DPR Decisions (Agricultural)

Back to Decisions on Appeal from County Administrative Actions
Back to Structural Disciplinary Review Committee Decisions


  • Max Hanner, Docket No. 206, PDF (329 kb) (County File No. 017-ACP-KER-15/16)
    Mr. Max Hanner appealed to the Director a $1,000 Class A civil penalty decision from the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the Commissioner's finding that Appellant violated California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6600, subdivision b (3 CCR ß6600(b)) by failing to perform his aerial pesticide application in a careful manner.

    The Director's decision became final on January 24, 2017.

  • Tim Martin Docket No. 205, PDF (707 kb) (County File No. 015-ACP-PLA-15/16).
    Tim Martin, a non-commercial homeowner, appealed two fines of $250 each for violating Food and Agricultural Code section 12973 (use in conflict with the label) and California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6602 (availability of labeling at use site) levied by the Placer County Agricultural Commissioner. Mr. Martin was a non-licensed, non-commercial, residential homeowner growing grapes on this property for his own personal use. The Director upheld the Commissioner’s decision that Mr. Martin violated Food and Agricultural Code section 12973, a Class B violation, by allowing a worker to apply a glyphosate herbicide on his property without wearing long pants and a long sleeved shirt required by the label. The Director reversed the Commissioner’s decision as to a violation of California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6602, a Class B violation, requiring that Mr. Martin have a copy of the registered pesticide labeling available at the use site, based on the Director’s interpretation of Section 6602.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 5, 2016.

  • Tri-Cal, Inc., Docket No. 204, PDF (254 kb) (County File No. 432-ACP-SD-14/15).
    Tri-Cal, Inc., appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner. The San Diego CAC found that Appellant Tri-Cal, Inc. violated Food and Agricultural Code section 12973, use and conflict with the label, classified the violation as Class B, and fined Tri-Cal, Inc. $250. Tri-Cal, Inc. admitted the violation and appealed only the classification of the fine, believing it should have been classified as Class C. The Director upheld the classification finding that Food and Agricultural Code, section 12973, is a law designed to mitigate the risk of adverse health, property, or environmental effects,Ē (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, ß 6130, subd. (b)(2)) and in this situation, the CAC properly classified the violation as Class B.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 7, 2015.

  • Gerawan Farming Docket No. 203, PDF (153 kb) (County File No. 003-ACP-FRE-14/15)
    Gerawan Farming appealed to the Director from the civil penalty decision of the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner. A Gerawan work crew was allowed to remain in a nectarine orchard during an ongoing pesticide application to an adjacent area despite multiple reports of a pesticide odor. Several crew members reportedly experienced symptoms of pesticide exposure and did not receive notice of the application. The Director upheld the Commissioner's decisions: (1) that Gerawan violated 3 CCR ß 6618 (a)(3) by failing to provide required notice to crew members of the pesticide application, and (2) to designate the violation as a Class A violation. The total fine levied by the Commissioner was $5,000.

    The Director’s decision became final on October 12, 2015.

  • Davey Tree Surgery Company Docket No. 202C, PDF (410 kb) (County File No. 452-ACP-SD-13/14)
    Davey Tree Surgery Company appealed one of the two violations upheld by the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner in a civil penalty decision. The Director affirmed the violation on appeal, finding that Appellant violated section 12973 of the Food and Agricultural Code by using a pesticide in conflict with its label, a Class B violation. The Director affirmed the Commissionerís total fine of $2,000.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 1, 2015.

  • Davey Tree Surgery Company Docket No. 202B, PDF (341 kb) (County File No. 444-ACP-SD-13/14)
    Davey Tree Surgery Company appealed three of the six violations upheld by the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner in a civil penalty decision. At issue was California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6739 and its subparts. On appeal, Appellant argued that the Commissionerís Decision to fine it for violating Section 6739(a)(1) and (a)(2) in addition to subsections (c), (d), and (e), was duplicative. The Director reversed the Commissionerís Decision as to the three violations against Appellant, finding that it was improper to fine Appellant for not having a respiratory protection program (Section 6739(a)(2)) and also separately fine them for not having the individual elements that make up the respiratory protection program (Section 6739(c),(d),(e)). The Director affirmed the Commissionerís Decision as to the remaining three violations, totaling $1,600.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 1, 2015.

  • Davey Tree Surgery Company Docket No. 202A, PDF (702 kb) (County File No. 427-ACP-SD-13/14)
    Davey Tree Surgery Company appealed three of the eight violations upheld by the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner in a civil penalty decision. The Director affirmed all three violations on appeal, finding that Appellant violated section 6600(e) of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations by failing to exercise reasonable precaution to avoid contamination of the environment, a Class A violation; section 6738(a)(2) of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations by improperly storing personal protective equipment, a Class B violation; and section 12973 of the Food and Agricultural Code by using a pesticide in conflict with its label, a Class B violation. The Director affirmed the Commissionerís total fine of $7,900.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 1, 2015.

  • Hoag Hospital Docket No. 201, PDF (345 kb) (County File No. ACP-ORA-14/15-103)
    Hoag Hospital appealed to the Director a $700.00 Class A civil penalty decision from the Orange County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director reversed the Commissionerís finding that Appellant violated 3 CCR section 6738(b). The Director determined that under 3 CCR section 6720(c), Appellant was exempt from complying with 3 CCR section 6738(b) because it complied with the corresponding provisions of Title 8, California Code of Regulations

    The Director’s decision became final on August 19, 2015.

  • Paul Lofthouse Docket No. 200, PDF (473 kb) (County File No. 12131022)
    Paul Lofthouse appealed to the Director from the civil penalty decision of the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the Commissioner’s decision that Paul Lofthouse violated FAC section 11791 by writing a pest control recommendation without first inspecting the application site for any potential damage that could occur due to the pesticide application. The total fine levied by the Commissioner was $2,500.

    The Director’s decision became final on July 31, 2014.

  • Critter Control of San Diego County Docket No. 199, PDF (626 kb) (County File No. 385-ACP-SD-12/13)
    Critter Control of San Diego County appealed to the Director a $250 Class C civil penalty decision from the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the Commissionerís finding that Appellant violated section 11701 of the Food and Agricultural Code by advertising, soliciting, or operating as a pest control business in San Diego County without a Pest Control Business License.

    The Director’s decision became final on April 30, 2014.

  • Tri Cal, Inc., Docket No. 198, PDF (626 kb) (County File No. 025-ACP-SB-12/13).
    Tri Cal, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the Commissioner’s decision that Tri Cal committed two separate violations of FAC section 12973 in connection with a field fumigation made on November 21, 2012 by failing to accurately complete the Post-Application Summary as required by the pesticide label. Specifically, the Commissioner found that Tri Cal failed to accurately record the tarp-perforation date or describe a tarp tear in the Post-Application Summary. The total fine levied by the Commissioner was $1,400.

    The Director’s decision became final on March 31, 2014.

  • Marvin Nies, Docket No. 197, PDF (791 kb) (County File No. 030-ACP-SJ-12/13).
    Marvin Nies appealed to the Director a $4,000 Class A civil penalty decision and a $1,000 Class B civil penalty decision from the San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the Commissioner’s finding that Appellant violated California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6614, subdivision (b)(1) by making an application of Bordeaux, a pesticide mixture, when there was a reasonable possibility of contaminating a person not involved in the application. The Director also upheld the Commissionerís finding that Appellant violated California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6618, subdivision (a)(3) by failing to assure notice of the scheduled application was given to employees.

    The Director’s decision became final on March 31, 2014.

  • Gomes Farm Air Service, Docket No. 196, PDF (927 kb) (County File No. 1271305).
    Gomes Farm Air Service appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissionerís finding of a violation of California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6614, subdivision (b)(1) in connection with an aerial application that contaminated two individuals who were not involved in the pesticide application. The fine levied by the commissioner was $550.

    The Director’s decision became final on January 28, 2014.

  • Andy & Seth Fiack, Docket No. 195, PDF (462 kb) (County File No. ACP-GLE-13/14-001).
    Andy and Seth Fiack appealed to the Director a $1,000 Class B civil penalty decision from the Glenn County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the Commissioner’s finding that Appellants violated section 12973 of the Food and Agricultural Code by using Bolero UltraMax Herbicide in conflict with the product’s label and Appellant’s restricted materials permit.

    The Director’s decision became final on February 24, 2014.

  • Soilfume, Inc., Docket No. 194, PDF (533 kb) (County File No. 1271213).
    SoilFume, Inc., appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the Commissioner’s finding that SoilFume committed three separate violations of FAC section 12973 by failing to comply with relevant methyl bromide regulations and county permit conditions in connection with fumigations made on October 1 and 2, 2010. Specifically, SoilFume failed to take all reasonable measures to ensure that neighboring property operators received specific notification, a $1,000 fine; failed to take reasonable measures to prevent persons not in transit or involved in the fumigation-handling activities from being in the inner buffer zone, a $1,000 fine; and failed to provide complete and accurate maps with its Notices of Intent, a $550 fine. The total fine levied by the Commissioner was $2,550.

    The Director’s decision became final on September 20, 2013.

  • Vasquez Yard Service, Docket No. 193, PDF (514 kb) Docket No. 193 (County File No. 019-ACP-PLA-12/13)
    County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). The Appellant stipulated to all but one of the violations, but argued that the fines were excessive under the factual circumstances and that the hearing violated due process. The Director upheld the CAC decision and found that (1) substantial evidence supported the CAC decision that Appellant violated California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6724, (2) the fines were not excessive, and (3) the hearing did not violate due process. The total fine levied by the CAC was $1,300.

    The Director’s decision became final on September 17, 2013.

  • Pacific Rotors, Inc., Docket No. 192, PDF (331 kb) (County File No. 265-ACP-SD-11/12)
    Pacific Rotors, Inc., appealed to the Director from a $700 Class A penalty decision of the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). The Director upheld the San Diego CAC, finding that Pacific Rotors, Inc. violated California Food and Agriculture Code section 12973 by using a pesticide in conflict with the label when they aerially sprayed Imidan 79-W to a tejocote orchard, a crop not listed on the label.

    The decision became final on June 25, 2013.

  • Soil Fume, Incorporated, Docket No. 191, PDF (655 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of Santa Barbara County,(County File No. 8-ACP-SB-12/13)
    Soil Fume, Incorporated appealed to the Director a $4,100 Class A civil penalty decision from the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the Commissioner’s finding that Appellant violated California Code of Regulations, Title 3, section 6600(b) by failing to make a careful application of Tri-Chlor, E.C.

    The Director’s decision became final on July 8, 2013.

  • Jose M. Barcinas (Entomological Services, Inc.) Docket No. 190, PDF (495 kb) (County File No. 263-ACP-SD-11/12)
    Jose M. Barcinas, a Pest Control Adviser employed by Entomological Services, Inc., appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of FAC section 12971, based on the appellant’s recommendation to apply Imidan 70-W on tejocote crops, in conflict with the registered label. The fine levied by the commissioner was $1,400.

    The Directorís decision became final on May 29, 2013.

  • Tri-Cal, Inc., Docket No. 189, PDF (626 kb) (County File No. 009-ACP-SLO-12/13)
    Tri-Cal, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). The Director upheld the San Luis Obispo CAC, finding that Tri-Cal, Inc. committed two separate violations of the California Food and Agricultural Code section 12973: (1) using the pesticide Tri-Con 50/50 in conflict with the registered label by failing to communicate to all handlers “the information necessary to comply with the label,” when performing handling activities, a $2,000 Class A violation; and (2) failing to post inner buffer zone signs in accordance with permit conditions, a $500 Class B violation.

    The Director’s decision became final on June 18, 2013.

  • Alpha & Omega Gardening, Inc., Docket No. 188, PDF (450 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of Kern County, County File No. 009-ACP-KER-12/13
    Alpha & Omega Gardening, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner. The Appellant stipulated to the facts and violations, but sought a reduction in the fine classification and amount. The Commissioner classified all three violations as Class B under California Code of Regulations, Title 3, section 6130. The Director found that: (1) the Commissioner properly classified the violations as Class B because each regulation was designed to mitigate the risk of an adverse health, property, or environmental effect; and (2) the Commissioner acted within his authority to fine the Appellant a total of $850.

    The Director’s decision became final on February 13, 2013.

  • D.S. Dusters, Docket No. 187, PDF (254 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of Imperial County, County File No.03-11/12
    After giving notice of the proposed action and providing a hearing, the Imperial CAC found that the appellant, D.S. Dusters, violated 3 CCR, section 6614(b)(3) by continuing a pesticide application when there was a reasonable possibility of contamination of non-target property. The Commissioner imposed a total penalty of $700 for the violation. D.S. Dusters appealed the decision to the Director. After reviewing the record, the Director upheld Imperial’s County’s decision in total.

    The decision became final on July 26, 2012.

  • T&C Vineyards, Docket No. 186, PDF (91 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of Fresno County, County File No. 011-ACP-FRE-10/11
    The Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) found that the appellant, T&C Vineyards, violated Food and Agricultural Code section 12973, use in conflict with the labeling instructions, and Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (3 CCR) sections 6412(a), applying a restricted pesticide without a valid Restricted Material Permit; 3 CCR section 6434(b), failure to submit a Notice of Intent to apply a restricted material; 3 CCR section 6723(a), failure to display a complete copy of the Pesticide Safety Information Series Leaflet A-8 in a central location; 3 CCR section 6723.1(a), failure to display at a central location Application Specific Pesticide Information; 3 CCR section 6724, failure to assure its employee was trained to handle pesticides; 3 CCR section 6680, using a food/drink container to store pesticides; 3 CCR section 6616, failure to obtain the adjacent property owner’s permission to apply a pesticide. The commissioner imposed a total penalty of $15,500.00 for the eight violations.

    The Appellant appealed the CAC’s decision contending that the penalties were excessive and unjustified under the facts of the case. Appellant contended that the facts of the case were based on a single event; hence, the violations should be consolidated into one violation as opposed to an entire series of violations that result in multiple penalties. The Director upheld the Fresno CAC’s decision in its entirety.

    The Director’s decision became final on July 2, 2012.

  • Brother’s Nursery, Inc. Docket No. 184, PDF (236 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of the County of San Diego, file number 137-ACP-SD-10/11
    Brother’s Nursery, Inc. appealed to the Director the agricultural civil penalty decision of the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the CAC’s civil penalty action for violation of 3 CCR section 6738(b).

    The Director’s decision became final on September 6, 2011.

  • TriCal, Inc. Docket No. 183, PDF (251 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Santa Barbara, file number 3-ACP-SB-10/11
    TriCal, Inc. appealed to the Director the agricultural civil penalty decision of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the CAC’s civil penalty action for violation of FAC 12973.

    The Director’s decision became final on September 15, 2011.

  • Sukhcharan Singh Docket No. 182, PDF (39 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Sutter, file number ACP-SUT-10/11-002
    Sukhcharan Singh appealed to the Director the agricultural civil penalty decision of the Sutter County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director overturned the CAC’s civil penalty action for violation of 3 CCR section 6614.

    The Director’s decision became final on June 23, 2011.

  • Charlene & Eugene Tenbrink Docket No. 181, PDF (174 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Solano, County File Number ACP-SOL-10-14
    Charlene & Eugene Tenbrink appealed the Solano County Agricultural Commissioner’s decision to the Director. The Director upheld the Solano County Agricultural Commissioner’s decision in full. The Tenbrinks were found to have violated Title Three of the California Code of Regulations section 6412(a) by possessing and applying a restricted material without a valid restricted material permit. The fine was $500.

    The Director’s decision became final on April 22, 2011.

  • Gardener’s Friend, Inc. Docket No. 179, PDF (241 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Monterey, County file number 1271012
    The Gardener’s Friend, Inc. appealed the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner’s (CAC) decision finding the Gardener’s Friend had violated Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (3 CCR) section 6614(b)(1) by making an application of a pesticide when there was a reasonable possibility of contamination to the bodies or clothing of persons not involved in the application process. The Commissioner imposed a penalty of $1,000 for the violation. The Director upheld the CAC’s civil penalty action for violation of 3 CCR section 6614(b)(1) on January 27, 2011.

    The Director’s decision became final on March 8, 2011.

  • Ray Joe Madden Docket No. 178, PDF (427 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Solano, file number ACP-SOL-10-04
    Ray Joe Madden, owner and operator of Madden Construction appealed to the Director the agricultural civil penalty decision of the Solano County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the CAC’s civil penalty action for two of the violations—FAC 12973 and 3 CCR section 6702(a)(b). The Director overturned the CAC’s civil penalty action for the third violation-- 3 CCR section 6614(a)(b).

    The Director’s decision became final on April 11, 2011.

  • Foster Farms Dairy Docket No. 177, PDF (163 kb) Stanislaus County, file number 50-0910-1329
    The Stanislaus County Agricultural Commissioner found that Foster Farms Dairy violated Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations section 6726(c) by failing to take its employee to a physician immediately after the employee experienced a pesticide injury to his eye. The Commissioner imposed a total penalty of $700 for the violation. Foster Farms Dairy appealed the Commissioner’s civil penalty decision to the Director. The Director reviewed the administrative record and affirmed the Stanislaus County Agricultural Commissioner’s decision.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 20, 2010.

  • Charles Van Nortwick Docket No. 176, PDF (387 kb) San Luis Obispo County, file number 026-ACP-SLO-09/10
    Charles Van Nortwick appealed the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner’s (CAC) decision that he had violated Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) section 12973. The Commissioner imposed a total penalty of $1,000 for the violation. The Director upheld the CAC’s civil penalty action for violation of FAC section 12973.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 13, 2010.

  • Year Round Landscape Maintenance, Inc., Docket No. 175, PDF (332 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of San Bernardino county, County File No. 36-09/10-37.
    Larry Sweeden, owner of Year Round Landscape Maintenance, Inc. appealed to the Director the civil penalty decision of the San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). The Director upheld the CAC’s decision that Mr. Sweeden’s business was not licensed to conduct pesticide applications in violation of FAC section 11701, was not registered with the CAC in violation of FAC section 11732, and that appellant failed to ensure that his employee wore protective eyewear and chemical resistant gloves.

    The Director’s decision became final on October 7, 2010.

  • Crystal Organic Farms, Docket No. 174, PDF (714 kb) Kern county, County File No. 010-ACP-KER-09/10
    Crystal Organic Farms, via counsel, appealed to the Director the civil penalty decision of the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the County Agricultural Commissioner’s civil penalty action for violation of 3 CCR section 6766(c).

    The Director’s decision became final on December 13, 2010.

  • George Green (Dixon Aviation) Docket No. 173, PDF (299 kb) Solano county, file number ACP-SOL-08-07.
    George Green, owner and operator of Dixon Aviation in Solano County appealed to the Director the civil penalty decision of the Solano County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the County Agricultural Commissionerís civil penalty action for violation of 3 CCR section 6614(b)(3).

    The Director’s decision became final on May 17, 2010.

  • George Green (Dixon Aviation) Docket No. 172, PDF (205 kb) Solano county, file number ACP-SOL-09-22.
    George Green, owner and operator of Dixon Aviation in Solano County appealed to the Director the civil penalty decision of the Solano County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the County Agricultural Commissioner’s civil penalty action for violation of FAC section 12973.

    The Director’s decision became final on May 17, 2010.

  • George Green (Dixon Aviation) Docket No. 171, PDF (248 kb) Solano county, file number ACP-SOL-09-10.
    George Green, owner and operator of Dixon Aviation in Solano County appealed to the Director the civil penalty decision of the Solano County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the County Agricultural Commissionerís civil penalty action for violation of 3 CCR section 6738(d).

    The Director’s decision became final on May 17, 2010.

  • Mr. Russell P. Davenport Docket No. 170, PDF (18 kb) San Joaquin county, file number 027-ACP-SJ-08/09
    Mr. Davenport appealed the County Agricultural Commissioner’s (CAC) decision to levy a $250 penalty. The Director upheld the CAC’s decision that Mr. Davenport violated 3 CCR section 6434 by his failure to notify the CAC twenty-four hours before he applied a pesticide that required a restricted materials permit.

    The Director’s decision became final on March 9, 2010.

  • Tom Jacobs Docket No. 169, PDF (327 kb) Yolo county, file number 011-ACP-YOL-08/09.
    Tom Jacobs, owner and operator of Walnut Orchards in Yolo County appealed to the Director the civil penalty decision of the Yolo County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). The Director overturned the CAC’s civil penalty action for violation of 3 CCR section 6623, and upheld the CAC’s civil penalty action for violation of 3 CCR section 6776.

    The Director’s decision became final on April 6, 2010.

  • Alexander Ag. Flying Service, Docket No. 168, PDF (27 kb) Sacramento County, file number ACP-SAC-06/07-030
    Alexander Ag. Flying Service (AAFS) appealed to the Director, a civil penalty decision made by the Sacramento County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). The Sacramento CAC determined that AAFS had applied Di-Syston by an aerial application in such a manner that caused the pesticide to drift into an adjacent apple orchard exposing farm workers. The Commissioner found that AAFS violated Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations sections 6600(d), 6600(e), 6614(b)(1), and 6614(b)(3). The Hearing Officer upheld three counts for a total fine of $7,000. The Sacramento CAC imposed a total penalty of $7,000 for the three violations.

    AAFS filed a writ of mandamus action in Sacramento Superior Court and failed to properly name DPR as a defendant, instead naming only the Sacramento CAC. AAFS made attempts to perfect service, but failed. On August 13, 2010, the Court issued its Notice of Entry of Judgment. The Court denied the AAFS writ, not on the merits, but on legal grounds that AAFS brought suit against the wrong party and that the statute had run out on filing a writ against DPR. The Court explains the issue in its tentative ruling.

    The Director’s decision became final on September 13, 2010.

  • Santa Fe Nusery, Inc, Docket No. 167, PDF (428 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Santa Barbara, file number 012-ACP- SB-08/09
    Santa Fe Nursery, Inc. appealed to the Director the agricultural civil penalty decision of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the CAC’s civil penalty action for violation of 3 CCR section 6766(c).

    Santa Fe Nursery, Inc. appealed the Director’s decision to the Superior Court, County of Santa Barbara which upheld the Director’s decision and dismissed the Writ in its entirety. Santa Fe Nursery, Inc. then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Deputy Attorney General representing the Director learned on December 2, 2011 that the company dismissed its appeal

    The Director’s decision thus became final on December 2, 2011.

  • Tri-Cal, Incorporated, Docket No. 166, PDF (33 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of San Luis Obispo, County File No. 052-ACP-SLO-07/08
    The San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner fined Tri-Cal, Incorporated $400 for using Inline, a field fumigant, in conflict with its label by not having two self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs) available at the application site. (See Food and Agricultural Code, section 12973.) The Director reversed the Commissioner’s civil penalty action because the label does not necessarily require two SCBAs onsite. If the applicator has written assurance that the responder identified in its emergency response plan is prepared with at least two functioning SCBAs, and all other equipment required by the label for cleaning up large spills of Inline, then the applicator only needs one SCBA onsite for itself.

    The Director’s decision became final on November 29, 2009.

  • Year Round Landscape Maintenance, Inc. Docket No. 165, PDF (33 kb) Los Angeles county, file number 07081038.
    Larry Sweeden, owner of Year Round Landscape Maintenance, Inc. appealed to the Director the civil penalty decision of the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the CAC’s decision that Mr. Sweeden’s business was not licensed to conduct pesticide applications in violation of FAC section 11701, and that appellant failed to ensure that his employee wore a long-sleeved shirt, protective eyewear and chemical resistant gloves.

    The Director’s decision became final on April 14, 2009.

  • Poldervaart Farms Docket No. 163, PDF (228, kb) Glenn County, County file number 011-SCP-GLE-07/08.
    After conducting a hearing, the Hearing Officer tendered a proposed decision that Mr. Poldervaart, owner/operator of Poldervaart Farms, had not violated 3 CCR section 6140(a), but the Glenn County Agricultural Commissioner did not adopt the Hearing Officer’s proposed decision. Instead, the Commissioner issued his decision finding that Mr. Poldervaart had violated 3 CCR section 6140(a) and levied a penalty of $1,000.

    The Director determined that, while the Glenn County Agricultural Commissioner described his decision as based on the law, his decision was based on a new determination of the facts. The Director found that the Hearing Officer's determination of the facts controls as long as it is supported by sufficient evidence in the record. On this basis, the Director reversed the Commissioner's decision in its entirety.

    The Decision has become final, effective today May 4, 2009.

  • Raj Kumar Sharma/Sunrise Orchards, Docket No. 162, PDF (278, kb) Raj Kumar Sharma, owner of Sunrise Orchards, appealed the Sutter County Agricultural Commissioner’s decision that found Mr. Sharma had violated 3 CCR section 6702 based on his employee’s failure to wear gloves and eye protection while handling a pesticide. The Commissioner levied a total penalty of $250. On December 8, 2008, the Director affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

    The Director’s decision became final on January 18, 2009.

  • T-Craft, Inc. Docket No. 161, PDF (278, kb) County of Merced, County file number 022-ACP-MER-07/08.
    Hugh Taylor, owner of T-Craft, Inc. appealed to the Director the civil penalty decision of the Merced County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the CAC’s decision that T-Craft, Inc. violated 3 CCR section 6614(b)(3) by contaminating nontarget property during an aerial application of a pesticide.

    The Director’s decision became final on January 26, 2009.

  • Duane Urquhart/Lilac Valley Ranch Docket No. 160, PDF (280, kb) County of Merced, County file number 022-ACP-MER-07/08.
    Duane Urquhart, owner of Lilac Valley Ranch appealed to the Director the civil penalty decision of the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the CAC’s decision that Lilac Valley Ranch violated 3 CCR section 6702 by failing to assure that employees wore protective eyewear and chemical resistant gloves, and by failing to properly train pesticide handlers, and violated 3 CCR section 6734 by failing to provide proper decontamination supplies at the site.

    The Director’s decision became final on January 26, 2009.

  • Steven Clendenning. Docket No. 159, PDF (279 kb) Placer county, file number 059-ACP-PLA-07/08.
    Steven Clendenning, owner of Clendenning Enterprises Landscape & Electric appealed to the Director the civil penalty decision of the Placer County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the CAC’s decision that Mr. Clendenning operated a landscaping business that included the application of a pesticide without being licensed. Mr. Clendenning stipulated that he violated several regulations by failing to have the pesticide label at the use site, by failing to have emergency medical care information at the use site, and by failing to have his employee use chemical resistant gloves and eyewear. The CAC found that the service containers were not properly labeled and that Mr. Clendenning failed to keep proper training records.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 11, 2008.

  • Tri-Cal, Inc. Docket No. 158, PDF (177 kb) Agricultural Commissioner of San Luis Obispo county, File No. 031-ACP-SLO-07/08

    Tri-Cal, Inc. appealed a $2,500 fine levied by the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner. The Commissioner found that Tri-Cal violated Food and Agricultural Code section 12973 (prohibiting use in conflict with the label) when it fumigated a field with methyl bromide while a residence within the outer buffer zone was occupied. The Director affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

    The Director’s decision became final on November 9, 2008.

  • Tri-Cal, Inc. Docket No. 157, PDF (277, kb) Agricultural Commissioner of San Luis Obispo county, File No. 005-ACP-SLO-07/08.

    Tri-Cal, Inc. appealed a $1,000 fine levied by the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner. The Commissioner found that Tri-Cal violated Food and Agricultural Code section 12973 (prohibiting use in conflict with the label) when the grower that it was supervising, and for whom it was making the application, handled the pesticide without wearing the label- required personal protective equipment.

    The Director reversed the Commissioner’s decision. While Tri-Cal had a duty to exercise all due care in supervising the grower to avoid his violation, the grower was not its employee or agent and Tri-Cal was not vicariously liable for his violation of section 12973.

    The Director’s decision became final on November 9, 2008.

  • Big Time Pest Control Docket No. 156, PDF (353, kb) County of Siskiyou, County file number 091-06-47-01.
    Big Time Pest Control, a licensed structural pest control operator, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Siskiyou County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Respondent violated 3 CCR 6614 by applying pesticides when there was a reasonable possibility of contamination of nontarget public or private property, including the creation of a health hazard, preventing normal use of such property. The CAC levied a Class A fine of $700 after determining that the violation resulted in an actual health effect and prevented the normal use of the property. The Director upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class A fine of $700.

    The Director’s decision became final on July 31, 2008.

  • Bakhtawar S. Brar. Docket No. 155, PDF (432 kb) (County of Tulare, County File No. 54-07/08-16)
    Bakhtawar S. Brar appealed to the Director the civil penalty decision of the Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director modified the Commissionerís decision. In the Notice of Proposed Action (NOPA), Mr. Brar is being charged with 12 Class A violations of Food and Agricultural Code section 12973 for drift resulting in acute illness or injury. Each Class A violation set in the NOPA was set at $2,720, resulting in a total fine of $32,640; the Class B violation and $1,000 penalty charged in the NOPA for drift onto nontarget crops was reinstated for a total of $33,640 fine.

    The Director’s decision became final on May 29, 2008.

  • Color Green Wholesale Nursery Docket No. 154, PDF (163, kb) County of Riverside, County file number 466-ACP-RIV-07/08.
    Color Green Wholesale Nursery appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s findings of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulation, sections 6702(b)(2) and 6760(a). The fine levied by the commissioner was $500.

    The Director’s decision became final on May 12, 2008.

  • Cavanagh Flying Service Docket No. 153, PDF (295 kb) County of Stanislaus, County file number 5-ACP-0607-021.
    Cavanagh Flying Service, a licensed aerial applicator, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Stanislaus County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Respondent violated FAC 12973 by applying a pesticide in conflict with the label instructions–"Do not allow spray to drift from the application site and contact people, structures people occupy at any time and the associated property, parks and recreation areas, non-target crops, aquatic and wetland sites, woodlands, pastures, rangelands, or animals." The CAC levied a maximum Class B fine of $1,000 after determining that the county failed to prove that the violation resulted in an actual health effect to any person but that the county did prove that the application posed a reasonable possibility of creating a health or environmental effect because of the number of persons present and their ages. The Director upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class B fine of $1,000.

    The Director’s decision became final on April 3, 2008.

  • Michael Wickstrom, Wickstrom Jersey Farms, Inc. Docket No. 152, PDF (63 kb) Merced County Agricultural Commissioner (County File No. 002-ACP-MER-07/08)
    Wickstrom appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of Merced County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director reversed the commissioner’s decision in its entirety that Wickstrom violated FAC section 12973. Michael Wickstrom, Wickstrom Jersey Farms, Inc., appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Merced County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director reversed the commissioner’s finding that the appellant had committed a violation Food and Agricultural Code section 12973 by applying two pesticide products containing bromacil in violation of the label directions. The Merced CAC levied a fine of $700. Upon review of the record, the Director reversed the commissioner’s decision in its entirety.

    The Director’s decision became final on February 25, 2008.

  • Sutter Butte Dusters, Inc., Docket No. 150, PDF (705 kb) County of Sutter, file number ACP-SUT-06/07-013.
    Sutter Butte Dusters, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Sutter County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Respondent violated 3 CCR sections 6434 and 6626(b) by failing to file Notices of Intent and Pesticide Use Reports for the applications of a restricted materials on three sites in Sutter County. The Director upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class B fines of $2199 for three violations of 3 CCR 6434 and three violations of 3 CCR 6626(b).

    The Director’s decision became final on December 26, 2007.

  • Erik Mogensen-Mogensen Landscaping Docket No. 148, PDF (155 kb) County of Placer, File No. 037-ACP-PLA-06/07
    Mogensen Landscaping appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Placer County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s decision and proposed fine, which found that the appellant had committed violations of 3 CCR sections 6602, 6670, 6724, 6726, and 6738, and one violation of FAC section 11701.
    The appellant had stipulated to each of the violations cited by the Placer CAC; nonetheless, Mogensen’s appeal was based upon its alleged ignorance of the statutory scheme of DPR/CAC, that he wasn’t properly informed of his duty to adhere to the DPR/CAC statutory scheme by the state Contractor’s Licensing Board or his pesticide suppliers, and that a warning would have brought him into compliance, as opposed to being charged with six violations and fined. The Placer CAC levied a fine of $1,100. Upon review of the record, the Director upheld the commissioner’s decision in its entirety.

    The Director’s decision became final on September 16, 2007.

  • L & M Agricultural, LLC Docket No. 147, PDF (159 kb) (County File 15-ACP-SB-05/06)
    L & M Agricultural, LLC, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that the appellant had committed a violation of Food and Agricultural Code section 12973; L & M failed to comply with the conditions of its methyl bromide permit by failing to insure that there were no occupied structures in the outer buffer zone during an application of methyl bromide. The Santa Barbara CAC levied a fine of $350. Upon review of the record, the Director upheld the commissioner’s decision in its entirety.

    The Director’s decision became final on August 21, 2007.

  • L & M Agricultural, LLC Docket No. 146 (County File No. 43-ACP-SB-05/06)
    L & M Agricultural, LLC, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that the appellant had committed violations of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, sections 6626(a), 6734(a) and (b) and 6734(c); by not filing its Pesticide Use Reports as prescribed by regulation; that its the employee had no soap available at the decontamination site; and that the emergency eyewash water available to L&M’s employee was very dirty and unsuitable to use on eyes. The Santa Barbara CAC levied a fine of $800. Upon review of the record, the Director upheld the commissioner’s decision in its entirety.

    The Director’s decision became final on August 21, 2007.

  • Falconer Vineyards Docket No. 144 (County File No. 06/07-ACP-LAK-001)
    Falconer Vineyards appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Lake County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Respondent violated 3 CCR section 6702(b)(5) by failing to take all reasonable measures to assure that his employee handle and use pesticides in compliance with the laws, regulations and label directions. The Respondent failed to assure that his employee have a pint of eyewash immediately available on his person or on the tractor. The Director upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class B fine of $250 for one violation of 3 CCR 6702.

    The Director’s decision became final on July 16, 2007.

  • Chuck Jones Flying Service, Docket No. 142 (County File No. 014506003)
    Chuck Jones Flying Service, a licensed aerial applicator, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Shasta County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Respondent violated Title 3, California Code of Regulations (3 CCR) section 6614(b)(2) by applying a pesticide under circumstances where there was a reasonable possibility of damage to non-target crops. The Director upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class A fine of $2,000 for two violations of 3 CCR 6614(b)(2) in that two different fields were treated and the two applications resulted in actual damage to non-target crops in two different adjacent fields.

    The Director’s decision became final on March 12, 2007.

  • Robert Hughes-Bloom’s Landscape Maintenance, Docket No. 140 (County File No. 040-ACP-PLA-05/06)
    Robert Hughes-Bloom’s Landscape Maintenance appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Placer County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that the appellant had committed violations of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, sections 6602, 6724, 6726, 6738(b)(1)(C); by its employee not possessing a pesticide label when applying the pesticide; by not providing documentation that the employee had been trained in pesticide handling; that the employee did not have emergency medical information available; and that the employee was not wearing eye protection when applying a pesticide with hand-held equipment (a backpack sprayer). The commissioner imposed a total penalty of $2,400 for the six violations (the appellant stipulated to two of the six violations); however, the appellant did not contest the fine. Upon review of the record, the Director upheld the commissioner’s decision in its entirety.

    The decision became final on January 10, 2007.

  • Western Farm Service, Docket No. 139 (County File No. 027-ACP-SLO-05/06)
    Western Farm Service appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Food and Agricultural Code section 12973, based on the appellant’s failure to use a pressure gauge during an application of InLine as required by permit. The commissioner levied a fine of $700.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 28, 2006

  • Ted Ohlmer, Docket No. 138 (County File No. 1270608)
    Ted Ohlmer, a licensed aerial applicator, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Mr. Ohlmer violated Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6614(b)(1) by proceeding with the application of a pesticide when there was a reasonable possibility of contaminating a person’s body or clothing who is not involved in the application. The Director further upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class A fine of $2,500 in that the application resulted in the creation of an actual health hazard.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 26, 2006.

  • S & S Helicopters, Docket No. 137 (County File No. 17-ACP-MAD-05/06)
    S & S Helicopters appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Madera County Agricultural Commissioner. The fine levied by the commissioner was $3,000. The Director dismissed the appeal and directed the commissioner to withdraw its decision and order. Due to a technical malfunction, the commissioner was unable to produce a record of the hearing that was sufficient to conduct the appeal

    The Director’s decision became final on November 1, 2006.

  • Robert Cantrell, Docket No. 136 (County File No.  017-ACP-FRE-05/06)
    Robert Cantrell, a licensed aerial applicator, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Mr. Cantrell violated FAC section 12973 by failing to apply the pesticide in a manner to avoid spraying or drifting on persons not involved in the application in violation of the label’s instructions. The Director further upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class A fine of $700 in that the application resulted in the creation of an actual health hazard.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 27, 2006.

  • Charles S. Mosesian - Mosesian Vineyards, Docket No. 135 (County File No. 05-ACP-MAD-04/05)
    Charles S. Mosesian - Mosesian Vineyards (Mosesian), appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Madera County Agricultural Commissioner. Upon review of the record, the Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Mosesian violated four sections of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (3CCR). The Director found that Mosesian failed to: display at a central location its application-specific information for its employees that handled pesticides (3 CCR section 6723.1(a)); assure that training was completed before its employee was allowed to handle pesticides (3 CCR section 6724(d)); assure that its employee had one pint of water immediately available for emergency eye flushing (3 CCR section 6734(c)), and; display at a central location its application- specific information for its employees that worked in the fields (3 CCR section 6761.1(a)). The fine levied by the Commissioner was $1,050.

    The Director’s decision became final on November 8, 2006

  • Continental Landscape, Inc., , Docket No. 134 (County File No. 05/05-ACP-AMA)
    Continental Landscape, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Amador County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations (3 CCR), section 6678, based on the appellant’s failure to properly label a backpack sprayer. The Director overturned the commissioner’s finding of violations of 3 CCR sections 6738(b)(1)(C) and (c)(1)(C) for failing to assure that employees wore personal protective equipment. The portion of the fine levied by the commissioner that was upheld on appeal is $400.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 11, 2006

  • Bennett Landscape, Docket No. 133 Los Angeles county, file number 05061005
    The Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner found Bennett Landscape in violation of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations, sections 6602, 6678, 6702(b)(5), 6738(b)(1)(C), 6738(c)(1)(C), and 6726, and levied a $1350 civil penalty. Bennett Landscape appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the Director. The Director affirmed the Commissioner’s decision and the $1350 penalty.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 11, 2006.

  • G & S Farms, Docket No. 132 (County File No. 025-ACP-SB-05/06)
    G & S Farms appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Food and Agricultural section 12973, based on the appellant’s failure to maintain legible warning signs throughout the restricted entry interval as required by permit. The fine levied by the commissioner was $250.

    The Director’s decision became final on September 11, 2006.

  • Marvin D. Horne - Docket No. 131 (County File No. 11-ACP-MAD-05/06)
    Marvin D. Horne appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Madera County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s findings that the appellant had committed violations of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, sections 6622(b), 6626(a), 6724(a), 6724(f), 6726(b), 6734(a)(2), and 6738(i): purchasing and using a pesticide for the production of an agricultural commodity without first obtaining an operator identification number for Madera County; failure to submit pesticide use reports in a timely manner; failure to have on hand a written training program for its employees; failure to produce documentation that appellant was certified as a private applicator or possessed other necessary qualification when training was conducted for his employees; failure to have emergency medical care information at the work site or in the work vehicle; failure to provide his employees extra coveralls at the decontamination site; and failure to provide his employees with protective eyewear as required by the label on the Wilbur-Ellis Dusting Sulfur. The commissioner imposed a total penalty of $1,950 for the seven violations.

    The Director’s decision became final on August 4, 2006.

  • Trinkle Ag Flying, Inc., Docket No. 129 (County File No. 001-ACP-SJ-05/06)
    Trinkle Ag Flying appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of two violations of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6600(e), based on the appellant’s failure to exercise reasonable precaution to avoid contamination of the environment. The fine levied by the commissioner was $2,000.

    The Director’s decision became final on June 23, 2006

  • James Peter Wulf, Docket No. 128 (County File No. 10-ACP-MAD-05/06)
    James Peter Wulf, as owner and operator of an orchard in Madera County appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Madera County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Mr. Wulf violated Food and Agricultural section 12973 by applying the bait in handfuls from a Honda and by filling to overflowing the bait boxes, in violation of the label’s instructions. The Director further upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class A fine of $1,000 in that the application constituted an actual environmental hazard.

    The Director’s decision became final on May 31, 2006.

  • Dean Brand Construction, Docket No. 127 (County File No. ACP-PLU-2005/06-001)
    Dean Brand Construction appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Plumas County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Food and Agricultural section 12973, based on the appellant’s application of a pesticide, Jasco Termin-8, on interior surfaces in conflict with the label. The fine levied by the commissioner was $2,000.

    The Director’s decision became final on July 19, 2006.

  • George Hahn, dba Tree & Plant Rescue, Docket No. 126 (County File No. 349-ACP-RIV-05/06)
    George Hahn, as owner and operator of Tree & Plant Rescue appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that violations of Food and Agricultural sections 11701 and 12995 occurred, based the appellant’s operation of a pest control business without having a pest control business license, and on his use of an unregistered pesticide. The Director further upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class B fine in relation to operating a pest control business without a license but overturned the commissioner’s levy of a Class C fine for the use of an unregistered pesticide. The Director found that the use of an unregistered pesticide warrants the levy of a Class B fine. The fine levied was $500.00.

    The Director’s decision became final on April 5, 2006.

  • Inland Crop Dusters, Inc., Appellant, Docket No. 125 (County File No. 014-ACP-KER-03/04)
    Inland Crop Dusters, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that the appellant had committed one violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6614(b)(3) when it made an aerial application of Danitol to a cotton field and a man, while driving to work, was drifted on and became physically ill. Section 6614(b)(3) provides ”(b) Notwithstanding that substantial drift would be prevented, no pesticide application shall be made or continued when: (3) There is a reasonable possibility of contamination of nontarget public or private property, including the creation of a health hazard, preventing normal use of such property. In determining a health hazard, the amount and toxicity of the pesticide, the type and uses of the property and related factors shall be considered.” The commissioner imposed a penalty of $1,000 for the violation. Upon review of the record, the Director found that substantial evidence supported the commissioner’s decision and affirmed the decision in its entirety. Inland filed a writ of mandate with the Superior Court of Kern County. On May 9, 2006, Inland withdrew its writ and paid the$1,000 fine.

    The Director’s decision became final on May 9, 2006.

  • Dave Sills, Sills Ag Consulting, Inc., , Docket No. 123 (County File No. 016-ACP-PLA-04/05)
    Dave Sills and Sills Ag Consulting, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Placer County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6434 and imposition of a fine of $50, based on the finding that the Notice of Intent (to apply pesticides) message left for the Commissioner referred to the wrong field, which resulted in a failure to properly notify the Commissioner of the actual pesticide application.

    The Director’s decision became final on July 5, 2005.

  • The Gardener’s Friend, Inc, Docket No. 122 (County File No. 001-ACP-CAL-04/05)
    The Gardener’s Friend, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6614(b)(1) and imposition of a fine of $700, based on a finding that, despite preventing substantial drift, the applicator made and continued a pesticide application when there was a reasonable possibility of contamination of the bodies or clothing of persons not involved in the application process.

    The Director’s decision became final on June 1, 2005.

  • San Joaquin Sulphur Company, Docket No. 121 (County File No. 001-ACP-CAL-04/05)
    San Joaquin Sulphur Company appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Calaveras County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director overturned the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6568(a) and (c) in counts one and two. The Director found that the regulations require that a pest control dealer obtain a restricted materials permit or an operator identification number prior to delivery of a restricted material. The Director found that it was not a violation of the regulations where the pest control dealer did not obtain a permit prior to sale where delivery had not yet occurred. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding in count three that a violation of 3 CCR section 6568(c) occurred because of appellant’s failure to obtain a copy of the operator identification number prior to delivery of the pesticide.

    The Director’s decision became final on March 1, 2005.

  • The Bejoca Company, Docket No. 120 (County File No. 032-ACP-SD-02/03)
    The Bejoca Company appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that the appellant violated Title 3, California Code of Regulations, sections 6602, 6726(b), and 6738(c) based upon the appellant’s stipulation of the violations during the hearing. The fine levied by the commissioner was $352.

    The Director’s decision became final on August 19, 2004.

  • Trinkle Ag Flying, Inc. Docket No. 119 (County File No. 003-ACP-SJ-02/03)
    Trinkle Ag Flying, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6600(e) based on the appellant’s failure to exercise reasonable precautions to avoid contamination of the environment. The fine levied by the commissioner was $400.

    The Director’s decision became final on June 3, 2004.

  • Department of Water Resources, Docket No. 117 (County File No. 028-ACP-YOL-02/03)
    The Department of Water Resources appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Yolo County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Food and Agricultural Code section 12973, based upon the appellant’s drift onto non-target crop fields. The fine levied by the commissioner was $401.

    The Director’s decision became final on May 27, 2004.



To obtain additional information, please contact the following offices:
  • For Director’s appeal decisions regarding county agricultural commissioner decisions, contact the Office of Legal Affairs at (916) 324-2666 or by FAX at (916) 324-1491.
  • For orders cancelling or suspending a pesticide product registration, contact the Pesticide Registration Branch at (916) 445-4377 or by FAX at (916) 324-1719.
  • For orders cancelling or suspending a license or certificate, such as a pest control business license or pest control aircraft pilot certificate, contact the Pest Management and Licensing Branch at (916) 445-4038 or by FAX at (916) 445-4033.
  • For all other final enforcement orders, contact the Pesticide Enforcement Branch at (916) 324-4100 or by FAX at (916) 445-3907.