document was identified as “Initial 

Statement of Reasons and Public Report.” DPR has met all the requirements of

4, 7 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 16 

3 CCR section 6110 and CEQA. DPR analyzed the potential adverse effects, 

explained that there are no alternatives or measures to mitigate them that would 

still accomplish the objective of the regulation, discussed the relevant facts, and 

decided that overriding concerns justify proceeding with the action. 

27 DPR proposal states that the state will save 1.2 million dollars by not setting limits 

on the use of these fumigants and the usage will decrease naturally. The dollars 

DPR saves do not take into account the human costs to children and the residents 

of our communities who will continue to become ill from the emissions of these 

toxins in our air. 

The purpose of these regulations is to reduce VOC emissions, and resulting 

ozone concentrations, not reduce toxic exposure. Separately from these 

regulations, DPR evaluates and mitigates toxic exposure to pesticides, including 

fumigants. 

T-7 

28 12 and 20 percent pesticide reduction in SJV is not enough. 

See response to comment #12. 

14, T-8, T-9, 

T-10, T-8s 

29 Proposed regulation violates the SIP because the SIP requires reductions by 2005, 

not 2011. 

See response to comment #12.

15, T-3s 

30 Proposed Regulation should account for the possibility that EPA will exempt 

Methyl Bromide or other pesticides from the definition of “VOC.” Commentor 

suggests a provision that would subtract any exempted pesticide and recalculate 

the corresponding emission limits. 

DPR agrees that if methyl bromide and/or MITC were removed from the SIP 

inventory, the benchmarks would no longer be meaningful targets. However, if 

the underlying assumptions made when developing the pesticide measure no 

longer apply, a reevaluation of the existing commitment based on the new 

situation would be appropriate. 

If a change as substantial as removing two significant VOC sources in current 

pesticide VOC emission inventories occurs, the most rational and appropriate 

action would be to revise the SIP pesticide emission reduction commitment and 

amend the regulations based on the new circumstances. While that revision and 

amendment was pending, the fumigant application method restrictions, which 

are the primary emission limits in the proposed SIP, would still control all 

fumigants to the same degree and would still be a federally enforceable SIP 

control measure. 

7, 15, T-3s 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 17 

Commentor’s suggested provision is unwise and inappropriate insofar as it is 

essentially a way to bypass the public process, including review of potential 

adverse environmental effects, and careful consideration of the best currently 

available information which should accompany any future SIP revisions and 

rulemakings.

31 California’s Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code sections 11346 et 

seq., requires government regulations to be “necessary,” that is, to they must be 

“needed to effectuate the purposes of” the statutes that authorize their adoption. 

Government Code section 11349(a). The proposal to cap and allocate field 

fumigants is not needed, and will not effectuate the purposes of the Food and 

Agricultural Code or the CAA, because it will not reduce ozone. The restrictions 

on field fumigants pose a significant threat to agriculture with no corresponding 

benefit to air quality. They should be repealed. 

See response to comment #4. 

10 

State Implementation Plan 

32 Support DPR’s decision to amend the pesticide element of 2007 SIP, pending final 

approval by U.S.EPA, which would reflect a 12 percent reduction that would be 

consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Concurs with DPR’s proposed rule to cap 

VOC fumigant emissions at 18.1 tpd. 

No response necessary. 

3, 6, 9 

33 The proposed SIP revision interferes with attainment of the 1-hour Ozone Standard in 

SJV. 

The proposed amendment does not change the goal of the existing pesticide SIP 

measure in the SJV one-hour ozone SIP – to reduce pesticide reactive organic gas 

emissions by 12 percent from the 1990 levels. The revision implements the existing 

SIP. See Staff Report on the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Proposed SIP 

Commitment for San Joaquin Valley, pages 2 and 4. 

7, 15 

34 The proposed SIP relies on Control Strategies that are not SIP-approved rules. 

To clarify, DPR is proposing to submit 3 CCR sections 6447-6452.1 (low emitting 

fumigation methods) for inclusion in the SIP. In addition, the proposed SIP 

amendment includes a commitment to implement nonfumigant controls and a 

commitment to ensure the SJV inventory of VOC emissions from agricultural and 

7, 15 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 18 

commercial structural pesticide use does not exceed 18.1 tpd. See Department of 

Pesticide Regulation Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley. 

35 Proposed SIP is not enforceable because it leaves the total tonnage at DPR’s 

discretion. 

The estimated emission reductions, under the heading “Estimated Emission 

Reductions,” are an estimate of emission reductions that the measure will provide, 

not a commitment. DPR’s proposed SIP commitment is found under the heading 

“Staff Proposed SIP Commitment.” See Department of Pesticide Regulation 

Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley, page 2. That commitment 

includes a backstop provision to hold the line at 18.1 tpd, regardless of pest 

pressures, cropping patterns, or other factors affecting commercial pesticide use and 

regardless of how many reductions the fumigant or nonfumigant controls have 

already produced. 

7, 15 

36 Controls based on a set baseline introduces the possibility of noncomparable 

calculations. The SIP should confirm that the base year and subsequent years will 

always be compared using the same methodology. 

DPR proposes to use the emissions estimation methodology described in the most 

recent inventory summary (November 5, 2008 memorandum from Neal to Segawa, 

pages 2-4) to establish the pesticide VOC emission levels both in 1990 and 

subsequent years, and to evaluate compliance with the 1994 SIP pesticide element 

for SJV, which was approved in 1997. See Department of Pesticide Regulation 

Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley, page 2. 

Regarding fumigant pesticides, page three of the Neal memorandum specifies that 

“[e]mission ratings for application methods not found on Tables A1-2 through A1-6 

pertaining to the 1990 application methods may be modified based on more recent 

data.” To clarify, emission ratings for application methods that were used in 1990 

may not be modified, absent a SIP revision. Similarly, regarding nonfumigant 

pesticides, DPR will not revise the emission potentials (VOC content) of 

formulations that were used in the base year, absent a SIP revision. This was not 

specifically referenced in the Neal memorandum, but follows from the decision to 

freeze the baseline. 

When the 1994 Pesticide Plan was drafted, DPR had not yet established the baseline 

emissions, which is why it was necessary to express the commitment in terms of a 

percentage reduction. Now DPR has a 1990 inventory that is not likely to need 

further significant or frequent refinement. DPR’s proposed methodology shifts the 

focus away from refining the baseline inventory and limits, and toward gauging 

compliance with the SIP based on real world reductions; reductions in emissions 

that result from the use of new, low VOC formulations and new, low VOC-emitting

7 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 19 

application methods that were not used in 1990. See Staff Report on the Department 

of Pesticide Regulation’s Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley, 

 page 2. 

37 EPA has not approved DPR's fumigant regulations as part of a SIP. DPR does not plan 

on submitting the regulations to EPA to be incorporated as part of the SIP. This is a 

violation of the Clean Air Act. These measure must be included as part of the SIP and 

may not be adopted as a separate rule, which is what DPR is attempting to do with 

these modifications. 

See response to comment #34. 

 

T-5 

38 DPR's decision not to fulfill its legal duty to submit the regulations as part of the SIP is 

that neither the regulations nor the SIP is enforceable. 

See response to comment #34. Also, DPR’s proposed SIP commitment is found 

under the heading “Staff Proposed SIP Commitment.” See Department of Pesticide 

Regulation Proposed SIP Commitment for San Joaquin Valley, page 2. That 

commitment includes a backstop provision to hold the line at 18.1 tpd, regardless of 

pest pressures, cropping patterns, or other factors affecting commercial pesticide use 

and regardless of how many reductions the fumigant or nonfumigant controls have 

already produced. 

T-5 

Comment Received During the 15-Day Public Comment Period (February 12-27, 2009) 

1-B The air quality is not improving and far too many toxic chemicals are used to make 

the air, water, soil healthy, etc. 

No response necessary. 

1B 
Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 20 

ALTERNATIVES DETERMINATION

The Director has determined that no alternative considered by DPR would be more effective in 

carrying out the purpose for which this regulation is proposed, or would be as effective and less 

burdensome to affected private persons or businesses than the proposed regulatory change. 

POSTING REQUIREMENT

Section 6110 of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations states in part that, “The public report 

shall be posted on the official bulletin boards of the Department, and of each commissioner's 

office, and in each District office of the DPR [Division of Pest Management, Environmental 

Protection and Worker Safety] for 45 days.” DPR has posted its Initial Statement of Reasons and 

Public Report on its official bulletin board, which consists of the Department's Internet Home 

Page <http://www.cdpr.ca.gov>. In addition, copies were provided to the offices listed above for 

posting. 
SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

MANDATE ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS

DPR has determined that the proposed regulatory action does not impose a mandate on 

local agencies or school districts requiring reimbursement by the State pursuant to 

Part 7 (commencing with section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because the 

regulatory action does not constitute a "new program or higher level of service of an existing 

program" within the meaning of section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. DPR 

has also determined that no nondiscretionary costs or savings to local agencies or school districts 

will result from this regulatory action. 

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO RESPONSE TO 45-DAY COMMENTS

No. Comment and Response Commentor 

39 Would like 20 or more improvement in the air quality. 

This regulation to reduce VOC pesticide emission in the SJV by 12 percent is 

only a part of state's plan to improve air quality. 

T-9s, T-12s, 

T-13s, T-42 

40 We are asking for 20 percent. 

This regulation to reduce VOC pesticide emission in the SJV by 12 percent is 

only a part of state's plan to improve air quality.

T-10s, T-18, 

T-38 

41 It is unfair that the proposed reductions in the San Joaquin Valley to be at 12 

percent instead of the original 20 percent reductions. 

See response to comment #12.

T-14s, 34 

42 We are not trying to get our agricultural producers away from that dependency. 

No response necessary.

T-11s 

43 Collected over 1,500 postcards from all over the State of California and it says, 

"Clean Air Now." 

No response necessary. 

T-15s 

44 People say that pesticides have such a small part in the VOCs in our air but not 

true. In rural communities like Greyson, we're surrounded by orchards. 

In the SJV, fumigant and nonfumigant pesticides represent only approximately 

five percent of VOC emissions.

T-16s 

45 Air is so contaminated that can't come outside to breathe the air that allergies just 

get worse. Do better regulations to get the air clean. 

This regulation to reduce VOC pesticide emission in the SJV by 12 percent is 

only a part of state's plan to improve air quality.

T-17s, T-39 
Supplement of the Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 2 

46 Pesticides are ruining the environment. We need to have clean air. 

No response necessary.

T-18s, T-30 

47 Problem with contaminated air goes a lot further than the health and the 

environment. It has to do with education. Our children can't go to school if they're 

sick. Clean air now. 

No response necessary.

T-19s 

48 DPR needs to know the anomalies that will or taken place in the past on pesticide 

distributed or disposed. It contaminates the air, and ground, too, which will harm 

waterways. 

No response necessary - irrelevant to the regulation.

T-20s 

49 Pressure the farmers. Fine them very high fines. 

No response necessary - irrelevant to the regulation.

T-21s 

50 Stop delaying ozone SIP and emission in greater SJV containment area. 

See response to comment #12. 

T-22s 

51 The air is contaminated with pesticides. 

This regulation to reduce VOC pesticide emission in the SJV by 12 percent is 

only a part of state's plan to improve air quality. 

T-23s, T-24s 

52 Regulation should force growers to use alternatives instead of fumigants. 

No response necessary - irrelevant to the regulation.

T-25s 

53 Growers do not consider workers and people before applying pesticides. Lack of 

healthcare clinics because they are closing. 

No response necessary - irrelevant to the regulation.

T-26s 

54 DPR is supposed to be regulating pesticides that are being sprayed or used. It has 

failed our community. 

No response necessary.

T-27s 

55 Give us clean air. 

This regulation to reduce VOC pesticide emission in the SJV by 12 percent is 

only a part of state's plan to improve air quality. 

T-15, T-21, 

T-35, T-37, 

T-41 

56 Don’t reduce the rules regarding pesticides because they are harmful. T-16 
Supplement of the Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 3 

This regulation to reduce VOC pesticide emission in the SJV by 12 percent is 

only a part of state's plan to improve air quality.

57 More has to be done. 

This regulation to reduce VOC pesticide emission in the SJV by 12 percent is 

only a part of state's plan to improve air quality. 

T-17 

58 Stick to your proposal and quit backsliding. 

See response to comment #12.

T-19 

59 DPR made commitments and needs to be responsible for those commitments and 

clean up the valley air. 

See response to comment #12.

T-20 

60 Comply with your promise. 

See response to comment #12.

T-22, T-24, 

T-33 

61 Can't play with my friends because I have asthma. 

No response necessary.

T-23 

62 We need sustainability in farming. We need to use less pesticides. 

No response necessary - irrelevant to the regulation.

T-25 

63 Hold DPR responsible for the health of my grandson. 

No response necessary.

T-26 

64 Stop being impartial and stop protecting the agencies and companies that make 

the pesticides. 

No response necessary.

T-27 

65 We're asking to stop the illness. 

No response necessary. 

T-28 

66 Pesticides are doing a lot of harm to the people. 

No response necessary.

T-29 

67 Poem about peace and respect. 

No response necessary.

T-31 

68 Implement another alternatives for trees, or pesticides to the trees. T-32 
Supplement of the Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 4 

No response necessary.

69 Implement stronger regulations, not 12 percent. 

See response to comment #12. 

T-34 

70 Time to take a first look out for human beings. 

No response necessary.

T-36 

71 Protect the children. 

No response necessary.

T-40 

72 It is unacceptable for the U.S. Government and oil companies to continue to fuel 

global warming while refusing to support solutions to the problems. Make energy 

conservation a top priority. 

No response necessary - irrelevant to the regulation.

17 

73 Stringent regulations are required, and then a complete ban. 

No response necessary.

18 

74 Oppose to the backpedaling and urge DRP to adopt strong regulations to reduce 

the use of smog-forming pesticides and protect people's health. 

See response to comment #12. 

19, 30, 34 

75 Draft regulations are in conflict with the DPR's promise to reduce smog-forming 

pesticides in the five air basins across the state-especially in the SJV. 

See response to comment #12.

20, 32 

76 Fully comply with the Clean Air Act, without reducing the amounts of smogforming pesticides allowed to be use in the State. 

See response to comment #12.

21 

77 Take real steps in reducing the use of all fumigant and non-fumigant VOCemitting pesticides in agriculture. 

No response necessary.

22 

78 Regulations for pesticides and pesticide-induced smog must be strengthened and 

enforced for all California valley areas. 

See response to comment #12. 

23 

79 Regulations need to accomplish reductions in VOC pollution from pesticides in 24 
Supplement of the Final Statement of Reasons 

Page 5 

order to protect the health of residents in the Central Valley. 

See response to comment #12.

80 Stop using pesticides across California especially in SJV. 

No response necessary.

25 

81 We need strong regulations to prevent further public health tragedies. 

No response necessary.

26 

82 Do not lessen the goal of reducing pollution produced by pesticide use. 

No response necessary.

27 

83 Stop using pesticides and look at healthy alternatives. 

No response necessary.

28 

84 I drive through the valley, the air is worse. It must be controlled. 

No response necessary.

29 

85 Cut down on pesticides and smog. 

No response necessary. 

31 

86 The air we breathe always smells bad. My entire family suffers from allergies and 

asthma. 

No response necessary.

33 

87 In 2006, DPR was given two years, by the Feds, to enforce the reduction of VOC 

emissions and they didn’t. 

See response to comment #12. 

37 

88 Regulations do not address toxic exposure to fumigants. 

No response necessary. 

36 

89 VOCs do not go far enough to protect the health of Valley residents. Seek more 

reductions as soon as possible. 

This regulation to reduce VOC pesticide emission in the SJV by 12 percent is 

only a part of state's plan to improve air quality.

37