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 recommended. 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 ingredient. 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 proposed section addresses the responsibility of the operator of the 

property in obtaining a recommendation, and not the requirements of a pest control adviser.

• Revise 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 adverse 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 Restrictions," a document 

relied upon, concurred that 16 grams or less of dust/powder 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 rate 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.

• Propose to add subsection 6884(b)(3) to allow an exception for use of high-oxyfluorfen 

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 the 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 crops 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-backsliding 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 pesticide 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 ingredients 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 Director 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 stringent 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 Emission 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 active 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 rather 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 and 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 emissions. Also, require the report to include calculations used 

to determine that the VOC emission level of 17.2 tpd would not be exceeded 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 were added to the rulemaking file.