DPR logo

Brian R. Leahy

                       Department of Pesticide Regulation

The Great Seal of the State of California

Edmund G. Brown Jr.

March 22, 2017

ENF 17-08



County Agricultural Commissioners


This outlines the expectations of the Department of Pesticide Regulation's (DPR) Pesticide Use Enforcement (PUE) program planning guidance for County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) Work Plans. This letter includes current DPR pesticide program priorities and replaces the 2012 letter to CACs ENF 12-20.

Attached is the newly revised PUE Work Plan guidance document and, for reference, DPR's Performance Evaluation template.

DPR Pesticide Use Enforcement Program Guidance for CAC Work Plans

DPR and the County Agricultural Commissioners (CAC) 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, our food supply and ensures regulatory compliance.

The CAC Work Plan provides DPR and the public with the goals, deliverables and priorities of the CAC. Work Plans are issued on a calendar year and can be issued annually or for a multi-year period. Please submit the work plan to your DPR Enforcement Branch Liaison (EBL) for review no later than January 15 of the new work plan cycle. The DPR Enforcement Branch Regional Office Manager will review the CAC Work Plan for approval. CAC work plans are posted on the DPR Website.

The primary focus of the work plan remains on the three core program areas (Restricted Materials, Compliance Monitoring, and Enforcement Response). The EBL serving your county is available to assist with questions regarding the work plan format and requested information.

Core Enforcement 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
      • ensure that every non-agricultural use permit holder has a site evaluation or a use inspection at least once per year
      • continuous review of existing sensitive sites and identification of new sensitive sites
      • analyze trends of permit non-compliances
    3. Goals and projected deliverables (examples)
      • increase permit issuance efficiency and accuracy
      • change in the number of restricted materials indicated on permits and/or the number of restricted material permits issued
      • conduct 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
      • Implement electronic tracking of inspections, investigations, and enforcement actions
      • Anticipated number and types of inspections
    4. Measures of success (examples)
      • achievement of the expected number and types of inspections
      • changes in compliance rates
      • change in the timeliness of investigations
      • change 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
      • administrative procedures related to enforcement response regulations
      • process for referring cases to the District Attorney as required in the regulations
      • referrals to DPR for state action consideration (ENF 09-18)
    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.
      • anticipated outreach venues to regulated community on repeated violated code sections
    4. Measures of success (examples)
      • improvement in the quality and/or timelines of investigations
      • achievement of consistent and appropriate enforcement response for inspections
      • achievement of consistent and appropriate enforcement response for investigations

DPR Priorities and Other Pesticide Regulatory Activities

Beginning with calendar year 2017, DPR is requesting that in addition to the Core Program Areas, the work plan identify county specific priorities and other DPR pesticide related activities anticipated or currently underway.

Below is a list of statewide priorities and activities that DPR requests you consider including in your work plan, where applicable. Also include any other pesticide related activities you feel are significant to your county

For each priority or activity identified below, please describe in the work plan how these issues are being addressed in your county, if applicable.

  1. Soil fumigant use compliance (including chloropicrin mitigation measures and approved soil fumigant tarps), labels, regulations and permits
  2. Bee pollinator protection incident reporting to DPR, including complaints or reports of loss associated with pesticide applications
  3. Compliance with DPR regulations regarding pesticide use around Schools
  4. Structural fumigation use compliance.
  5. Implementation of new laws and regulations such as fumigant notification regulations, closed system regulations, worker protection standard (WPS) revised regulations, and personal protective equipment (PPE) regulations.
  6. Implementation of medical marijuana pesticide policies and regulations
  7. Implementation of 1,3-d use limitations.
  8. Collaboration with the State Regional Water Quality Board and DPR Environmental Monitoring Branch to protect water bodies, including ground water regulations, surface water regulations, and assisting DPR with surface water studies.
  9. Training county staff on pesticide laws and regulations, including DPR policies and Compendium guidance manuals.
  10. Regulatory outreach and education. Describe subject(s) and audience, including pollinator protection, closed systems, worker protection standard (WPS) revisions, Certification and Training updates, pesticides around schools regulations, and PPE regulations.
  11. Focused inspections on employers with employees under pesticide medical supervision, 3CCR 6728.
  12. Collaboration with DPR in addressing U.S. EPA activities or requests
  13. Other special projects or significant activities identified by the county agricultural commissioner.

Performance Evaluation by DPR

DPR evaluates the county's pesticide regulatory program at least once every three years in accordance with Title 3 California Code of Regulations, section 6394 (Performance Evaluation). After consulting with the Enforcement Branch Regional Office Manager, the EBL will inform the CAC of the frequency of the performance evaluation report and identify the calendar year(s) to be evaluated. A CAC may request an annual performance evaluation report. If this is this case, please consult the EBL serving your county.

The DPR performance evaluation process is ongoing and is based, in part, on the CAC's Work Plan and on other observations made by the EBL. It includes meetings and discussions with the CAC to discuss the county's overall performance and any program deficiencies and suggested corrective actions. When program deficiencies are identified, the EBL is required to notify the CAC immediately for corrective measures. The draft Performance Evaluation Report is discussed with the CAC prior to finalization. An example template is enclosed. The Regional Office Manager then determines when the evaluation report will be finalized and submitted to the CAC.

DPR Oversight Inspections

The Department appreciates the continued cooperation and assistance from the CAC and staff when the EBL's conduct oversight inspections. As you know, the oversight inspections are required under the federal U.S. EPA Region 9 Cooperative Agreement and provide valuable information for regulating pesticide use. The oversight inspections also assist the EBL in identifying training needs for CAC staff.

DPR values your efforts in carrying out a successful county pesticide regulatory program. The strong partnership with all county agricultural commissioners is critical to an effective statewide pesticide regulatory program.

If you have any questions, please contact the Enforcement Branch Liaison assigned to your county.


Original Signature by:

Donna Marciano
Chief, Enforcement Branch

PUE Work Plan, PDF
DPR's Performance Evaluation Template, PDF

cc: Mr. Joe Marade, DPR Agricultural Commissioner Liaison
      Enforcement Branch Liaisons

1001 I Street  ·   P.O. Box 4015  ·  Sacramento, California 95812-4015  ·  www.cdpr.ca.gov
A Department of the California Environmental Protection Agency