1 

### California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation

Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Pesticides: Analysis of Alternatives for Nonfumigant Pesticide Products

October 15 , 2014



## Summary

California’s ozone s tate i mplementation p lan ( SIP) for the federal Clean Air Act contains a n element that requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to: (1) develop and

maintain an emission s inventory to track volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from pesticides, and (2) reduce pesticide VOC emissions by specified amounts in five ozone nonattainment areas (NAA s )

. To estimate VOC emission s , DPR multiples the fraction of a pesticide produc t estimated to be a VOC by the amount of that product applied. The calculation is adjusted for fumigants to account for how emissions vary depending on fumigation method used , based on monitoring data.

Two NAAs ( Sacramento Metro and South Coast ) have ach ieved their pesticide SIP goals for

many years , and no further reduction measures are needed , although they are still subject to reporting and other requirements

. For the other three NAAs, DPR considered seven different measures for reducing pesticide VOC emissions, and selected three for implementation: using alternative application methods, reducing fumigant usage, and reformulating certain pesticide products. Other measures that would reduce pesticide VOC emissions are infeasible

and not needed at this t ime to achieve the SIP goals

.

For two NAAs ( Southeast Desert and Ventura )

, DPR adopted a series of regulations for fumigants beginning in 2008 that require low

- emission fumigation methods. The regu lations also set up a fumigant emission limit that is tri ggered if low

- emission fumigation methods do not result in targeted reductions. The fumigant emission limit is currently in effect for the

Ventura NAA.

The low

- emission fumigation method s required in the 2008 regulations also apply to the fifth
NAA, San Joaquin Valley. However, nonfumigant pesticide products contribute more VOC emissions than fumigants in this NAA

. Therefore, DPR evaluated possible regulatory actions

to require reformulate d nonfumigant products, including label changes, regulations, a nd conditions for restricted materials permits. Based on th is evaluation

, DPR adopted regulations for nonfumigant products in 2013. The nonfumigant regulations designate certain products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen as high

- VOC products . San Joaquin Valley g rowers must obtain a recommendation from a pest control adviser prior to certain uses of these high

- VOC products , and p est control advisers are required to recommend low

- VOC products when feasible. As a backup measure , t he regulations prohibit certain uses of high

- VOC products in the San Joaquin Valley if pesticide VOC emissions exceed a trigger level

. The fumigant and nonfumigant regulations will keep

all five NAAs in compliance with the VOC reductions required by the SIP.2 

## Table of Contents

Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1

Table of Contents

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 2

Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 3 1. Regulatory Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3 2. Pesticide VOC Emissions Inventory

................................ ................................ ..................... 6 3. Overview of Final Nonfumigant VOC Regulations

................................ ........................... 10 4. Options Considered for Reducing Pesticide VOC Emissions

................................ ............ 11 5. Nonfumigant Alternatives Analysis: Selecting Products and Uses

................................ .... 15 6. Nonfumigant Alternatives Analysis: Regulatory Scope and Approach

............................. 17 7. Nonfumigant Alternatives Analysis: Estimated VOC Redu ctions

................................ ..... 22 8. Nonfumigant Alternatives Analysis: Enforcing VOC Restrictions

................................ .... 24 9. Nonfumigant Alternatives Analysis: Estimated Effects, Risks, and Costs

......................... 30 10. Nonfumigant Alternatives Analysis: Additional Areas for Research

............................... 32

11. Process to Evaluate the Need for Additional Restrictions

................................ ................ 32 12. Conclusions and Justification for Final Nonfumigant VOC Regulations

......................... 33

Tables

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 40 Figures

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 59

Appendix 1: University of California’s Emulsifiable Concentrate Alternatives Analysis

Appendix 2: Air Resources Board’s Economic Analysi s of Proposed Regulations and

Amendments to Reduce VOC Emissions

Appendix 3: Estimated Number of Pesticide Applications for Major Crops that Will Switch from High

- VOC Products to Low

- VOC Products3 

## Introduction

T he purpose of this paper is to present and analyze various alternatives to current practices and uses of nonfumigant pesticide products in order to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. In the first section, t his document summarizes the Departm ent of Pesticide’s (DPR) general authority to regulate the sale and use of pesticides. It also outlines DPR’s authority and obligation to regulate VOCs, as part of the state implementation plan (SIP) for the Clean Air Act, including regulations to reduce V OC e missions from both fumigant and nonfumigant pesticide products.

Section 2 of this document describe s DPR’s p esticide VOC emissions inventory, an essential part of DPR’s program to reduce VOC emissions . It describes how DPR estimates VOC

emissions fro m products in this inventory

, describes emissions trends, and determines compliance with SIP obligations

.

Section 3 of this document gives an overview of recently adopted nonfumigant VOC regulations, while the fourth section presents options DPR consider ed for reducing VOC emissions from pesticides and discusses whether these options are feasible.

S ections 4

– 10 analyze alternatives for reducing VOC emissions from nonfumigant products, includ ing the following areas: selec ting products and uses; regulat o ry scope and approach; estimated VOC reduction; enforcing VOC restrictions; estimated effects, risks, and costs; and areas where additional research and product development are needed.

S ection s 11

– 12 present DPR’s method for determining if additional r estrictions are needed,

and conclusions and justification for the final nonfumigant regulations. This paper will assist the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with its review of the nonfumigant regulations.



## 1. Regulatory Background

DPR has broad authority to regulate sales and use of pesticides under various federal

and state laws.

DPR regulates pesticide sales through its registration process. Similar to the U.S. EPA’s process, pesticide manufacturers and formulators (registrants) must submit and DPR must evaluate studies on toxicity, environmental effects, chemistry, and other pesticide characteristics. DPR registers a pesticide product ( i.e., approves it for sale) if the studies

submitted are acceptable and use is not anticipated to result in unacceptable risk to human

health or the environment

. Once registered, DPR can request , through its reevaluation process specified in state law, that the registrant to provide additional studies and to take specified actions

.

Application or u se of pesticides is regulated at several levels. All pesticide products must

have a U.S. EPA

- approved label that describes the maximum application rate, methods of application , crops that can be treated, safety precautions, and other requirements. Labels are4 enforceable documents ; making pesticide applications contrary to label directions is a

violation of both state and federal law. DPR also develops and implements state regulations

that can be more restrictive than the requirements on the label. Under s tate law, c ounty agri cultural commissioners can also impose additional use requirements through the permitting process required for certain pesticides (restricted materials)

, based on an

evaluation of local conditions. Growers and applicators are required to follow the most stringent use requirements, whether specified by labels, state regulations, or county permit conditions. County agricultural commissioners are responsible for enforcing a ll pesticide use requirements, under DPR oversight.

DPR has used its authority to regulate VOC emissions from pesticides , as required by

the SIP

.

VOCs and nitrogen oxides react with sunlight in the atmosphere to create ground

- level

ozone, which is harmful to human health and vegetation when present at hig h enough

concentrations. Under the federal Clean Air Act, California must meet national standards for airborne pollutants , including ozone, and must specify how it will achieve these goals in a federally approved SIP. California’s SIP contains a pesticide element (DPR’s VOC program)

that requires DPR to develop and maintain an emission s inventory to track pesticide VOC

emissions

, an d to reduce emissions by 20 % from the 1990 base year in four ozone nonattainment areas (NAA s )

— Sacramento Metro, South Coast, So utheast Desert, and

Ventura

, and by 12 % in a fifth NAA

— San Joaquin Valley

. These five NAAs are defined as areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone as designated in

the Clean Air Act. The SIP specifies that DPR is responsible for tracking and reducing pesticide VOC emissions from agricultural use and commercial structural use ( i.e., applications by structural pest control businesses), while the Air Resources Board (ARB) is responsible for VOC emissions due to home u se of pesticides as part of their consumer products program.

DPR maintains an annual emissions inventory , which tracks pesticide VOC emissions, based on the amount of pesticide products applied (from pesticide use reports) and the VOC content (emission po tential) of pesticide products. Most pesticide VOC emissions are from fumigants and products formulated as emulsifiable concentrates. Fumigants are gaseous pesticides, applied in relatively high amounts. Emulsifiable concentrates (nonfumigants) contain

sol vents that keep pesticides in liquid form to make mixing and applying the product easier.

To DPR’s knowledge, no other state requires measures to reduce VOC emissions from pesticides , and if one did these measures would likely be different from DPR’s mea sures due to California’s unique pesticide use permit program

. DPR’s VOC program is a hybrid air pollution and pesticide regulatory program. Hence, it shares some features with other air pollution and pesticide programs, but differs in several respects , wh ich are listed below

. (1) Pesticides are considered area sources of air pollution , as opposed to mobile sources (e.g., motor vehicles) or stationary sources ( e.g., oil wells). (2) Additionally, pesticides are intentionally introduced into the environment to control harmful pests, as opposed to waste discharges (e.g., smokestacks ).5 (3) Most pesticide regulatory programs focus on potential toxic effects from the active ingredients in pesticide products. In contrast, DPR’s VOC program does not consider toxic effects, but does consider both active and inert ingredients in pesticide products, and generally classifies the products as fumigants or no nfumigants. Fumigant pesticide products u sually contain 95 % or more active ingredients (some

contain a small percent age of a warning agent or emulsifier ) , and the active ingredients are gases under normal environmental conditions. Nonfumigant pesticide products are liquids or solids contain ing both active and inert ingredients and many

such products include VOC solvents as inert ingredients, particularly products

formulated as emulsifiable concentrates.

In October 201 2 , U.S. EPA approved DPR ’s amendments to the pesticide SIP element for the

Sa n Joaquin Valley NAA. DPR commit ted to manag ing pesticide VOC emissions so they do

not exceed 18.1 tons / day in the San Joaquin Valley NAA

. The 18.1 tons/day limit is equivalent to a 12 % reduction from the 1990 base year, and “freezes” DPR’s emissions

estim ation methodology and pesticide emissions for 1990. That is, DPR’s VOC emissions estimate for the 1990 base year can only be changed with a SIP amendment. The SIP amendment also require s DPR to reduce VOC emissions by implementing restrictions on fumigant as well as nonfumigant pesticide products. DPR fulfilled these requirements by implementing several sets of regulations. The following web page contains the complete pesticide SIP and supporting documents:

< http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/voc_state_imp_plan.htm >.

Between January 2008 and May 2011, DPR adopted a series of regulations to reduce

VOC emissions from f umigant pesticides.

Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (3 CCR), s ection 6452.2

, includes specific emission target levels ( or VOC regulation benchmarks) for each of the five NAAs, equivalent to the SIP obligation of a 12 % or 20 % reduction. The regulations reduce VOC emissions by requiring low

- emission fumigation methods in certain NAAs

, such as post

- fumigation water

treatments, tarping, or application through drip irrigation systems. I f use of these required application method s do es not maintain pesticide VOC emissions below specified trigger levels, then DPR regulations achieve the benchmark by establishing a fumigant emission

limit. The fumigant limit is determined by subtracting the estimated nonfumigant emissions from the regulatory benchmark, basing the nonfumigant emissions estimate on VOC

emission s inventory data from previous years. DPR and county agricultural commissioners have several options for enforcing a fumigant limit. The following web page c ontains all of the fumigant VOC regulations and supporting documents:

< http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/reg_actions.htm >.

In May 2013, DPR completed the rulemaking process to reduce VOC emissions from nonfumigant products used in the San Joaquin Valley.

Effective in November 2013, these regulations prohibit use of high

- VOC nonfumigant products on certain crops in the San Joaquin Valley during May 1 through October 31 if a VOC trigger level is exceeded. Also, when purchasing or using high

- VOC products, the6 regulations require a written recommendation from a licensed pest control adviser and require pest control dealers to provide VOC information to the purchaser. To assist U.S. EPA

with its review of these regulati ons , t his document contains detailed information on DPR’s

evaluation of nonfumigant products , and information on other potential p esticide VOC

reduction measures. The following web page contains the nonfumig ant VOC regulations and supporting documents:

< http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/reduce_nonfumigant.htm >.



## 2. Pesticide VOC Emissions Inventory

DPR maintains a pesticide emission s inventory for May

- October to track VOCs and determine compliance with the SIP reduction goals.

DPR’s emission s inventory and regulations are based on the peak ozone

- forming season of May 1 through October 31 because they implement th e pesticide element of the 1

- hour ozone

SIP. That SIP is based on seasonal inventories. Under that SIP, as approved by U.S. EPA, VOC reductions are, and always have been, measured over the 6

- month ozone season. Likewise the VOC reduction goals of the pesti cide element of that SIP apply, and always have been applied to that time period. The VOC reduction measures of the 1

- hour ozone SIP are seasonal so that the reductions needed during the peak ozone season are required.

VOC emissions from pesticide produc ts are estimated based on the fraction of a pesticide product estimated to be a VOC (its “emission potential”) and the amount of that product applied , and an adjustment for fumigation methods

.

DPR prepares an annual estimate of VOC emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticide applications. DPR maintains a n emission s inventory for each year since 1990, the base year
, and it includes p esticide applications in five NAAs

— Sac rament o Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Southeast Desert, and Ventura (Figure 1) . Only agricultural and commercial structural pesticide applications are included. ARB tracks emissions from pesticides in consumer products. DPR uses data on VOC content and pesticide use to estimate emissions from reported applications in each NAA. The inventory focuses on May 1 through October 31, the peak ozone season in California.

To estimate the VOC emissions contributed by individual agricultural and structural use pesticides, DPR multiples the fraction (by weight) of a pesticide product estimated to be due

to VOCs (its “emission potential”) by the amount of that product applied , as shown in Equation [1]

.

Estimated VOC em issions = (Emission potential of the product) X (Pounds of pesticide [1] product applied)

Pesticide use reports provide the amount of product used. California requires full reporting of all agricultural pesticide use and the use of pesticides by pest cont rol businesses. The reports document the product applied, the amount applied, date applied, location (within a one square mile section), crop treated, number of acres treated, and other information.7 DPR uses several methods to determine the emission potential. The preferred way is through laboratory analysis, using a standardized method approved by DPR (thermogravimetric analysis). When it is not available, DPR uses other approaches to decide emission potenti als

, listed below.

• Us e the VOC emission potential already measured in thermogravimetric analysis of an identical or nearly identical pesticide product.

• Us e the confidential statement of formula on file with DPR to find out the percent age of water and othe r inorganic chemicals in the product. This percentage is subtracted and the remainder is assumed to produce emissions that must be included in the inventory.

• Assign an estimated value based on an evaluation of a product’s unique chemistry and composition. DPR takes this approach for high

- use products with well

- known chemical properties.

• Assign a default emission potential at a representative level, based on measured data that reflect the behavior of similarly formulated products (Table 1)

.

Because DPR h as monitoring data, the calculation is adjusted for fumigants to account for how emissions vary depending on the fumigation method (Application Method Adjustment

Factor [ AMAF ] or emission rating) used

. AMAFs have been determined from field study

data and a re active ingredient and appl ication method specific

. Since the AMAFs are based on field measured data for specific application methods and fumigants, they yield more refined estimates of fumigant VOC emissions than the previous unadjusted emission

estimat es (Eq. [1])

.

Estimated fumigant VOC emission s = Pounds of product used x EP x AMAF [2]

Nonfumigant product emissions are not currently adjusted for application method or other field factors due to a lack of data to support such adjustments.

Usually there are several different types of application methods used for a particular fumigant in any particular NAA. Each application method used (e.g.

, drip, sprinkler, shank,

or tarp) represents a fraction of the total number of methods used and is ref erred to as the

m ethod u se f raction. The sum of all method use fractions for any particular (NAA/fumigant)

combination equals one. Use practices change over time so that different method use

fractions are used for the base year (1990) as opposed to more re cent inventory years. For 1990, 2005, 2006, and 2007, method use fractions were determined in a number of different ways. For 1,3

- dichloropropene the method use fractions are determined from use data collected by the registrant in support of DPR’s township application caps; for metam sodium and metam potassium grower/applicator surveys were conducted to determine types of applications for different crops and areas. Methyl bromide and chloropicrin method use

fractions are based on expert opinion and regulato ry history. Finally, method use fractions for

dazomet and sodium tetrathiocarbonate each equal one because the AMAF s for each of these two fumigants are constant, independent of application method. DPR ’s memorandum from Barry, Spurlock and Segawa to Sander s, dated September 29, 2007 contains a detailed8 discussion of ho w method use fractions and AMAFs were determined

. < http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/ehapreps/analysis_memos/1955_sanders.pdf >

The 2008 fumigant VOC regulations included a change to pesticide use reports (3 CCR sections 6624 and 6626) that requires recording the specific application method for each

fu migation within an NAA. The method use fractions for 2008 and later years are calculated using the fumigation method documented in pesticide use reports rather than using the surrogate data described above. Some pesticide use reports for 2008 and later yea rs are missing the identification of the application method. In these cases, DPR assumed that the application method with the highest AMAF allowed by the regulations for that fumigant was

used. See the following web page for more details on the methodology to calculate pesticide

VOC emissions: < http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/voc_method_est.htm >.

Pesticide VOC emissions have met the SIP goals for the last five ye ars in all NAAs , with one exception

.

The 2008 fumigant VOC regulations (3 CCR section 6452.4) require DPR to publish its

emission s inventory annually. The annual reports are available at:

< http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/voc_data_analysis.htm >. The most recent

data are for 201 2 ; Figure 2 shows the pesticide VOC emissions re lative to the SIP goals for

2012 and earlier years. The 201 2 pesticide VOC emissions for all five NAAs complied with the SIP goals , except for Ventura and ranged from 19 to 59 % less than emissions in the 1990 base year. The following highli ghts some other results for 2012

.

• Sacramento Metro NAA: VOC emissions have i ncreased steadily since 2008, by less than 8 percent in each year until 2012, where emissions rose from 1.004 tons per day in 2011 to 1.311 tons per day in 2012, an increase of 30 percent. Pesticide VOC emissions in 2012 were 53 percent lower than the 1990 base year and remain well in compliance with the SIP goal and the VOC regulation benchmark. In 2012, 94 percent of emissions were derived from nonfumigants.

• San Joaquin Valley NAA: VOC emissions decreased between 2011 and 2012, from 16.376 tons per day to 15.899 tons per day. Pesticide VOC emissions in 2012 were 23 percent lower than the 1990 base year and comply with the SIP goal and VOC regulation benchmark. Approximately three quarters of pesticide emissions are derived from nonfumigants, consistent wit h values observed since 2007.

• Southeast Desert NAA: VOC emissions increased slightly from 0.215 tons per day in 2011 to 0.470 tons per day in 2012, close to levels observed in 2010 (0.460 tons per day). Emissions in 2012 were 59 percent lower than the 1990 base year and continue to comply with the SIP goal and VOC regulation benchmark. Increased emissions from fumigants

accounted for about over one

- half of the total.

• Ventura NAA: The SIP goal and VOC regulation benchmark has been phased in over several year s for this NAA. VOC emissions increased by 2 percent in 2011 to 3.063 tpd, which is 0.063 tpd above the SIP goal for 2012. Pesticide VOC emissions in 2012 were 19 percent lower than the 1990 base year. Eighty

- eight percent (88%) of emissions are

derived fr om fumigants. Ventura exceeded its SIP goal due to an error in the DPR system the county agricultural commissioner uses to track fumigant emissions, allowing9 fumigant emissions to inadvertently exceed the specified limit. This error has been

corrected.

• Sou th Coast NAA: VOC emissions, which had decreased in 2011 by more than 35 percent compared to 2010, rose to 1.387 tons per day in 2012, and continue to remain well below the emission targets. Pesticide VOC emissions in 2012 were 87 percent lower

than the 19 90 base year. More than 70 percent of emissions are derived from nonfumigants.

The emission s inventory indicates that DPR will consistently achieve the SIP reduction goals for four of the five ozone NAAs due to the 2008 fumigant regulations.

As shown in Figure 2a

– e, most pesticide VOC emissions are from fumigants and products formulated as emulsifiable concentrates. Fumigants are volatile pesticides, applied in relatively high amounts. Emulsifiable concentrates often contain volatile solvent s that keep pesticides in liquid form, so that mixing and applying the product are easier. Figure 2a

– e also shows that the Sacramento Metro and South Coast NAAs have consistently achieved the SIP goal of a 20% reduction from the 1990 base year. Prior to 2008, the S an Joaquin Valley

, Southeast Desert, and Ventura NAAs did not always meet the final SIP reduction goals.

The VOC reductions in the San Joaquin Valley , Southeast Desert, and Ventura NAAs beginning in 2008 were primarily due to regulations DPR im plemented that year for fumigants. The regulations require “low

- emission” fumigation methods in those three NAAs during the May

- October peak ozone season. The low

- emission methods reduce the May

October fumigant VOC emissions by approximately one

- third, an d some users shifted applications outside the May

- October ozone season, contributing additional reductions (Tables 2 and 3). The regulations also establish a fumigant emission limit as a backup

measure because the low

- emission methods may be insufficient t o achieve the SIP reduction goal. The fumigant emission limit is triggered for the upcoming year if the annual report

shows that the emission s inventory exceeds 95% of the SIP goal for fumigants

. DPR and

c ounty agricultural commissioner s enforce the fumiga nt limit through an emissions allowance program or other means. A fumigant emission limit is currently in effect for the

Ventura NAA. Since fumigants contribute the majority of the pesticide VOC emissions in the

Southeast Desert and Ventura NAA s , the fumig ant limit backup measure will keep th ese NAA s in compliance with the SIP reduction goal s

. Although unlikely to be needed, the fumigant limit is also the backup measure for the Sacramento Metro and South Coast NAAs.

The emission s inventory indicates that D PR ’s fumigant regulations may not result in

VOC emissions consistently below the SIP reduction goal for the S an Joaquin Valley NAA due to nonfumigant VOC emissions.

A fumigant limit program is a less efficient reduction measure for the San Joaquin Valley because a majority of its pesticide VOC emissions are from nonfumigants. P esticide VOC

emissions in the San Joaquin Valley NAA exceeded the SIP goal in 2005 and 2006. While the fumigant regulations r educe emissions, the SIP goal would likely still have bee n exceeded had the fumigant regulations been in effect at the time. Additionally, the 201 1 pesticide VOC emissions for the San Joaquin Valley were less than 1 ton/day of the level10 triggering additional restrictions (95 % of SIP goal). The year

- to

- year varia tion in emissions is approximately 0.5

– 3 tons/day , so exceeding the trigger level is possible for 2014 in the San Joaquin Valley

.

The 2008 regulations trigger a fumigant limit if emissions exceed 95% of the SIP goal , even though fumigants only account f or approximately one

- quarter of the pesticide VOC

emissions in the San Joaquin Valley NAA. If nonfumigant emissions increase, it’s possible

that the 2008 regulations would require a major decrease or a total prohibition of fumigants,

and still not achieve the pesticide SIP goal for the San Joaquin Valley

. Therefore, r estrictions on nonfumigant VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley NAA are needed to: (1) ensure that the SIP goal is achieved in a worst

- case year; (2) reduce the regulatory burden on fumigant s by avoiding unnecessarily triggering a fumigant limit; and (3) comply with the SIP commitment to implement restrictions on nonfumigant pesticides by 2014.



## 3. Overview of Final Nonfumigant VOC Regulations

Beginning November 1, 2013, regulations to reduce VOC emissions from certain nonfumigant products went into effect (Title 3, California Code of Regulations, sections 6558, 6577, 6880, 6881, 6883, 6884, and 6886) . The se regulations are designed to keep pesticide VOC emissions below 18.1 tons/day during May to October in the San Joaquin Valley.

T he regulations apply to certain products containing any of the four active ingredients listed

below , and specify criteria to designate products as high

- VOC, low

- VOC, or to exclud e them from the regulation s

. VOC requirements pertain only to high

- VOC products. Except for the excluded products, high

- VOC products are those with emission potentials that exceed the following thresholds.

• Abamectin product emission potential 35%

• Chlorpyrifos product emission potential 25%

• Gibberellins product emission potential 25%

• Oxyfluorfen product emission potential 15%

Restrictions apply to pest control dealers who sell :

• High

- VOC products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen

• For use in San Joa quin Valley. The key restriction requires dealers to provide specified information to purchasers of the above products. The information summarizes the requirement for certain growers to obtain a recommendation from a pest control adviser prior to applicati on

.

Restrictions apply to pest control advisers who recommend and grower s who use :



### • H igh

- VOC products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen

• I n the San Joaquin Valley

• B etween May 1 and October 31

• For alfalfa, almonds, citrus, co tton, grapes, pistachios, or walnuts

.11 A key restriction requires growers to obtain a recommendation from a pest control adviser prior to making an application meeting the above criteria. The regulations also replace the fumigant limit backup measure with a prohibition of most applications meeting the above criteria, if pesticide VOC emissions exceed a trigger level (95% of the SIP goal)

.

If high

- VOC product prohibitions are triggered, the regulations include exceptions that allow high

- VOC ap plications for specific, limited uses. The high

- VOC product prohibitions would remain in effect for at least two years. The prohibitions could be lifted after two years if emissions decline sufficiently.

The regulations include recordkeeping requirements for pest control dealers, pest control advisers, and growers to document compliance with the restrictions.

The following web page contains the nonfumigant VOC regulations and supporting

documents: < http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/reduce_nonfumigant.htm >.

DPR developed the regulations in consultation with numerous people, such as staff from other agencies including the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA )

, California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA ) , ARB, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State Water Resources Control Board, the California Department of P ublic Health, Cal/R ecycle, the San Joaquin Valley ’s Air Pollution Control District, and county agricultural commissioners ; extension specialists with the University of California ( UC ) ; and representatives from groups that will be directly affected by the restrictions includi ng registrants, agricultural commodity organizations, pest control advisers, pest control dealers, applicators, and growers. DPR invited several environmental and worker organizations to discuss the regulatory options, but

all declined the invitation. DPR received comments at several public meetings with its Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee, its Agricultural Pest Control Advisory Committee, and its Pest Management Advisory Committee. DPR considered t he following options an d issues based on th ese discussions and evaluation of the available VOC emission s data.



## 4. Options Considered f or Reducing Pesticide VOC Emissions

In 1993, U.S. EPA published an alternative control technology document that addresses the control of VOC emissions from the app lication of agricultural pesticides

< http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/199303_voc_epa453_r

- 92

- 011_ag_pesticides.pdf >. To DPR’s knowledge, no ot her state has developed measures to reduce pesticide VOC emissions, so there are no other evaluations to rely on. Th is section

describe s DPR’s evaluation of the seven techniques the document identified as technically viable for reducing pesticide VOC emiss ions, plus one not included in the document:

• Reformulating organic solvent containing pesticide formulations (e.g., emulsifiable concentrates)

• Reducing fumigant usage

• Using alternative application methods

• Applying microencapsulation techniques12 • Using integr ated pest management

• Using alternative active ingredients

• Reducing the use of crop oils

• Reducing acrolein emissions

– not included in alternative control technology

document

R eformulating o rganic s olvent c ontaining p esticide f ormulations is a likely result of

DPR’s 2013 nonfumigant regulations.

The previous section describes the regulations with sales and use restrictions on designated high

- VOC products. This provides an incentive to reformulate products, and several registrants have done so to avoi d the additional restrictions.

Reducing f umigant u sage is a backup measure in DPR’s 2008 fumigant regulations.

The regulations include a fumigant emission limit as a backup measure in the event

low

- emission fumigation methods are insufficient to achieve the SIP goals for four of the

NAAs. The regulations include several methods for DPR and county agricultural commissioners to enforce the fumigant limit.

Using a lternative a pplication m ethods is the key eleme nt of the DPR’s fumigant regulations.

Although not described in the alternative control technology document, DPR considers changes to fumigation methods as alternative application methods. T he fumigant regulations rely primarily on low

- emission fumigation methods to achieve reductions. Additionally, numerous researchers are working on methods to further reduce fumigant emissions. Much of this work was sponsored by USDA as part of two area

- wide programs on methyl bromide

alternatives. The Pacific Area

- Wide program included several multi

- year projects in California to develop, demonstrate, and implement fumigant reduction measures. This

research led to additional low

- emission fumigation methods. In April 2013, DPR issued interim approval for several fumigatio n methods that use low permeability tarpaulins developed in part by this program. Field monitoring data indicate that low permeability tarpaulins reduce emissions of some fumigants by 70

- 80%. Research also continues on soil amendments, soil compaction tech niques, and other fumigant emission reduction measures.

All research of the Pacific Area

- Wide program, as well as the Southeast Area

- Wide program, and other fumigant research are presented at an annual conference. Information about the

research is availabl e at the conference website:< http://www.mbao.org/ >.

Alternative application methods are also included in the nonfumigant regulations, as an exception allowing the use of high

- VOC products. The alternative control techn ology document describes this option as “improved

- efficiency application equipment.” To encourage the voluntary reduction of emissions, purchase of precision pest control application equipment or “smart sprayers” is one of three pesticide VOC measures for which USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program ( EQIP ) provides matching funds to growers in California. Priority is given to application equipment that uses photo13 identification or sonar

- type technologies. These technologies are primarily used for o rchard sprayers, where a sensor controls the amount of spray, and turns off the spray in between trees. This results in less pesticide being applied. Requiring such equipment in regulation is

not feasible because the equipment is costly and the VOC emissio ns due to pesticides applied with orchard sprayers are relatively low.

Applying m icroencapsulation t echniques are an option registrants can use to reformulate a product.

This measure consists of reformulating emulsifiable concentrates into microcapsules to reduce the amount of solvent in the product. This is a subset of reformulation. R egistrants

can use this option to develop low

- VOC products and avoid the restrictions of the nonfumigant regulations

.

Using i ntegrated p est m anagement is encouraged, but DPR lacks legal authority to require this measure.

The alternative control technology document describes integrated pest management as an “ecologically based pest management program that combines biological and nonbiological control techniques to suppres s weeds, insects, and diseases. This option has been defined as a pest population management system that utilizes all suitable techniques in a compatible manner to reduce pest populations and maintain them at levels below those causing economic injury.” DP R regulates the use of pesticides , but it does not have legal authority to require integrated pest management, which includes non

- pesticidal practices. However, DPR has programs that encourage the adoption of integrated pest management, not only to address VOCs, but also to reduce health and environmental risks. These programs include DPR’s

IPM Innovator awards to honor California organizations that emphasize pest prevention,

favor least

- toxic pest control, and share their successful strategies with others

. DPR’s Pest Management web page describes these programs in detail

< http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pestmgt/ipminov/ipmmenu.htm >.

DPR has also funded grants and alliances that form a step

- wise progression from applied research and demonstration projects to regional or statewide implementation of multi

disciplinary reduced

- risk pest management practices. Reducing VOC emissions is one of the criteria DPR uses to judge applications for its re search and pest management grants. In 2012, DPR convened a working group with the goal to accelerate change in strawberry production to be less reliant on traditional soil fumigants, yet economically manage soilborne pests. The group published an action pl an that describes the priorities for researching innovative technologies and adopting new practices . DPR has provided approximately $650,000 in research grants to help implement this plan

< http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pestmgt/strawberry/work_group.htm >.

Organic crop production or growing crops with no fumigants is possible in some situations, but is infeasible for all crop production. For some annual crops such as strawberries,

co nventional crops are normally grown every year or every other year on the same field, which is only possible if the soil is fumigated. In contrast an organic crop must be rotated14 with other commodities and is grown on the same field once every several year s. There is

insufficient land in California

, given its climate and water supply, to support 100 % organic production. In the case of perennial crops (orchards, vineyards) , growing them without fumigants can be very risky.

In summary, this measure is not f easible because integrated pest management and organic production are not always technically feasible, and DPR lacks legal authority to implement this as a requirement. However, DPR has funded grants and provided additional resources to encourage developme nt and adoption of alt ernative practices and products

.

Using a lternative a ctive i ngredients is not feasible because DPR lacks legal authority to require this measure

.

This option is not feasible because DPR lacks legal authority to require certain pesticides to be used. While DPR can regulate or prohibit sales or use of certain pesticides based on unacceptable risks, DPR cannot require growers and applicators to apply s pecific pesticides in place of the regulated ones.

Reducing the u se of c rop o ils will result in minimal VOC reductions , and likely increase use of more hazardous pesticides

.

Crop oils have insecticidal uses, and are among the highest used pesticides in California. (Petroleum oil was ranked second and mineral oil was ranked fourth in pounds applied during 20 1 2 [ < http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur12rep/top_100_ais_lbs12.pdf > ] )

. However, DPR disagrees that reducing crop oils is a good option to reduce VOC emissions. Based on thermogravimetric analysis data and DPR’s evaluation of 26 oil products, the emission potentials for oil products are low, with a median value of 1.53%. Eve n accounting for the high use, none of the oils are among the top 10 pesticide VOC contributors in any of the NAAs, so any reductions would have minimal impact on emissions. Moreover, DPR and others encourage the use of oils because they have lower health and environmental risk compared with most other active ingredients in insecticide products, particularly organophosphates. In summary , this measure is not feasible because the VOC emission

reductions associated with this measure would be minimal, and w ould likely cause an increase in use of pesticides with greater health or environmental impact. DPR’s VOC evaluation of oil products is available at :

< http://www.cdpr .ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/ehapreps/analysis_memos/2079_segawa.pdf >.

Reducing a crolein e missions do not appear to be feasible.

The U.S. EPA’s alternative control technology document does not include this option

. Acrolein is the highest pesticide VOC contributor in the San Joaquin Valley (Table 4 ) that is not included in the fumigant regulations, and was not considered for nonfumigant restrictions. Acrolein (Magnacide ® ) is used as an aquatic herbicide primarily in irrigati on canals. The products contain few if any inert ingredients, so they cannot be reformulated. Acrolein is applied by injection below the water surface, so changes to application methods

seem infeasible.15 Based on the evaluation described above , DPR conclu ded that incentivizing reformulation of certain nonfumigant products through sales and use restrictions is the

best alternative for reducing pesticide VOC emissions, in addition to the fumigant reduction measures previously implemented.

DPR has implemente d options that involve reformulation, alternative application methods,

and reducing fumigant usage. DPR expects these measures to achieve the SIP goals. The

other four alternatives (integrated pest management, alternative active ingredients, crop oils,

and acrolein reductions) are not feasible at this time, and as discussed in later sections, additional measures are not needed to consistently achieve the pesticide SIP goals for all

NAAs.



## 5. Nonfumigant Alternatives Analysis: Selecting Products a nd Uses

This and following sections describe the methods and alternatives analysis DPR used to implement reformulation, as sales and use restrictions on designated high

- VOC products.

DPR conduct ed a reevaluation to assess the feasibility of reformulating certain nonfumigant pesticide products.

In 2005, DPR initiated a reevaluation (regulatory process to request actions by pesticide manufacturers and formulators [registrants]) for several hundred nonfumigant products. 1 The reevaluation required registrants to sub mit plans for reformulating the inert ingredients in the products to reduce product emission potentials , thereby reducing VOC emissions. Some registrants responded to the reevaluation or earlier informal DPR requests by successfully reformulating several p roducts (Table 5 ). In 2010, DPR revised the reevaluation to limit

reformulation efforts to th ose products with the highest pesticide VOC contribution in the San Joaquin Valley :

• Abamectin products (e.g. Agri

- Mek ® )

• Chlorpyrifos products (e.g. Lorsban ® )

• Dimet hoate products (e.g. Cygon ® )

• Gibberellins products (e.g. Gibgro ® )

• Oxyfluorfen products (e.g. Goal ® )

• Permethrin products

• Trifluralin products (e.g. Treflan ® )

Pesticide products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen are consistently among the highest nonfumigant VOC contributors in the San Joaquin Valley

.

1 To achieve more immediate VOC reductions, DPR stopped work on the reevaluation of nonfumigant products and began rulemaking for fumigants in 2006. After completing a series of fumigant VOC regulations, DPR restarted work on nonfumigant products.16 Table 5 and Figure 3 show that products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen have consistently been among the highest pesticide VOC contributors in the San Joaquin Valley for several years. Combined, products with these four active ingredients

account ed for 28 % of the pesticide VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley during May

Oc tober 2008

- 2010. Products containing other active ingredients such as dimethoate, permethrin, and trifluralin were relatively high VOC contributors several years ago, but their

contribution has declined recently. Conversely, contributions from pesticides

, such as products containing bifenthrin and fenpyromixate, that were relatively low contributors in earlier years have recently increased.

Products with lower VOC emissions are available for several major nonfumigant active ingredients

.

In most cases, th e most agronomically feasible alternatives to current emulsifiable concentrates are liquid products that contain the same active ingredient because liquids are usually easier to handle and apply, and are more effective for some pests. Solid products such

a s dusts and powders have lower emission poten t ials (median emission potential = 1.5%

, Table 1 ) compared with emulsifiable concentrates (median emission potential = 39% , Table

1 ), but different equipment and procedures are required to apply solid products. Consequently, simple substitution of solid formulations for liquid formulations may not be possible in many cases. However, liquid products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, or oxyfluorfen are available with lower emission potentials than other products commonly used containing these same active ingredients (Table 6). Most of the liquid products with lower emission potentials have only recently been registered, and currently have low use. Abamectin, chlorpyrifos, oxyfluorfen, as well as gibberellins and o ther active ingredients are also available in products formulated as solids (e.g., dusts, powder, or granules). Reformulation for most other major pesticide VOC contributors is not feasible because the products contain little or no VOCs as inert ingredient s ( e.g., fumigants, oils, and acrolein) or

the emission potentials are already relatively low ( e.g., glufosinate, glyphosate, and oil products have emission potentials less than 15 % ).

The agricultural impact of switching to products with lower VOC emissions is minimal

in some cases.

The major nonfumigant VOC contributors have different uses in the San Joaquin Valley

. Abamectin is a miticide and insecticide used on a wide variety of crops, but mostly almonds. Chlorpyrifos is an insecticide used prim arily on alfalfa, almonds, citrus, cotton, and walnuts.

Gibberellins are plant growth regulators used primarily on citrus and grapes. Oxyfluorfen is an herbicide used primarily on almonds and pistachios. Use of abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, and ox yfluorfen products with lower VOC emissions likely has lower agricultural impact (greater relative efficacy and lower additional cost) compared with other major nonfumigants. Under contract to CDFA, UC evaluated the cost and efficacy of

alternatives with l ower VOC emissions for the major pesticides used on selected crops, including alfalfa, almonds, broccoli, cotton, grapes, lettuce, oranges, and walnuts (Appendix 1). In general, the effective alternatives with lower VOC emissions for abamectin, chlorpyrifo s, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen had lower cost s than the other major17 nonfumigants (Table 7a

– b). However, the alternatives with lower VOC emissions were not as effective as products with higher VOC emissions for some crops and pests. More

information on efficacy and costs of switching to products with lower VOC emissions is given in later sections.

Current voluntary efforts assist in reducing nonfumigant VOC emissions, but may not consistently achieve the SIP reduction goals.

USDA

- EQIP provides the opp ortunity for growers who use several practices that reduce pesticide VOC emissions to receive matching funds . These practices include purchas ing precision sprayers, appl ying fumigant water treatments, and purchasing nonfumigant products with lower VOC emis sions.

DPR has developed several tools to assist growers in using low

- VOC alternatives. DPR has :

• W ritten a guide that describes low

- VOC options (< http://www.cdpr.ca.g ov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/reducing_voc_emissions.pdf > )

, and

• D eveloped a calculator that determines the VOC emissions of nonfumigant products after inputting the product, application rate, and acres . The calculator includes an option to compare different products (< http://apps.cdpr.ca.gov/voc

- calculator > ).

These and other voluntary efforts to switch to products with lower emission potentials have had limited success. Figure 4 shows the time trend of p ounds of VOCs for each pound of active ingredient applied in the San Joaquin Valley

. C hlorpyrifos show s a decline in the pounds of VOCs per pound of active ingredient in recent years, indicating that products with

lower emission potentials are being adopte d. However, Figure 3 shows that changing to products with lower emission potentials was offset by greater use of the products, so that overall emissions ( emission potential x use) from chlorpyrifos products increased between 2009 and 2010. In contrast, the pounds of VOC per pound of active ingredient for abamectin, gibberellins and oxyfluorfen show no consistent trend or a slightly increasing trend, indicating that their products with lower emission potentials are not being adopted.



## 6. Nonfumigant Alterna ti ves Analysis: Regulatory Scope a nd Approach

DPR’s SIP commitment is to limit pesticide VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley

NAA to no more than an average of 18.1 tons/day during May

- October , and nonfumigant VOC reductions are not needed for other areas or time periods

.

The regulations are designed to achieve this VOC emission limit, not to reduce VOC emissions or ozone concentrations in general. The regulations only affect certain uses of certain pesticide products to comply with 18.1 tons/day limit. While additional VOC reductions may be feasible, they are not necessary to achieve the SIP commitment.18 O ther areas of the state do not meet the federal air quality standard for ozone, but the regulatory option s discussed here for the San Joaquin Valley are inappropriate for statewide

restrictions or other NAAs for several reasons , which are listed below

.

• San Joaquin Valley is the only NAA for which additional pesticide VOC reductions may

be needed to achieve the SIP goal. The other four NAAs included in the pesticide SIP element consistently achieve SIP goals.

• Most of the top nonfumigant VOC contributors in the San Joaquin Valley NAA are not top contributors in the other NAAs. If needed, nonfumigant VOC restr ictions for other areas should focus on products with different active ingredients and different crops.

• DPR can develop similar restrictions for other areas in the future if it becomes necessary. However, if DPR were to include additional restrictions in these regulations, they may need to stay in place even if un necessary because making the regulations less stringent in

the future may not be allowed by the anti

- backsliding provisions of the federal C lean Air

Act

.

• Extending restrictions outside the San Joaquin Valley likely would not comply with

California’s Administrative Procedures Act because such restrictions would cause an unwarranted regulatory burden in other regions.

Similarly, the regulations require the nonfumigant VOC use restrictions on ly during May

October instead of year

- round for several reasons , listed below

.

• May

- October is the peak ozone season and the time period of the SIP goal

, as well as the time period included in DPR’s emission s inventory. VOC reductions outside May

October would have no effect on compliance with the SIP goal or emission s inventory.

• The regulations will likely have the added benefit of reducing emissions by shifting applications outside the May

- October period. Table 3 shows that the fumigant regulations

resu lted in 6% fewer fumigations due to shifting applications outside May

- October. Shifting applications outside May

- October is a more effective reduction measure than switching to a low

- VOC product because effectively no VOC emissions occur for the shifted ap plications. A year

- round requirement would negate these reductions.

• Pesticide VOC emissions contribute little or nothing to formation of particulate matter, the primary air pollutant outside May

- October.

• DPR can revise the restrictions to be year

- round i n the future , should it become necessary. However, DPR may not be able to make the restrictions less stringent in the

future due to the anti

- backsliding provisions of the federal Clean Air Act

.

• The restrictions would not l ikely comply with California’s Ad ministrative Procedures Act because they would cause an unwarranted regulatory burden outside May

- October.

DPR ’s regulatory approach focuses on designating nonfumigant products as low

- VOC or high

- VOC products , based on the emission potential.

Similar to ARB’s con sumer products program, DPR set emission potential thresholds for products containing certain active ingredients . DPR designate d products with emission potentials less than or equal to the thresholds as low

- VOC products and products with emission potentials greater than the thresholds as high

- VOC products

. Products exceeding19 the emission potential thresholds and designated as high

- VOC products would be subject to

additional restrictions.

DPR considered s etting product emission rate t hresholds [ pounds VOC/acre; ( emission potential ) x ( maximum product application rate) ] . Product emission rate thresholds m ight be preferable if there were products reformulated to increase the amount of active ingredient, without significantly changing the content or amounts of the solvents in the products. In these cases, the emission potentials m ight not change significantly, but the label would require a lower product application rate to achieve the same active ingredient application

rate. This would res ult in lower overall VOC emissions because less product would be applied. With this approach, emission rates, not products, would be designated as high

- VOC

or low

- VOC. This would likely make enforcement of the regulatory requirements more

difficult. During the rulemaking, n o registered products were candidates for setting an

emission rate threshold.

P roducts containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen with active registrations in 2012 provide clear choices for setting emission potentia l thresholds to designate low

- VOC and high

- VOC products.

Growers and applicators generally prefer liquid products over solid products due to the ir handling and mixing characteristics. However, liquid products generally have higher emission potentials

. T he emission potential thresholds are based on liquid products that have relatively low emission potentials to reduce the agricultural impact of requiring solid products . Additionally, DPR considered the number of registrants and products that would be

desi gnated low

- VOC in setting the emission potential thresholds . The more registrants and products DPR designated as low

- VOC, the less impact on costs and markets.

Abamectin, chlorpyrifos, and oxyfluorfen have several liquid products available with lower

emi ssion potentials (Table 8). During the rulemaking , t here were two distinct emission potential groups for both chlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen, and three for abamectin :

• Five chlorpyrifos liquid products from three registrants had emission potentials less than 21%. The remaining chlorpyrifos liquid products had emission potentials equal to or greater than 50%.

• Six oxyfluorfen liquid products from four registrants had emission potentials less than 11%. The remaining oxyfluorfen liquid products had emission poten tials of 60% or

greater.

• Two abamectin liquid products from a single registrant had emission potentials of approximately 6%. Three liquid products from two other registrants had emission potentials of approximately 30%. All other abamectin liquid products had emission potentials of 55% or greater. An abamectin threshold based on an emission potential of

6% would achieve the most VOC reduction, but costs could increase because products would only be available from a single registrant. An abamectin threshold based on an emission potential of 30% would be less stringent and achieve less VOC reduction, but

have less cost impact

.20 During the rulemaking , g ibberellins lack ed liquid products with lower emission potentials,

but several solid formulations were available, all with emission potentials of less than 5% (Table 8c). All gibberellins liquid products had emission potentials of at least 79%, but a new liquid product in development had an emission potential of approximately 20%. DPR registered this liquid product with an emission potential of 18% in April 2013. An emission potential threshold of 5% for gibberellins would achieve the most VOC reduction, but there are handling and mixing problems with some applications of the solid products (Appendix 1).

A s discussed above, products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen are consistently among the top nonfumigant VOC contributors in the San Joaquin Valley . Setting emission potential thresholds for only these pesticides could provid e incentive for growers to switch to products with other active ingredients that have higher VOC emissions, negating the anticipated VOC reductions. Setting emission potential

thresholds for numerous active ingredients and products would achieve greater VO C reductions, but administering such a large program would greatly increase DPR’s workload, and likely cause unwanted effects such as efficacy problems with some crops. At least initially, DPR could never be certain that it included all the possible altern atives, and not all

alternatives have low

- VOC product s available. If growers do not change to other active ingredients , the needed VOC reductions can be achieved from a few active ingredients, as discussed in a later section. As detailed in the Process to Evaluate the Need for Additional

Restrictions section of this document , t he regulations can be revised later if the SIP goal is

exceeded due to growers switch ing to other active ingre dients with higher VOC products

.

DPR considered setting emission potenti al thresholds based on achieving certain target VOC

emission reductions (e.g., reduce VOC emissions by 1 ton per day)

. This is more difficult and more subjective than s etting the emission potential thresholds based on the available product(s) with the lowest emission potential . Additionally, s etting a threshold based on a target VOC reduction could result in thresholds too low to be achieved with current technology. Conversely, it could result in thr esholds that are too easy to achieve, penalizing registrants who have already reformulated to a product with a lower emission potential

. While it would be relatively easy to determine an overall target VOC reduction amount, DPR would also need to make subj ective judgments about what sub

- targets to achieve for each active ingredient

.

DPR considered all possible approaches to regulate high

- VOC products.

Once products are designated as high

- VOC, there are several options for regulating the products. High

- VO C products could have more stringent registration requirements, sales requirements, use requirements, or some combination of these requirements . These options

are discussed in a later section.

DPR prefers to exclud e some nonfumigant products and uses from any VOC

restrictions.

Some products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen also contain

other active ingredients. DPR set e mission potential thresholds only for products based on the21 “primary active ingredient. ” If a product contains more than one active ingredient, the primary active ingredient is the one present at the highest percent age in a product. The specific inert ingredients and amounts greatly depend on the solubility and other

characteristics of the active ingredient s. A product emission potential threshold based on a pesticide as a primary active ingredient may be infeasible for products that contain the same

p esticide, but as a secondary active ingredient.

DPR is obligated to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and structural pesticide uses.
However, DPR exempted structural and non

- production agricultural (e.g., cemetery, right of way, golf course) uses and products from the regulations. As shown in Table 9

, these uses have negligible emissions and some of the enforcement options discussed below are problematic for these uses.

Table 10 shows the VOC emissions for abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen products by crop for the San Joaquin Valley . These active ingredients are used for several dozen crops. However, commodities such as almond s, which have high acreage

, contribute the most VOCs from these products, and the top ten crops account for more than 90% of the emissions from these pesticide products. DPR excluded most of the m inor crops because they have low emissions and the efficacy of the low

- VOC products is uncertain in

many cases.

For two main reasons, DPR relied on UC’s evaluation (Appendix 1) and considered allowing high

- VOC products for situations where the efficacy of the low

- VOC products is uncertain or lower than the high

- VOC products. If DPR required low

- VOC products in all cases, growers and applicators would likely use a greater amount of product, offsetting any VOC reductions

from the lower emission potentials . M ore importantly, the amount of active ingredient applied would likely increase. The health and environmental risk of a greater amount of active ingredient could easily outweigh the benefits of any VOC reductions that might be

achieved. These efficacy excep tions include:

• Low

- VOC products are not as effective for cotton and corn aphids.

• Additional application of other herbicides at low application rates may be needed for

low

- VOC oxyfluorfen to be effective for some post

- emergence situations.

• Low

- VOC (dust/p owder) gibberellins are difficult to apply at low application rates.

The efficacy of low

- VOC products is unknown for c ertain products and uses that are exempted from registration under Section 18 or have a Special Local Need registration under

Section 24 (c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. These applications typically have low use because they are used to control unusual pests or to control pests on unusual crops. During the rulemaking, t he only applicable Section 18 exemption w as for abamectin on lima beans. The applicable Section 24(c) registrations were for:

• Abamectin on alfalfa

• Chorpyrifos on citrus

• Gibberellins on azaleas and tangerines

• Oxyfluorfen on almonds, clover, olives, peas, roses, and stone fruit22 Low

- VOC products ma y or may not be effective for pesticide applications required by USDA, CDFA, or county agricultural commissioners to eradicate or control exotic pests. These agencies have extensive activities to prevent establishment of invasive pests that do not normally occur in California. Federal and state laws require quarantines and other

measures to contain and eradicate certa in detected pests. Moreover, p esticide applications soon after detection are often successful in avoiding greater pesticide use , should the exotic pest become established.

DPR also considered allowing high

- VOC products for “ precision sprayers” that use v arious sensing technologies to treat only the target plant or pest. The sprayer automatically turn s off when a target plant or pest is not detected. Precision sprayers apply less pesticide product to achieve the same efficacy. This has the same effect as u sing a low

- VOC product, with the

added benef it of applying less active ingredient

.



## 7. Nonfumigant Alternatives Analysis: Estimated V OC Reductions

The amount of VOC reductions achieved from the nonfumigant regulations depend on four factors: the pesticide products (by active ingredient ) included, the emission potential thresholds specified, the crops included, and the exceptions included.

DPR balance d these four factors to achieve the needed VOC reductions for the San Joaquin Valley (Figure 5 ). The analysis of various nonfumigant restriction scenarios below is based

on the worst

- case year of 2006 whe n San Joaquin Valley emissions were 21.3 tons/day.

DPR estimates that the 2008 fumigant regulations would have decreased 2006 fumigant emissions, hence also total emissions, by 2.5 tons/day had they been in place at that time

. Tables 2 and 3 show a 3 7 percent decrease in fumigant emissions due to low

- emission fumigation methods (31 percent) and fumigation dates shifted out side the May

- October period ( 6 percent ). Fumigant VOC emissions in 2006 were 6.81 tons/day, so a 3 7 percent
reduction is 2. 5 tons/day. Thus, total 2006 emissions would have been 21.3

– 2.5 = 18.8 tons/day. This yields a target for adequate VOC reduction fr om nonfumigants of 18.8

– 17.2 = 1.6 tons per day to avoid the trigger for a dditional restrictions

. Keeping e missions less than 17.2 tons/day is desirable to allow for fluctuations in pesticide use, variations in cropping patterns, and changes in product u se from year to year.

Table 11a

– b shows estimated VOC reductions from nonfumigant restrictions by active ingredient, emission potential thresholds, crops, and exceptions based on 2006 data. Table

12a

– b and Figure 6a

– b s how theoretical VOC emissions based on 2006 data resulting from the various restriction scenarios. The values in Tables 11 and 12 were calculated by assuming each application in 2006 that used a high

- VOC product instead used a product with an emission potential at the specified emissio n potential threshold.

The pesticide products (by active ingredient ) and crops included in the restrictions are

the major factors in determining the level of VOC reductions achieved.23 Table 11b shows that the theoretical 2006 VOC reduction for the product s containing the top active ingredient (chlorpyrifos) would have been 1.86 tons/day, with a total reduction of 3.18 tons/day for all four active ingredients included in the regulations. This is a difference of 1.32

ton s /day between the least restrictive and most restrictive scenarios. Those estimated reductions assume the higher emission potential thresholds are selected, all crops are included, and no exceptions to the restrictions. Similarly, the estimated VOC reductio n for the top crop (almond) would have been 1.11 tons/day, with a total reduction of 3.18 if all crops were included, a difference of 2.07 tons/day between the least restrictive and most restrictive scenario. Those theoretical reductions also assume higher emission potential

thresholds are specified , all four active ingredients are included, and no exceptions to the

restrictions.

The product emission potential thresholds selected and the exceptions included are

minor factors in determining the level of VOC reductions achieved.

VOC reductions for the higher emission potential thresholds would have been 3.18 tons/day (Table 11b), while a total VOC reduction of 3.62 tons/day would have been achieved if the

lower emission potential thresholds were selected (Ta ble 11a). This is a difference of 0.44 tons/day between the least restrictive and most restrictive scenarios. Both theoretical

reductions assume all four active ingredients and all crops were included, and no exceptions

to the restrictions.

The effect of allowing exceptions is relatively small. For the high emission potential

threshold s and all exceptions allowed, the theoretical reduction in emissions would have been 2.70 as compared to 3.18 (Table 11b). This is a difference of 0.48 tons/day between the l east restrictive and most restrictive scenarios. The corresponding “exception allowed”/“no exception” comparison under a low emission potential threshold assumption yields VOC

reduction estimates of 3.13 and 3.62 tons / day, respectively. The emissions asso ciated with the exceptions were calculated as follows. Emissions were calculated directly from pesticide use reports for the structural, non

- production agricultural, gibberellins less than 16 grams/acre (as recommended by UC), Section 18, and Section 24(c) applications because these specific applications can be identified. Emissions for chlorpyrifos applications to control aphids on cotton were assumed to be 10% of all chlorpyrifos emissions, based on a personal communication with UC staff. Emissions from q uarantine or other USDA/CDFA programs were assumed to be negligible, 0.0001 tons/day because only one chlorpyrifos application has occurred for this use in the last 10 years. Precision sprayer applications were assumed to negate 1% of the VOC reductions.

DPR can consistently achieve the SIP reduction goal for the San Joaquin Valley with restrictions on high

- VOC products. No restrictions are needed for low

- VOC products.

The analysis shows that if all abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen

a pplications in 2006 had used low

- VOC products on all crops, total 2006 pesticide VOC

emissions would have been 15.2

- 15.6 tons/day, depending on the emission potential thresholds selected and the exceptions included. This compares favorably with the trigger for

a dditional restrictions of 17.2 tons/day previously discussed, and provides a margin in light24 of (a) uncertainty in the analysis

, and (b) the inherent variability in cropping patterns, pesticide use, and product use trends. The combined fumigant restr ictions and nonfumigant

restrictions combined would achieve that the SIP goal of 18.1 tons/day each year, and the 17.2 tons/day trigger for a fumigant emissions limit would not be exceeded.



## 8. Nonfumigant Alternatives Analysis: Enforcing V OC Restrictions

The regulations enforce the nonfumigant VOC restrictions through requirements on pest control dealers who sell high

- VOC products, pest control advisers who recommend high

VOC products, and growers who use high

- VOC products. These are Options 4b and 4c

des cribed below.

DPR considered all possible approaches for enforcing restrictions on high

- VOC products.

DPR has legal authority to regulate sales and use of pesticides using three methods: label changes, state regulations, or recommended county permit conditions for restricted materials. Label changes are probably the easiest use restrictions to enforce, but they have several disadvantages in this case (see below)

.

• Label changes are most feasible if year

- round restrictions are needed statewide. For

non fumigant VOCs, restrictions are only needed in the San Joaquin Valley during May

October.

• Use restrictions may change from year to year, as described below. Labels that change from year to year would be difficult to enforce and to comply with due to carryo ver of older products.

• DPR has limited authority over labels. Only registrants and U.S. EPA can change label requirements. DPR approves labels, but does not have legal authority to require changes. Additionally, coordinating label revisions with registrant s in a timely manner would be

difficult.

R egulations can achieve the nonfumigant VOC reductions and provide the flexibility that

labels lack. DPR considered regulations in th re e form s: a registration requirement, sales restrictions, and use restrictions. A registration requirement would likely have been the preferred approach if low

- VOC products were required statewide, year

- round, with few exceptions. DPR preferred s ales or use restrictions because low

- VOC products are only

needed in the San Joaquin Valle y during May

- October. However, the regulations need some method to ensure compliance with sales or use restrictions. Several specific options for regulations are described below.

Restricted materials are potentially hazardous pesticides that require a per mit issued by the county agricultural commissioner , after an evaluation of local conditions . These materials can only be applied by a certified applicator. None of the major nonfumigant VOC contributors are restricted materials, so restricting their use th rough permit conditions by county agricultural commissioners is not currently possible. Regulations would be needed to25 designate additional active ingredients as restricted materials, but this is normally a statewide

action. More details on the restricted materials option are given below.

DPR prefer s an enforcement option that revise s the trigger for fumigant emission

limits.

Regulations on sales or use offer ed the opportunity to replace or amend the trigger for fumigant emission limits in the 2008 regula tions. Fumigants account for approximately one

quarter of the pesticide emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, and nonfumigants account for

three

- quarters. Under the previous regulations, a fumigant limit was triggered even if

emissions exceed ed a specified level due to an increase in nonfumigant emissions. It’s possible that the previous regulations would require a major decrease or a total prohibition of fumigants, and still not achieve the pesticide SIP goal for the San Joaquin Valley due to

increased nonf umigant emissions. Additional reasons that strict reliance on fumigant

emissions reductions is undesirable for the San Joaquin Valley are the complex cropping patterns and the large number of counties involved. In comparison, the fumigant limit and

allowan ce program in the Ventura NAA is relatively easy to administer because the allowances are issued by a single county agricultural commissioner and the great majority of the allowances are issued for strawberries, with grower assistance provided by the Calif ornia Strawberry Commission. A fumigant limit and allowance program in the San Joaquin Valley

would be much more difficult to administer because DPR would need to coordinate the activities of eight county agricultural commissioners for multiple crops.

DP R preferred to replace the San Joaquin Valley trigger for fumigant limits with a trigger for restrictions on nonfumigant high

- VOC products (i.e.

, if pesticide emissions exceed 95% of the SIP goal, nonfumigant restrictions would be triggered in the San Joaq uin Valley instead

of a fumigant limit ). DPR also considered a n option that would give DPR’s Director discretion to trigger a fumigant limit or nonfumigant restrictions, depending on which pesticides increased. However, providing this discretion in regulat ions would be problematic

because of the uncertain criteria the D irector would use. The 2008 regulations require DPR to evaluate the need for a fumigant limit each year. If changed, DPR would annually evaluate the need for additional nonfumigant restrictions instead of a fumigant limit. Specific options for enforcing nonfumigant restrictions are described below and summarized in Table13.

Option 1: Deny/cancel registrations for nonfumigant high

- VOC products, with exceptions.

This is a simple ap proach, if few exceptions are granted. This would likely require low

- VOC products statewide, year

- round, but reductions are only needed in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October. Compliance is likely good, if few exceptions are granted , because most

pro ducts available would be low

- VOC . High

- VOC products would have labels with limited uses for crops

- pests that are not controlled with low

- VOC products. Compliance is less certain if numerous crops

- pests can use high

- VOC products, unless there is a new proce dure

to check that low

- VOC products are used when required. This option would require low

VOC products statewide, year

- round, unless the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October is specified on the labels. However, this would make compliance less certain beca use of the26 greater availability of high

- VOC products. Requiring product labels for the affected active ingredients to include a high

- VOC/low

- VOC designation may assist in compliance. However, only the registrants and U.S. EPA can implement this action ; DPR lacks legal authority to require label changes. Restrictions would still be in effect for years when additional VOC reductions are not needed to achieve the SIP goal. The fumigant limit trigger would remain unchanged.

Option 2: Prohibit use of nonfumigan t high

- VOC products in S an Joaquin Valley every May

- October, with exceptions.

This is probably the simplest of the use restrictions. Disadvantages include a requirement for VOC reductions when they are not needed. Extensive outreach would likely be neede d to ensure compliance, at least for the first few years. The compliance methods described for Options 4a, 4b, and 4c could be used, but that negate s Option 2’s advantage of simplicity. Requiring product labels for the affected active ingredients to includ e a high

- VOC/low

- VOC designation may assist in compliance. However, only the registrants and U.S. EPA can implement this action ; DPR lacks legal authority to require label changes. Restrictions would

still be in effect during those years when additional VO C reductions are not needed to achieve the SIP goal. The fumigant limit trigger would remain unchanged.

Option 3: Make additional active ingredients restricted materials.

County agricultural commissioners would evaluate the need for high

- VOC products through the permitting process. This is most consistent with the current regulatory structure. It is

uncertain if t he fumigant limit trigger can be replaced with this option. Compliance would be

more certain th rough the permitting process. This option likely provides the most flexibility. It would be possible to have different permit conditions in different counties to minimize the impact and/or maximize VOC reductions. A key disadvantage is the requirement for some growers to obtain a restricted materials permit and become certified applicators for the first time. Certified applicators are unnecessary for VOC purposes because special equipment, procedures, or precautions are not needed. Workload would increase f or county agricultural

commissioners because an evaluation of local conditions is required for all restricted

materials. The additional work would have little value because an evaluation of local conditions would not be needed for VOC purposes , particularl y outside the San Joaquin Valley

. This would not be a feasible option if structural applications are included in the restrictions because they are exempt from permitting requirements.

N onfumigant restrictions could change from year to year with this optio n, plac ing a burden on production. There could also be “downstream” effects with pesticide dealers or growers possessing high

- VOC products, but being unable to sell or use them. Registrants may not continue to produce and sell high

- VOC products, even in ar eas outside the San Joaquin Valley . Requiring product labels for the affected active ingredients to include a high

VOC/low

- VOC designation may assist in compliance. However, only the registrants and

U.S. EPA can implement this action ; DPR lacks legal autho rity to require label changes.27 DPR would use its VOC annual report to provide guidance on permit conditions for the upcoming year , recommending more stringent or less stringent requirements depending on the emissions level documented in the report. There would be an inherent lag in providing the guidance by using the annual report. The VOC annual report and emission s inventory rely on data from pesticide use reports. Historically, county agricultural commissioners electronically submit all pesticide use re ports to DPR by August 1 for the previous year. DPR usually releases the draft annual report for public comment in November, and finalizes the report the following March or April. With this timeline, there w ould be a two

- year lag in implementing restrictio ns under this option . For example, during the fall of 2013, DPR w ould determine if high

- VOC restrictions would be needed for May

- October 2014, based on the pesticide use and VOC emissions for 2012.

Option 4: Replace the fumigant limit trigger with a trigger for use restrictions on nonfumigant high

- VOC products in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October, with exceptions.

This option removes the possibility of fumigant allowances and would implemen t new use restrictions only if the trigger level is exceeded when VOC reductions are needed to achieve the SIP goal. Restrictions on high

- VOC products may be in effect for some years, but not

others. The annual emission s inventory report would be used to d etermine if the trigger level

is exceeded.

N onfumigant restrictions could change from year to year with this option, plac ing a burden on production. There could also be “downstream” effects with pesticide dealers or growers possessing high

- VOC products, but being unable to sell or use them. Registrants may not continue to produce and sell high

- VOC products, even in areas outside of the San Joaquin Valley . Requiring product labels for the affected active ingredients to include a high

VOC/low

- VOC designatio n may assist in compliance. However, only the registrants and

U.S. EPA can implement this action ; DPR lacks legal authority to require label changes.

DPR would use its VOC annual report to determine if the trigger level is exceed ed and implement high

- VOC restrictions. There would be an inherent lag in providing the guidance by using the annual report. The VOC annual report and emission s inventory rely on data from pesticide use reports. Historically, county agricultural commissioners electronically

submit all pesticide use reports to DPR by August 1 for the previous year. DPR usually releases the draft annual report for public comment in November, and finalizes the report the following March or April. With this timeline, there w ould be a two

- year lag in imp lementing

restrictions under this option . For example, during the fall of 2013, DPR w ould determine if high

- VOC restrictions would be needed for May

- October 2014, based on the pesticide use

and VOC emissions for 2012.

This option should include a procedu re for drop ping the high

- VOC restrictions once triggered , if emissions decrease sufficiently. However, the lag to compile pesticide use reports could make the timing problematic. The criteria to drop the high

- VOC restrictions are complex because DPR cannot use actual VOC emission s data. For the years when the high

-28 VOC restrictions are in effect, DPR must estimate hypothetical emissions as if the

restrictions are not in effect.

A key issue with this option is the method to achieve compliance. The fol lowing are compliance options , and they can be implemented singly or in any combination.

Option 4a (county agricultural commissioner authorizations) : To achieve compliance if the nonfumigant restrictions are triggered, growers would obtain an “authorizat ion” for high

VOC products from the county agricultural commissioner . The regulations would specify the

situations for which the county agricultural commissioner could issue an authorization. Applications that use low

- VOC products would not need an authori zation. The process to obtain the authorization would likely be similar to a restricted materials permit. DPR would provide a fact sheet that explains the regulations and lists the allowed uses for the high

- VOC products. A key disadvantage of this option i s the possibility that the county agricultural

commissioner may need to administer a new program. However, this program may be preferable to the possibility of administering a fumigant allowance program or the additional workload of issuing a restricted ma terials permit. The possibility of requiring authorizations provides additional incentive for voluntary reductions. Additional outreach would be needed for growers who do not routinely interact with the county agricultural commissioner

.

Option 4b (dealer requirements) : Current regulations require purchase of a gricultural pesticide products only from licensed pest control dealers. To achieve compliance if the nonfumigant restrictions are triggered, pest control dealers would be required to provide

informati on on the high

- VOC prohibitions. For example, as a condition of sale, the regulations could require purchasers to read a form and self

- certify that the high

- VOC product will be used for an allowed exception. This sales requirement is similar to current

dea ler regulations for tributyltin and clopyralid, but the number of sales affected would be much greater. Alternatively, pest control dealers could be required to provide a fact sheet explaining the nonfumigant restrictions to purchasers of high

- VOC products . DPR would notify and provide information to pest control dealers if the trigger level is exceeded. The sales requirement may need to apply to all dealers because the amount of pesticides purchased outside the San Joaquin Valley for use inside the San Joa quin Valley is unknown. There are approximately 1100 pesticide dealers in the San Joaquin Valley . Minimal outreach to growers would be needed because agricultural pesticides can only be purchased from

licensed dealers. This would not be a good option if st ructural applications are included in the restrictions because structural applicators are not required to purchase products from licensed

dealers. Other existing regulations require dealers to keep records of all pesticide sales. Minimal revisions to those regulations would provide documentation of compliance with nonfumigant sales requirements.

This option can be implemented independently from the trigger for ad ditional restrictions. That is, the dealer requirements could be in effect whether or not the trigger level is

exceeded. This should result in more consistent actions by dealers

, alleviate some of the timing issues discussed above, and discourage use of hi gh

- VOC products even if the trigger

is not exceeded.29 Option 4c (pest control adviser requirements) : To achieve compliance if the nonfumigant restrictions are triggered, purchase or use of high

- VOC product s would require a written recommendation from a licensed agricultural pest control adviser. A pest control adviser recommendation is currently optional for all pesticides. This option would require a grower

to obtain a pest control adviser recommendation as a condition of purchase and/or use of any of the specified high

- VOC products. Other regulations (3 CCR section 6556) require all pest control advisers’ recommendations to certify that alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen an y significant adverse impact on the environment were considered and , if feasible, adopted. This will require pest control advisers to consider and

recommend low

- VOC products when feasible. Additional outreach will be needed for

grower s who do not routinely use a pest control adviser

. Other regulations require pest control advisers to keep records of all recommendations. Minimal revisions to those regulations would provide documentation of compliance with recommendation requirements.

This option can be impl emented independently from the trigger for additional restrictions. That is, the pest control adviser requirements could be in effect whether or not the trigger

level is exceeded. This should result in more consistent actions by pest control advisers and

growers, alleviate some of the timing issues discussed above, and discourage use of high

VOC products even if the trigger is not exceeded.

Option 5 : Track pesticide VOC emissions on a real

- time basis and implement restrictions only if the trigger level is exceeded.

The lag in pesticide use reporting likely makes a “track and regulate” system infeasible. A track and regulate system would involve real

- time compilation of pesticide use data, and implementing restrictions if a certain target emission level is reached. Current regulations require most pesticide use reports to be submitted to the county agricultural commissioners by the 10th day of the month following the application (licensed pest control businesses must report within seven days of application) . Unless reported electronically, it usually takes

several weeks or months for county agricultural commissioners to enter pesticide use report information into the database. Pesticide use data could be obtained earlier under Option 3 (restricted materials) because restricted materials require notification (notice of intent) to the county agricultural commissioner prior to use. However, application plans may change and several notices of intent may be filed for a single application, or the application may ne ver occur. Additionally, information on the notice of intent is not available electronically. The system would require tracking use for all eight San Joaquin Valley counties combined, with county agricultural commissioners sending use data to DPR on a real

- time basis, and DPR converting the use data to VOC emissions on a real

- time basis. Even if a near real

- time reporting system could be developed, implementing restrictions if a trigger level is exceeded would be difficult and uncertain. Outreach to growers and applicators, and ensuring compliance would be difficult if use restrictions are triggered. Lastly, restrictions or prohibition s of high

- VOC nonfumigant products and/or fumigant applications may be insufficient to achieve the SIP goal if restrictions a re triggered in September or October due to the lag in reporting . A track and regulate system is infeasible without major changes to the pesticide use reporting system, and could trigger more severe restrictions than currently proposed.30 Option 6: Implemen t nonfumigant VOC restriction s only for days when ozone concentrations are expected to be high.

“Episodic” restrictions may not achieve the SIP reduction goals. Episodic restrictions would

be similar to no

- burn days, where pesticide restrictions would onl y be in effect for days when ozone is expected to be high. In theory, this may reduce ozone concentrations, but compliance with the SIP goal is uncertain. DPR is legally required to reduce total pesticide VOC emissions by a specified amount during the May through October period, as calculated using the emission inventory methodology. VOC reductions that occur only on designated days may be insufficient to achieve the SIP goal. DPR is not required to reduce VOC emissions on each day, and it is not required t o reduce ozone concentrations. This option is infeasible given the requirements of DPR’s SIP commitment.

DPR prefer s to implement high

- VOC prohibitions if the trigger level is exceeded (Option 4), with dealer requirements (Option 4b) and pest control adviser requirements (Option 4c)

.

Detailed reasons for selecting Options 4b and 4c are given in a later section, but in summary, DPR preferred these options to enforce the nonfumigant restrictions because:

• VOC reductions occur where and when they are need ed

– in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October.

• The fumigant limit is replaced with a more appropriate backup measure.

• High

- VOC prohibitions are in effect only when pesticide VOC reductions are needed.

• Compliance and enforceability are likely high.



## 9. Nonfumigant Alternatives Analysis: Esti mated Effects, Risks, a nd

Costs

Nonfumigant restrictions are needed to meet DPR’s legal obligation to reduce pesticide VOC emissions, but the reduction in ozone levels will likely be minimal.

The San Joaquin Valley and other areas of California exceed the federal and state air quality standards for ozone several times each year. Reductions of both VOCs and nitrogen oxides are needed to reduce ozone concentrations, but ozone levels in rural areas such as the San Joaqu in Valley primarily depend on nitrogen oxides. ARB’s SIP discusses these issues in

more detail ( < http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm > )

.

Pesticide products contribute approximately 6% of the total VOC emissions for S an Joaquin Valley , and negligible emissions of nitrogen oxides. Therefore, restrictions on nonfumigant products will provide minimal overall reduction in VOC emissions and resulting ozone air

concentrations . The restrictions should reduce VOC emissions by approximately 2 tons/day during a worst

- case year, less than a 1% reduction in total VOC emissions from all sources in

the S an Joaquin Valley . However, even the largest sources contribute less than 15% to the total VOC emissions, and pesticide products are consistently among the top ten VOC sources

in the S an Joaquin Valley . Reductions from many sources are needed to achieve the ozone air31 quality standard. Moreover, nonfumigant pesticides are one of the few , if only, significant

VOC sources without VOC control measures. ARB’s SIP discusses these issues in more

detail ( < http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm > )

.

Different V OCs create different amounts of ozone. VOCs with higher reactivities create more ozone, all other factors being equal. DPR evaluated the reactivity of the major nonfumigants to determine the effectiveness of reducing their emissions. In general, high

VOC a bamectin, chlorpyrifos, and oxyfluorfen products contain ingredients with higher reactivity and potentially create more ozone, compared with other major nonfumigants.

Some

, but not all

, gibberellins products have lower reactivity. While DPR considers produ ct reactivity, its current legal obligation is to reduce the mass of VOCs, regardless of reactivity. DPR’s evaluation of reactivity of pesticide products discusses these issues in more detail ( < http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/voc_research.htm > )

.

Nonfumigant VOC restrictions will have little or no impact on efforts to address other adverse environmental or health effects from pesticides.

As toxic chemicals, pestici des can cause other adverse environmental or health effects. Abamectin, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen have few if any other environmental or health concerns at this time. DPR is evaluating and regulating chlorpyrifos for aquatic toxicity and human exposure concerns. These other concerns pertain only to chlorpyrifos as an active ingredient, not as the inert ingredient in products. Therefore, any VOC restrictions for chlorpyrifos products will have little or no effect on the other mitigation efforts. DPR craf t ed the nonfumigant VOC restrictions so that they do not cause an increase in the amount of active ingredient applied to offset lower efficacy of low

- VOC products.

DPR and other agencies have programs to encourage the use of i ntegrated p est m anagement
and other techniques to reduce the use and risks of pesticides. The nonfumigant VOC

restrictions should not impact DPR’s pest management programs. USDA

- EQIP provides matching funds to growers to purchase or use precision pesticide sprayers, fumigant water

tre atments, and low

- VOC pesticide products. These funds are normally available only for voluntary measures. It is uncertain what effect nonfumigant VOC restrictions will have on

USDA

- EQIP.

Most current abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen a pplications in the

S an Joaquin Valley use high

- VOC products.

During the rulemaking, DPR estimated the number of applications that might need to switch from high

- VO C to low

- VOC products. Table 14 and Appendix 3 show that most of the abamectin, chlorpyrifos , gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen applications used high

- VOC products

in the San Joaquin Valley . Overall, 77% of the 2010 applications and 48% of the acreage used high

- VOC products. High

- VOC abamectin and oxyfluorfen products were used most frequently, on ap proximately 90% of the applications and acreage. Chlorpyrifos was the one pesticide for which low

- VOC products were used for the majority of the applications. High

VOC chlorpyrifos products were used for 44% of the applications and 12% of the acreage.32 Th e costs of nonfumigant VOC restrictions are uncertain.

As part of the rulemaking process, ARB conducted an economic analysis of the proposed regulations (Appendix 2). Most costs are due to some growers switching from high

- VOC products to low

- VOC products, and the higher cost of most of the low

- VOC products. Under contract to CDFA, UC estimated the grower cost of various low

- VOC products and alternatives (Appendix 1). The primary reason for the uncertain costs is because restrictions may only go into effect if an emissions trigger level is exceeded. There may be no restrictions and no additional costs if the trigger level is not exceeded. If the trigger level is exceeded, some of the applications that use high

- VOC products would be required to switch

to low

- VOC products. If the high

- VOC restrictions include exceptions, those applications would not be required to switch to low

- VOC products. Table 14 shows that approximately

50% of the active ingredient applied and 43% of the acreage treated with high

- VOC produ cts would be required to switch to low

- VOC products, assuming the restrictions include products containing the top four active ingredients , all crops, and all exceptions. Detailed data for major crops is shown in Appendix 3.



## 10. Nonfumigant Alternati ves A nalysis: Additional Areas f or Research

UC should continue its work to evaluate the need for continuing the oxyfluorfen and gibberellins exceptions. Initial tests indicate that low

- VOC oxyfluorfen products may be as effective as high

- VOC products for all t arget weeds (Appendix 1). The new liquid low

- VOC gibberellins product should be evaluated.

UC has evaluated the efficacy and cost of several low

- VOC products for major crops such as almonds, cotton, and grapes. However, UC has not evaluated some of the pe sticides that have recently started to make significant VOC contributions , such as bifenthrin products, nor has it

evaluated most minor crops. This work should continue in the event that the nonfumigant restrictions implemented do not consistently achieve the required VOC reductions and more stringent requirements are needed.



## 11. Process to Evaluate the Need for Additional Restrictions

As part of its annual report on the pesticide VOC emissions inventory, DPR will evaluate the reasons for a significant increase in pesticide VOC emissions, particularly if increases occur for several consecutive years. Examples of significant increases inc lude an increase greater than the historical year

- to

- year variation, or new active ingredients or crops among the top 10 contributors. The evaluation of a significant increase of emissions will include an analysis of

the

• S pecific products and uses causing the increase;

• T arget pest(s) and whether this is a new pest(s), or an increase in an existing pest(s);

• I ncrease in pesticide use and whether it is expected to be temporary or permanent;

• F easibility of low

- VOC products containing the same active ingredient ; and33 • F easibility of alternative active ingredients, and whether they are low

- VOC or high

- VOC products.

While DPR will conduct an evaluation of a significant increase in emissions, additional regulatory actions are unlikely. DPR will take additional regul atory actions if the SIP goal is exceeded. DPR would also likely take additional regulatory actions if the trigger level is consistently exceeded and the evaluation indicates that the increased emissions are likely permanent. DPR does not anticipate either of these events occurring. However, if either the SIP goal is ever exceeded or the trigger level is consistently exceeded, this means that the high

- VOC prohibitions for the products containing the four active ingredients and seven crops currently included in the regulations, as well as the low

- emission fumigation methods are insufficient to achieve the SIP goal. DPR would evaluate the possible alternatives following the same or similar procedure described in earlier sections if the emissions increase

is du e to nonfumigant products, or evaluate possible alternatives following the same procedure described in the fumigant alternatives analysis if fumigant products cause the emissions increase. DPR would likely evaluate several pesticides, and may not apply

res trictions to the product(s) causing the greatest increase. A hypothetical example is if VOC emissions from gibberellins increase due to an increase in grape and citrus acreage. It may not be feasible to further reformulate gibberellins products, and as gro wth regulators with a unique mode of action there are no alternative active ingredients. DPR may choose to achieve VOC reductions from other products instead.

The timeline for implementing additional regulatory requirements would vary depending on

if the products to be regulated are fumigants or nonfumigants, and if they are restricted materials or general use pesticides. Once DPR drafted new requirements, county agricultural commissioners could implement new requirements as permit conditions in a few wee ks if the products are restricted materials. Formal rulemaking would be required for general use pesticides and take at least several months to complete before the regulations are effective under state law. Additional time would be required for DPR and ARB to submit the regulations for review and approval by U.S. EPA and be enforceable under federal law.



## 12. Conclusions a nd Justification f or Final Nonfumigant VOC Regulations

The nonfumigant regulations achieve the needed VOC reductions by including produc ts with a greater number of active ingredients , higher emission potential thresholds, fewer crops, and all exceptions.

DPR balance d four factors to achieve the needed VOC reductions from the nonfumigant restrictions: the pesticide products (by active ingr edient ) included, the emission potential thresholds selected, the crops included, and exceptions to the restrictions. DPR can achieve

the needed reductions with restrictions on more products ( by active ingredient ) and fewer crops, or with restrictions on fewer products ( by active ingredient ) and more crops. UC has evaluated the impact and cost of all four active ingredients for major crops, such as almonds, cotton, and grapes. The exceptions UC recommended for these crops are well documented (Appendix 1) . In contrast, the efficacy, cost, and other impacts from use of low

- VOC34 products for minor crops are uncertain. Therefore, the nonfumigant VOC restrictions include a greater number of active ingredients and fewer cro ps.

The emission potential thresholds have a smaller effect on nonfumigant VOC reductions compared with the pesticide products or crops included in the restrictions. The ne cessary VOC reductions can still be achieved with the higher emission potential thr esholds, and the

costs will be minimized because this will designate products from multiple registrants as

low

- VOC. DPR can make the emission potential thresholds more stringent in the future if needed. These nonfumigant VOC restrictions will not result in the prohibition of any active ingredients in the San Joaquin Valley or elsewhere.

The exclusions and exceptions to the nonfumigant restrictions also have a smaller effect on VOC reductions compared with the pesticide products (by active ingredient ) or cr ops included. The regulations include all exclusions and exceptions discussed because:

• Relatively small emissions,

• P roblems with enforcing restrictions on structural applications, and

• P ossible increases in the amount of active ingredient applied.

The nonfumigant regulations include four active ingredients in products formulated as liquids , and specify less stringent emission potential thresholds to designate products as high

- VOC and low

- VOC

.

Liquid products, particularly e mulsifiable concentrates

, containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen are consistently among the highest nonfumigant VOC

contributors in the San Joaquin Valley . Other nonfumigants are relatively high VOC contributors in some years, but not other years. Low

- VOC products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen are available and feasible for the majority of uses, but voluntary efforts to switch to the low

- VOC products have had limited success . The

necessary VOC reductions for the San Joaqu in Valley can be achieved with restrictions on chlorpyrifos, the largest nonfumigant VOC contributor. However, the agricultural impact may be lessened (or at least more certain) with less stringent restrictions on products for all

four active ingredients

. DPR considered phasing in r estrictions on the active ingredients . For example, restrictions on chlorpyrifos products could go into effect immediately, and restrictions on products with the other active ingredients could go into effect in later years.

This would give growers more time to adjust to the low

- VOC products. However, phasing in

the restrictions could make achieving the needed VOC reductions difficult depending on the number of crops included (see next conclusion).

As specified in 3 CCR section 68 80, products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen as the primary active ingredient are the nonfumigant products regulated for VOCs

. A product emission potential threshold based on the primary active ingredient may be infeasible for products that contain one of these p esticides, but as a secondary active ingredient

.

As described above , DPR can assure that the San Joaquin Valley SIP goal will be consistently achieved by setting higher emission potential thresholds, and will minimi ze the35 economic impact of requiring low

- VOC products. Therefore, 3 CCR section 6880 establishes the following emission potential thresholds to designate products as high

- VOC or low

- VOC:

Product Primary Active Ingredient Product VOC Emission Potential

Thre shold (% by weight)

Abamectin 35 Chlorpyrifos 25

Gibberellins 25 Oxyfluorfen 15

The nonfumigant regulations include use restrictions on high

- VOC products when applied to any of seven crops in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October.

As specified in 3 CCR section s 6883 and 6884 , t he seven crops with high

- VOC product use

restrictions are:

• Alfalfa

• Almonds

• Citrus

• Cotton

• Grapes

• Pistachios

• Walnuts

DPR selected these seven crops for several reasons. First, they account for more than 90% of the VOC emissions from the products containing the four active ingredients. Second, switching to low

- VOC products for these crops will reduce VOC emissions below t he SIP goal as well as the trigger level. Third, use of low

- VOC products for these crops is feasible in

most cases. UC has evaluated the impact and cost of all four active ingredients for each of these crops

. In most cases, use of low

- VOC alternatives is a s effective and the additional cost

is minimal. UC also documented situations where low

- VOC products may not be effective ; in these cases, UC recommended continued use of high

- VOC products . In contrast, the efficacy, cost, and other impacts from use of low

- VOC products for other crops are uncertain.

The nonfumigant regulations require pest control dealers to provide VOC information to purchasers of high

- VOC products for use in the San Joaquin Valley . (Option 4b)

As specified in 3 CCR sections 6577 and 688 6, a ll California licensed pest control dealers when selling a high

- VOC product with one of four specified active ingredients for agricultural use must provide specified information to the purchaser if the product will be

used in the San Joaquin Valley. This requirement applies to all dealers statewide since growers and applicators may purchase products outside the San Joaquin Valley for use inside the San Joaquin Valley. This requirement also applies year

- round since growers and applicators may purchase during November

- April for use during May

- October. Th e requirement is in effect whether or not the trigger level is exceeded. This should result in more consistent actions by dealers

, and discourage use of high

- VOC products even if36 additional restrictions a re not implemented

. The regulations include dealer recordkeeping requirements so DPR and county agricultural commissioners can check compliance. The option for high

- VOC product purchasers to sign a self

- certifying form was not selected because most agricul tural pesticides are shipped , not picked up at the point of purchase. This type of delivery makes signing a form problematic.

The nonfumigant regulations require growers to obtain a recommendation from a pest control adviser prior to using a high

- VOC prod uct in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October, for any of the seven crops above. (Option 4c)

As specified in 3 CCR section 6883, most growers will have minimal workload to comply with the regulations because they routinely obtain a pest control adviser recommendation

. The regulations place a greater burden on pest control dealers and pest control advisers than

growers to achieve compl iance with the use restrictions. Th e requirement for grower s to obtain a pest control adviser recommendation is part of the information that dealers provide to purchasers of high

- VOC products , as specified in 3 CCR section 6577 . Other regulations (3 CCR section 6556) require pest control advisers to certify that alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact on the envir onment
have been considered and , if feasible, adopted

. Therefore, pest control advisers must consider

low

- VOC alternatives and recommend them to growers when feasible. The requirement is in

effect whether o r not the trigger level is exceeded and additional restrictions are implemented. This should result in more consistent actions by growers and pest control advisers, and discourage use of high

- VOC products even if additional restrictions are not implemented

. The regulations include grower and pest control adviser recordkeeping requirements so DPR and county agricultural commissioners can check compliance.

The nonfumigant regulations have no additional requirements for county agricultural commissioners. (Opt ion 4a not selected)

County agricultural commissioners have no review or other new responsibilities under these regulations. As part of their normal duties, they will assist DPR with outreach and advice to dealers, growers, and pest control advisers. As part of their routine a udits, county agricultural

commissioners will check the new documentation required by the nonfumigant regulations.

Option s 4b (dealer requirements) and 4c (PCA requirements) were selected because the county agricultural commissioner workload and outreach needed would be less than for Option s 3 (restricted materials) and 4a ( commissioner authorizations). Outreach to affected growers and applicators is more comprehensive through dealers, but pest control advisers are more knowledgeable in determining when a high

- VOC product should and should not be

used.

The nonfumigant regulations prohibit most applications of high

- VOC products to the seven crops above in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October, if the trigger level is

exceeded. (Option 4)37 As specified in the 2008 fumigant regulations, 3 CCR section 6452.2 continues to set a trigger level for the San Joaquin Valley NAA of 95% of the pesticide SIP goal (95% of 18.1 = 17.2 tons/day). However, if emissions exceed the trigger level, the revisions to 3 CCR

64 52.2 implement nonfumigant high

- VOC product prohibitions instead of a fumigant

emission limit. Nonfumigant products account for approximately three times more VOC emissions than fumigants in the San Joaquin Valley; therefore, nonfumigant restrictions are a more efficient and effective reduction measure than the fumigant limit.

Both pest control advisers and growers must comply with the high

- VOC prohibitions , if they are triggered . As specified in 3 CCR sections 6558 and 6884, pest control advisers can not recommend and growers cannot use a high

- VOC product for the prohibited applications.

While this is a shared responsibility , DPR will rely primarily on pest control advisers to know if the high

- VOC prohibitions are in effect, and the exceptions to the p rohibitions. Since DPR licenses all pest control advisers, outreach will be focused on them.

As specified in 3 CCR section s 6452.2 and 6884, high

- VOC prohibitions only pertain to the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October because this is the NAA and time p eriod when VOC reductions are needed, and the restrictions can be applied to other areas or time periods in the future if necessary. Options 1 (registration requirements) and 2 (high

- VOC prohibitions every year) would have implemented unnecessary restricti ons for other areas and time periods. Similarly, imposing the high

- VOC prohibitions only if the trigger level is exceeded

would achieve the needed VOC reductions, but would minimize restrictions and economic impacts when reductions are not needed. The regu lations include criteria to end the high

VOC prohibitions if use levels decrease sufficiently.

The nonfumigant regulations include all exclusions and exceptions to the high

- VOC prohibitions considered.

If the trigger level is exceeded, 3 CCR section 6884 specifies that all applications of high

VOC products containing the four active ingredients in the San Joaquin Valley during May

October for the seven crops are prohibited, except for :

• Chlorpyrifos to control aphids on cotton

• Gibberellin s applied at no more than 16 grams active ingredient/acre

• Oxyfluorfen applied at no more than 0.125 (1/8) pounds active ingredient/acre

• Emergency exemption from registration (Section 18)

• Special Local Need (Section 24(c)) registration

• Applications require d by USDA, CDFA , or a county agricultural commissioner to control, suppress or eradicate pests

These exceptions are needed due to less or uncertain efficacy, and potential for greater amounts of products and active ingredients to be applied. This would o ffset the VOC reductions and could cause increased health or environmental impacts.

In addition, the high

- VOC prohibitions do not apply to applications that use a precision

sprayer meeting the criteria of the California Office of USDA

- EQIP

. Use of this eq uipment achieves VOC reductions by apply ing less product, as well as less active ingredient.38 DPR is obligated to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and structural pesticide uses.
However, DPR did not include structural and non

- production agricultural (e.g., cemetery, right of way, golf course) uses and products in the regulations . These uses have negligible emissions and some of the enforcement options are problematic for these uses.

The nonfumigant regulations include procedures to remove pesticides or crops, or add exceptions as long as the SIP goal will still be met.

As specified in 3 CCR section 6884, DPR may remove pesticides and crops to prevent continuing regulation if they no longer contribute significantly to VOC emissions. Similarly, DPR may add exceptions if low

- VOC products demonstrate lower efficacy in comparison to high

- VOC products. DPR must document that the SIP goal will still be met if a pesticide or crop is removed, or if an exception is added.

The n onfumigant regulations will likely achieve more than the needed VOC reductions.

For a year with the estimated maximum pesticide VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, the high

- VOC prohibitions would be triggered and likely reduce VOC emissions by

approx imately 2 tons/day (Table 11b). T he San Joaquin Valley pesticide VOC emissions

would likely be less than 16 tons/day (Table 12b) . This emission level is low relative to the SIP goal of 18.1 tons/day. The regulations achieve extra reductions in case they ar e needed to

offset:

• unanticipated exceptions to the restrictions,

• growers switching to other active ingredients in products with higher emission potentials

,

• incomplete compliance, and

• to provide a margin for pesticide use that exceeds the historical pattern.

As described in the previous section, DPR will evaluate the need for additional restrictions if a significant increase in pesticide VOC emissions occurs.

DPR will use its annual pes ticide VOC emissions inventory report and website to publish requirements that may change over time.

As part of the 2008 fumigant regulations

, 3 CCR section 6881 specifies the content and procedure DPR must use to publish an annual report on pesticide VOC emissions, including a public comment period. The nonfumigant regulations revise 3 CCR section 6881 by requiring DPR to

• establish prohibitions on high

- VOC nonfumigant products, and if applicable, determine if prohibitions remain in effect ; and

• include a list of actively registered products designated as high

- VOC and low

- VOC.

DPR will also publish updates on its website as needed.39 DPR has adopted regulations to reduce VOC emissions from both fumigant and nonfumigant pesticide products , e nsuring that emissions will continue to meet the SIP goals for all five NAAs.

DPR considered seven different measures for reducing pesticide VOC emissions, and selected three for implementation: using alternative application methods, reducing fumigant

usa ge, and reformulating certain pesticide products. Other measures that would reduce pesticide VOC emissions are infeasible and not needed at this time. DPR previously adopted regulations requiring low

- emission fumigation methods in certain NAAs

. The fumigan t regulations also include a fumigant emission limit as a backup measure if low

- emission fumigation methods are insufficient to achieve the SIP goals for four NAAs. For the fifth NAA, San Joaquin Valley, DPR evaluated possible regulatory actions to reformulate nonfumigant products, including label changes, regulations, and conditions for restricted materials permits. Based on the evaluation, DPR adopted regulations for nonfumigant products in 2013 that designate certain products containing abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen as high

- VOC products . San Joaquin Valley growers must obtain a recommendation from a pest control adviser prior to certain uses of high

- VOC products , and p est control advisers are required to recommend low

- VOC p roducts when

feasible. As a backup measure, the regulations will prohibit certain uses of high

- VOC products in the San Joaquin Valley if pesticide VOC emissions exceed a trigger level. The fumigant and nonfumigant regulations will keep all five NAAs in com pliance with the VOC reductions required by the SIP.40 

## Tables

Table 1. Median emission potential for each formulation class, based on thermogravimetric analysis for several products in each class. These are used as emission potential default values for pr oducts without thermogravimetric analysis data or other information to estimate the emission potential.

Formulation

Code Formulation Class Median Emission

Potential (%)

A0 Dust/powder 1.53

B0 Emulsifiable concentrate 39.15

C0 Flowable concentrate 4.80

E0 Granular/flake 3.70

G0 Microencapsulated 3.24

H0 Oil 3.47

J0 Pellet/tablet/cake/briquet 5.18

K0 Pressurized dust 100.00*

L0 Pressurized gas 100.00*

M0 Pressurized liquid/sprays/foggers 100.00*

N0 Soluble powder 1.15

O0 Solution/liquid (ready

- to

- use) 7.30

P0 Wettable powder 1.85

R0 Dry flowable 1.02 Q0 and S0 Suspension and liquid concentrate 5.71**

T0 Other (liquid) 6.91

U0 Other (dry) 2.05

* Default emission potential of all pressurized products defined as 100.

** Q0 and S0 formulation classes are combined due to (a) low number of Q0 products (n = 6) and (b) no significant difference in median thermogravimetric analysis for these formulation classes (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p = 0.8).41 Table 2. Comparison of fumigant emissions and use prior to and after implementation of fumigant VOC regulations (2006

- 2007 versus 2008

- 2009 May

- October annual average).

Fumigant VOC Emissions and Use S an Joaquin Valley NAA Southeast

Desert NAA Ventura

NAA

2006

- 7 Fumigant Emissions (tons/day) 6.47 0.49 3.06

2008

- 9 Fumigant Emissions (tons/day) 3.35 0.092 1.30

2006

- 7 Fumigant Use (tons/day) 14.39 0.92 8.89

2008

- 9 Fumigant Use (tons/day) 11.93 0.47 6.53

2006

- 7 versus 2008

- 9 Relative Difference (percent)

Decrease in VOC emissions 48 81 57* Decrease in Amount Applied 17 49 26*

Decrease Due to Low

- Emission Methods** 31 32 31

2006

- 7 versus 2008

- 9 Mass Difference (tons/day)

Decrease in VOC emissions 3.12 0.40 1.75*

Decrease Due to Low

- Emission Methods** 2.01 0.16 0.95 * Some of the decrease in use for Ventura was due to the fumigant limit and allowances required by the regulations.

** Some of the decrease may be due to changes in the procedure for determining th e frequency each fumigation method is used.

Table 3. Comparison of fumigant use prior to and after implementation of fumigant VOC regulations (2006

- 2007 versus 2008

- 2009 annual average). Data is for all fumigants

combined.

Time Period Fumigant Use

S an Joaquin Valley NAA Southeast

Desert NAA Ventura

NAA May

- Oct 2006

- 7 7,005,537 lbs 490,624 lbs 3,283,589 lbs

Jan

- Dec 2006

- 7 16,225,657 lbs 1,029,983 lbs 3,538,332 lbs May

- Oct as fraction of 2006

- 7 43% 48% 93%

May

- Oct 2008

- 9 5,805,199 lbs 317,963 lbs 2,453,000 lbs

Jan

- Dec 2008

- 9 15,710,197 lbs 950,877 lbs 3,018,515 lbs May

- Oct as fraction of 2008

- 9 37% 33% 81%

Decrease in May

- Oct fraction

between 2006

- 7 and 2008

- 9 6% 15% 11%42 Table 4 . VOC emissions by product primary active ingredient in the San Joaquin Valley NAA during May

- October, 2008

- 2010 annual average.

Product Primary Active Ingredient Rank VOC

Emissions (tons/day) Percent of

Pesticide

Emissions Cumulative

Percent

Chlorpyrifos 1 1.8127 12.2380 12.2380
1,3

- Dichloropropene* 2 1.2798 8.6405 20.8785

Metam

- sodium* 3 0.9932 6.7052 27.5837

Abamectin 4 0.8078 5.4537 33.0374 Oxyfluorfen 5 0.7782 5.2538 38.2913

Gibberellins 6 0.7042 4.7540 43.0453 Methyl bromide* 7 0.6620 4.4697 47.5151

Bifenthrin ** 8 0.6528 4.4074 51.9224

Dimethoate 9 0.5045 3.4063 55.3288

Glufosinate

- ammonium 10 0.3778 2.5505 57.8793

Potassium N

- methyldithiocarbamate* 11 0.3674 2.4806 60.3599 Fenpyroximate 12 0.3536 2.3871 62.7470

Acrolein 13 0.3180 2.1466 64.8937

Trifluralin 14 0.3053 2.0609 66.9546 Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 15 0.2975 2.0087 68.9633

Permethrin 16 0.2201 1.4860 70.4493

Mineral Oil 17 0.2194 1.4815 71.9309 Chloropicrin* 18 0.1989 1.3432 73.2741
Petroleum Oil, Unclassified 19 0.1841 1.2431 74.5171 Hexythiazox 20 0.1834 1.2380 75.7552 All other pesticides 3.5911 24.2448 100.0000

TOTAL 14.8118

* Fumigant pesticide

** The bifenthrin products emissions shown were used for the original evaluation, but were subsequently found to contain an error. The corrected data indicates that the average emissions for bifenthrin products during 2008

- 2010 were 0.1378 tons/day, ranked #23 , and

average total emissions were 14.508 tons/day

.43 Table 5 . Examples of reformulated nonfumigant products with lower emission potentials

.

Active Ingredient Lower VOC Product Emission

Potential (%) Comparable Higher

VOC Product Emission

Potential (%)

Abamectin Agri

- Mek SC 5.63 Agri

- Mek 0.15 EC 55.10

Abamectin Abba 0.15 ME 30.73 Abba 0.15 EC 62.60

Chlorpyrifos Lorsban Advanced 18.45 Lorsban 4E 50.00

Chlorpyrifos Drexel Chlorpyrifos

4E

- AG 18.20 Drexel Chlorpyrifos

4E

- AG 52.90

Diazinon Diazinon AG 600

WBC 9.22 Diazinon AG 500 56.76

Esfenvalerate Fenvastar Plus

Insecticide 2.19 Fenvastar EcoCap 51.78

Lambda

Cyhalothrin Warrior II with Zeon Technology 18.67 Warrior with Zeon Technology 29.06

Oxyfluorfen Goaltender 8.28 Goal 2XL 62.30

Oxyfluorfen Willowood OxyFlo 4

SC 6.76 Willowood OxyFlo 2

EC 60.00

Oxyfluorfen Oxystar 4L 10.63 Oxystar 2E 73.09

Oxyfluorfen Galigan Slapshot 3.84 Galigan 2E 66.15

Pendimethalin Prowl H2O 3.00 Prowl 3.3 EC 42.3544 Table 6. Availability of products in 2012 with lower VOC emissions for major VOC

contributors in the San Joaquin Valley . DPR considered reformulation and nonfumigant

restrictions for the active ingredients highlighted. Fumigants and acrolein were not considered for reformulation or nonfumigant res trictions because they contain little or no VOCs as inert ingredients. Glufosinate, glyphosate, and oils were not considered for

reformulation or restrictions because the emission potentials for all products are less than 15%. “Rank” is the pesticide VOC e missions ranking for the S an Joaquin Valley during May

- October 2008

- 2010. “Liquid Products Available” indicates if there were high

- VOC

and/or low

- VOC products registered in 2012 . “Solid Products Available” indicates if solid products were registered in 201 2 . All solid products are considered low

- VOC, but may not be

effective in all cases.

Product Primary A ctive Ingredient Rank Liquid Products

Available Solid Products

Available Chlorpyrifos 1 High

- and Low

- VOC Low

- VOC
1,3

- Dichloropropene* 2 High

- VOC only None

Metam

- sodium* 3 High

- VOC only None

Abamectin 4 High

- and Low

- VOC Low

- VOC Oxyfluorfen 5 High

- and Low

- VOC Low

- VOC

Gibberellins 6 High

- VOC only Low

- VOC Methyl bromide* 7 High

- VOC only None

Bifenthrin ** 8 High

- and Low

- VOC** * Low

- VOC

Dimethoate 9 High

- VOC only Low

- VOC

Glufosinate

- ammonium 10 Low

- VOC only None

Potassium N

- methyldithiocarbamate* 11 High

- VOC only None Fenpyroximate 12 High

- and Low

- VOC None

Acrolein 13 High

- VOC only None

Trifluralin 14 High

- VOC only Low

- VOC Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 15 Low

- VOC only None

Permethrin 16 High

- and Low

- VOC** * Low

- VOC

Mineral Oil 17 Low

- VOC only None Chloropicrin* 18 High

- VOC only None
Petroleum Oil, Unclassified 19 Low

- VOC only None Hexythiazox 20 High

- VOC only Low

- VOC

* Fumigant pesticide

** The bifenthrin products ranking was used for the original evaluation, but was subsequently found to contain an error. The corrected data indicates that bifenthrin products during 2008

- 2010 were ranked #23.

* ** Low

- VOC products may not be re gistered for all uses.45 Table 7a. Approximate change in cost of switching to a low

- VOC alternative in 2012 , by percentage. Negative value indicates a cost savings by switching to an alternative product.

Pesticide Alfalfa Almonds Citrus Cotton Grapes Walnuts

Abamectin Low use 0% Low use 0% 0% 0% Chlorpyrifos <0.1% 33% 0% 0% 20% 9%

Dimethoate 40% No use 104% ? Low use No use

Gibberellins No use No use

- 2% No use 0.6% No use Oxyfluorfen No use 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%

Table 7b. Approximate change in cost of switching to a low

- VOC alternative in 2012 , by amount per acre. Negative value indicates a cost savings by switching to an alternative product.

Pesticide Alfalfa Almonds Citrus Cotton Grapes Walnuts

Abamectin Low use $0/ac Low use $0/ac $0/ac $0/ac Chlorpyrifos $0.02/ac $10.77/ac $0/ac $0/ac $6.58/ac $4.10/ac

Dimethoate $14/ac No use $38/ac No data Low use No use

Gibberellins No use No use

- $1.40/ac No use $1.20/ac No use Oxyfluorfen No use $1.19/ac $1.19/ac $1.19/ac $1.19/ac $1.19/ac46 Table 8a. Actively registered agricultural products in 2012 containing abamectin as the primary active ingredient Products are listed in order by emission potential (EP) . Products highlighted indicate liquid products with lower emission p otentials and considered in determining the emission potential threshold for designating low

- VOC and high

- VOC products. The product amount is amount applied in the S an Joaquin Valley during May

- October 2010.

Product Name Registration Number Registrant Formulation EP (%) Product Amt (pounds) Prescription Treatment Brand Advance Granular 499

- 370

- AA Whitmire Micro

- Gen Research Granular/Flake 3.70 184 Prescription Treatment Brand Ascend Fire Ant

Bait 499

- 370

- ZA Whitmire Micro

- Gen Research Granular/Flake 3.70 0

Clinch Ant Bait 10965

- 50068

- AA California Dept. Of Food & Ag. Granular/Flake 3.70 943 Prescription Treatment Brand Advance Granular 499

- 370

- ZB Whitmire Micro

- Gen Research Granular/Flake 3.70 24

Clinch Ant Bait 100

- 894

- ZA Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Granular/Flake 3.70 184,535 Prescription Treatment Brand Advance 375A

Select 499

- 370

- ZC Whitmire Micro

- Gen Research Granular/Flake 3.70 26 Optigard Fire Ant Bait 100

- 893

- ZB Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Granular/Flake 3.70 0 Prescription Treatment Brand Avert Cockroach 499

- 467

- AA Whitmire Micro

- Gen Research Pellet/Tablet/Cake/Briquet 5.18 49

Raid Double Control Small Roach Baits 4822

- 472

- ZC S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. Pellet/Tablet/Cake/Briquet 5.18 0

Enforcer Antmax Bait Stations 40849

- 75

- AA ZEP Commercial Sales & Service, Pellet/Tablet/Cake/Briquet 5.18 0

Enforcer Roachmax Bait Stations 40849

- 76

- AA ZEP Commercial Sales & Service, Pellet/Tablet/Cake/Briquet 5.18 0 Raid Max Double Control Large Roach Baits 4822

- 472

- ZH S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. Pellet/Tablet/Cake/Briquet 5.18 0

Raid Max Double Control Ant Baits 4822

- 472

- ZI S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. Pellet/Tablet/Cake/Briquet 5.18 0

Avicta 400FS 100

- 1211

- AA Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Aqueous Concentrate 5.50 0 Prescription Treatment Brand Avert Dry Flowable 499

- 294

- ZA Whitmire Micro

- Gen Research Dust/Powder 5.55 0 Agri

- Mek SC Miticide/Insecticide 100

- 1351

- AA Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Aqueous Suspension 5.63 1

Timectin 0.15 EC T&O Insecticide/Miticide 84229

- 1

- AA Tide International USA, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 29.75 0

Master Label

- Abba 0.15 ME Miticide/Insecticide 66222

- 191

- ML Makhteshim

- Agan Microencapsulated 30.73 0

Abba Ultra Miticide/Insecticide 66222

- 226

- AA Makhteshim

- Agan Emulsifiable Concentrate 34.18 0

Abamectin E

- Ag 0.15 EC Insecticide 79676

- 58

- AA Etigra Emulsifiable Concentrate 39.15* 1,227 Timectin 0.15 EC Ag Insecticide/Miticide 84229

- 2

- AA Tide International USA, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 39.15* 17,167 Agmectin 0.15 EC 84229

- 2

- AA

- 72662 Oro Agri, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 39.15* 6,518 Solera Abamectin 0.15EC Ag Insecticide/Miticide 82542

- 11

- AA

- 84237 Solera Ato, LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 39.15* 1,149

Nufarm Abamectin 0.15 EC Insecticide 228

- 658

- AA Nufarm Americas Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 39.15* 0 Nufarm Abamectin Spc 0.15 EC Insecticide 228

- 657

- AA Nufarm Americas Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 39.15* 0

Merlin 81943

- 29

- AA Phoenix Environmental Care LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 39.15* 0 Agmectin 0.15ED Insecticide/Miticide 84229

- 2

- ZA Tide International USA, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 39.15* 0 Greyhound Insecticide 69117

- 2

- AA Arborsystems Solution/Liquid 55.10 0 Agri

- Mek 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide 100

- 898

- ZA Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 55.10 116,183

Avid 0.15EC Miticide/Insecticide 100

- 896

- ZA Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 55.10 55 Epi

- Mek 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide 100

- 1154

- AA Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 55.10 221,77747 Product Name Registration Number Registrant Formulation EP (%) Product Amt (pounds)

Ardent 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide 100

- 896

- ZB Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 55.10 0

Aracinate 74779

- 1

- AA Rainbow Treecare Scientific Other (Liquid) 55.10 0 Abacus Agricultural Miticide/Insecticide 83100

- 4

- AA

- 83979 Rotam North America, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 60.54 58,371

Lucid Ornamental Miticide/Insecticide 83100

- 5

- AA

- 83979 Rotam North America, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 60.54 141

Minx Ornamental Miticide/Insecticide 1001

- 83

- AA Cleary Chemical Corp. Emulsifiable Concentrate 60.54 0 Solera Abamectin Agricultural

Miticide/Insecticide 83100

- 4

- AA

- 82542 Source Dynamics, LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 60.54 3

Zoro Miticide/Insecticide 67760

- 71

- AA Cheminova, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 61.20 36,807 Temprano 67760

- 71

- AA

- 400 Chemtura Corporation Emulsifiable Concentrate 61.20 7,172

Abba 0.15 EC 66222

- 139

- AA Makhteshim

- Agan Emulsifiable Concentrate 62.62 54,844 Quali

- Pro Abamectin 0.15 EC 73220

- 10

- AA Farmsaver.Com, LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 62.62 362 Quali

- Pro Abamectin 0.15 EX

Miticide/Insecticide 66222

- 210

- AA Makhteshim

- Agan Emulsifiable Concentrate 62.62 0

Vivid II 64014

- 10

- AA Florida Silvics Inc., DBA Tree Solution/Liquid 71.77 0

Abamectin E

- Pro 0.15 EC Insecticide 79676

- 57

- AA Etigra Emulsifiable Concentrate 72.96 70 Reaper 0.15 EC 34704

- 923

- AA Loveland Products, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 73.33 94,294

* DPR was evaluating the emission potentials for these liquid products. They were assigned default emission potential values on an

interim basis.48 Table 8b. Actively registered agricultural products in 2012 containing chlorpyrifos as the primary active ingredient. Products are listed in order by emission potential ( EP ) . Products highlighted indicate li quid products with lower emission potentials and considered in determining the emission potential threshold for designating low

- VOC and high

- VOC products. The product amount is amount applied in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October 2010.

Product Name Registration Number Registrant Formulation EP (%) Product Amt (pounds) Prescription Treatment Brand Duraguard ME 499

- 367

- ZA Whitmire Micro

- Gen Research Aqueous Concentrate 0.00 0

Durashield CS Controlled Release Premise 499

- 419

- ZB Whitmire Micro

- Gen Research Microencapsulated 0.00 144

Dursban W 62719

- 352

- AA Dow Agrosciences LLC Wettable Powder 1.85 0 Pyrinex Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 11678

- 58

- AA Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. Other (Dry) 2.05 0

Lorsban 50W In Water Soluble Packets 62719

- 221

- ZA Dow Agrosciences LLC Wettable Powder 3.03 0

Lorsban 50

- W 62719

- 221

- AA

- 10163 Gowan Company Wettable Powder 3.03 0

Nufos 15G 67760

- 14

- AA Cheminova, Inc. Granular/Flake 3.70 420

Rainbow Fire Ant & Insect Killer 13283

- 14

- ZA Rainbow Technology Corporation Granular/Flake 3.70 0

Andersons Golf Products Insecticide III 9198

- 167

- AA Andersons Lawn Fertilizer Granular/Flake 3.70 600

Lorsban

- 75WG 62719

- 301

- AA Dow Agrosciences LLC Granular/Flake 3.70 390

Lorsban 75WG 62719

- 301

- AA

- 10163 Gowan Company Granular/Flake 3.70 507

Lorsban 15G Smartbox 5481

- 525

- AA Amvac Chemical Corporation Granular/Flake 3.70 1,200

Lorsban 15G Granular Insecticide 62719

- 34

- ZA Dow Agrosciences LLC Granular/Flake 5.33 14,880

HM

- 0531 62719

- 34

- AA

- 5905 Helena Chemical Company Granular/Flake 5.33 523

Saurus 62719

- 34

- ZA

- 5905 Helena Chemical Company Granular/Flake 5.33 9,605

Dursban 50W In Water Soluble Packets 62719

- 72

- ZA Dow Agrosciences LLC Wettable Powder 10.80 35 Drexel Chlorpyrifos 4E

- Ag 19713

- 520

- AA Drexel Chemical Company Emulsifiable Concentrate 18.20 0

Lorsban Advanced 62719

- 591

- AA Dow Agrosciences LLC Aqueous Concentrate 18.45 728,372

Lock

- On Insecticide 62719

- 79

- ZA Dow Agrosciences LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 20.90 127,051

Govern 4E Insecticide 62719

- 220

- AA

- 55467 Tenkoz Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 50.00 208,994

Warhawk 62719

- 220

- AA

- 34704 Loveland Products, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 50.00 31,825

Whirlwind 62719

- 220

- AA

- 5905 Helena Chemical Company Emulsifiable Concentrate 50.00 25,538

Eraser 62719

- 220

- AA

- 71058 Independent Agribusiness Prof Emulsifiable Concentrate 50.00 218 Agrisolutions Yuma 4E Insecticide 62719

- 220

- AA

- 1381 Winfield Solutions LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 50.00 1,272

Hatchet 62719

- 220

- ZC Dow Agrosciences LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 50.00 344

Lorsban

- 4E 62719

- 220

- ZA Dow Agrosciences LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 51.32 83,929

Nufos 4E 67760

- 28

- AA Cheminova, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 52.30 240,390 Chlorpyrifos 4E Ag 66222

- 19

- AA Makhteshim

- Agan Emulsifiable Concentrate 52.90 17,302 Quali

- Pro Chlorpyrifos 4E 66222

- 19

- AA

- 73220 Farmsaver.Com, LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 52.90 47 Quali

- Pro Chlorpyrifos 4E 66222

- 19

- ZA Makhteshim

- Agan Emulsifiable Concentrate 52.90 0

Warhawk 34704

- 857

- AA Loveland Products, Inc. Aqueous Concentrate 54.41 170,147

Cobalt 62719

- 575

- AA Dow Agrosciences LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 68.61 22,71749 Table 8c. Actively registered agricultural products in 2012 containing gibberellins as the primary active ingredient

. Products are listed in order by emission potential ( EP ) . The product amount is amount applied in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October 2010.

Product Name Registration Number Registrant Formulation EP (%) Product Amt (pounds) Gibgro 20% Powder 55146

- 53

- ZA Nufarm Americas Inc. Dust/Powder 0.00 711 Gibgro 5% Powder 55146

- 56

- ZA Nufarm Americas Inc. Dust/Powder 0.01 121

Pro

- Gibb Plus 2x Plant Growth Regulator 73049

- 16

- AA Valent Biosciences Corporation Soluble Powder 1.15 5,505

Release Plant Growth Regulator Soluble Powder 73049

- 6

- AA Valent Biosciences Corporation Soluble Powder 1.15 0

GA3 20% 72639

- 13

- AA LT Biosyn, Inc. Soluble Powder 1.15 852

N

- Large 40 SP 57538

- 22

- AA Stoller Enterprises, Inc. Soluble Powder 1.15 0 Falgro 20SP 62097

- 3

- AA

- 82917 Fine Americas, Inc. Soluble Powder 1.15 445 Progibb 40% Water Soluble Granules 73049

- 1

- AA Valent Biosciences Corporation Granular/Flake 3.70 12,045 Provide 10 SG Plant Growth Regulator 73049

- 409

- AA Valent Biosciences Corporation Granular/Flake 3.70 0 Progibb 40% Plant Growth Regulator 73049

- 1

- ZA Valent Biosciences Corporation Granular/Flake 3.70 0

Fresco 62097

- 6

- ZA

- 82917 Fine Americas, Inc. Aqueous Concentrate 5.71* 0 Procone Plant Growth Regulator Solution 73049

- 32

- AA Valent Biosciences Corporation Solution/Liquid 7.30* 0

N

- Large Premier 57538

- 20

- AA Stoller Enterprises, Inc. Aqueous Concentrate 79.02 974

GA3 4% 72639

- 8

- AA LT Biosyn, Inc. Aqueous Concentrate 92.36 2,412

Gibbmax 69766

- 1

- AA Advanced Foliar Nutrients Systems Other (Liquid) 92.43 20 Falgro 4L 62097

- 2

- AA

- 82917 Fine Americas, Inc. Solution/Liquid 93.82 28,114 Florgib 4L 62097

- 10

- AA

- 82917 Fine Americas, Inc. Aqueous Concentrate 93.82 0

Pro

- Gibb 4% Plant Growth Regulator Solution 73049

- 15

- AA Valent Biosciences Corporation Aqueous Concentrate 94.13 96,661 Progibb T & O Plant Growth Regulator 73049

- 15

- ZA Valent Biosciences Corporation Aqueous Concentrate 94.13 24 Gibgro 4LS 55146

- 62

- ZA Nufarm Americas Inc. Flowable Concentrate 94.87 61,740 Novagib 10L 62097

- 7

- AA

- 82917 Fine Americas, Inc. Aqueous Concentrate 98.91 0

* DPR was evaluating the emission potentials for these liquid products. They were assigned default emission potential values on an

interim basis.50 Table 8d. Actively registered agricultural products in 2012 containing oxyfluorfen as the primary active ingredient . Products are listed in order by emission potential ( EP ) . Products highlighted indicate liquid products with lower emission potentials and considered in determining the emission potential threshold for designating low

- VOC and high

- VOC products. The product amount is amount applied in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October 2010.

Product Name Registration Number Registrant Formulation EP (%) Product Amt (pounds) Regal 0

- 0 Herbicide 48234

- 10

- AA Regal Chemical Company Granular/Flake 3.70 0

Double O E

- Pro Herbicide 79676

- 20

- AA Etigra Granular/Flake 3.70 5,400 Permaguard 79676

- 20

- AA

- 72112 Prokoz, Inc. Granular/Flake 3.70 2,207

Two Ox E

- Pro Herbicide 79676

- 38

- AA Etigra Granular/Flake 3.70 0

Nufarm Double O SPC Herbicide 228

- 632

- AA Nufarm Americas Inc. Granular/Flake 3.70 0 Galigan Slapshot 66222

- 107

- ZA Makhteshim

- Agan Aqueous Concentrate 3.84 2,771 Galigan H2O 66222

- 140

- AA Makhteshim

- Agan Aqueous Concentrate 5.71 427 Willowood Oxyflo 4 SC 87290

- 10

- AA Willowood, LLC Aqueous Concentrate 6.76 0 Ortho Groundclear Superedger Plus Ready To

Use 239

- 2516

- ZD Scotts Company Solution/Liquid 7.30 0

Goaltender 62719

- 447

- ZA Dow Agrosciences LLC Flowable Concentrate 8.28 16,330

Rout Ornamental Herbicide 58185

- 27

- AA Scotts

- Sierra Crop Prot. Co. Granular/Flake 8.60 1,465 Progrow Ornamental Herbicide 2 538

- 172

- AA Scotts Company Granular/Flake 9.17 4,687

OH 2 538

- 172

- ZA Scotts Company Granular/Flake 9.17 1,745

Pindar GT 62719

- 611

- AA Dow Agrosciences LLC Aqueous Suspension 10.60 1,792 Oxystar 4L 42750

- 199

- AA Albaugh, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 10.63 0 Willowood Oxyflo 2 EC 87290

- 8

- AA Willowood, LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 60.00 21

Goal 2XL 62719

- 424

- AA Dow Agrosciences LLC Emulsifiable Concentrate 62.30 315,487

Oxen Herbicide 34704

- 877

- AA Loveland Products, Inc. Other (Liquid) 64.00 0 Galigan 2E Oxyfluorfen Herbicide 66222

- 28

- AA Makhteshim

- Agan Emulsifiable Concentrate 66.15 32,097 Oxystar 2E 42750

- 136

- AA Albaugh, Inc. Emulsifiable Concentrate 73.09 18,41151 Table 9. VOC emissions from abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen products used for production agriculture, nonproduction agriculture, and structures in the S an Joaquin Valley during May

- October, annual average for 2008

- 2010.

Use Type VOC Emissions (pounds) % of Total Abamectin Chlorpyrifos Gibberellins Oxyfluorfen Sum Production agriculture 301,490 662,991 268,331 266,721 1,499,533 98.68 Nonproduction agriculture 318 449 668 18,250 19,685 1.30

Structural 133 48 0 130 311 0.02

Total 301,941 663,488 268,999 285,101 1,519,529 100.0052 Table 10. VOC emissions from abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, and oxyfluorfen products by crop or site in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October, annual average for 2008

- 2010.

Crop/Site VOC Emissions (pounds) Percent of

Total Cumulative

Percent Abamectin Chlorpyrifos Gibberellins Oxyfluorfen Sum

Almond 165,059 184,506 0 150,065 499,630 32.88 32.88

Citrus 25,134 143,533 108,929 1,102 278,697 18.34 51.22 Grapes 38,954 25,227 146,131 22,767 233,079 15.34 66.56

Cotton 27,363 83,727 0 17,742 128,832 8.48 75.04

Walnut 14,267 75,484 0 18,249 108,000 7.11 82.15

Alfalfa 3,058 104,264 0 5 107,327 7.06 89.21

Pistachio 19 0 0 37,951 37,971 2.50 91.71

Corn 26 36,767 0 26 36,819 2.42 94.13 Cherry 2,033 94 13,315 4,285 19,727 1.30 95.43 Rights of way 77 12 0 17,190 17,279 1.14 96.57 Cantaloupe 4,475 0 0 15 4,489 0.30 96.86

Plum 2,321 8 26 1,522 3,877 0.26 97.12

Watermelons 3,065 0 0 0 3,065 0.20 97.32

Peach 1,275 32 66 1,617 2,990 0.20 97.52
Beans, dried

- type 2,449 386 0 35 2,870 0.19 97.70
Lettuce, head 2,548 0 0 0 2,548 0.17 97.87 Asparagus 0 2,151 0 0 2,151 0.14 98.01

Tomatoes 2,020 5 0 32 2,057 0.14 98.15 Nursery

- outdoor 529 81 14 1,396 2,020 0.13 98.28

Nectarine 450 10 113 1,180 1,752 0.12 98.40 All other crops 6,821 7,201 405 9,922 24,349 1.60 100.00

Total (pounds) 301,941 663,488 268,999 285,101 1,519,529 Total (tons/day) 0.82 1.80 0.73 0.77 4.1353 Table 11a. Estimated VOC reductions for various nonfumigant restrictions (negative values) and exceptions (positive values) in the S an Joaquin Valley during May

- October 2006, the highest year. The emission potential thresholds ( EP thd) are set at the lowest level to achieve the greatest reductions. Setting higher emission potential threshold s for abamectin and gibberellins could result in less cost

.

Scenario Estimated VOC Reductions (tons/day) with Nonfumigant Restrictions

Abamectin

EP thd= 10% Chlorpyrifos

EP thd=25% Gibberellins

EP thd= 5% Oxyfluorfen

EP thd=15% Sum

Estimated reduction

Alfalfa restrictions

- 0.0069

- 0.0978 0.0000 0.0000

- 0.1048

Almond restrictions

- 0.2490

- 0.7342 0.0000

- 0.2763

- 1.2595

Cherry restrictions 0.0000

- 0.0007

- 0.0220

- 0.0145

- 0.0373

Citrus restrictions

- 0.0236

- 0.3473

- 0.2950

- 0.0061

- 0.6720

Corn restrictions 0.0000

- 0.0397 0.0000 0.0000

- 0.0397

Cotton restrictions

- 0.1089

- 0.3897 0.0000

- 0.0558

- 0.5544

Grape restrictions

- 0.0365

- 0.0469

- 0.3955

- 0.0433

- 0.5223

Pistachio restrictions 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

- 0.0401

- 0.0401

Right of way restrictions 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

- 0.0498

- 0.0499

Walnut restrictions

- 0.0157

- 0.1566 0.0000

- 0.0480

- 0.2203

Remaining crops restrictions

- 0.0350

- 0.0433

- 0.0036

- 0.0360

- 0.1179

Sum of all crops/sites

- 0.4756

- 1.8563

- 0.7162

- 0.5700

- 3.6181

Estimated exceptions

Structural 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003

Non

- production ag 0.0002 0.0003 0.0000 0.0204 0.0210

Chlorpyrifos cotton aphids 0.0000 0.0390 0.0000 0.0000 0.0390

Gibberellins ≤ 16 grams/acre 0.0000 0.0000 0.1403 0.0000 0.1403

Oxyfluorfen ≤ 0.125 lbs/acre 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0769 0.0 769

Section 18* 0.0131 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0131

Section 24c* 0.0068 0.0744 0.0072 0.2185 0.3069

USDA/CDFA 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001

Precision sprayer 0.0048 0.0186 0.0072 0.0057 0.0362

Sum of all exceptions 0.0249 0.1326 0. 1547 0. 3214 0.6337

Reduction from all crops with all exceptions - 0.4507

- 1.7237

- 0. 5614

- 0. 2486

- 2.9844

Actual emissions 0.6000 3.9692 0.7607 0.7784 6.1082

* Section 18 for abamectin on lima beans.

** Section 24c for abamectin on alfalfa; chlorpyrifos on citrus; gibberellins on azaleas and tangerines; oxyfluorfen on peas, roses, clover, stone fruit, olives, and almonds.54 Table 11b. Estimated VOC reductions for various nonfumigant restrictions (negative values) and exceptions (positive values) in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October 2006, the highest year. Th e emission potential thresholds ( EP thd) are set at the highest level to

achieve the least reductions. Greater reduction could be achieved by setting lower emission potential thresholds for abamectin and gibberellins, but that could cause higher cost

.

Sc enario Estimated VOC Reductions (tons/day) with Nonfumigant Restrictions

Abamectin

EP thd= 35% Chlorpyrifos

EP thd=25% Gibberellins

EP thd= 25% Oxyfluorfen

EP thd=15% Sum

Estimated reductions

Alfalfa restrictions

- 0.0031

- 0.0978 0.0000 0.0000

- 0.1009

Almond restrictions

- 0.1037

- 0.7342 0.0000

- 0.2763

- 1.1142

Cherry restrictions 0.0000

- 0.0007

- 0.0171

- 0.0145

- 0.0323

Citrus restrictions

- 0.0098

- 0.3473

- 0.2281

- 0.0061

- 0.5914

Corn restrictions 0.0000

- 0.0397 0.0000 0.0000

- 0.0397

Cotton restrictions

- 0.0456

- 0.3897 0.0000

- 0.0558

- 0.4911

Grape restrictions

- 0.0150

- 0.0469

- 0.3064

- 0.0433

- 0.4116

Pistachio restrictions 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

- 0.0401

- 0.0401

Right of way restrictions 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

- 0.0498

- 0.0499

Walnut restrictions

- 0.0055

- 0.1566 0.0000

- 0.0480

- 0.2101

Remaining crops restrictions

- 0.0149

- 0.0433

- 0.0030

- 0.0360

- 0.0972

Sum of all crops/sites

- 0.1975

- 1.8563

- 0.5546

- 0.5700

- 3.1785

Estimated exceptions

Structural 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003

Nonproduction ag 0.0002 0.0003 0.0000 0.0204 0.0210

Chlorpyrifos cotton aphids 0.0000 0.0390 0.0000 0.0000 0.0390

Gibberellins ≤ 16 grams/acre 0.0000 0.0000 0.1403 0.0000 0.1403

Oxyfluorfen ≤ 0.125 lbs/acre 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0769 0.0 769

Section 18* 0.0131 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0131

Section 24c** 0.0068 0.0744 0.0072 0.2185 0.3069

USDA/CDFA 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001

Precision sprayer 0.0020 0.0186 0.0055 0.0057 0.0318

Sum of all exceptions 0.0222 0.1326 0. 1531 0. 3214 0.6293

Reduction from all crops with all exceptions - 0.1754

- 1.7237

- 0.4 015

- 0. 2486

- 2.5492

Actual emissions 0.6000 3.9692 0.7607 0.7784 6.1082

* Section 18 for abamectin on lima beans.

** Section 24c for abamectin on alfalfa; chlorpyrifos on citrus; gibberellins on azaleas and tangerines; oxyfluorfen on peas, roses, clover, stone fruit, olives, and almonds.55 Table 12a. Estimated VOC emissions with various nonfumigant active ingredient and crop

restrictions. All scenarios assum e that the emission potential thresholds for abamectin and gibberellins products are set at the lowest level of 10% and 5%, respectively. All scenarios assume that the fumigant regulations reduce fumigant VOC emissions by 37%. Lower

emission levels are ach ieved by restricting more nonfumigant active ingredients and/or more crops. Emissions are estimated for the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October 2006, the highest year. Actual emissions for 2006 were 21.3 tons/day. The emission level goal for these

nonfum igant restrictions combined with the fumigant regulations is 17.2 tons/day (trigger for

additional restrictions ) or less. Highlighted values indicate scenarios that achieve the emission level goal.

Scenario Estimated VOC Emissions (tons/day) with Lowest Emission

Potentials , Fumigant Regs, and Nonfumigant Restrictions

Top Active Ingredient (Chlorpyrifos) Top 2 Active Ingredients (Previous+ Oxyfluorfen) Top 3 Active Ingredients (Previous+ Gibberellins) Top 4 Active Ingredients (Previous+ Abamectin)
Estimated emissions with nonfumigant restrictions and no exceptions

Top crop (almond) 18.052 17.776 17.776 17.527
Top 2 crops (previous+citrus) 17.705 17.422 17.127 16.855
Top 3 crops (previous+cotton) 17.315 16.977 16.682 16.300
Top 4 crops ( previous+grape) 17.268 16.886 16.196 15.778
Top 5 crops (previous+walnut) 17.111 16.682 15.991 15.558
Top 6 crops (previous+alfalfa) 17.013 16.584 15.893 15.453
Top 7 crops (previous+right of way) 17.013 16.534 15.844 15.403
Top 8 crops ( previous+pistachio) 17.013 16.494 15.803 15.363
Top 9 crops (previous+corn) 16.974 16.454 15.764 15.323
Top 10 crops (previous+cherry) 16.973 16.439 15.726 15.286
All crops 16.930 16.360 15.644 15.168
Estimated emissions with nonfumigant restrictions and all exceptions*

Top crop (almond) 18.1845 18.0970 17.9303 17.5515
Top 2 crops (previous+citrus) 17.8372 17.7435 17.2818 16.8794
Top 3 crops (previous+cotton) 17.4474 17.2980 16.8363 16.3250
Top 4 crops (previous+grape) 17.4005 17.2078 16.3505 15.8027
Top 5 crops (previous+walnut) 17.2439 17.0032 16.1459 15.5825
Top 6 crops (previous+alfalfa) 17.1461 16.9053 16.0481 15.4777
Top 7 crops (previous+right of way) 17.1461 16.8555 15.9982 15.4278
Top 8 crops (previous+pistachio) 17.1461 16.8153 15.9581 15.3877
Top 9 crops (previous+corn) 17.1064 16.7757 15.9184 15.3480
Top 10 crops (previous+cherry) 17.1057 16.7604 15.8811 15.3107
All crops 17.0623 16.6811 15.7982 15.1928

* Possible exceptions to nonfumigant restrictions include the following uses: chlorpyrifos for cotton aphid, gibberellins ≤ 16 grams/acre, oxyfluorfen ≤ 0.125 lbs/acre, Section 18, Section 24c, USDA/CDFA projects, and smart sprayers.56 Table 12b. Estimated VOC emissions with various nonfumigan t active ingredient and crop

restrictions. All scenarios assume that the emission potential thresholds for abamectin and gibberellins products are set at the highest level of 35% and 25%, respectively. All scenarios assume that the fumigant regulations red uce fumigant VOC emissions by 37%. Lower emission levels are achieved by restricting more nonfumigant active ingredients and/or more crops. Emissions are estimated for the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October 2006, the highest year. Actual emissions for 2 006 were 21.3 tons/day. The emission level goal for these nonfumigant restrictions combined with the fumigant regulations is 17.2 tons/day (trigger for

additional restrictions ) or less. Highlighted values indicate scenarios that achieve the

emission level goal.

Scenario Estimated VOC Emissions (tons/day) with Highest Emission

Potentials , Fumigant Regs, and Nonfumigant Restrictions

Top Active Ingredient (Chlorpyrifos) Top 2 Active Ingredients (Previous+ Oxyfluorfen) Top 3 A ctive Ingredients (Previous+ Gibberellins) Top 4 Active Ingredients (Previous+ Abamectin)
Estimated emissions with nonfumigant restrictions and no exceptions

Top crop (almond) 18.052 17.776 17.776 17.672
Top 2 crops (previous+citrus) 17.705 17.422 17.194 17.080
Top 3 crops ( previous+cotton) 17.315 16.977 16.748 16.589
Top 4 crops (previous+grape) 17.268 16.886 16.352 16.178
Top 5 crops (previous+walnut) 17.111 16.682 16.147 15.968
Top 6 crops (previous+alfalfa) 17.013 16.584 16.049 15.867
Top 7 crops (previous+right of way) 17.013 16.534 16.000 15.817
Top 8 crops (previous+pistachio) 17.013 16.494 15.959 15.777
Top 9 crops (previous+corn) 16.974 16.454 15.920 15.737
Top 10 crops (previous+cherry) 16.973 16.439 15.887 15.705
All crops 16.930 16.360 15.805 15.608
Estimated emissions with nonfumigant restrictions and all exceptions*

Top crop (almond) 18.1845 18.0970 17.9287 17.6940
Top 2 crops (previous+citrus) 17.8372 17.7435 17.3471 17.1026
Top 3 crops (previous+cotton) 17.4474 17.2980 16.9016 16.6115
Top 4 crops (previous+grape) 17.4005 17.2078 16.5050 16.2000
Top 5 crops (previous+walnut) 17.2439 17.0032 16.3004 15.9899
Top 6 crops (previous+alfalfa) 17.1461 16.9053 16.2025 15.8890
Top 7 crops (previous+right of way) 17.1461 16.8555 16.1526 15.8391
Top 8 crops (previous+pistachio) 17.1461 16.8153 16.1125 15.7990
Top 9 crops (previous+corn) 17.1064 16.7757 16.0728 15.7593
Top 10 crops (previous+cherry) 17.1057 16.7604 16.0405 15.7270
All crops 17.0623 16.6811 15.9582 15.6297

* Possible exceptions to nonfumigant restrictions include the following uses: chlorpyrifos for cotton aphid, gibberellins ≤ 16 grams/acre, oxyfluorfen ≤ 0.125 lbs/acre, Section 18, Section 24c, USDA/CDFA projects, and smart sprayers.57 Table 13. Overview of enforcement option s for nonfumigant restrictions. All options include sales and/or use restrictions on certain high

- VOC products in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) during May

- October. Some options are more stringent, causing a greater burden.

The selected options are highlight ed.

Option Statewide/all year or SJV/May

- Oct VOC reduction

achieved Fumigant limit trigger Compliance and enforceability Extra impact*

1

- Cancel high

- VOC product registrations, with exceptions Statewide, all year Likely more than required Unchanged High, if few exceptions Growers

2

- Prohibit use of high

- VOC products, with exceptions Statewide or SJV, all year or May

- Oct Likely more than required Unchanged High, if extensive

outreach occurs Growers

3

- Designate additional

restricted materials SJV, May

- Oct Required

reduction Replaced?? High Ag commissioners,

some growers

4a

- If triggered, high

- VOC use restrictions; plus use

“authorizations” SJV, May

- Oct Required

reduction Replaced High, if outreach

occurs Possibly ag commissioners,

growers 4b

- If triggered, high

- VOC use restrictions; plus dealer requirements SJV, May

- Oct Required

reduction Replaced High Possibly dealers

4c

- If triggered, high

- VOC use restrictions; plus pest
control adviser

recommendation SJV, May

- Oct Required

reduction Replaced High, if outreach

occurs Possibly some

growers

* Growers and applicators are impacted under all of the options because applications may be required to use low

- VOC products. The extra impact indicated reflects the relative workload and problems of making this change.58 Table 14. Estimated applications that would be affected by nonfumigant high

- VOC restrictions. Estimates are based on applications for all crops in the San Joaquin Valley for the most recent reported year during rulemaking (May

- October, 2010). These estimates

assume that the emission potential thresholds for abamectin and gibberellins products are set at the highest level of 35% and 25%, respectively. The estimates for the applications affected

with the lowest emission poten tial thresholds would likely be the same or very similar.

Application Parameters Abamectin Chlorpyrifos Gibberellins Oxyfluorfen Sum
Total applications

Number of applications 20,315 10,420 10,390 9,593 50,178

Area treated (acres) 1,662,438 2,560,976 382,989 444,103 5,050,506

A ctive ingredient (pounds) 13,685 766,524 16,160 100,073 896,442
Applications that used high

- VOC products

Number of applications 17,961 4,601 8,110 8,673 39,345

Area treated (acres) 1,460,409 315,564 267,820 402,002 2,445,795

A ctive ingredient (pounds) 13,663 397,583 10,250 90,589 512,085
Applications that used low

- VOC products

Number of applications 2,354 5,819 2,280 920 11,373

Area treated (acres) 202,029 2,245,412 115,169 42,102 2,604,712

A ctive ingredient (pounds) 22 368,941 5,910 9,484 384,357
Applications that used high

- VOC products for an exception

Number of applications 105 522 3,306 1,448 5,381

Area treated (acres) 8,220 43,959 125,795 73,286 251,260

A ctive ingredient (pounds) 91 44,278 1,229 14,372 59,970
High

- VOC applications that would switch to low

- VOC due to restrictions (exceptions do not switch)

Number of applications 17,856 4,079 4,804 7,225 33,964

Area treated (acres) 1,452,189 271,605 142,026 328,716 2,194,536

A ctive ingredient (pounds) 13,572 353,306 9,021 76,217 452,116
Percent that used high

- VOC products

% of applications 88.41 44.16 78.06 90.41 77.58

% of area treated (acres) 87.85 12.32 69.93 90.52 48.43

% of active ingredient (lbs) 99.84 51.87 63.43 90.52 57.12

Percent that used low

- VOC products

% of applications 11.59 55.84 21.94 9.59 22.42

% of area treated (acres) 12.15 87.68 30.07 9.48 51.57

% of active ingredient (lbs) 0.16 48.13 36.57 9.48 42.88

Percent that would switch to low

- VOC products due to restrictions (exceptions do not switch)

% of applications 87.90 39.15 46.24 75.32 66.97

% of area treated (acres) 87.35 10.61 37.08 74.02 43.45

% of active ingredient (lbs) 99.17 46.09 55.82 76.16 50.4359 

## Figures

Figure 1. Ozone nonattainment areas included in the pesticide element of the SIP.60 Figure 2a. Pesticide VOC emission s inventory for the Sacramento Metro ozone NAA during May

- October. The solid horizontal line indicates the SIP goal.

Figure 2b. Pesticide VOC emission s inventory for the South Coast ozone NAA during May

- October. The solid horizontal line indicates the SIP goal. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

1990 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012VOC Emissions (tons/day)

Fumigant Nonfumigant - ECs Nonfumigant - Others

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

1990 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012VOC Emissions (tons/day)

Fumigant Nonfumigant - ECs Nonfumigant - Others61 Figure 2c. Pesticide VOC emission s inventory for the Southeast Desert ozone NAA during May

- October. The solid horizontal line indicates the SIP goal.

Figure 2d. Pesticide VOC emission s inventory for the Ventura ozone NAA during May

- October. The solid horizontal lines indicate the phased in SIP goal. Final goal is 3.0 tons/day in 2012. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

1990 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012VOC Emissions (tons/day)

Fumigant Nonfumigant - ECs Nonfumigant - Others

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

1990 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012VOC Emissions (tons/day)

Fumigant Nonfumigant - ECs Nonfumigant - Others62 Figure 2e. Pesticide VOC emission s inventory for the S an Joaquin Valley ozone NAA during May

- October. The solid horizontal line indicates the SIP goal. The dashed horizontal line indicates the trigger for a dditional restrictions

.

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

1990 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012VOC Emissions (tons/day)

Fumigant Nonfumigant - ECs Nonfumigant - Others63 Figure 3. VOC emission trends of major nonfumigant pesticides in the San Joaquin Valley

. The two charts have different scales.64 Figure 4a. Abamectin product and VOC emissions trends for the San Joaquin Valley

. Emissions are expressed as pounds of VOC per pound of active ingredient applied. An increasing trend indicates use of products with higher emission potentials over time. A decreasing trend indicates use of products with lower emission potentials over time.

Figure 4b. Chlorpyrifos product and VOC emissions trends for the San Joaquin Valley

. Emissions are expressed as pounds of VOC per pound of active ingredient applied. An increasing trend indicates use of products with higher emission potentials over time. A decreasing trend indicates use of products with lower emission pote ntials over time. 25 26 27 28 29 30

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Pounds VOC/Pounds AI 

### Abamectin

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Pounds VOC/Pounds AI 

### Chlorpyrifos65 Figure 4c. Gibberellins product and VOC emissions trends for the S an Joaquin Valley

. Emissions are expressed as pounds of VOC per pound of active ingredient applied. An increasing trend indicates use of products with higher emission p otentials over time. A decreasing trend indicates use of products with lower emission potentials over time.

Figure 4d. Oxyfluorfen product and VOC emissions trends for the San Joaquin Valley

. Emissions are expressed as pounds of VOC per pound of active ingredient applied. An increasing trend indicates use of products with higher emission potentials over time. A decreasing trend indicates use of products with lower emission potentials over time. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Pounds VOC/Pound AI 

### Gibberellins

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Pounds VOC/Pound AI 

### Oxyfluorfen66 Possible Nonfumigant Product

Emission Potential Thresholds

Abamectin : 35 % or 10 % Chlorpyrifos : 25 %
Gibberellins : 25 % or 5 % Oxyfluorfen : 15 % Possible Nonfumigant Reductions by Active Ingredient ( all crops )

Chlorpyrifos : 1

. 856 tons / day Oxyfluorfen : 0

. 570 tons / day

Gibberellins 0

. 555 or 0

. 716 tons / day

Abamectin : 0

. 198 or 0

. 476 tons / day

TOTAL : 3

. 179 or 3

. 618 tons / day

Possible Nonfumigant Reductions by Crop ( all 4 active ingredients )

Almond : 1

. 114 or 1

. 260 tons / day

Citrus : 0

. 591 or 0

. 672 tons / day

Cotton 0

. 491 or 0

. 554 tons / day Grape : 0

. 412 or 0

. 522 tons / day

Walnut : 0

. 210 or 0

. 220 tons / day

Alfalfa : 0

. 101 or 0

. 105 tons / day Right of way : 0

. 050 tons / day

Pistachio : 0

. 040 tons / day

Corn : 0

. 040 tons / day Cherry : 0

. 032 or 0

. 037 tons / day All other crops : 0

. 097 or 0

. 118 tons / day

TOTAL : 3

. 179 or 3

. 618 tons / day Possible Nonfumigant Reductions Not Achieved from Exclusions and Exceptions

Structural use : 0

. 0003 tons / day

Non

- production ag use : 0

. 0210 tons / day Chlorpyrifos on cotton aphid : 0

. 0390 tons / day

Gibberellins rate < 16 g / ac : 0

. 1403 tons / day Oxyfluorfen < 0

. 125 lbs / ac : 0

. 0769 tons / day Exempt registration

- Sec 18 : 0

. 0131 tons / day Special Local Need

- Sec 24 c : 0

. 3069 tons / day

USDA / CDFA use : 0

. 0001 tons / day Precision sprayer : 0

. 0362 tons / day

TOTAL : 0

. 6337 tons / day Target

Fumigant and nonfumigant restrictions reduce VOC emissions by at least 4

. 1 tons / day in worst

- case year ( from 21

. 3 to < 17

. 2 tons / day ( trigger ) in 2006 )

Reductions from Fumigant Restrictions

Low

- emission fumigation methods :
2

. 5 tons / day Figure 5 . Overview of the possible scope and estimated V OC reductions for nonfumigant

restrictions in the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October. Reductions are achieved with restrictions on products that exceed emission potential thresholds. DPR must balance four factors to achieve the target VOC reductions fro m nonfumigant restrictions: the pesticide products (by active ingredient ) included, the emission potential thresholds selected, the crops included, and the exceptions included. Where more than one emission estimate is shown, the

differences are due to diff erent emission potential thresholds. Fumigant restrictions

contribute additional reductions.67 Figure 6 a. Estimated pesticide VOC emissions for various reduction scenarios by active ingredient for the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October 2006, the highest year. Estimates include all crops, highest emission potentials , and all exceptions. The solid horizontal line indicates the SIP goal. The dashed horizontal line indicates the trigger for a dditional

restrictions . Actual pesticide VOC emissions for 2006 were 21.3 tons/day. The emissions

include an estimated r eduction of 2.5 tons/day due to the 2008 fumigant regulations.

10 12 14 16 18 20

Top AI (chlorpyrifos) Top 2 AIs (previous+oxyfluorfen) Top 3 AIs (previous+gibberellins) Top 4 AIs (previous+abamectin)VOC Emissions (tons/day)68 Figure 6 b. Estimated pesticide VOC emissions for various reduction scenarios by crop for the San Joaquin Valley during May

- October 2006, the highest year. Estimates include the top

four active ingredients , highest emission potentials , and all exceptions. The solid horizontal line indicates the SIP goal. The dashed horizontal line indicates the trigger for a dditional

restrictions . Actual pesticide VOC emissions for 2006 were 21.3 tons/day

. The emissions include an estimated reduction of 2.5 tons/day due to the 2008 fumigant regulations.

10 12 14 16 18 20VOC Emissions (tons/day)