Structural Pest Control Board – Disciplinary Review Committee Decision on Appeal of a County Agricultural Commissioner’s Decision (Reyes Castrellon, R & C Fume, Inc.) 

The Disciplinary Review Committee’s (DRC) decision on Mr. Reyes Castrellon’s (R & C Fume) appeal of the $3,500 civil penalty levied by the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) and dissenting opinion are enclosed. The DRC overturned the CAC’s action and penalty, and the DRC’s decision became final on January 31, 2025.

The CAC found R & C Fume in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 3, (3 CCR) section 6614(a), by failing to evaluate and cover all of the open vents and gaps in the deck which could have reasonably allowed an animal access under the house resulting in the death of two of the neighbor’s cats. The CAC classified the violation as a “Serious” violation. This action was pursued under the authority of Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 8617.

R & C Fume appealed the CAC’s decision to the DRC. The three-member committee was divided, with the majority of the committee determining there was not substantial evidence to support the violation. The DRC overturned the CACs decision and concluded that R & C conducted an adequate evaluation of the property in compliance with 3 CCR section 6614(a).

DPR dissented from the majority opinion, asserting that the majority of the DRC’s review of this case went beyond the scope of the arguments directly raised on appeal. The dissenting opinion also raises a concern about this decision and the ability for CACs, in the future, to bring enforcement in structural fumigation cases that result in the death of domestic animals and pets.

In pursuing an enforcement response against a Structural Pest Control Board licensee or registered company, commissioners may pursue those violations under the BPC as a Structural Civil Penalty (SCP) or under the Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) as an Agricultural Civil Penalty (ACP).

This authority is outlined in BPC section 8617, and FAC sections 12999.5, 15204, or 15204.5. Civil penalty actions pursued under either the BPC or FAC authority entitle the respondent to a hearing and subsequent appeal of the hearing officer’s decision to either the DRC for an SCP, or to the Director of DPR for an ACP. Both the DRC and the Director apply the same substantial evidence standard when reviewing the facts of the case and the CAC’s decision.

In this case and in a previous DRC decision involving a structural fumigation that resulted in the death of a pet, DPR did not agree with the majority opinion and final decision (see ENF 11-12, Structural Pest Control Disciplinary Review Committee’s Decision On An Appeal Of A County Agricultural Commissioner’s Decision; Mission City Fumigation, Docket Number S-021). CACs should consider this and previous DRC and Director’s decisions when taking enforcement actions pursuant to either the BPC or FAC for structural fumigation cases resulting in the death of a domestic animal.

Please make this information available to your staff as a reference in preparing and processing cases. If you have any questions, please contact the Enforcement Branch Liaison assigned to your county.

Sincerely,