May 30, 2012

TO: Linda Irokawa-Otani, Regulations Coordinator Department of Pesticide Regulation 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 4015 Sacramento, California 95812-4015

RE: Proposed Non-Fumigant VOC Regulations

Dear Ms. Irokawa-Otani:

I am writing in response to your proposed VOC regulations for Non-Fumigant products. As a retailer located in the Central Valley of California, I find m any problems with your proposal but I want to, first,

focus on an article titled “ Error in pesticide report impacts SJV” by Randy Segawa, Environmental Program Manager, DPR published on line in Farm Press Magazi ne on May 21, 2012 3:48pm (Exhibit “A” attached).

It would appear from this article that DPR left the tabula tion of the original numbers to rank armatures. It is obvious from the fact that numbers were only questione d by DPR senior staffers after the initial publication of the report; probably when “industry” bega n questioning the most blatant of errors. However, DPR must question the validity of the entire report at thi s point ... from the formulas used in calculating the VOC levels to the way growers were allocated to differe nt ozone nonattainment areas. This mater is just too costly for agriculture to implement without the bas e assurance that the people deciphering the data actually knew what they were doing. I suggest DPR hire a disinterested, third party accounting firm to audit the numbers, formulas and processes DPR used in its original interpretation of PUR data to assure the entire integrity of the VOC numbers in the report; not jus t the most blatant mistakes.

Secondly, GoalTender and other low VOC oxyfluorfen formulations ar e NOT viable substitutes for Goal 2XL and other EC oxyfluorfen products. My company has o ver 20 years experience working with Goal 2XL and over 10 years working with GoalTender. When it com es to post emergence weed control, GoalTender is not a substitute. Our experience in the f ield and orchard is that Goal 2XL is the only

formulation that controls hard to control weeds like mal va, and helps with glyphosate resistant weed

management.

I have reviewed your list of “kickers” and their cost a s it pertains to making GoalTender an effective post emergence product. Reliable data does not exist that suppor ts your position that these “kickers” are the answer to using GoalTender in place of Goal 2XL. Glyphosat e is not an effective tank mix partner due to the fact that glyphosate is already the foundation of the spray mix. Adding a pint of glyphosate will do nothing for resistant weeds and hard to control weeds. Paraquat is a Restricted Use Pesticide due to acute toxicity. Human toxicity and worker exposure concerns make paraquat an extremely poor choice. The most likely “kickers” to be added to GoalTender are Rely a nd Treevix. Rely costs $46/acre and is in short supply in 2012. Treevix costs $16/acre and the label recommen ds the addition of Goal to broaden the spectrum. The label also recommends an “adjuvant system” for post emergent weed control. This “system” includes methylated seed oil (MSO) plus Ammonium S ulfate (AMS). With the additional costs of the adjuvant system, our growers cannot afford to add $20 to $50 per acre to their weed control

programs.



## 8246 South Crawford Ave • Reedley, California 93654 Web Address: gtipros.com OFF: (559) 638-6311 FAX: (559) 638

- 6314 

# TOOTELIAN

Crop Protection Ideas & Products that Save
Growers M oney

... S ince 1949

Inc

.Lastly, please allow me to comment on the administrati ve burden that these regulations push upon our

business and our people. Providing written information on the VOC regulations, tracking the intended use period, providing written recommendations and maintaining r ecords for two years adds costs to our business. We will in turn be forced to pass these cost s on to our grower customers. This is addition to the $20 to $50 per acre calculated above.

We need Goal 2XL in our summer post emergent weed control pr ograms. Its elimination will result in significant cost increases and decreased weed control in orchards and vineyards. This decreased weed control could even result in additional trips across the f ield with a tractor and sprayer. Have you considered the effect of additional VOC and air quality issues from the added spray trips?

We respectfully request that you find a way to keep Goal 2XL and other EC formulations available during the post emergent market months of May through October.

Sincerely,



## Greg Musson

Greg Musson - PresidentEXHIBIT “A”



# Error in pesticide report impacts SJV

Randy Segawa, Environmental Program Manager, DPR May 21, 2012 3:48pm



### In March 2012, the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released its annual report on volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from pesticides. This report included information on VOC emissions based on 1990-2010 pesticide use data fo r five ozone nonattainment areas (NAAs) in California. The pesticide VOC emissions were compared to the goals described in the ozone state implementation plan (SIP) . Since the report’s release, DPR found an error that primarily affects the pesticide VOC emissions for the San Joaquin Valley

NAA in 2010.

What error was found that requires a correction to the report?

With the assistance of the Department of Food and Agricu lture, DPR found an error in the pesticide use report data and VOC emissions for a single product containing bifenthrin. The error was in the data for Fanfare 2EC (registration n umber 66222-99-AA), first registered in
California in 2006. This error caused overestimates in t he use and VOC emissions for Fanfare. For this product, the pesticide use reports reco rd the amount of pesticide applied as gallons of product. There was an error was in DPR's data processing which converted the gallons applied to pounds applied based on the product density. For Fanfare, the product density was incorrectly assigned as 67.739 pounds pe r gallon.

The correct product density is 8.13 pounds per gallon. Th e amount of product and active ingredient of Fanfare applied was 8.33x (67.739/8.13) too high.

How does this correction impact the VOC emissions e stimates in the San Joaquin Valley?

For the San Joaquin Valley NAA during May-October 201 0, DPR originally estimated that the VOC emissions from all bifenthrin products were 1.55 ton s/day (#2 pesticide VOC contributor). DPR now estimates that the VOC emissions f rom bifenthrin products were 0.24 tons/day. Bifenthrin products are no longer among the t op 10 pesticide VOC contributors for the San Joaquin Valley. Total pesticide VOC emissions chang ed from 16.8 tons/day to 15.5 tons/day. Relative to the 1990 base year, total pesticid e VOC emissions for 2010 changed from an 18% reduction to a 24% reduction. The goal in the pesticide element of the SIP is at least a 12% reduction from 1990, equivalent to emissio ns no greater than 18.1 tons/day. There are also changes for other years and other NAAs tr acked by DPR, but use of Fanfare was much lower in other years and NAAs, so the difference s are minor. Similar relative changes apply to the amount of bifenthrin active ingre dient reported.

What steps is DPR taking to address this error?

DPR is revising its most recent VOC emission inventory re port to correct the error for all years and all NAAs. DPR will also upload the corrected p esticide use report data to its California Pesticide Information Portal website, and o ther databases. DPR should complete the revised report in a few weeks, and complete the dat a uploads in a few days. This change will cause no revisions to DPR’s proposed regulations for VOC emissions from nonfumigant pesticides.