Department of Pesticide Regulation

PESTICIDE USE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR CAC WORK PLANS AND CAC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This letter outlines the requirements of the Department of Pesticide Regulation's (DPR) Pesticide Use Enforcement Planning Guidance for County Agricultural Commissioner Work Plans, and DPR's Performance Evaluations of CAC Pesticide Program Regulatory Programs.

The letter also revises portions of ENF 08-18 (Pesticide Use Enforcement Program Planning and Evaluation Guidance). Specifically, we are requesting additional information related to DPR's core program areas. Also new, we are requesting information related to other pesticide program priorities and activities specific to your county.

DPR Pesticide Use Enforcement Program Guidance for CAC Work Plans

DPR and the County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs) continue to work collaboratively to strengthen the California Pesticide Regulatory Program. It is this teamwork that produces the most comprehensive and recognized pesticide regulatory system in the nation. An effective statewide pesticide use enforcement program is designed to protect workers, the environment, the public, the food supply and to ensure regulatory compliance. The plan provides DPR and the public with the CAC's goals, deliverables and priorities. CAC work plans can be annual or multi-year. If there are reductions in resources, CACs can modify their work plan. Work plans should be submitted to your DPR Enforcement Branch Liaison (EBL) no later than January 15 of the new work plan cycle.

CAC work plans are posted on the DPR Website. The primary focus of the work plan remains on the three core program areas. For each core program area, DPR asks that you describe the current status, planned improvements, goals, deliverables and measures of success. The EBL serving your county is available to assist with questions regarding the work plan format and the newly requested information.

CORE PROGRAM AREAS

1. Restricted Materials Permitting
   1. Current status (examples)
      • number of permits issued
      • multi-year or annual permit issuance
      • permit issuance process
      • process for informing the public of applications of restricted materials if applicable
   2. Planned improvement (examples)
      • correct deficiencies identified in the DPR Performance Evaluation
      • continuous review of existing sensitive sites and the identification of new sensitive sites
      • ensure that every non-agricultural use permit holder has a site evaluation or use inspection at least once per year
      • analyze trends of permit non-compliances
      • continuous training of staff for efficiencies related to Cal/Ag Permit System
   3. Goals and projected deliverables (examples)
      • increase permit issuance efficiency and accuracy
      • decrease the number of restricted materials indicated on permits and reducing the number of restricted material permits issued
      • develop outreach to permit and private applicator certificate holders regarding new laws and regulations, labeling, permit conditions and DPR policies
   4. Measures of success (examples)
      • change in the number of complaints and incidents related to permitted applications
      • change in the number of permit and notice of intent denials
      • change in permit issuance business process for efficiencies and permit holder satisfaction
2. Compliance Monitoring
   1. Current status (examples)
      • number of inspections performed as it relates to previous work plan goals
      • compliance rates for each inspection
   2. Planned improvement (examples)
      • correct deficiencies identified in the DPR Performance Evaluation
      • focus inspection activity in non-compliance areas
      • improve inspection completeness and quality control
   3. Goals and projected deliverables(examples)
      • increase field presence in areas of high non-compliance
      • review fundamental pesticide regulatory program requirements including pesticide dealer, pest control advisor, headquarter and field worker inspections
      • Communicate requirements and successes to the regulated community
   4. Measures of success(examples)
      • establish baseline of goals and deliverables
      • changes in compliance rates and program improvements
      • trends in the number of complaints, illnesses, bee kills and drift incidents
3. Enforcement Response
   1. Current status (examples)
      • previous year's statistics pertaining to enforcement actions, including non-compliances, notice of violations, warning letters, and administrative civil penalties
      • referrals to DPR for state action consideration (ENF 09-18)
      • administrative procedures related to Enforcement Response Regulations (ERR)
      • process for referring cases to the District Attorney required in the ERR
   2. Planned improvement(examples)
      • correct deficiencies identified in the DPR Performance Evaluation
      • uniform enforcement
      • arrange for staff to receive DPR or CAC training related to enforcement and investigations
      • ensure investigations are complete per DPR investigation procedures
      • confer with assigned EBL on cases to assist with achieving appropriate and consistent enforcement response
   3. Goals and projected deliverables(examples)
      • improve completeness of investigations
      • immediate notification and coordination with assigned EBL on all U.S. EPA Region 9 priority cases, sensitive or high level incidents and complaints for guidance on investigation and enforcement response
      • anticipated outreach venues to regulated community on repeated violated code sections
   4. Measures of success(examples)
      • the improvement in the quality of the investigations and achievement of consistent enforcement response

PRIORITIES AND OTHER PESTICIDE REGULATORY ACTIVITIES

Beginning with calendar year 2013, DPR is requesting that the work plan identify county specific priorities and other pesticide related activities anticipated or currently underway. Work plans are available via the DPR website and we believe it is important that your efforts in these areas are recognized.

Below is a list of statewide priorities and activities that we ask you to consider including into your work plan if they apply. We also ask that you include other pesticide related activities you feel are significant. For each priority or activity identified below, please describe in the work plan how these issues are being addressed in your county.

1. Non-Fumigant VOC Regulation Compliance (San Joaquin Valley), when regulations are final
2. Compliance with Soil Fumigant Phase II Labeling (December 1, 2012)
3. Chloropicrin mitigation measures when implemented by DPR
4. Structural inspection activity of Branch 1, 2 and 3 applications
5. Efforts to work collaboratively with the State Regional Water Quality Board and DPR Environmental Monitoring Branch regarding applications of diazinon, chlorpyrifos and diuron near water bodies
6. Training of county staff on pesticide law and regulation, DPR policy and compendiums
7. Compliance with school pesticide use reporting (FAC 13186 and 3CCR 6625)
8. For pilot counties, activities related to the Secured Web Access (SAW) illness investigation reporting
9. Compliance with Ground Water Regulations (i.e., participation with DP's Environmental Monitoring Branch on related studies)
10. Chilean Fruit Air Monitoring (CFAM) and other commodity fumigation focused activities
11. Regulatory outreach and education. Describe subject(s) and audience
12. Review investigations and cases for possible referral to DPR for state action (ENF 09-18)
13. Compliance with Non-Ag Surface Water Regulations
14. Ensure compliance with recent U.S. EPA approved rodenticide label changes
15. Focused inspections on employers with employees under medical supervision (3CCR 6728)
16. Reporting to DPR, complaints or report of loss related to bee kills associated with an alleged pesticide application(s)
17. Collaboration with DPR in addressing U.S. EPA activities or requests
18. Other special projects identified by the county agricultural commissioner

DPR Performance Evaluation Report

DPR's evaluation of county pesticide regulatory programs under Title 3 California Code of Regulations, section 6394 (Performance Evaluation), shall be completed at least every three years. After consulting with the Enforcement Branch Regional Office Manager, the EBL will inform the CAC of the time frame the performance evaluation report will include (e.g., 2012 - 2014). The draft performance evaluation report will be discussed with the CAC prior to finalization. The template for the evaluation remains the same as mentioned described in enforcement letter ENF 08-18. It should be noted that the Performance Evaluation process is ongoing and when program deficiencies are identified, the EBL is required to notify the CAC. A CAC may request a performance evaluation report every year. If this is the case, please consult the EBL serving your county. The performance evaluation includes meetings with the CAC to discuss the county's overall performance and any program deficiencies and suggested corrective actions. The Regional Office Manager determines when the evaluation report will be finalized and submitted to the CAC.

DPR Oversight Inspections

The Department appreciates your continued cooperation and assistance with the EBL's conducting oversight inspections with your pesticide use enforcement staff. As you know, the oversight inspections are required under the U.S. EPA Region 9 Cooperative Agreement and provide valuable information for revisions to regulations and policy improvements. Additionally, the oversight inspections assist EBL's with identifying training needs for CAC staff.

We value your efforts and our partnership with you in ensuring the success of California's statewide pesticide regulatory enforcement program and that we are providing the needed support to you and your staff. If you have any questions, please contact the Enforcement Branch Liaison (EBL) serving your county.

cc:  Mr. Jim Shattuck, DPR Interim County Agricultural Commissioner Liaison
       Enforcement Branch Liaisons