Warning: Some browsers may not support all the strikeout/underline markups associated with suggested changes in the regulatory language found in this document. An ascii version of this report is also available.

California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Pesticide Regulation


Proposals to Improve California's
Pesticide Regulatory Program
October 1995
Strawman Document

California State Seal

Pete Wilson, Governor

James M. Strock
Secretary for Environmental Protection

James W. Wells, Director
Department of Pesticide Regulation

Editor's Note:

This "Strawman Document" represents proposals for improvements in the pesticide regulatory program administered by the Department of Pesticide Regulation as suggested by various internal and external focus groups assembled for that purpose. The external focus groups represented the following major constituencies: Department licensees, environmental and public safety advocates, pesticide registrants, and production agriculture. The internal focus groups represented Department staff and the county agricultural commissioners. While Department staff have provided suggestions for program improvements, this input has not been given favored treatment and should not be construed to imply the Department's endorsement of any of these proposals. This document is a compilation of proposals, some contradictory, that represent a broad spectrum of opinions. The document is offered in its unfiltered form to spur public interest and comment on the future course of California's pesticide regulatory program. Thus, we refer to it as a "Strawman Document."


Table of Contents

DIRECTOR’S STATEMENT............................................5

EXECUTIVE ORDER W-127-95........................................8


EVALUATION CRITERIA............................................13


REGISTRATION REFORMS...........................................22

RISK ASSESSMENT REFORMS........................................38

WORKER SAFETY REFORMS..........................................40

ENFORCEMENT REFORMS............................................42

LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION REFORMS............................46

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REFORMS...............................50

PEST MANAGEMENT REFORMS........................................64

DATA MANAGEMENT REFORMS........................................65

FUNDING REFORMS................................................68


Director's Statement

The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) came into being in 1991 with the establishment of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Although we were created out of a division that had been within the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the process of becoming a department presented us with new opportunities and challenges. DPR has broad authority to regulate pesticides in California and, along with that authority, a responsibility to regulate in a manner that is fair, effective, efficient, and responsive to our various constituencies.

By any measure, we administer the most comprehensive state-level pesticide regulatory program in the nation. The program reflects a major commitment, and a major investment, by California’s citizens. Yet, this is an era of ever-increasing demands on government resources. Thus, we have actively pursued an ambitious agenda of self-examination to achieve maximum efficiencies and to provide better service, reevaluating what we do and how we do it. This has not been an easy process; however, once successfully completed, it should not only enhance our effectiveness, but the public trust in our regulatory system.

Our own efforts at self-improvement have taken many paths, including an external review by renowned pesticide expert Dr. Charles M. Benbrook in his report, “Challenge and Change”, the development of a strategic planning document with extensive input from both internal and external stakeholders, and the initiation of a continuous improvement program consistent with Governor Wilson’s quality government initiative and under the auspices of the Cal/EPA quality program established in 1993 legislation, Senate Bill 1082, by Senator Calderon. Now, the results of these various activities are being drawn together as a result of Cal/EPA’s “Regulatory Improvement Initiative” which is designed to reduce unnecessarily burdensome regulations and practices, as well as more effectively protect public health and the environment. In addition, as part of Governor Wilson’s Executive Order W-127-95, we are mandated to participate in a top-to-bottom review of nearly 28,000 regulations affecting the state. We are looking for anything that might be obsolete, duplicative, too complex and difficult to understand, or unduly burdensome. The goal is to reduce the volume and burden of regulations wherever we can, improve what we do while not compromising our strict standards in protecting public health and the environment.

We asked ourselves if we were to build a pesticide regulatory program from scratch, what would it be like? That’s the program we want to develop. We want to hear everyone’s ideas on how we can do our job better and reduce regulatory burdens. If there is something we are doing that we should not be doing, we want to hear it. If there are problems we are not focusing on, we want to hear that, too. Thus, an invitation was extended to members of the regulated community, representatives of environmental advocacy groups, and other interested parties to come give us ‘what for.’ Every part of our program was on the table for discussion, including long-standing statutes and regulations. We asked for their candid, careful appraisal of what we do, and have been challenged by the results, which you now hold in your hands.

However, we are not content to stop here. Some of the proposals for improving the pesticide regulatory program contained in this document are not compatible with others; several would result in significant restructuring of not only what we do, but who we are. None can be embarked on lightly. Ultimately, it is the people of California that we serve and it is the people who must decide what they want. So we are extending another invitation, this time to the general public, for comments on these proposals. We are conducting a series of workshops in mid-October in Anaheim, Greenfield (near Salinas), Sacramento, and Visalia in order to hear from you.

Written comments can be submitted at the workshops, or by mail to:

                          Office of Planning and Regulatory Affairs
                          Department of Pesticide Regulation
                          1020 N Street, Room 100
                          Sacramento, CA 95814

You can also send comments via e-mail to:


All comments should be received by October 20, 1995.

This is the most extensive outreach that we have ever undertaken, appropriately so, as this is a critical point in the history of the pesticide regulatory program. In the Vision statement developed as part of our strategic plan we declared, “It is our goal that the Department of Pesticide Regulation is viewed as a dynamic organization administering a credible and comprehensive program that is protective of human health and the environment and responsive to all constituencies.” We trust that with your thoughtful input we will be just that.

James W. Wells

Executive Order W-127-95


WHEREAS..in an increasingly competitive world, a strong economy is crucial for improving the quality of life for all the people of California; and

WHEREAS..a globally competitive California business sector is the engine that keeps California’s economy strong; and

WHEREAS..my Administration has committed itself to economic development and regulatory reform, including eliminating red tape, streamlining the state permit process, reviewing regulations, and curbing lawsuit abuse; and

WHEREAS..nearly three-fourths of state regulations impact California businesses, many of those regulations imposing excessive cost burdens on those businesses and the economy; and

WHEREAS..the objective of state regulations to protect the people and the environment of California can be accomplished with a well reasoned approach, accounting for costs as well as benefits and minimizing the negative impacts on businesses and the economy; and

WHEREAS..in order to enhance the competitiveness of California businesses it is necessary to significantly reduce the excessive burden of existing state regulations;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, PETE WILSON, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power and authority invested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, do hereby issue this order to become effective immediately:

  1. All state agencies are directed to review each of the nearly 28,000 regulations affecting the business sector within their respective jurisdictions, identify all regulations suitable for repeal, and submit formal recommendations to the Governor’s Office. This process shall commence immediately.
  2. Regulatory relief shall involve the input and consultation of both the business and environmental communities impacted by the various regulations. The process shall be sufficiently flexible to allow for the maximum reduction in regulatory burden consistent with the varied circumstances in the many departments within the Executive Branch.
  3. Regulatory relief will be accomplished through the use of existing resources.
  4. Each agency will submit to the Governor’s Office the following by December 8, 1995.
    (a) A plan and schedule of actions to eliminate or to modify those regulations identified.
    (b) Any recommended legislative changes needed to reduce all excessive regulatory burdens in California.
  5. Furthermore, I urge each fellow constitutional officer to undertake the same review and plan development in order to achieve comprehensive state regulatory reform.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set by my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 20th day of September, 1995.

Pesticide Regulatory Program - Overview


The MISSION statement from DPR’s strategic plan reads:

“The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has the primary responsibility for regulating all aspects of pesticide sales and use to protect the public health and the environment."

“DPR’s mission is to evaluate and mitigate impacts of pesticide use, maintain the safety of the pesticide workplace, ensure product effectiveness, and encourage the development and use of reduced risk pest control practices while recognizing the need for pest management in a healthy economy.”

Existing legal MANDATES require DPR to:

* Provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for production of food and fiber and for protection of the public health and safety.

* Protect the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or controlling uses of such pesticides.

* Assure the agricultural and pest control workers of safe working conditions where pesticides are present.

* Permit agricultural pest control by competent and responsible licensees and permittees under strict control of the Director and county agricultural commissioners.

* Assure the users that economic poisons are properly labeled and are appropriate for the use designated on the label.

* Encourage the development and implementation of pest management systems, stressing application of biological and cultural pest control techniques with selective pesticides when necessary to achieve acceptable levels of control with the least possible harm to nontarget organisms and the environment.

DPR has primary responsibility for evaluating and mitigating environmental and human health impacts of pesticide use. It oversees pesticide registration, the safety of the pesticide workplace, and enforces State and federal pesticide laws.

Evaluating and Registering Pesticides

Before a pesticide can be sold or used in California, it has to be evaluated and registered by DPR. Pesticide manufacturers are required to submit studies of toxicology, efficacy, phytotoxicity, environmental fate, product chemistry, and residue methodology to support the registration of each product. The elaborate testing data are evaluated by DPR scientists, including biologists, chemists, plant physiologists, entomologists, toxicologists, and physicians. The evaluation and scrutiny focus on the acceptability of studies, any potential for these substances to cause adverse health or environmental effects, and the efficacy of the product, in order to ensure the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides.

These and other data are the basis for determining potential risk and adequate margins of safety for workers and others who may be exposed to pesticide residues. DPR scientists work closely with other State agencies, including the departments of Fish and Game and Health Services, as well as agencies within Cal/EPA.

Protecting Workers and the Public

DPR scientists evaluate potential workplace hazards of pesticides, by reviewing studies on active and inert ingredients in pesticide products and on application methodologies. In addition, DPR conducts field studies each year to monitor pesticide exposure to workers in order to develop better methods to evaluate exposure potential and to mitigate potentially excessive exposure. DPR physicians also provide medical advice, assistance on pesticide exposures, and act as liaison with practicing physicians regarding pesticide illness and treatment. DPR also participates in and evaluates the results of investigations of pesticide-related illnesses, with an emphasis on preventing occupational illnesses and injuries.

Environmental Protection and Pest Management Alternatives

DPR scientists monitor the environmental fate of pesticides, and identify and analyze chemical, cultural, and biological alternatives for managing pests. In doing so, DPR’s goal is to protect the public and the environment from pesticide contamination through hazard identification, preventive planning, and the enhancement of regulatory controls through encouraging development and use of pest control practices that are both environmentally sound and effective.

Enforcing Pesticide Laws

To assure compliance with the nation’s toughest pesticide laws, California has the largest and best-trained enforcement organization in the nation. DPR oversees licensing and certification of pesticide brokers and dealers, pest control advisors, pest control businesses, and pesticide applicators; has overall responsibility for pesticide incident investigations; administers the nation’s largest state pesticide residue monitoring program; monitors pesticide product quality; and coordinates pesticide use reporting.

Pesticide use enforcement activities in the field are largely carried out by the county agricultural commissioners and their staffs. Training, coordination, oversight, and technical and legal support are provided by headquarters personnel, as well as DPR field staff in Anaheim, Fresno, Richmond, Sacramento, Goleta, and Watsonville.

Pest Management Strategy

DPR has developed a strategy aimed at: 1) increasing the use of pest management information in decisionmaking, and 2) encouraging pesticide users to adopt reduced risk pest management practices. The Pest Management Strategy addresses minimizing risk not only on the farm, but wherever pesticides may be used, including areas such as office buildings, schools, urban landscapes, or in the home.



It will likely be impossible to find any set of criteria that everyone will agree should be used to evaluate the following proposals. However, the principles cited below were mentioned frequently enough to bear repeating here:


California Executive Order D-15-83 established the primacy of DPR (then part of the California Department of Food and Agriculture) in regulating the use of pesticides. Other state agencies with overlapping jurisdictions are directed to coordinate and cooperate with DPR which exercises lead responsibility. In addition, state law preempts local governments from enacting regulations governing pesticide use. In fact, several stakeholders indicated that DPR should more aggressively act on these authorities to ensure one-stop pesticide regulation consistent with the Administration's streamlining initiatives.


The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is the primary authority for the federal pesticide regulatory program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). After review of DPR's regulatory program, especially enforcement capabilities, U.S. EPA has delegated its enforcement authority under FIFRA to the State program. This is an important component of state/local control of pesticide issues.


Aspects of the pesticide regulatory program have been certified as functionally equivalent to an environmental impact assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This certification prevents individual environmental impact reports from being required for each pesticide permit.


While most stakeholders lauded DPR's efforts to be responsive to its various constituencies, there remained a consistent call for improved communication and greater accountability. Specifically, there was a general feeling that most people still need DPR to demystify who we are and what we do. Attempts at public outreach need to be more systematic and frequent; and DPR responses to inquiries, including those from county and our own staff, need to be more timely and practical. Also, there was a strong feeling that we have not adequately availed ourselves of technological advances to communicate better and to allow public access electronically to the wealth of data housed here. There was a feeling expressed that much of DPR's staff have lost touch with the regulated community or have no field experience and, thus, the impacts of their decisions are often not fully realized. Suggestions of professional exchange programs, continuing education, and field operation or business tours were offered to improve staff awareness. Finally, there was considerable interest in DPR committing to the submission of an annual report, much like a corporation's profit and loss statement, that would detail DPR's revenues and expenditures as well as recount the highlights of that year's accomplishments.


Several proposals specifically address the issue of DPR activities duplicating someone else's actions; however, the theme of streamlining deserves a general emphasis here as well, since almost all commenters made note of this principle. Especially in light of continued demands for service , the prudent allocation of increasingly scarce resources dictates that components of the pesticide regulatory program avoid true duplication and mirror an activity of another agency, whether federal, state, or local, only when the value added by such activity is of paramount importance.


Several stakeholders feared that the scope and intensity of Cal/EPA's Regulatory Improvement Initiative might signal the end of DPR's efforts to improve the pesticide regulatory program, by sheer exhaustion if nothing else. The successful completion of this phase of self-examination, comprehensive though it is, must be a start, a significant start, but definitely not the end of the process.



PROPOSED REFORM: Repeal all regulations that are obsolete, duplicative, or conflicting. Redraft all regulations that are difficult to understand or implement.

ARGUMENTS: The regulations governing California's pesticide regulatory program, as promulgated by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), reside in Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (3 CCR). Many of these regulations may be considered obsolete, redundant, conflicting, or difficult to understand and implement. Such changes would clarify legitimate regulatory requirements, eliminate unnecessary requirements, and alleviate burdens on the regulated community.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Most of these changes are true clean-up and, as such, should be of little interest to most people. Some items, such as redefining agricultural use, will be fraught with conflicting opinions.

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: With few exceptions, these changes can all be done by DPR rulemaking. Some statutory change may be needed, as in the case of section 6678. Various 3 CCR sections have been proposed for some type of reform as follows:

[[section]] 6000 Definitions

Several of the definitions are no longer necessary. Others could be changed to relieve the “California specific” regulatory burden-

“Feasible” is used in three definitions with considerable duplication. They could probably be cleaned up to some extent as a housekeeping change.

“Ground water advisory” is actually included in the statutory definition of recommendation.

“Restricted materials hazard chart” should be deleted. The 'zebra chart' hasn’t been used in 15 years.

“Conflict with labeling” Should be adjusted to authorize pest control advisors to allow, through written recommendation, for reduced volume applications. The EPA authorized states to do this years ago and most, or all, other states allow it in some form. This was quite an issue at the spray technology workshops held recently by DPR.

The whole “agricultural use” definition is long overdue for revisiting. While it is in statute, all of the exemptions are defined in regulation.

"Industrial use"

"Institutional use"

"Veterinary use"

“Home use”

“Structural use”

The biggest problems are rights-of-way and landscape areas in various settings and the relationship and impact of FAC sections 22-24.5 on this definition.

[[section]] 6110 Public Reports

Amend to: apply only to Director's review of a regulation of a county agricultural commissioner, update information regarding DPR, and refer to initial statements of reasons not public reports.

[[section]] 6116 Notice of Final Decision

Delete references to "standards."

[[section]] 6118 Emergency Actions

Delete because it is redundant with current APA requirements.

[[section]] 6130 Fine Guidelines

In subsection (1), the wording should be changed so the subsection is congruent with wording in subsection (2); i.e., "...which create an actual health or environmental effect."

Also, in subsection (2), fine guidelines "moderate" category fine range needs to be changed to $151-399 so it no longer overlaps with both the minor category and the serious category of fines.

[[section]] 6140 Inspection Authority

Section 6140(b) states in part, "...shall make those records available to the Director or commissioner during business hours...." To clarify our right to make copies of those records, the section should be rewritten to state something like, "...shall make those records available to the Director or commissioner for inspection and/or copying during business hours...."

[[section]] 6152 Brands

Delete subdivision (a) because it conflicts with Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) section 12828.5 which allows a registrant to voluntarily withdraw the registration of a pesticide product at any time during the year.

[[section]] 6172 General Toxicity Data

This section should be amended to reference current data requirements.

[[section]] 6190 Inert Ingredient Hazard

This section should either be deleted to reflect DPR's current policy with regard to inert ingredients.

[[section]] 6350-6372 (Chemical Specific Registration Actions)

Sections 6350-6372 suspensions and cancellations should be repealed. The Office of Administrative Law recommended at one time that DPR remove them since pesticide products are not registered by regulation; therefore, it is inappropriate to alter their registration by regulation. OAL has since disapproved further actions of this type by DPR. These sections have no purpose.

[[section]] 6434 Notice of Intent

Section 6434 should be clarified to set the responsibility for filing the NOI. It now leaves an option which leads to use of the “finger pointing defense”.

[[section]] 6460 Drift Control

[[section]] 6466 Paraquat

[[section]] 6470 Cotton Harvest Aids

In Sections 6460, 6466, and 6470, amend the sections to require a minimum droplet size rather than a minimum nozzle size. Current sections require a minimum jet nozzle size of 1/16 inch because this size produces a medium spray droplet size of 425 microns, volume median diameter. Even when test data support use of a different sized nozzle, regulations must be amended each time to include use of that size. This change would replace an outdated prescriptive regulation with a performance standard.

[[section]] 6464 Phenoxy and Certain Other Herbicides

Section 6464 prohibits application of certain phenoxy herbicides (highly volatile esters) from March 15 through October 16 in certain regions of the State. These dates and regions are supposed to coincide with non-dormant grapes. This section could be largely repealed. Some of subsection (b) might be of value and any requirements in the other subsections should be rolled intoit. Any of the other county specific requirements should be handled by permit condition or local county ordinance by the CAC.

Also, field experience in these regions indicate that the date of March 15 is about two weeks too late to prevent pesticide damage to grapes. Growers can apply ester phenoxy herbicides in their grain while their neighbors' grapes are breaking dormancy. The date should be changed to March 1, but that could be done in the permit.

[[section]] 6514 Regional Accreditation Committees

[[section]] 6554 Regional Accreditation Committees

Sections 6514 and 6554 discuss Regional Accreditation Committees for licensee continuing education course accreditation. Since DPR has centralized the continuing accreditation process, DPR should eventually drop these references.

[[section]] 6522 Categories

[[section]] 6532 Expiration

[[section]] 6568 Dealer Responsibilities

There are a number of sections in the licensing area that were adopted to implement the overall restructuring of the mid-1980s that should be repealed now (6522, 6532, and 6568 for example).

[[section]] 6562 Dealer Records and Sales Reporting

(Already underway - the regulation package is at OAL for final approval. Paragraph (c) is proposed for deletion. This paragraph dealt with the requirement of dealers of pesticides to submit quarterly reports to the Director of their sales of pesticides. The subsection became obsolete when the law changed. AB 468 (Chapter 145, Statutes of 1993) amended section 13145(d) of the Food and Agricultural Code so that the dealer's requirement of reporting the sales of all pesticides was reduced to the requirement that only the sale of those pesticides to persons who are not required to file a pesticide use report must be reported. The regulation repeal eases the regulatory burden on affected private persons or businesses by eliminating certain reporting requirements.

[[section]] 6622 Operator Identification Numbers

Subsection (c) states that "The operator of the property required..."; however, it should read "The operator of the property is not required..." This needs correction.

[[section]] 6626 Pesticide Use Reports for Production Agriculture

Three subsections in this regulation need to be updated to reflect current communication technology or appropriate departmental forms:

(a) "This report shall be hand-delivered or mailed,..." should read "This report shall be hand-delivered or sent via mail, fax, etc...."

(b) "An agricultural pest control business...by hand-delivery or by mail,..." should read "An agricultural pest control business...by hand-delivery or sent by mail, fax, etc..."

(c) "Acceptable Department forms include form 38-017 for an operator...and 39-025 for an agricultural pest control..." should read "Acceptable Department forms include forms 33-017C, PR-ENF-183, and PR-ENF-184 for an operator ... and 33-025 for an agricultural pest control..."

[[section]] 6627 Monthly Summary Pesticide Use Reports

Two subsections here should be redrafted for clarity:

(b) "The report shall be on a Department form as specified in Section 6627.1 or in a format approved by the director." should read "The report shall be on a Department form such as form PR-ENF-60 or in a format approved by the director."

(7) "Total acres...on Summary Pesticide Use Report form." should read "Total acres...on the Monthly Summary Pesticide Use Report form."

[[section]] 6627.1 Monthly Summary Pesticide Use Report Form

This section is obsolete and it should be deleted. The items are now specifically listed. No other use report form is in the regulations -why this one?

[[section]] 6632 Recommendation and Use Permit

Section 6632 recommendation and use permit requirements for possession by a Pest Control Operator should be amended to include "work order." This has been a lingering problem since the implementation of AB 3765 in 1980.

[[section]] 6670 Findings of the Director

Subsection (a) of 6670 is obsolete and should be deleted.

[[section]] 6678 Service Container Labeling

This section doesn’t add anything to statutory requirements, but is required by statute. Changing the “shall” to “May” in the statute would remove the need for regulation in this area.

[[section]]6895 Prohibition of Use of Weed Oils

This section appears to be obsolete. Weed oils have a chemical code number (1694) but the DPR Label database has no entries for this active ingredient and no currently registered products are listed in the DPR Label Database. If DPR can confirm that no weed oils are registered, or likely to be registered, this section should be deleted.

PROPOSED REFORM: Implement a mandatory pesticide use reduction program.

ARGUMENTS: By emphasizing mitigation efforts, some commenters argue that DPR is "regulating the poisoning of California." DPR's regulatory efforts are seen as too dependent on problem identification and, thus, some environmental or public health issues are already a concern by the time that action begins. They argue that even the minimal efforts currently made by DPR are, at best, guesses at where the next problem will come from. One line of reasoning is that DPR should promote reduced pesticide use not safe use. DPR would get out of, or reduce the emphasis on, mitigating pesticide risks. Instead, DPR would focus its regulatory actions on achieving incremental use reduction goals. The theory being that less use is "safer" while mitigating risks is just "safe." Thus, a pesticide use reduction program is the most effective pollution prevention program that DPR could undertake.

A reduced use strategy would need to be either an overall goal (based on annual pounds applied or acres treated?) or a targeted goal (chemical-specific phase out or phase down, probably based on risk criteria, toxicity plus exposure?). Reduced pesticide use, thus, becomes statistically dependent once you expect to measure success, and there is no agreement on a number which is truly appropriate and accurate to use. DPR could achieve reduced use through registration and reevaluation decisions, and through restrictions, by permit or regulation, on uses. Presumably, such action would include identifying higher risk pesticides, or higher risk pesticide use patterns, with a corresponding mandate to phase down and/or phase out of those respective products or uses.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Pesticide use reduction has been undertaken elsewhere with mixed results. California has been pursuing a "reduced risk" program instead, but it is a "failed strategy" according to some focus group participants. Does reduced use really mean the people and environment of California are safer? What about the societal impacts of higher food production costs that may result from pest damage or more costly control technologies?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: DPR does not have a clear mandate to reduce pesticide use, although some stakeholders might argue that FAC Section 11501(f) mandates the encouragement of pest management systems with only the selective use of pesticides and, thus, includes an element of reduced use. Therefore, some legislative change likely be needed. Also, a repeal of regulations which establish procedures for mitigating adverse effects in lieu of suspension or cancellation would be necessary to refocus program efforts on reduced use.



PROPOSED REFORM: Prevent public information requests from compromising the rights of ownership of pesticide data.

ARGUMENTS: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) registers pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA prohibits previously submitted data from being used by another person who gained possession of that data through a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) unless the person has received permission from or offered compensation to the person who originally submitted the data. There is no corresponding provision in the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

Applicants for California registration of pesticide products can obtain, through FOIA or CPRA requests, copies of data submitted and developed by persons who previously registered pesticide products with the U.S. EPA and the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). The applicants then can attempt to use that data to register their products with DPR without having permission to use the data from the person who developed the data. Currently, an applicant seeking to register a pesticide product with DPR is attempting to use, without permission, another person's data which the applicant acquired through an FOIA request.

DISCUSSION POINTS: There may be concern that this will only make pesticide data harder for the general public to access.

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: DPR, by policy, could demand that the applicant, who wants to use another persons's data, submit proof of permission for use; but, if the applicant refuses to submit such proof, DPR has no legal basis to prevent unauthorized use and no legal basis to refuse registration based on use of data acquired through an FOIA or CPRA request. Therefore, to prevent unauthorized use of another person's data, which was developed at that other person's expense, a provision similar to the one in FIFRA, prohibiting unauthorized use of another person's data, should be added to the CPRA. Another solution would be to add such a provision to the Food and Agricultural Code; however, because the CPRA already contains provisions regarding pesticide safety and efficacy data, the CPRA is the most appropriate code for the provision.

PROPOSED REFORM: Reform California's pesticide registration process to encourage minor crop product registrations.

ARGUMENTS: Since the passage of the 1988 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has been working under stricter time constraints to acquire safety data and reregister hundreds of chemicals already registered for use by farmers. Due to the cost of complying with federal data call-ins, many companies are choosing to allow registrations to lapse, particularly if the registered use is on a so-called "minor crop." The profits from product sales for minor crop use is often not sufficient to justify the outlay of resources for reregistration. Further, the cost and complexity of the registration process itself actually works to discourage development of new products which may be safer and more compatible with integrated pest management programs, particularly if the use is limited to minor crops. Most of the 250 crops grown in California are "minor crops," accounting for nearly 90 percent and over $11.3 billion of our agricultural production. Therefore, these business decisions are creating a problem for California agriculture which may soon reach a crisis stage.

California has already lost many pesticide product registrations and stands to lose many more in the next few years. The loss of chemical tools not only can make some minor crops difficult to grow within economical pest thresholds, but repeated use of a narrow range of compounds promotes resistance in the target pests. Proposed federal legislation (H.R. 1627 and S. 1166) contain major provisions for reforming registration requirements and procedures for minor crop pesticide products. These bills would permit the U.S. EPA to waive or extend deadlines on certain registration data requirements for pesticides used on minor crops if the use does not present a significant risk to human health or the environment. The bills also appear to resolve many concerns with regard to minor crop pesticide uses. They would expedite and facilitate the registration of pesticides to meet minor uses and delay the cancellation of unsupported minor uses under reregistration. The bills also provide funding to encourage the development of data to support the registration of minor uses. These bills could have a major impact on sustaining California's agricultural production, while retaining and promoting chemical tools for integrated pest management, and the Administration officially supports these efforts.

If the proposed federal minor crop registration reforms pass, DPR will be under immediate pressure to provide for a parallel program. Otherwise, California growers of minor or specialty crops (virtually all growers) will be at a national competitive disadvantage. However, since California has its own registration process and data requirements for federally registered pesticides, these federal reforms could have minimal effect in our State.

DISCUSSION POINTS: What happens to California reforms if the federal legislation doesn't pass? Are these reforms necessary if other California registration reforms proposed in this document are adopted? Are accommodations being made in the name of integrated pest management, or the "keeping the toolbox full" mentality, that lead to too many compromises and shortcuts? The public health and environment should not be sacrificed in the name of economic viability for minor crops.

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Specific California reforms would have to be defined after careful analysis of any enacted federal reforms and the necessity of State statutory change to fully implement those reforms. At this time, the bills propose amendments to FIFRA which would:

(1) Define "minor use" as the use of a pesticide on an animal, commercial agricultural crop or site, or for the protection of public health where the use does not provide sufficient economic incentive to support initial or continuing registration and there is no unreasonable adverse effect.

(2) Provide exclusive use of data submitted to support a minor use for 10 years and allow U.S. EPA to bridge or "recycle" data developed for one crop to another crop registration if the use is substantially the same.

(3) Provide an additional two years, based on certain conditions, for the submission of residue chemistry data to support registration and reregistration of a minor use.

(4) Allow a waiver of data requirements for new registrations of a pesticide for a minor use, provided the absence of the data will not prevent U.S. EPA from determining risk.

(5) Require a completed review by U.S. EPA within 6 months of the following types of applications for registration:

(a) A new active ingredient proposed to be registered solely for minor uses;

(b) A pesticide which has "significant minor uses" which is defined as either: (i) three minor uses for every non-minor use on the label, (ii) replacing a cancelled minor use, or (iii) avoiding the reissuance of a Section 18; and

(c) An amendment to an existing pesticide to add a minor use.

(6) Allow conditional registration of a pesticide to add minor uses if they do not exceed dietary risk assessment criteria.

(7) Allow conditional registration to replace previously cancelled or deleted uses; however, the active ingredient must be supported for reregistration.

(8) Delay the cancellation of a minor use which is not being supported under reregistration until the final deadline for submission of data for supported uses.

PROPOSED REFORM: Reform the Birth Defect Prevention Act, as amended.

ARGUMENTS: The Birth Defect Prevention Act (Act) was enacted in January of 1985. The purpose of the Act is to prevent pesticide induced abortions, birth defects, and infertility. The Act requires that registrants of registered pesticide products submit certain chronic health effects data. In addition, the Act prohibits DPR from registering a pesticide product containing a new active ingredient unless all of the required data have been submitted. Since its adoption, there have been a number of federal and State regulatory changes with regard to toxicology data requirements for antimicrobial, microbial, and biochemical pesticide products. These changes need to be reflected in the data requirements listed in the Act.

Also, as a result of the workload which resulted from implementation of the Act, DPR evidently has not been able to review all of the data and information submitted by registrants of pesticide products containing active ingredients other than those identified pursuant to subsection (a) of section 13127 of the Food and Agricultural Code (FAC). Under the current provisions in the law, if DPR determines that the submitted data and information are not adequate, registrants will not have an opportunity to respond to DPR's determination. An extension of time to comply with the Act needs to be provided where the delays in submitting the mandatory health effects studies were primarily caused by factors outside the control of registrants. If they are not resolved, these issues will place an unfair burden on the regulated community and will prohibit DPR from keeping up with the latest scientific conclusions regarding toxicology data requirements. There are also several provisions within the Act which should be repealed because they are outdated, redundant, or incorrect.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Of all of DPR's statutory mandates, the Birth Defect Prevention Act has been the most sacred to worker and public health advocates. An attempt during this past State legislative session to make a rather minor change in the Act to allow an extension of time for the development of data for just two active ingredients met with strong opposition and widespread media interest. Are major reforms of the Act needed to address scientific and workload issues?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: The problems described above cannot be resolved through administrative measures. Without statutory changes, DPR would have to implement the statute as written. Proposed amendments to the Birth Defect Prevention Act have generally focused on updating to reflect current data requirements, establishing that registrants are responsible to provide the mandatory health effects data after a final determination by DPR that a data gap exists, and clarifying a number of other provisions, specifically including:

(1) Propose amendments to FAC section 13123 to further clarify definitions. Subsection (c) is proposed for amendment to reflect changes in federal and State data requirements for antimicrobial, microbial, and biochemical pesticide products. The subsection would also be amended to reflect that for pesticides containing new active ingredients, current data requirements should be complied with, not those in effect in 1983.

(2) FAC sections 13124 and 13125 are proposed for deletion as outdated and without substance. Section 13126 is proposed for amendment to provide further clarity and to delete the requirement that DPR consult with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). While DIR regulates worker safety in the workplace where pesticide are manufactured, DPR has primary responsibility to assure that pesticides are safe for their intended use. This amendment would streamline the decision making process.

(3) FAC section 13127 is proposed for amendment to delete provisions which are outdated or which are no longer necessary. Section 13127(e) currently provides an exemption from the data requirements for any pesticide product which meets certain criteria. This subsection is proposed to be renumbered as subsection (d) and to delete criteria which allowed the exemption to be based upon limited use and economic hardship. The exemption would still apply to pesticide products with insignificant exposure to the public or workers and would be amended to include products which are used exclusively by local, State, or federal agencies to control pests that threaten public health or the quality of the environment, and products which have been granted a low volume/minor use waiver by the U.S. EPA. which has established a set of strict criteria which must be met before low volume/minor use waivers are granted. Before granting the exemption, the Director would review the waiver to determine whether DPR concurs with U.S. EPA's decision.

(4) FAC section 13127.31 is proposed for deletion as outdated. The section refers to pesticide active ingredients identified pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 13127. Pursuant to section 13127.32, any such active ingredients which still have data gaps will not remain registered after March 30, 1996.

(5) FAC section 13127.9, which requires that registrants submit an annual report, would be renumbered as 13132 and expanded to require that such reports be submitted for all active ingredients covered by the Act. Section 13127.91 would be renumbered as 13132.1 and expanded to authorize the Director to suspend the registration of pesticide products containing any active ingredient for which the registrant fails to submit the required data within the established time frames or as provided in any extension of time. Section 13129 would be renumbered as 13123.2. The renumbering is intended to provide further clarity for a person reading the statute.

(6) FAC section 13131.2 allows registrants to file a written objection to the data requirements for pesticide active ingredients other than those identified pursuant to subsection (a) of section 13127 based upon certain criteria. A fourth criteria is proposed to be added which would allow DPR to make a scientific determination regarding the data needed based upon the use pattern of the pesticide.

(7) FAC section 13131.4 is proposed for amendment to add subsection (d) in recognition of the fact that due to the workload resulting from this Act, DPR has not yet been able to review data which were submitted by registrants in response to the data call-in on active ingredients other than those identified pursuant to subsection (a) of section 13127. Subsection (d) would make registrants responsible to provide the data as soon as they are notified by DPR of a final determination that a data gap exists. Subsection (e) is proposed for addition in recognition of the fact that federal and State data requirements for antimicrobial, microbial, and biochemical pesticide products have changed since the Act was enacted in 1985.

PROPOSED REFORM: Reform DPR requirements for efficacy data submission and/or review.

ARGUMENTS: By law, the Director is to make a thorough evaluation before a substance is registered as an economic poison for the first time, continuously evaluate registered economic poisons, and eliminate from use (refuse to register or cancel a registration) an economic poison that is not beneficial for its intended use (e.g., not efficacious, or not as efficacious as the label claims).

DPR regulations require each application for registration or label amendment to be accompanied by data supporting each efficacy claim, and that data must have been obtained under California or similar environmental use conditions. The regulations also require the Director, during review and evaluation of labeling and data to support registration, to give special attention to certain factors, when applicable, including efficacy.

These regulations implement, interpret, and make specific several statutes including section 11501 of the Food and Agricultural Code (FAC). Section 11501 provides, in part, that the purposes of Division 6 and the pesticide portions of Division 7 off the FAC are to provide for the efficient use of pesticides and to assure users that economic poisons are properly labeled and appropriate for the use designated by the label. "Efficient use" and assuring that labeling is appropriate in regard to the use designated by the label both pertain to efficacy.

Taking these statutory purposes and the registration laws and regulations together as a whole, it is difficult for DPR to argue that they do not have a duty to review efficacy data, at least when it is submitted in conjunction with an application for the first time registration of a substance as an economic poison because at that time, DPR is statutorily required to make a "thorough evaluation."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) does not routinely require the submittal of efficacy data, but requires only that such data be maintained by the applicant and only if U.S. EPA specifically requests that data is it ever submitted to them. Efficacy reviews in California add more time to the delays in State registration and have even been the cause of some rejected product registrations. This can put California growers at a competitive disadvantage.

Three different approaches were suggested by focus group participants to reform this process:

(1) DPR should follow U.S. EPA's lead and not require efficacy data to be submitted as a condition of California registration. If a problem arises, DPR can always request the data from the registrant just as U.S. EPA does now.

(2) DPR should only require the submission of efficacy data in those circumstances where efficacy is not readily apparent to the consumer. For example, it is difficult for the average consumer of antimicrobial/disinfectant products to know if the product is working to kill germs.

(3) DPR should continue to require efficacy data to be submitted on all products, but not review the data unless there is a suspected problem. This would keep the data readily available, but minimize registration delays.

ISSUES: If efficacy data requirements are changed, there may be some concern about so-called "safer" chemistry going unchallenged to demonstrate that it, in fact, works. Does a "buyer beware" mentality adequately protect consumers of pesticides?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Several regulations would likely need to be changed to implement these reforms. The following sections would either need repeal or amendment as indicated by underline and strikeout format, as follows:

[[section]] 6158 Review and Evaluation

During the review and evaluation of proposed pesticide

labeling and data to support registration, the director shall give special attention to the provisions of Section 11501, 12824, 12825, 12826, 14102, and 14103 of the Food and Agricultural Code and to each of the following factors, when applicable, in reaching a decision to register or not register the pesticide:

(a) ...

(b) ...

(h) Efficacy.

If any of these factors...

[[section]] 6159 Data Requirements

The director finds that the data required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations... substantially meet the data requirements of Section 12824 of the Food and Agricultural Code, except as provided in this Section and Sections 6158 ...6181 6192, 6181-6185, 6187-6192,

[[section]] 6170 Application

(a) ...

(b) A request to amend the labeling...is incomplete unless accompanied by six copies of the labeling and the data required to be submitted by section 6159... 6181 6192, 6181-6185,6187-6192, ...

[[section]] 6186 Efficacy

Each application applicant for registration or amendment to the labeling of an economic poison and each registrant of an economic poison shall be accompanied by maintain data supporting each efficacy claim related to the economic poison. If data supporting such claims are in public domain, and copies of the data are provided, the submission of such data may satisfy the requirement of this section. Such data shall be obtained under California or similar environmental use conditions and shall take into consideration difference in plants, soils, climate conditions, and application techniques. The data shall be submitted to the department on request.

[[section]] 6200 Conditional Registration

The director may waive specific data requirements in this article for a period reasonably sufficient, not to exceed three years, for the generation and submission of such required data provided:

(a) The pesticide product is registered pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the product is to be used under a Federal Experimental Use Permit, or the product is for use in California only.

(b) The applicant has provided the director with all

data the applicant has available required by the EPA and by this article to support registration of the pesticide product.

(c) No conditional registration shall be granted

unless the data provided the director includes all of the following:

(1) ...

(2) ...

(6) Preliminary efficacy data indicating the

product is effective for the proposed use.
(d) ....

(i) Where the application is for a pesticide product containing a new active ingredient, the applicant has provided the director with the following data in addition to the data required by Section 6200(c),(1)(65) ....

[[section]] 6222 Reevaluation Data Requirements (a) During the reevaluation, the director shall require submission of data required for registration of a new pesticide by the EPA and by specified in Sections 6159(c),....6181-6192, and 6200 which is relevant to the focus of the reevaluation and has not previously been submitted to the department. The director shall allow a reasonable time for the development and submission of such data, not to exceed a period of two years.

Notwithstanding the lack of such data, the director shall act expeditiously to protect against risks to human health and the environment.

(b) ....

PROPOSED REFORM: Reform California's pesticide registration process to eliminate all activities that are duplicative or not value-added and complete State registration decisions concurrent, or nearly concurrent, with federal decisions.

BACKGROUND: This is definitely the number one issue raised in our focus group meetings. Yet, many people remain unclear on California's pesticide registration process. Thus, this background material is provided for clarification.

The Food and Agricultural Code requires that pesticides be thoroughly evaluated and registered by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) before they are sold or used in California. The law also requires applicants to conduct tests and studies necessary for DPR's evaluation. The Director may refuse to register (or may cancel) any pesticide which falls under specified criteria, including serious, uncontrollable adverse effects on the environment; less public value or greater detriment to the environment than benefit received from its use; use that is detrimental to vegetation, domestic animals or public health and safety, or use which is of little or no value for the intended purpose.

Every DPR Branch participates in the pesticide registration process to assure that no unmitigated adverse impacts will occur as a result of the proposed registration. The Pesticide Registration Branch coordinates the process and serves as liaison to pesticide registrants.

Each applicant for registration is required by regulations to submit data to DPR regarding product chemistry, environmental fate, efficacy, fish and wildlife effects, hazard to non-target organisms, worker exposure, and toxicology. These data are reviewed by several branches, each focusing on different areas of expertise. Within the Pesticide Registration Branch, data are reviewed by staff scientists in the following disciplines: chemistry, microbiology, plant physiology, pest/disease prevention, and fish and wildlife biology.

The Medical Toxicology Branch reviews toxicology studies to determine adequacy of the studies and the presence of potential adverse health effects that may range from acute toxicity to the potential for chronic health effects (e.g., carcinogenicity, birth defects). When the review indicates possible adverse health effects, the pesticide's risk potential is studied and a risk characterization document is prepared.

The Worker Health and Safety Branch reviews proposed pesticide product labeling to assess potential exposure to pesticide users and others and to recommend mitigation measures where necessary. The Pesticide Enforcement Branch also reviews labeling so that any regulatory concerns, such as whether label requirements are enforceable, are identified and satisfied prior to registration.

The Environmental Monitoring and Pest Management Branch evaluates pesticide products for potential to contaminate ground water, or for impacts on integrated pest management systems, when relevant concerns are identified.

A proposed decision to register or deny an application is reached once all reviews have been completed. If any reviewing Branch recommends against registration due to inadequate data, unacceptable studies or unmitigated adverse effects, the product is not registered until or unless concerns are resolved. In addition, concerns raised by other State agencies are addressed before a decision is reached. As required by regulations adopted while seeking certification as being functionally equivalent to the California Environmental Quality Act, DPR consults with other public agencies regarding proposed pesticide registrations. A final decision to register or to deny registration is reached after providing an opportunity, through public notice, for any interested party to comment on the proposed registration.

California law requires certain types of studies to be evaluated to assure that they were conducted in compliance with U.S. EPA Data Guidelines (for example, ground water protection data required by the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act and toxicology data required by the Birth Defect Prevention Act). DPR has rejected studies, previously accepted by U.S. EPA, for non-compliance with the guidelines.

Historically, DPR has denied registration of products that have obtained federal registration. These denials have been based on such factors as a lack of appropriate or adequate studies, label instructions which do not provide sufficient mitigation of product hazard, and an insufficient margin of safety in the projected use. As a result of registration review, DPR also may, by rulemaking, impose use restrictions and mitigation measures in addition to those on pesticide labels.

ARGUMENTS: California is alone among the states when it comes to such a registration process. As a result, every unfavorable or delayed decision means California pesticide users, especially production agriculture, are at a distinct competitive disadvantage compared to the rest of the nation and the world. California registration decisions, according to Dr. Benbrook's "Challenge and Change" report, can take as long as 2 years after federal registration for new active ingredients. The report made a variety of recommendations on efficiency measures for product registration. Additionally, the regulated industry has also made a number of efficiency recommendations. DPR has invested considerable effort in identifying opportunities to streamline the registration process for products containing new and currently registered active ingredients.

HOWEVER, many commenters want State registration to be completed concurrently with federal registration. While this does not necessarily eliminate reviews, even duplicative reviews, it would eliminate delays in product availability. Once U.S. EPA reached a decision to register a product, DPR must also register the product in California unless it's prepared to issue a contrary decision, at that time, documenting that California standards or conditions prohibit a favorable decision.

Other commenters want to see all duplicative reviews (data reviews done by DPR that have already been completed for federal registration by U.S. EPA) eliminated. For this to be workable, DPR should require registrants to attach U.S. EPA reviews to the studies in their submitted registration package to ensure easy identification and documentation of the fact. The approach of this reform is similar to DPR's "harmonization" project, briefly described below:

Harmonization with U.S. EPA - Both DPR and U.S. EPA recognized the value of working closely on shared activities, and identifying where each program could utilize the other's efforts. Memoranda of understanding were signed to clarify activities and establish goals for the effort. Monthly conference calls were established to discuss progress on these efforts and to coordinate on other regulatory matters. Some of the key aspects of the harmonization effort include:

*Sharing data reviews and risk assessments

*Harmonizing risk assessment methodology

*Standardizing exposure assessment assumptions

*DPR providing input to U.S. EPA's data guidelines

*Harmonizing on reduced risk pesticides

*Conducting a pilot project on DPR certification of label amendments

Still other commenters want major reforms in what data DPR requires and reviews, simply to make best use of limited resources. Individual recommendations include:

*Adjuvant registrations are unnecessary and should be eliminated.

*30 day posting requirement should be eliminated.

*Leave inerts policy to U.S. EPA.

*Eliminate all California-only requirements unless it directly impacts the public health and safety.

*Identify and fast-track "low risk" pesticides.

*U.S. EPA should have primacy over all science issues; California would retain the lead over only unique exposure issues.

*No delays in product availability in California - automatically registered and DPR can remove from the market if, after it conducts its reviews, DPR finds adverse effects.

*Label amendments review streamlined.

*U.S. EPA notification process reforms adopted.

*DPR reform "acceptability" criteria used in data review.

*DPR should not cite federal guidelines as the reason to reject data acceptable to U.S. EPA under its own guidelines.

*Expand interpretation and use of "non-substantive change" criteria to eliminate trivial reviews.

*Use U.S. EPA confidential statement of formula.

*Eliminate State registration requirements for insect growth regulators.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Will registration reforms place too much emphasis on U.S. EPA abilities? Will the protection of public and worker health and the environment be compromised by insufficient evaluation?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Depending on the menu of reforms, DPR may be able to enact some of them with administrative changes in policy and organization. Other components will require repeal or redrafting of regulations and, in some cases, statutory reforms will be needed.

PROPOSED REFORM: Improve the availability of pesticide products through reform of the FIFRA Section 18 and 24c provisions.

BACKGROUND: Section 18 (exemption from registration requirements) and 24c (Special Local Need Registrations) of FIFRA authorize states to allow additional uses of federally registered pesticides and of new products that are substantially similar to federally registered products. These uses can be approved without going through the customary U.S. EPA registration process, provided that certain criteria are met. The diversity of crops, geography, soil, and weather conditions in California make the use of both 24c and Section 18 provisions critical to the continued productivity and viability of agriculture.

The Pesticide Registration Branch manages the review and evaluation of both 24c and Section 18 applications. The process may require lengthy discussion with applicants and registrants regarding the necessity for the use of the pesticide, proposed application rates and methods, frequency of applications, field reentry and preharvest intervals. Each request undergoes a scientific evaluation which may include residue chemistry, efficacy, phytotoxicity, and a worker safety review. Requests may also be subject to a dietary exposure assessment, or a complete risk characterization. The procedures for reaching a registration decision and for public notice are the same as for normal product registration.

Requests for a Section 18 must be made to DPR. They can come from growers' groups, county agricultural commissioners or universities. Since a Section 18 is designed to counter an unexpected emergency, for which no alternative pest control practice is feasible, the request must be accompanied by extensive documentation, including detailed information on the nature of the emergency, costs of control, past yields, projected losses and other economic data. This information must be presented in depth, and must be verified. Federal regulations are very specific on the requirements for the emergency nature of the pest problem, its extent and economic impact, and the lack of alternatives.

A 24c is a Special Local Need Registration. ("Local" in this context may refer to a particular growing area, or the entire State.) California's large number of specialty crops have special pest problems that make 24c registrations an important tool. Manufacturers develop their products for national distribution and may choose not to include these specialty crops on their labels, because the pest problems and use conditions are unique to this State. The only way these pesticide products can be used in California is through special local need registrations; there is no other mechanism at the federal level for authorizing "local" uses within a State. Applications for a Section 24c can be made by growers' groups, county agricultural commissioners or universities, or pesticide manufacturers. The request must be accompanied by a justification of need, and a documentation of lack of alternatives, although the detailed economic data required for a Section 18 are not required.

ARGUMENTS: U.S. EPA initiated a regulatory review of the Section 18 procedures in 1995 to determine whether changes in the regulations and procedures are needed, and held a workshop in Sacramento to solicit ideas and issues from interested parties. DPR and others made a number of recommendations, including allowing Section 18 use for reduced risk pesticides when existing pesticides pose a risk problem. Similarly, U.S. EPA is developing a guidance document for states on the use of 24c registrations. One of the areas of consideration by U.S. EPA is whether states can use 24c for reduced risk pesticide registrations.

DPR has put increasing emphasis on the appropriate uses of Section 18 and 24c by providing training in workshop sessions for interested parties. From these sessions and the focus group meetings the following reforms have been recommended:

*Determinations concerning available alternatives should be reformed to allow for-

resistance management issues

more than a single product formulation

more than a single packaging option

DISCUSSION POINTS: Are Section 18 and 24c procedures adequately protective of public and worker health and the environment?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Most of these reforms can be accomplished with either policy or regulation changes, provided federal rules do not prohibit the change.



PROPOSED REFORM: Reform DPR's pesticide risk assessment process to rely more on federal guidelines and decisions, and to expedite consistent and credible scientific decisions.

ARGUMENTS: DPR conducts comprehensive health risk assessments on pesticide active ingredients when potential adverse effects are identified in health effects studies. An assessment of dietary risks of pesticides for which there are tolerances established is included in the comprehensive assessment. If the risks of use of a pesticide are significant, the Director takes remedial action, ranging from mitigation measures to reduce the risk, to cancellation if risks cannot be mitigated.

Over the last two years, the Department has embarked on projects to streamline and clarify the risk assessment process. As part of the Harmonization Project, DPR and U.S. EPA will agree on a common method of conducting risk assessments, with the goal of being able to use one another's risk assessments as appropriate.

Under SB 1082 (Calderon), Cal/EPA has embarked on an agency-wide effort to review the policies, methods, and guidelines followed in identifying and assessing chemical toxicity. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is charged with forming an outside advisory committee to review risk assessment methods for scientific soundness and to compare these methods with those used by U.S. EPA and the National Academy of Sciences. Cal/EPA had previously formed a Science and Criteria Workgroup among Cal/EPA programs to develop guidelines for the consistent application of risk assessment methods.

Individual focus group comments noted that:

*Registrant need a bigger participatory role in the process.

*Federal risk assessments should be accepted without further deliberation.

*Scientific issues (toxicology) should be resolved by reliance on federal interpretations/actions, whenever available, to ensure national consistency.

*If DPR is going to conduct risk assessments, it should also be willing to make "safe use determinations" on a case-by-case basis to assure the public of safety. DPR seems reluctant to be definitive about its conclusions, and needs to communicate better with the public about risk issues.

DISCUSSION POINTS: How can DPR account for the synergistic effects of chemicals that bioaccumulate in the environment? Are margins of safety truly protective of the most sensitive population groups? Is DPR's emphasis on using workplace, rather than ambient, exposure levels overly conservative?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Administrative actions, including regulation reform, should be sufficient to implement most changes. However, the acceptance of federal risk assessments without State review will likely require statutory reform as well.



PROPOSED REFORM: Establish a farm worker educational outreach program, including a "Hot Line" for pesticide-related questions or complaints.

ARGUMENTS: So much of DPR's worker safety program credibility rests on mitigating adverse effects in the workplace with protective clothing and/or equipment, and field re-entry intervals, that workers must understand and comply with the requirements for program effectiveness. Farm worker advocates claim that what DPR makes work on paper, doesn't really work in the field. Thus, hazards aren't really mitigated. If DPR is to continue its efforts to maintain pesticide uses based on such control methods, it should take on a stronger role to communicate and strictly enforce these measures. A "workplace evaluation response unit" should be established to follow-up on complaints.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Is DPR's credibility in the farm worker community sufficient to make a "Hot Line" work? How can DPR implement a better outreach program without new resources?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: The proposed reforms are more in the nature of improving the effectiveness of existing requirements, and could be accomplished administratively.

PROPOSED REFORM: Reform DPR's efforts to collect and disseminate information on pesticide-related illnesses, and the scope of its illness investigations.

ARGUMENTS: The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) receives most reports of pesticide-related illness by one of two routes. California has a unique system that allows any employed person to visit a physician and state that an illness or injury was acquired on the job. The physician then examines the worker and submits a "Doctor's First Report of Work Injury" (DFRWI) to the appropriate insurance company or to the State Compensation Insurance Fund for payment of the professional fee. The DFRWIs are also sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Since payment of the fee depends upon submission of the report, the incentive for reporting is good. In addition, since 1971, California physicians have been required by law (Section 2950 of the Health and Safety Code) to report all pesticide-related illnesses or injury to the county departments of health. Copies of this Pesticide Illness Report must be sent to the county agricultural commissioners (CAC), the Department of Health Services (DHS) and DPR. The Bureau of Labor Statistics sends all DFRWIs involving pesticide use to DPR, where they are reviewed and referred to the appropriate CAC for investigation. The cases are recorded in the Department's Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program system and tracked. Completed investigative reports are evaluated by DPR and the case summaries are entered into a computerized data base, from which annual reports are produced. An annual report of suspected pesticide illness has been prepared each year since 1973.

Some focus group participants suggested that DPR and the CACs spend too much time investigating insignificant illnesses. Incidents involving splashes of disinfectant and sanitizer products was cited as an example. These incidents seem to dominate DPR's annual reports and this can lead to misinterpretation, as well. Suggestions were made about how DPR should place a better context on some of its reported data. Other participants noted that DPR does not seem to be receiving the DFRWIs on timely basis and suggested improvements in the statutory reporting requirements.

DISCUSSION POINTS: DPR's illness reporting system is unique and recently received national recognition for its innovation. Is this program worth it, if no one else is doing it?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Changes in investigation priorities and report content are administrative issues. Reporting requirement reforms would likely require a statutory change.



PROPOSAL: Reform of the Administrative Civil Penalties Process.

JUSTIFICATION: Under existing law (both the Business and Professions, and the Food and Agricultural Codes), county agricultural commissioners (CAC) are authorized to initiate administrative civil penalties for violations of pesticide laws related to structural and agricultural uses, respectively, at the county level. The administrative civil penalty process provides for due process to the respondent, including an appeal process, but has no requirement to compel a respondent who has been found guilty to pay their fine. Currently, some pest control businesses have uncovered this loophole and flagrantly proceed to conduct their business as usual without paying their fines, making a mockery of the civil penalty process.

RECOMMENDED REFORMS: The solution is to link the ability of pest control businesses and operators to obtain or renew their licenses, certifications, or permits to the payment of any outstanding civil penalties.

IMPACTS: The concept strengthens enforcement policy and has no fiscal or economic impacts other than the lawful collection of unpaid fines.

ISSUES: Should be fairly noncontroversial except for those operators/businesses who are currently ignoring their fines and, thus, gaining an unfair business advantage.

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Apparently, administrative reforms would be inadequate, so legislation is recommended.

PROPOSED REFORM: Eliminate pesticide product quality sampling.

ARGUMENTS: The Product Quality Program is one of DPR's oldest programs, begun early in the century when truth-in-labeling laws were in their infancy, and adulteration and misrepresentation of products were common. Product quality is determined by sampling pesticide products at retail, wholesale, dealer, and producer establishments. Laboratory analysis is conducted to determine the percentage of active ingredient relative to the formulation as indicated on the label and to check for contaminants. Pesticides with active ingredients in higher concentration than the label indicates may result in phytotoxicity problems, possible worker safety problems or illegal pesticide residues. Formulations that are lower than the stated concentration may result in crop loss from either lack of pest control or the presence of contaminants with a higher toxicity than the labeled active ingredient.

Several focus group participants expressed concern about the value of this product quality sampling. They felt that few significant violations are discovered in comparison to the resources expended to pull and analyze the samples. Product quality samples can clog the analytical laboratory services available at the local level which should probably be devoted to other investigative samples. Since this is a major activity of DPR's District Enforcement staff, there was also a corollary argument made to reduce or eliminate the District Offices.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Will consumers be too vulnerable to poor products without this activity?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: These reforms would require administrative action and the repeal of certain regulations. It is possible that statutory change may also be needed.

PROPOSED REFORM: Reform local pesticide enforcement to mimic structural pest control disciplinary reviews.

ARGUMENTS: The Structural Pest Control Board has established a disciplinary review committee which acts as a first line of review and appeal over the actions of pest control operators and officials. Currently, DPR only provides for individual actions by the county agricultural commissioners (CAC) with appeal or oversight by the Director. Focus group participants suggested that DPR establish a disciplinary review committee to review local enforcement actions, especially for county to county uniformity, before a Director's appeal becomes necessary.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Is this a more efficient process of assuring appropriate compliance actions or just a new level of bureaucracy?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: This could likely be accomplished through administrative rulemaking, although statutory appeals may also require updating to reflect this restructuring.

PROPOSED REFORM: Reform the restricted material permitting process to allow for multi-year permits and reduced notice of intent requirements.

ARGUMENTS: The criteria established to designate a pesticide a restricted material are listed in Food and Agricultural Code Section 14004.5. They include hazard to public health, farmworkers, domestic animals, honeybees, the environment, wildlife or other crops. Pesticides are designated restricted materials through regulations promulgated by the Director. Restricted materials generally require a permit from the county agricultural commissioner (CAC) prior to possession or use. All federally restricted use pesticides have been designated California restricted materials. When a pesticide is designated a restricted material the Director or the CAC may adopt specific conditions which govern the possession and use of the pesticide.

Restricted materials, with certain exceptions, may be possessed or used only by or under the supervision of licensed or certified persons, and only in accordance with an annual permit issued by the CAC. The administration of the permit process is a key element of the local regulation of pesticide use performed by CACs. A CAC may require that restricted material users employ specific use practices to mitigate potential adverse effects, or may deny the permit with cause. Permits for the agricultural use of pesticides must be site and time specific. Since permits are usually issued for a season or a year, a notice of intent (NOI) to apply the pesticide must be submitted to the CAC at least 24 hours prior to the application. The NOI must contain information on any changes in the environmental setting of the proposed application which may have occurred since the permit was issued. All NOIs are reviewed by county staff who have the authority to halt the proposed application if conditions warrant. A minimum of five percent of the use sites identified on the NOIs are selected for pre-application inspections, which are primarily spot checks to ensure that information contained on the permit is accurate and complete.

Many aspects of the restricted materials permitting system, including site and time specificity, NOIs, etc., had their origin in an opinion issued by the California Attorney General in 1976, which stated that the issuance of county permits for the use of restricted materials is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including environmental impact reports. Based on that opinion, the Legislature directed the Department to seek a functional equivalency to CEQA (AB 3765, Chapter 308, Statutes of 1978). The legislation noted that timeliness in the application of pesticides is paramount to good pest management, and that individual permits to apply pesticides must often be issued on short notice, thereby making impracticable the type of environmental review which necessitates the preparation of an environmental impact report or negative declaration. The legislation led to the Department's development of regulations which expanded the scope of the permitting system and placed new responsibilities on the CACs. In December of 1979, the pesticide regulatory program was certified by the Resources Agency as functionally equivalent to CEQA.

Focus group participants suggested the following individual reforms:

*CACs should have discretion to issue multi-year permits. The following various conditions were discussed:

-all permits go to 2 year cycle with mandatory updates for any changed conditions in between...

-permanent crops, such as orchards, should be 3 to 5 year cycle with mandatory update requirements...

*Lifetime issuance of site IDs

*Only require NOIs if the situation at the application has changed

*Only require NOIs for more hazardous use scenarios

DISCUSSION POINTS: Would these reforms jeopardize DPR's CEQA functional equivalency? What would trigger CAC on-site inspections if NOIs not required?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: These reforms would require both legislative and rulemaking changes. They may also require review by the Secretary of the Resources Agency for recertification.

PROPOSED REFORM: Establish an agricultural waste disposal account in the DPR Fund with designated revenues from the pesticide mill assessment in order to provide for pick-up and disposal of pesticide waste products at no extra charge.

ARGUMENTS: There is already a model program in that household hazardous waste is collected without charge because of a special account funded by tipping fees. Currently, agricultural waste disposal is a county level program funded by collection fees which can be significant enough to encourage the illegal dumping of waste.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Since the mill assessment is not collected from just the sales of agricultural products, would such a program be an equitable use of the funds?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: This reform would require legislation.



PROPOSED REFORM: Clarify who needs to be licensed by DPR as a pest control business by defining in statute what it means to "engage for hire."

ARGUMENTS: The Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) makes it an unlawful act for any person to perform pest control for hire without obtaining a Pest Control Business License issued by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). However, ambiguities in the current statute leave it unclear whether businesses can be cited for performing unlicensed pest control activities without evidence of an actual pesticide application by that business.

Those businesses that perform pest control without a Pest Control Business License have an unfair business advantage over those that comply with the pest control business requirements. Licensed businesses are required to comply with licensing requirements that include fees to obtain and maintain the license, continuing education requirements, and chemical liability insurance premiums or surety bonds. Unlicensed businesses operate without these costs and, therefore, can charge less for their services and have a higher profit margin.

It is necessary, therefore, to close any loopholes in enforcing the licensing requirements for pest control businesses by clarifying the intended scope of this provision. Such clarification will improve enforcement efforts which, in turn, leads to a more level playing field and better protection for both workers and consumers.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Is even further clarification necessary to ensure that landscape maintenance gardeners are not exploiting licensing requirements which allow landscape contractors who "install" rather than "maintain" landscape to be exempt from DPR licensing?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: A DPR policy to this effect would not carry the force of law as when the term is further defined in statute. If DPR attempted to define "engage for hire" in the California Code of Regulations, it is likely to be challenged as expanding rather than clarifying existing authority, and would not meet the criteria for adoption through the Administrative Procedures Act. The only remaining enforceable option is to clarify the activities that are unlawful and require licensing as a pest control business through amendments to the FAC by copying the operative language from the Business and Professions Code that governs structural pest control and defines "engage for hire" as "advertising, soliciting, or operating as a pest control business."

PROPOSED REFORM: Streamline structural pest control functions by eliminating the Department of Consumer Affairs's Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB) and consolidating the structural pest control enforcement and pest control licensing functions within the DPR.

ARGUMENTS: DPR has primary responsibility for regulating all aspects of pesticide sales and use to protect public health and the environment. The SPCB is required to license those persons that possess the necessary qualifications to professionally perform structural pest control work. Under an interagency agreement with the SPCB, DPR is now partially reimbursed for pesticide enforcement in structural settings, training of enforcement staff in structural pest control and enforcement, and civil penalty actions taken against structural pest control licensees. DPR implements the structural pest control enforcement activities through the county agricultural commissioners (CAC).

Streamlining opportunities exist for consolidation of essentially parallel DPR and SPCB programs. The SPCB and DPR have a number of similar programs: establishment of minimum qualifications and levels of competency for specialized classifications of pesticide practitioners; issuance of licenses/certificates based on background, experience, training, and examination; inspection of practitioner performance/regulatory compliance; continuing education; inspection of practitioner performance/regulatory compliance; investigation of allegations/unlawful activity; and pursuit of disciplinary action against the issued license/certificate.

Focus group participants expressed a strong interest in streamlining State government. Consolidation of these programs would eliminate duplication in government and increase consistency in regulatory activities. Efficiencies are anticipated in consolidation of administrative and overhead expenditures, as well as a result of the elimination of board-member related expenditures. Further program efficiencies could be reviewed in the future.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Could perspectives currently represented through the SPCB's organization and composition be adequately addressed through inclusion of persons representing such positions on the Pest Control Advisory Committee, an existing committee within DPR? Harmonization of programs of DPR and the SPCB could be difficult to achieve. Are inconsistencies between structural and agricultural pesticide enforcement programs a problem or equity issue? It is recognized that there may be functions of the SPCB which are not appropriately accomplished by DPR due to conflicting program priorities, technical capacities, and the requirements to maintain, for some issues a system of checks and balances. Therefore, should a full program evaluation by DPR, accomplished in conjunction with the Department of Consumer Affairs and the State Contractor's Licensing Board, as well as an assessment of the associated California Civil Code provisions regarding real estate law be completed?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Funding for the activities proposed to be transferred from the SPCB would be funded from within the resources currently directed to the SPCB for these activities. The cost for DPR to assume these duties should be somewhat less.

Legislation enacted in 1994, Senator McCorquodale's SB 2036 (Chapter 908, Statutes of 1994) puts in place a procedure and schedule for the Legislature to assess the effectiveness of, or need for, State involvement in 32 areas currently regulated by various boards. The sunset provisions have scheduled the SPCB to become inoperative on July 1, 1998 and to be repealed on January 1, 1999 unless reauthorized. Final, legislative action would likely still be necessary.

PROPOSED REFORM: Streamline licensing and certification requirements, and county registration requirements, to extend the valid period of a license, certificate, or registration and to allow use of continuing education to minimize the need for frequent retesting or unnecessary office visits.

ARGUMENTS: Most licenses and certificates are issued for two years. The new private applicator certification program would establish a three year certification and allow for continuing education credits to be submitted in lieu of retesting. Most county registrations are annual. Focus group participants felt that all of these timeframes should be reviewed and extended as much as possible to streamline paperwork requirements and maximize the effective use of resources.

DISCUSSION POINTS: How long can a license or certificate remain valid without losing touch with the regulated community? Are continuing education credits available for all license and certificate holders? Are continuing education credits adequately screened for value and completion?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: These reforms would require, at least, rulemaking changes and likely would entail legislative reform.

PROPOSED REFORM: Require pest control advisors (PCA) to be independent consultants and not on the payroll of a chemical sales company.

ARGUMENTS: In 1972, the Department began licensing of PCAs, with a later requirement for training and continuing education. Licensing of pest control operators had been required since the late 1940's. PCA licensing is directed at setting standards for professional conduct for those who advise growers on pest control methods, and by requiring pest control recommendations be in writing, making PCA's legally accountable.

Some focus group participants felt that allowing a PCA to be the sales agent of a chemical company create an inherent conflict of interest that undermines the integrity of the process. Only a truly independent consultant can be expected to not have a chemical orientation. Suggestions were also made to require more continuing education focus on nonchemical pest control alternatives.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Can a PCA earn a living just off of his pest control advise? Is there really a problem to correct or just a perception of one?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: This change would require legislation.



PROPOSED REFORM: Emphasize educational outreach to and voluntary compliance within the regulated community of pesticide users rather than prescriptive mitigation measures and "command and control" regulations.

ARGUMENTS: Parts of the regulated community feel that DPR relies far too heavily on "command and control" regulations rather than technical assistance and voluntary industry compliance. They argue that DPR should restructure its regulatory programs to allow for an educational/technical assistance outreach with voluntary implementation of improved management practices before it engages in prescriptive regulations or permit conditions.

An emphasis on outreach and voluntary implementation of improved management techniques is not inconsistent with DPR efforts, in cooperation with the State and Regional Water Boards, to implement water quality protection programs. The shift in emphasis from regulatory-based to voluntary implementation has been slower than expected, however. Additionally, DPR would likely be expected to measure and report on the success of these efforts to enhance the public's trust, and to determine when it may be necessary to step in and take a more prescriptive approach to mitigating adverse effects of use.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Can pesticide users be trusted to respond to an educational effort and really act to improve their uses of pesticides, especially when profits are of paramount concern? Can you really measure the success of voluntary efforts?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: There are some impediments in statute or regulation which would need to be addressed if this approach were to emphasized across the board. In particular, a review of existing prescriptive/burdensome regulations would lead to general repeal and be replaced by educational efforts and general guidelines.

PROPOSED REFORM: Exempt pesticide applications from being regulated under Section 5650 of the Fish and Game Code.

ARGUMENTS: Section 5650 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the discharge of materials deleterious to fish, plant life, or bird life. Wardens of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) have, at times, attempted to use this provision to stop or limit the application of pesticides. The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) regulates the use of pesticides with County Agricultural Commissioners (CAC) as its main local enforcement arm. California Executive Order D-15-83 established the primacy of DPR (then part of the California Department of Food and Agriculture) in regulating the use of pesticides, specifically mentioning DFG (among several other State agencies) as responsible to coordinate and cooperate with DPR's programs. Yet, actions by individual wardens have resulted in conflicting instructions to and confusion among local pesticide users.

Chapter 3.5 of Division 7 of the Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) mandates DPR to regulate environmentally harmful materials and to establish an interagency consultation process to further this cause. As an extension of this mandated consultation, DPR has established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DFG which adequately ensures compliance with the intent of Section 5650, yet relies on DPR's regulatory authorities and programs. Thus, actions by wardens to regulate pesticide use through Section 5650 authority are redundant and a waste of State resources.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Some may trust DFG and individual wardens to do a more diligent job of protecting wildlife and aquatic habitats.

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: DPR does have the existing executive order and MOU on which to base an administrative solution. However, only a statutory exemption can eliminate local confusion arising from individual wardens attempting to control or prevent pesticide applications.

PROPOSED REFORM: Reform the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act to be less prescriptive and bureaucratic, and to expand the focus of protection to all water quality not just ground water.

ARGUMENTS: The Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act (PCPA) of 1985 requires the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to take specific actions to protect ground water used for drinking water supplies from pollution by pesticides. The PCPA requires the Director to call in specified environmental fate data, use that data to establish "specific numerical values" to help identify pesticides with the potential to pollute ground water, place such pesticides on the Ground Water Protection List (GWPL), monitor ground water for pesticides on the GWPL, determine whether the use of pesticides detected in ground water should be reviewed, review the continued use of pesticides found in ground water due to legal agricultural use, adopt mitigation measures if necessary, keep a data base of wells sampled by state agencies for pesticide residues, and report specified information to the Legislature.

In the years since this law was passed, much has been learned about how ground water contamination occurs, how it can be predicted, and how the problem can be mitigated. As a result, the current requirements in law are outdated and cumbersome, and do not represent the best use of State resources. In addition, the current specific requirements do not apply to surface water which can also be polluted by pesticides. There is a need to amend the PCPA to include protection of surface water and to make the process of water quality protection from pesticides less cumbersome.

Focus group participants recommended amendments to the law to do all of the following:

(1) give the Director authority to cancel a pesticide for which the data required under a stewardship program to protect water quality has not been submitted.

(2) make new legislative findings regarding water quality protection from pesticides.

(3) delete the current mandatory data requirements but give the Director authority to call in environmental data, if needed. The PCPA requires pesticide registrants to submit specified environmental fate data because when the PCPA was passed the U.S. EPA did not require submission of such data. From experience, DPR staff have learned that only certain of these data are of value in identifying potential leachers. These more limited data are now required to be submitted to the U.S. EPA.

(4) require the Director to develop a pesticide management plan that describes how DPR and county agricultural commissioners will work in cooperation with the SWRCB and the regional boards to protect water quality from the potentially adverse effects of pesticides.

(5) require the Director to develop criteria for creating a list, called the Water Quality Protection List, of pesticide active ingredients that have the potential to contaminate ground or surface water. DPR staff have learned that pesticides residues can move to ground water by both leaching, which was the focus of the PCPA, and by offsite movement in surface water that then runs down direct conduits to ground water. Clearly, pesticides have the potential to contaminate ground water via contaminated surface water. In addition, there have been many reports of surface water contamination by pesticides. Thus there is a need to identify pesticides with a potential to move offsite to both surface and ground water. DPR has developed a model to identify areas sensitive to ground water pollution by pesticides already detected in ground water. It may also be possible to evaluate existing models or to develop a new model to identify pesticides with the potential to move to both ground and surface water. Therefore, the law should be amended to allow the Director to identify, evaluate and use any scientifically feasible process to identify potential surface and ground water contaminants, rather than rely exclusively on the current SNV process. The Director should also be allowed to identify criteria that will be used to establish a list, called the Water Quality Protection List, of pesticide active ingredients that have the potential to contaminate ground and surface water.

(6) require the Director to develop the list based on these criteria.

(7) require the Director to conduct monitoring of chemicals on the list. It appears that it is now appropriate to focus monitoring equally on pesticides with the potential to move offsite to surface water. DPR could administratively decide to monitor for surface water but without a law change, the legislatively mandated ground water monitoring would consume most available resources. This would result in a general inability to provide sufficient resources for surface water monitoring. The law should be amended to recognize the need for, and require, monitoring of potential surface water contaminants as well.

(8) delete soil detections from the requirements of section 13149 and 13150. The U.S. EPA proposed using certain soil detection criteria to establish pesticides as restricted use materials for ground water protection purposes. However, the U.S. EPA dropped the soil criteria based on their conclusion that there was insufficient correlation between detection of a pesticide in soil and the potential for that pesticide to reach ground water. Therefore, the law should be amended to delete any reference to detections of pesticides residues in soil as a trigger for evaluation as a potential ground water pollutant.

(9) make degradation products of active ingredients subject to the same criteria for review as active ingredients under section 13149.

(10) require water suppliers to complete confirmation sampling pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act sampling before detections from such sampling are subject to the requirements of section 13149. DPR is required to conduct verification sampling within 30 days after the initial report is received. Often the DPR analysis indicates that no pesticide residues are present. Subsequently, DPR learns that either the initial analysis was in error or the initial detection was not confirmed after resampling and analysis, and, thus, that there was no need for DPR to conduct additional sampling. This is an inefficient and unnecessary use of state monitoring resources. This unnecessary sampling could be avoided if the law required DPR to conduct verification monitoring only after the results of resampling have been submitted to DPR.

(11) eliminate the subcommittee process, the mandatory hearing, and the registrant report. This review process has been an inefficient use of state and registrant resources for the following reasons:

(a) The registrant report is required to focus on whether the residues present a problem. However, this information focuses on only one of the findings the subcommittee can make. In all but one of the past instances where a hearing was convened, the subcommittee has found that use can be modified. Yet the registrant report is not required to address, and has not addressed, how use can be modified to stop continued movement to ground water.

(b) The subcommittee consists of three members representing the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and DPR. Presumably the SWRCB member was on the subcommittee to provide technical information, such as mechanisms of, and factors affecting, movement of pesticides to ground water; the location of ground water recharge zones in California; and possible mitigation measures. Experience in the hearings to date has shown that the level of expertise needed in these areas resides in DPR. The OEHHA member was on the subcommittee to provide expertise in setting a pollution level and determining whether the adverse effects of the detected pesticide are carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or neurotoxic. However, the subcommittee has not attempted to define pollution for any of the pesticides reviewed to date and the OEHHA member has stated that there were insufficient data to determine whether the health effects were carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or neurotoxic. Thus, the subcommittee has been unable to provide information for the Director to consider in making a final decision, that was not already available through his own staff.

(c) Response to the subcommittee process has always been rulemaking. The Director has always adopted regulations to modify use following a determination that use can be modified to prevent pollution. However, in the years since the last Director's determination was made in 1990, both industry and the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency have expressed increased interest in reducing "command and control" regulations, and in encouraging voluntary initiatives by registrants and/or users to mitigate environmental problems. To date the Legislature has not made any findings and declarations stating the desirability of voluntary measures, such as product stewardship programs, when feasible. There are also no provisions in law recognizing that registrant or industry group monitoring may be required to track implementation of stewardship programs, and no authority to cancel registration if such monitoring is not conducted.

(d) There is no formal response process specified in law for pesticide detections in surface water as there is for ground water.

(12) specifically authorize the Director to approve a stewardship program sponsored by a registrant or other interested group to modify the use of a pesticide to protect water quality and to require monitoring of such a program.

(13) require the Director to conduct modification-of-use monitoring.

(14) require the Director to maintain a data base of surface water sites monitored for pesticides.

(15) require the Director to report ground water monitoring results to the Legislature biennially and surface water monitoring results in the alternate year.

(16) add "offsite movement to streams, lakes, and wildlife sanctuaries" to the criteria for listing a pesticide as a restricted material. Current law does not require certification of all pesticide users who apply pesticides with the potential to adversely impact water quality. Certification is desirable because it requires applicators to demonstrate, either by examination, in the case of licensees or certificate-holders, or by oral interview by the county agricultural commissioner, in the case of private applicators, knowledge of applicable laws and regulations governing pesticide possession and use, label directions, and other information relating to proper application of pesticides to prevent environmental contamination. Currently, pesticides that can only be applied by certified applicators are those listed as restricted materials. However, all pesticides with the potential to adversely impact water quality are not listed as restricted materials. The law should be amended to allow the Director to add these pesticides to the restricted materials list. The Director will promulgate regulations stating that pesticides listed as restricted materials, but that are not subject to mitigation measures pursuant to section 13150, will not require permits for use unless listed as restricted materials for purposes other than water quality protection.

DISCUSSION POINTS: The PCPA has been landmark legislation, drawing national attention. Such major reforms may be reluctantly embraced. Do these changes improve overall water quality protection?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: DPR probably has sufficient general authorities to implement most, if not all, of the surface water reforms being proposed. However, all of the changes to the PCPA will require legislation.

PROPOSED REFORM: Reform the Toxic Air Contaminant Program to be less process driven and better focused on evaluation results and mitigation of any identified air quality programs.

ARGUMENTS: Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and AB 3219 (Chapter 1380, Statutes of 1984) established the criteria necessary for the identification and control of toxic air contaminants (TACs). AB 1807 requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to evaluate the health effects and environmental fate of pesticides that may be emitted into ambient air and may be determined to be TACs. AB 3219 sets specific timelines for the investigation and review of registered pesticides as possible TACs, describes the scope of health effect reports, establishes a review process for reports, requires public hearings, and enacts civil penalties for noncompliance with use conditions established by DPR. This process is often bureaucratic and wasteful. Departmental resources are consumed with report writing and listing TACs in regulation at the expense of evaluation, mitigation, and the protection of public health. These problems have been identified since the program's adoption, yet there have been no legislative actions taken to date to address these issues.

The direction of current law is to identify and list pesticides as TACs through the following inefficient, sequential steps: selecting candidates; requesting other State agencies and private entities to provide data and other necessary information for the evaluation; evaluating the data provided; writing a report; repetitive reviewing of the report by outside agencies; and formal approving of the report by outside agencies. This culminates in the possible listing of a pesticide in regulation via the year-long administrative law process. The inefficiency of this process arises from its linearity as well as the length of time required to complete each step.

Specifically, general guidelines for the scope of the report have evolved into elaborate and specific requirements concerning supporting data, document format, and presentation. Bureaucratic requirements have also led to the creation and maintenance of a candidate list not mandated by law. This candidate list has evolved into a formal report that is dependent on the above elaborate review and comment process. Specific timeframes for the evaluation and review are mandated by current law, but the bureaucratic process as currently practiced obviates them.

Current law requires that the Air Resources Board (ARB) and DPR create and maintain redundant lists of TACs in the California Code of Regulations. The law also creates additional redundancies between federal and State regulations by requiring the summarial listing of pesticides declared by the U.S. EPA to be Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) as TACs.

Other problems inherent in existing law are: (1) no requirement for mitigation of pesticides that were declared TACs through the U.S. EPA's HAP process, (2) the lack of a definition for ambient air and the overly rigid definition of pesticides that excludes the breakdown products of concern, (3) no provision for industry-defined solutions in the mitigation process, and (4) the absence of a specifically defined purpose of the legislation.

DISCUSSION POINTS: The ARB and DHS would continue to administer a very different program for the evaluation of nonpesticidal chemicals as potential TACs. Would this be confusing? Would this be equitable?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: While DPR has general authorities to protect the quality of air from pesticide impacts, these specific reforms can only be accomplished by legislation. The proposed reforms would amend current law, focusing resources on evaluation and mitigation by: (1) eliminating the lengthy bureaucratic process, (2) redefining the scope of the review process and focusing activities on evaluation and mitigation, (3) requiring the evaluation of HAPs for mitigation, (4) adding a provision that allows pesticide registrants and applicators to adopt voluntary measures as part of the mitigation process, (5) providing a definition for ambient air and expanding the definition for pesticides to include breakdown products of concern, and (6) adding a statement of purpose for the legislation.

Amend the Food and Agricultural Code, specifically, as follows: (the bold represents underlined text)

14021. (a) The purpose of this article is to direct the Department of Pesticide Regulation to investigate the presence of pesticides in ambient air and to evaluate these pesticides for their potential to cause significant risk to human health.

(b) As used in this article, “pesticide” means any economic poison as defined in Section 12753 and its degradative products of concern.

(c) For purposes of this article, “ambient air” is defined as the air occurring at a particular time and place, and away from the site of actual application of a pesticide. For purposes of this article, ambient air excludes misapplication of the pesticide and air occurring at the site of actual application.

(b) For purposes of this article "toxic air contaminant” means an air pollutant which may causes or contributes to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may poses a present or potential hazard to human health.

(d) Pesticides which have been identified as hazardous air pollutants pursuant to Section 7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code shall be identified evaluated by the director to determine the need for mitigation measures. as a toxic air contaminant.

14022. (a) In consultation with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the State Air Resources Board, the director shall evaluate the health effects of pesticides which may be or that are emitted into the ambient air of California, and which may be to determined to be a toxic air contaminant which if they poses a present or potential significant risk of adverse human health effects. hazard to human health. Upon request of If requested by the State Air Resources Board, the Office of Environmental Heath Hazard Assessment, or the Scientific Review Panel (established according the Section 39670 of the Health and Safety Code), the director shall include evaluate a pesticide for evaluation.

(b) The director shall give priority to the evaluation of pesticides based on factors related to the risk of harm to public health, amount or potential amount of emissions, manner of usage of the pesticide in California, persistence in the atmosphere, and ambient concentrations in the community.The director shall complete the evaluation of a pesticide within 90 days after receiving the scientific data specified in subdivision (c) from the office and the State Air Resources Board. The director may extend the 90-day deadline for a period not to exceed 30 days if the director transmits to the Assembly Committee on Rules and the Senate Committee on Rules, for transmittal to the appropriate standing, select, or joint committee of the Legislature, a statement of reasons for extension of the deadline.

(c) In conducting this evaluation, the director shall consider all available scientific data, including, but not limited to, relevant data provided by the office Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the Occupational Safety and Health Division of the Department of Industrial Relations, international and federal health agencies, private industry, academic researchers, and public health and environmental organizations. At the request of If requested by the director, the State Air Resources Board shall monitor for and document the level of airborne emissions, following monitoring protocols established by the department. and the office shall provide an assessment of related health effects of pesticides which may be determined to pose a present or potential hazard and each agencyThe State Air Resources Board and the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment shall provide technical assistance to the department as it conducts its evaluation.

(d) The director may request, and any person shall provide, information on any substance pesticide which is or may be under evaluation and which is manufactured, distributed, or used by the person to whom the request is made, in order to carry out his or her responsibilities pursuant to this chapter. Any person providing information pursuant to this subdivision shall, at the request of the director, identify that portion of the information submitted to the department which is a trade secret and, upon the request of the director, shall provide documentation to support the claim of the trade secret. Information supplied which is a trade secret, as specified in Section 6254.7 of the Governmental Code, and which is so marked at the time of submission shall not be released to the public by the director, except in accordance with Section 1060 of the Evidence Code and Section 21160 of the Public Resources Code.

(e) The director shall give priority to the evaluation and regulation of substances based on factors related to the risk of harm to public health, amount or potential amount of emissions, manner of usage of the pesticide in California, persistence in the atmosphere, and ambient concentrations in the community.

(e) Upon completion of the evaluation the director shall prepare a report on the health effects of the pesticide. The report shall be made available for review and comment to the public, including relevant state agencies, and the scientific review panel , subject to subdivision (d).

14023. (a) Upon completion of the evaluation conducted pursuant to Section 14022, the director shall, in consultation and with the participation of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, prepare a report on the health effects of the pesticide. which may be determined to be a toxic air contaminant which poses a present or potential hazard to human health due to airborne emission from its use. The report shall assess the availability and quality of data on health effects, including potency, mode of action, and other relevant biological factors, of the substance. The report shall also contain an estimate of the levels of exposure which may cause or contribute to adverse health effects and, in the case where there is not a threshold of significant adverse health effects, the range of risk to humans, resulting from current or anticipated exposure. The report shall include the findings of the office. The report shall be made available to the public, subject to subdivision (d) of Section 14022.

(b) The report prepared pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be formally reviewed by the scientific review panel established according the Section 39670 of the Health and Safety Code. The director shall also make available the data deemed necessary to the scientific review panel, according to departmental procedures established to ensure confidentiality of proprietary information. The panel shall review, as a appropriate, the scientific data on which the report is based, the scientific procedures and methods used to support the data, and the conclusions and assessments on which the report is based. The panel shall submit its written findings to the director within 45 days after receiving the report, but it may petition the director for an extension of the deadline, which may not exceed 15 working days.

(c) If the scientific review panel determines that the health effects report is seriously deficient, the report shall be returned to the director who shall revise and resubmit the report, within 30 days following receipt of the panel's determination, to the panel prior the development of emission control measures.

(d) Within 10 working days following receipt of the findings of the scientific review panel pursuant to subdivision (b), the director shall prepare a hearing notice and a proposed regulation which shall include the proposed determination as to whether a pesticide is a toxic air contaminant. After conducting a public hearing pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, the director shall list, by regulation, pesticides determined to be toxic air contaminants.

(e) The director shall determine, in consultation with the office, the State Air Resources Board, and the air pollution control districts or air quality management districts in the affected counties, the need for and appropriate degree of control measures for each pesticide listed as a toxic air contaminant pursuant to subdivision (d). Any person may submit written information for consideration by the director in making determinations of control measures.

14023(a) Upon completion of the evaluation process outlined in section 14022, the director shall determine the need for mitigation measures for any pesticide determined to pose a significant risk of adverse human health effects.

14024. (a) For those pesticides for which a need for control mitigation measures has been determined pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 14023 and pursuant to provisions of this code, the director, in consultation with the agricultural commissioners and air pollution control districts and air quality management districts in the affected counties, shall develop control mitigation measures. These mitigation measures shall be designed to reduce emissions sufficiently so that the source continued use of the pesticide will not expose the contribute to public to the levels of exposure which may determined to cause or contribute to significant risks of adverse human health effects.

(b) Any person may submit written information for consideration by the director in making determinations of mitigation measures. Voluntary mitigation measures may be adopted by pesticide registrants or pesticide applicators. These mitigation measures shall be designed to reduce emissions sufficiently so that continued use of the pesticide will not contribute to levels of exposure determined to cause or contribute to significant risks of adverse human health effects.

(c) Where no demonstrable safe level or threshold of significant adverse health effects has been established by the director, the control mitigation measures shall be designed to adequately prevent an endangerment of public health through the application of the best practicable control techniques.

(b) Best practicable control techniques may include, but are not limited to, the following:

  1. Label amendments.
  2. Applicator training.
  3. Restrictions on use patterns or locations.
  4. Changes in application procedures.
  5. Reclassification as a restricted material.
  6. Cancellation.
(c)(d) After conducting a public hearing pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, the director shall adopt, by regulation, control mitigation measures including application of the best practicable control techniques enumerated in subdivision (b) (c) or any other best applicable control technique, for those pesticides for which a need has been determined.

14025. Any person may petition the department to review a determination made pursuant to this article. The petition shall specify the additional scientific evidence regarding the health effects of a pesticide which was not available at the time the original determination was made and any other evidence which would justify a revised determination.

14026. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit or expand the department's authority regarding pesticides. which are not determined to be toxic air contaminants.

14027. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12998, any person who violates any rule or regulation, emission limitation , or permit condition adopted pursuant to this article is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each day in which the violation occurs. In assessing a civil penalty under this article, the court shall consider the appropriateness of the penalty with respect to the following factors:

  1. The size of the business of the person being charged.
  2. The gravity of the violation.
  3. The good faith of the person being charged.
  4. The history of previous violations.

Any money recovered under this section shall be paid into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund for use by the department in administering this division and Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401).

(b) Liability may be imposed under subdivision (a) only if the department establishes that the violation was caused by an act which was the result of intentional or negligent conduct by the person accused of the violation.

PROPOSED REFORM: Eliminate the designation of pesticide management zones (PMZ) and reform regulations governing the use of pesticides on the Ground Water Protection List (GWPL) accordingly.

ARGUMENTS: PMZs are square mile sections of land which are designated in regulation as particularly vulnerable to ground water contamination. The original intent of designating land as sensitive was to be preventive; however, no definitive scientific criteria has yet been developed to accomplish this. Instead, DPR has designated PMZs based on the detection of a pesticide in that section land through well water sampling. Subsequent to listing the land as a PMZ, DPR either prohibits or restricts the future use of that detected chemical in that area. This is accomplished by making the pesticide, as listed on the GWPL, a restricted material, BUT only requiring a permit in the PMZs themselves, not statewide. This has been very confusing both for the regulated community and the local regulators. Focus group participants suggested that PMZs be eliminated and GWPL pesticides be regulated, as appropriate, on a statewide basis.

DISCUSSION POINTS: What are the prospects for identifying vulnerable land areas in the future? Will statewide regulation of GWPL pesticides be burdensome?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: These changes will require the repeal and redrafting of selected regulations.



PROPOSED REFORM: Transfer resources and authority for pest management activities, especially Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs and IPM Innovator Awards, to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and/or the University of California (UC).

ARGUMENTS: Some focus group participants felt that DPR is too interested in prescriptive pest management and should, instead, just focus on the safe use of pesticides. They argue that crop management is a CDFA issue and that is too closely what pest management is, as well.

DISCUSSION POINTS: IPM includes the selective use of chemical controls. Doesn't this require DPR expertise? If pest management experts are removed from DPR, pesticide risk management decisions would have to be made without the benefit of understanding the pest control alternatives and implications of mitigation. Is this appropriate?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Food and Agricultural Code section 11501(f) would need to be repealed as well as other sections of law requiring alternatives be evaluated by DPR. New authorities for CDFA or UC would also require legislation. Some regulations would also need to redone.



PROPOSED REFORM: Reform DPR's pesticide use reporting system to reduce paperwork, better utilize technologies, and make better use of and access to data.

BACKGROUND: Beginning in 1970, all users of restricted materials were required to file a pesticide use report with the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) for each application of a restricted pesticide. In addition, the Department required licensed pest control operators (those in the business of applying pesticides, such as crop dusters, structural fumigators and professional gardeners) to report all pesticide use, both restricted and non-restricted materials. These reports had to include the pesticide applied, the crop involved, and when and where the application was made. The reports were collected and entered into a computerized data base and summarized by chemical and crop in yearly reports.

This reporting system was replaced in 1990 by full use reporting. The Pesticide Enforcement Branch developed the implementing regulations--the first in the nation--after holding a series of more than 80 public meetings around the State to gather input from users of agricultural pesticides.

Under the new system, all agricultural pesticide uses must be reported in documents submitted monthly to the CACs. The reports must be site-specific, and detail the kind and amount of pesticides used on specific commodities. Because California's definition of "agricultural use" is broad, and includes applications made to parks, golf courses, cemeteries, and along roadside and railroad rights-of-ways, pesticides used on these sites must also be reported. In addition, all post-harvest pesticide treatments of agricultural commodities must be reported, along with all pesticide treatments in poultry and fish production, as well as some livestock applications. (Home-use pesticides are exempt from reporting requirements.)

After being submitted to the CAC, these reports are forwarded to DPR. They are sorted, coded and the information entered into the data base. DPR generates monthly reports of pesticide use by county, which are mailed to the counties for their use. Quarterly, DPR prints a pesticide use report, indexed by chemical. Annually, two versions of the pesticide use reported are printed, indexed by chemical and by commodity. These reports, and computer tapes of the use report data base, are available for sale to interested parties, including representatives of the agricultural industry, environmental groups, marketing and research companies, libraries, and members of the public. The printed reports are also distributed free of charge to staff, Legislative members, and other State agencies.

The use report data base can provide an accurate, comprehensive basis for: identifying ground water and toxic air contaminants; estimating the degree to which agricultural products contribute to air pollution; evaluating potential chronic and acute risks posed by exposure to pesticide products in the environment and in the diet; development of exposure assessments for sensitive sites, i.e., wildlife habitats, endangered species, and ground water resources; investigating potential misuses resulting in pesticide residue overtolerances on commodities; and in investigating health-related issues suspected to be associated with pesticides, such as farmworker illnesses and the disease-cluster studies.

California use reporting requirements are unique to this State. At the federal level, there are limited record-keeping requirements. Under the terms of the 1990 Farm Bill, certified pest control operators must keep records of their use of restricted materials. These records will be kept at the farm level.

ARGUMENTS: Many focus group participants commented on the use reporting system. Some questioned the value of the activity considering the effort required to make it work. Others did not doubt its value, but seriously questioned whether the data was indeed valid, asserting that the compliance rate with filing requirements may be as low as 75-80 percent. All in all, the following reforms were offered:

*Too many different forms - consolidate.

*Allow for electronic submission of reports.

*Eliminate duplicate reports: PCO and growers both end up filing.

*Eliminate unnecessary corrections: ie. military time.

*Conduct more trends analysis on data.

*Make data accessible to the public electronically (Internet Home Page?), and make the data searchable.

*Investigate whether system should be privatized or a public- private partnership established.

*Request information on the target pest be included on form.

*Complete CAC computerization.

*DPR should work with software developers to maximize electronic transfers.

*Incorporate Food Processor data needs into report.

*Solicit commodity group input on data requirements and tailor those requirements to needs of each group.

*Eliminate multiple use report requests due to water lines, county boundaries, and section lines.

*Ensure systems integration with CDFA and other agencies.

*PUR should include business information needs.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Can modern technologies be used more effectively? Can the data be used more effectively? What would be the consequences of discontinuing the reporting of use?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Most of these changes could be accomplished with administrative actions, including regulations changes. Elimination of the system or major restructuring would require legislation.


PROPOSED REFORM: Reform the collection of mill assessment to extend broker licensing requirements to include pesticides labelled only for non-agricultural uses and to better enforce the program.

ARGUMENTS: Assembly Bill (AB) 770 (Chapter 1176, Statutes of 1993) was adopted to close a loophole in the collection of pesticide mill assessment by persons first selling pesticides into or within the State, other than the registrant. This legislation created a new licensing program and a new crime by making it illegal to sell into or within the State unless the person is licensed as a pesticide broker by the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).

Subsequent to the passage of AB 770, further loopholes have been identified that need closure. Statutory language inadvertently implies that unlicensed pesticide brokers and dealers may not be liable for payment of the mill assessment, and the inability to collect such mill assessments creates an unfair business climate for companies complying with the law. This loss in revenue also has an impact on pesticide regulatory activities carried out by DPR and county agricultural commissioners (CAC). Fewer inspections, enforcement actions, and delays in regulatory decisions regarding the registration of pesticides may occur.

Also, inconsistencies in current laws can result in duplication of inspections and enforcement actions against businesses. Businesses may not know which regulatory agency has authority to inspect business records, or cite them for violations of the law. This could result in unnecessary legal suits or appeals, wasting valuable resources of both businesses and government.

During the legislative debate on AB 770, DPR objected to the exclusion of pesticide products which are labelled exclusively for non-agricultural uses. DPR noted in its objection that similar problems exist for non-agricultural products as was the basis for acting on those products labelled for agricultural uses. At negotiation meetings with the author, sponsors, and representatives of both sides of the chemical industry, an agreement was made to defer expanding the scope of AB 770 in lieu of developing follow-up legislation after the new broker licensing program was up and running.

Sections of the law should be amended to give the Director authority to collect deficient mill assessments from unlicensed pesticide brokers and dealers. This solution will clarify the intent of the original legislation and provide businesses with a fair playing field for regulatory action.

This proposal should also establish authority for CACs to review records of businesses they currently regulate or which may be conducting business in their county. Authority should also be given to CACs to levy penalties for procedural violations. Finally, the proposal should extend the broker licensing requirements to the non-agricultural sectors of pesticide sales.

DISCUSSION POINTS: As DPR does not license dealers who strictly sell pesticide products labelled for non-agricultural uses, the extension of broker licensing requirements to this sector of businesses will not work in the same manner as the AB 770 program. DPR may well have to rely on more voluntary compliance. Will this, in fact, work?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: The proposed reforms can only may made through adoption of new statutes.

PROPOSES REFORM: Eliminate the sunset on the pesticide mill assessment rate.

ARGUMENTS: The statutory provisions authorizing the current pesticide mill assessment rate of 22 mills which supports the State's pesticide regulatory program, sunsets effective July 1, 1997. Without subsequent legislative action, the mill assessment rate will revert to the prior rate of 9 mills which would result in a significant portion of the State's pesticide regulatory program being unfunded. This would reduce mill assessment revenue by about 60 percent and would also result in a reduction of about $19 million from the $23 million current level of funding from this fund source. The appropriate scope and most efficient operation of pesticide regulatory programs should not be determined by purse strings alone, especially when the funding source may be controlled by the very industry being regulated. The dependence of the pesticide regulatory program on industry special funds came about primarily from pressures on the General Fund.

If the mill assessment rate defaults back to the earlier 9 mills rate, as stated above, there would be a revenue reduction of approximately 60 percent. This would have only a very minor impact on funds provided to the County Agricultural Commissioners. However, the State Operations funding from this source would be reduced by about $19 million, from $23 million to about $4 million. This $19 million reduction would become a pressure on the General Fund to maintain the State's regulatory program at the current level.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Should the sunset provision just be extended and, if so, at what rate and for how long? Does periodic sunsetting of DPR funds provide for greater accountability? How else might this be achieved if the sunset is removed rather than extended?

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: This reform requires legislation.