UPDATED INFORMATIVE DIGEST

There have been no changes in applicable laws described in the Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action.

DPR made changes that are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text.

• Amend section 6452(b)(1)(A) to reflect the correct section reference based on the proposed changes.

• Revise proposed section 6558 to require a licensed pest control adviser to identify the exception under section 6884(b) if the use of a high

- volatile organic compound (VOC) nonfumigant product is re commended. This will assist in determining compliance during an enforcement audit.

• Revise proposed section 6577(b) to clarify that a licensed pest control dealer must indicate on the invoice that the information required in subsection (a) was provided to the operator of the property.

• Revise proposed section 6880(a) to clarify that designating a product as a high

- or low

- VOC compound only pertains to a product that contains abamectin, chlorpyrifos, gibberellins, or oxyfluorfen as the primary active ingred ient. Also, "by weight" has been added to clarify that the product VOC emission potential is percent by weight as opposed to percent by volume.

• Revise the title of proposed section 6883 to remove "Pest Control Adviser." This title is misleading as this pr oposed section addresses the responsibility of the operator of the property in obtaining a recommendation, and not the requirements of a pest control adviser.

• R evise section 6884(b)(2) to increase the application rate of gibberellins from 8 to 16 grams of active ingredient per acre or less. All high

- VOC products are liquids and all low

- VOC products are dusts and powders. The application rate of 8 grams of low

- VOC dust and powder formulations is difficult to measure in the field resulting in possible advers e effects. Too low of an application rate can cause ineffective thinning of grapes, and too high an application rate can cause fruit abortion. The University of California's "Proposed Exemptions to San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area Use Restrictio ns , " a document relied upon, concurred that 16 grams or less of dust/p owder formulations could be difficult to measure in the field. The rate was increased from 8 to 16 grams based on public comments. Because some grape varieties require an application rat e of 16 grams for thinning, the application rate was increased to include the use of liquid formulations. The liquid formulations can be more accurately measured at this low ate.

• P ropose to add subsection 6884(b)(3) to allow an exception for use of high

- o xyfluorfen products when using a low application rate . A recent University of California study, "Evaluation of Low VOC Oxyfluorfen Plus ' Kicker ' Treatments for Postemergence Preharvest Weed Control in Nut Orchards" suggests that overall, low

- and high

- VOC formulations of oxyfluorfen can be similarly effective with respect to post

- emergence weeds.However, this one study may not be conclusive, and some low

- VOC products may prove to be less effective in some weed genera in orchards and vineyards. If this is t he case, limiting use to low

- VOC products may result in herbicide resistance in some weed genera. If additional studies confirm that low

- VOC products are equally effective, this exception can be removed. This study has been added to the rulemaking file as a "Document Relied Upon. "

• Propose to add subsections 6884(d) and (e) to allow the Director to propose removal of an active ingredient or crop through the rulemaking process while not affecting the ability to meet the pesticide VOC benchmark of 18.1 tons per day (tpd) in San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area (NAA). Cropping and use patterns which make these four active ingredients and seven crops a priority for restriction may change over time and consequently, DPR may be regulating products and crop s that are not major contributors to VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. DPR is required to ensure that the control measures to obtain VOC emission reductions are stringent enough to meet the 18.1 tpd benchmark in order to comply with the anti

- backsli ding provision of the Clean Air Act section 172(e), or 42 U.S. Code section 7502(e). Examples of changes to use and emissions that may cause the Director to propose removal include: the active ingredient is being regulated due to other potential impacts, a new active ingredient is being used, a different or new crop is replacing other crops, or use has decreased due to pest resistance. Examples of temporary changes to use patterns that are unlikely to cause the Director to propose removal include: low pesti cide product supply, low water supply, or crop loss.

• In proposed section 6884, add subsection (f) to allow the Director to make a determination to add an exception while not affecting the ability to meet the pesticide VOC benchmark of 18.1 tpd in the San Joaquin Valley ozone NAA if an acceptable study shows a greater amount of an active ingredient of a low

- VOC product must be applied to achieve the same efficacy as a high

- VOC product. There may be situations where low

- VOC products or future active ingredi ents have uncertain efficacy or other problems, particularly for specialty crops. The inability to add an exception may lead to greater amount of product used, offsetting any VOC emission reductions from the lower emission potentials. More 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. Therefore, this section allows the Direc tor to publish his decision to add an interim exception for use of a high

- VOC product in the draft emissions report which is subject to a 45

- day public comment period prior to implementation. This process expedites the allowance of a high

- VOC product that would result in the application of less active ingredient. The interim addition would have to be finalized by the rulemaking process or would expire. As previously stated, DPR is required to ensure that the controls to
obtain VOC emission reductions are st ringent enough to meet the 18.1 tpd benchmark, complying with the anti

- backsliding provision of the Clean Air Act section 172(e), or 42 U.S. Code section 7502(e).Second modification:

• Amend section 6452.2(a) to reflect the correct section reference based on the proposed changes.

• Revise subsection 6884(d) to allow the Director to propose interim removal of an active ingredient or crop provided the removal will not affect the ability to maintain the pesticide VOC emissions under 17.2 tons per day (tpd) [95 percent of 18.1 tpd] in San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area. Exceeding the 17.2 tpd would trigger the prohibitions and restrictions of section 6884. Using the Annual VOC Emissi on Inventory Report process proposed in subsection (e), the Director would publish his decision for the interim removal of an active ingredient or crop in the draft emissions report which is subject to a 45

- day public comment period prior to implementation

. This allows the interim removal to go into effect and be evaluated before the removal becomes permanent through state and federal rulemaking. Proposed subsection (d)(1) and (2) provides criteria for the Director to base his
decision for removal of an act ive ingredient or a crop. Proposed subsection (d)(3) requires that the Director base his decision to add an interim exception on a determination that adding
the exception will not affect the ability to maintain the pesticide VOC emissions under 17.2 tpd ra ther than the 18.1 tpd benchmark

.

• Reorder proposed subsection (f) to (e) and revise to allow for the interim removal of an active ingredient or crop, or addition of an exception to remain in effect up to three years unless implemented through California a nd federal regulations. The removal or addition must be evaluated each year in the Annual VOC Emissions Inventory Report. This will provide the Director with flexibility to withdraw the interim removal or addition should there be a change in use and emissi ons. Also, require the report to include calculations used to determine that the VOC emission level of 17.2 tpd would not be exceed ed with the removal or addition, as well as description of factors that have caused a decrease in use and emissions, and are likely to persist.

Additional documents relied upon w ere added to the rulemaking file.