Structural Disciplinary Review Committee Decisions

Back to Administrative Enforcement Actions
Back to DPR Decisions (Agricultural)

Jaime and Sons Pest Control Co., Docket No. S-037, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Kern (County File No. 029-SCP-KER-19/20) Jaime and Sons Pest Control Company (Jaime and Sons) appealed the structural civil penalty decision of the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) to the Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC) on April 24, 2020. When employees for Jaime and Sons were applying the pesticide Essentria® IC3 to the outside perimeter of a condominium, the pesticide drifted onto a person who was not involved in the pesticide application. The DRC found the CAC’s decision that Jaime and Sons violated section 6600(b) of title 3 of the California Code of Regulations was supported by substantial evidence in the record but remanded the matter to the CAC to determine the appropriate fine level under section 1922 of title 16 of the California Code of Regulations.

The DRC decision became final on July 1, 2020.
Mega Fume, Inc., Docket No. S-036, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Los Angeles (County File No. SCP-LA-17/18-220) Mega Fume, Inc. (Mega Fume) appealed the structural civil penalty decision of the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) to the Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC) on August 7, 2018. During an application of the pesticide Zythor, Mega Fume used an empty water snake to seal a tarpaulin to the ground during the aeration phase of fumigation. DRC upheld the CAC's decision that Mega Fume violated FAC section 12973 because its use of an empty water snake conflicted with Zythor's label. The fine levied by the CAC was $250.
The DRC decision became final on March 25, 2019.
Mega Fume, Inc., Docket No. S-035, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Los Angeles (County File No. SCP-LA-16/17-185)
Mega Fume, Inc. (Mega Fume) appealed the structural civil penalty decision of the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) to the Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC). During an application of the pesticides chloropicrin and Zythor, Mega Fume utilized a faulty water snake to seal a tarpaulin. The tarpaulin had holes that Mega Fume attempted to plug with sticks and clamps. The DRC upheld the CAC's decision that Mega fume violated 3 CCR 6600(a) by using faulty equipment that was not in good repair and not safe to operate. The fine levied by the CAC was $600.
The DRC decision became final on January 22, 2019.
Mega Fume, Inc., Docket No. S-034, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Los Angeles (County File No. SCP-LA-16/17-162)
Dockets S-033 and S-034 are based on the same set of facts from Los Angeles County and reviewed by the Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB). On February 7, 2017, Mega Fume, Inc. fumigated a structure using the pesticide Master Fume. Kaiser T. Asuega was the licensee responsible for the aeration phase of the fumigation. In violation of the Cap, Mr. Asuega failed to follow the CAP correctly by not having at least two inlet devices with a minimum of 480 square inches of opening during the aeration phase. Appellant had only one inlet device with only 272 square inches open. The County charged Kaiser T. Asuega of Mega Fume Inc. (S-033) with violating 3 CCR 6600(b), failing to perform pest control in a careful and effective manner; and Mega Fume, Inc. (S-034) with 3 CCR 6780(b) by failing to perform a fumigation aeration by either requiring the use of an air-supplied respirator, employing continuous monitoring, or by following the CAP. In both cases, Appellant argued that 3 CCR 6780(c) permits the Director to approve a Fumigation Safety Program, but does not create any obligation on the part of an employer to follow the CAP. The argument was irrelevant. Unlike subsection c, subsection b in 3 CCR 6780 creates an obligation on the part of an employer. Failure to follow the CAP is a violation of both 3 CCR 6780(b) and 3 CCR 6600(b). In Docket S-034 the SPBC upheld the violation by Mega Fume, Inc. of 3 CCR 6780(b), and fine of $650.

The Committee's decision became final on April 4, 2018.
Kaiser Asuega (Mega Fume, Inc.), Docket No. S-033, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Los Angeles (County File No. SCP-LA-16/17-165)
Dockets S-033 and S-034 are based on the same set of facts from Los Angeles County and reviewed by the Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB). On February 7, 2017, Mega Fume, Inc. fumigated a structure using the pesticide Master Fume. Kaiser T. Asuega was the licensee responsible for the aeration phase of the fumigation. In violation of the Cap, Mr. Asuega failed to follow the CAP correctly by not having at least two inlet devices with a minimum of 480 square inches of opening during the aeration phase. Appellant had only one inlet device with only 272 square inches open. The County charged Kaiser T. Asuega of Mega Fume Inc. (S-033) with violating 3 CCR 6600(b), failing to perform pest control in a careful and effective manner; and Mega Fume, Inc. (S-034) with 3 CCR 6780(b) by failing to perform a fumigation aeration by either requiring the use of an air-supplied respirator, employing continuous monitoring, or by following the CAP. In both cases, Appellant argued that 3 CCR 6780(c) permits the Director to approve a Fumigation Safety Program, but does not create any obligation on the part of an employer to follow the CAP. The argument was irrelevant. Unlike subsection c, subsection b in 3 CCR 6780 creates an obligation on the part of an employer. Failure to follow the CAP is a violation of both 3 CCR 6780(b) and 3 CCR 6600(b). In Dockets S-033 the SPCB upheld the violation by Kaiser T. Asuega of Mega Fume, Inc. of 3 CCR 6600(b), and fine of $250.

The Committeer's decision became final on February 7, 2018.
Mega Fume, Inc., Docket No. S-031, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Los Angeles (County File No. SCP-LA-15/16-207)
Mega Fume, Inc. appealed the structural civil penalty decision of the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner to the Disciplinary Review Committee on March 3, 2017. The Committee affirmed the Commissioner's decision that Mega Fume, Inc. violated California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6600(a) by failing to use pest control equipment which was in good repair, and California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 1974(b) by failing to have clearly visible warning signs on all accessible sides and from any direction from which the fumigation site may be approached.

The Committee's decision became final on June 15, 2017.
Mega Fume, Inc., Docket No. S-030, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of San Bernardino, County File No. 36-15-106S
Mega Fume, Inc. appealed the structural civil penalty decision of the San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner to the Disciplinary Review Committee on November 29, 2016. The Committee overturned the CAC's decision that Appellant violated California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6780(c) by failing to follow the procedures outlined in the California Aeration Plan because section 6780(c) does not require Appellant to follow the procedures outlined in the California Aeration Plan. Rather, 3 CCR 6780(c) authorizes the Director of DPR to approve the California Aeration Plan.

The Committee's decision became final on January 26, 2017.
Mega Fume, Inc., Docket No. S-029, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of San Bernardino, (County File No. 36-15-115S)
On November 23, 2016, Mega Fume, Inc. appealed the structural civil penalty decision of the San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner to the Disciplinary Review Committee. The DRC upheld the CAC's decision that Mega Fume violated FAC 12973 by failing to properly store food during a structural fumigation as required by the registered label. The DRC found that the CAC properly exercised discretion to charge Mega Fume – as opposed to the licensed Mega Fume employee present at the fumigation site – with violating FAC 12973 because the employee was acting within the scope of employment.

The DRC decision became final on March 13, 2017.
Mega Fume, Docket No. S-028, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of San Bernardino, County File No. 36-15-056S
On November 21, 2016, Mega Fume, Inc. appealed the structural civil penalty decision of the San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner to the Disciplinary Review Committee. The DRC upheld the CAC's decision that Mega Fume violated 3 CCR 6726 by failing to post information at a structural fumigation site about accessible emergency medical facilities. The DRC found that the CAC properly charged Mega Fume – as opposed to the licensed Mega Fume employee present at the fumigation site – with violating 3 CCR 6726 because that section applies only to employers.

The DRC decision became final on March 13, 2017
Statewide Fumigation of San Diego County, Inc., Docket No. S-027, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of San Diego County, County File No. 630-SCP-SD-15/16
Statewide Fumigation of San Diego County, Inc. (Statewide) appealed the structural civil penalty decision of the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner to the Disciplinary Review Committee. The Committee affirmed the Commissioner's decision that Statewide violated Food and Agricultural Code section 12973 by using a pesticide in conflict with its labeling by failing to remove or double bag food from a fumigation site prior to the commencement of the fumigation.

The Committee's decision became final on November 2, 2016.
Mega Fume, Docket No. S-026, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Santa Clara, County File No. 2431516
Mega Fume, Inc. appealed the structural civil penalty decision of the Santa Clara County Agricultural Commissioner to the Disciplinary Review Committee on June 8, 2016. The Committee overturned the CAC's decision that Appellant violated California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6780(c) by failing to follow the procedures outlined in the California Aeration Plan because section 6780(c) does not require Appellant to follow the procedures outlined in the California Aeration Plan. Rather, 3 CCR 6780(c) authorizes the Director of DPR to approve the California Aeration Plan.

The Committee's decision became final on August 23, 2016.
Sergio Solorio, Docket No. S-025, PDF
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Orange, County File No. 31-SCP-ORA-13/14
Sergio Solorio, an employee of Statewide Fumigation San Diego, appealed the structural civil penalty decision of the Orange County Agricultural Commissioner to the Disciplinary Review Committee. The DRC upheld the CAC's decision that appellant violated California Code of Regulations title 3, section 6600 when he failed to perform pest control in a careful manner. Specifically, appellant entered a structural fumigation site without safety equipment or continuous monitoring prior to certifying the structure for reentry. He therefore violated the California Aeration Plan and in doing so, failed to perform pest control in a careful manner.

The DRC's decision became final on September 19, 2014.
Mega Fume, Inc. Docket No. S-024
Agricultural Commissioner of Los Angeles County, County File No. 12132151
David Wadleigh, operator of Mega Fume, Inc. in Anaheim, California appealed the structural civil penalty decision of the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner to the Disciplinary Review Committee. The DRC upheld the CAC's decision that appellant violated California Food & Agricultural Code section 12973 by failing to ensure that gas service had been terminated prior to fumigation as required by the pesticide label and found that the civil penalty was not excessive.

The DRC's decision became final on October 29, 2013.
Mission City Fumigation, Docket No. S-023
Agricultural Commissioner of Alameda County, County File No. 2011110
Scott Howell, owner and operator of Mission City Fumigation in Solvang, California appealed to the Disciplinary Review Committee the structural civil penalty decision of the Alameda County Agricultural Commissioner. The DRC upheld the CAC's civil penalty action for violation of Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 1970.4 by failing to have the properly signed form (Occupant's Fumigation Notice and Pesticide Disclosure Notice) in the possession of the licensed fumigator when the fumigant was released.

The DRC's decision became final on May 30, 2012.
License to Kill. Administrative, Docket No. S-022
Agricultural Commissioner of San Diego county, file number 122-SCP-SD-10/11
License to Kill appealed to the Director the structural 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 6600.

The Director's decision became final on November 14, 2011.
Scott Howell, Administrative, Docket No. S-021
Agricultural Commissioner of Santa Barbara county, County file no. 12-SCP-SB-08/09
Scott Howell, owner and operator of Mission City Fumigation in Solvang, California appealed to the Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC) the structural civil penalty decision of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The DRC overruled the County Agricultural Commissioner's civil penalty action for violation of Food and Agricultural Code section 12973, and found no violation occurred.

The DRC's decision became final on March 29, 2011.
Scott Howell, Administrative, Docket No. S-020
Agricultural Commissioner of Alameda county, County File No. 2010912
Scott Howell, owner and operator of Mission City Fumigation in Alameda County appealed to the Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC) the structural civil penalty decision of the Alameda County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). The DRC upheld the CAC's civil penalty action for violation of FAC 12973. The DRC reinstated the CAC's fine, overruling the hearing officer's reduction of the fine.

The DRC's decision became final on September 7, 2010.
Cartwright Termite & Pest Control, Inc., Administrative, Docket No. S-019
Agricultural Commissioner of San Diego County, County File No. 657-SCP-SD-05/06.
The Commissioner fined Cartwright $1,603 for three violations of 3 CCR section 6702, subdivision (b)(3) that requires an employer to supervise employees to assure they wear personal protective equipment, and one violation of FAC section 12973 prohibiting the use of a pesticide in conflict with its label. Cartwright appealed the decision to the Structural Pest Control Board's Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC). The Committee overturned the $1,203 fine for violations of section 6702(b)(3), and affirmed the $400 fine for the violation of section 12973.

The DRC's decision became final on June 22, 2009.
Mission City Fumigation, Administrative, Docket No. S-017
Agricultural Commissioner of Santa Clara county, File No. 2 43 07 08.
Cesar Arevalo/Mission City Fumigation (Appellant) appealed to the Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC), the decision of the Santa Clara County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). The DRC reversed the CAC's findings that the Appellant violated Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (3 CCR) section 6614(b)(2). 3 CCR section 6614(b)(2) provides that no pesticide application shall be made or continued when there is a reasonable possibility of damage to non-target crops, animals, or other public or private property.

The DRC reversed the penalty of $700.
D&S Termite and Pest Control, Administrative, Docket No. S-016
Agricultural Commissioner of San Diego county, County File No. 828-SCP-07/08.
D&S Termite and Pest Control (D&S) appealed to the Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC), the decision of the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). The DRC upheld the CAC's findings that D&S violated Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (3CCR) sections 6780(b), 6600(b), and 6600(c); 3 CCR section 6780 requires the employer shall provide and require the employee to either wear approved respiratory protective equipment during certain aspects of fumigation or to monitor the air for applied fumigant; and 3 CCR sections 6600(b) and 6600(c) sets forth general standards of care for pesticide applications. The total fine was $1,400.

The DRC's decision became final on August 8, 2008.
Beneficial Exterminating, Inc., Administrative, Docket No. S-015
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Los Angeles, file number 07082032
Beneficial Exterminating, Inc., a licensed structural pest control business and Everado Jimenez Ramirez, a licensed field representative, appealed to the Disciplinary Review Committee from a structural civil penalty decision of the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner. The DRC overturned the commissioner's finding that Respondent violated Business and Professions Code section 8505.7 by failing to secure an entrance to a structure prior to certification for reentry. The DRC, by a 2-1 vote, found that the CAC's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

The DRC's decision became final on September 22, 2008.
Antimite Associates, Inc., Administrative, Docket No. S-014
Agricultural Commissioner of San Diego county, (County File No. 735-SCP-SD- 06/07)
Antimite Associates, Inc. appealed a $750 fine levied by the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner. The Commissioner found that Antimite violated Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations section 6738(b) & (c) by failing to assure that its employee wore the required personal protective equipment. The Director affirmed the Commissioner's decision.

The DRC's decision became final on November 15, 2008.
License-to-Kill, Administrative, Docket No. S-013 (County File No. 515-SCP-SD-04/05)
License-to-Kill appealed to the Disciplinary Review Committee from a structural civil penalty decision of the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner. The DRC upheld the commissioner's finding that License-to-Kill violated Section 8505.7 of the California Business and Professions Code (B&P Code) by failing to secure the premises against entry until the end of the exposure period and until safe for occupancy. The DRC further upheld the commissioner's levy of a moderate fine of $1,000 in that the application created a reasonable possibility of creating a health effect.

The Director's decision became final on December 28, 2006.
Coulson-Moseley Pest Control, Docket No. S-012 (County File No. SPC-2070507)
Coulson-Moseley Pest Control appealed to the Disciplinary Review Committee from a structural civil penalty decision of the Contra Costs County Agricultural Commissioner. The DRC upheld the commissioner's finding that Coulson-Moseley violated 3 CCR section 6738 by failing to assure that its employee wear gloves as required by the product label. The DRC further upheld the commissioner's levy of a moderate fine of $300 in that the application created a reasonable possibility of creating a health effect.

The DRC's decision became final on July 10, 2006.
Dean Brand Construction, Docket No. S-011 (County File No. SCP-PLU-2005/06-001)
Dean Brand Construction appealed to the Disciplinary Review Committee from a civil penalty decision of the Plumas County Agricultural Commissioner. The Committee upheld the commissioner's finding of a violation of BPC 8550(a), based on appellant's structural application of a pesticide for hire without a license from the Structural Pest Control Board. The fine levied by the commissioner was $200.

The Director's decision became final on July 19, 2006.
Fidelity Fumigation, Docket No. S-10 (County File No. 049-SCP-SB-04-05)
Fidelity Fumigation appealed to the Disciplinary Review Committee from a civil penalty decision of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The Committee upheld the commissioner's finding that of a violation of 3 CCR sec. 6780(b), based on the appellant's failure to wrap or clamp the tarp around the fan housing. The Committee upheld the commissioner's finding of a violation of FAC sec. 12973, based on the appellant's failure to aerate the house in accordance with the label. The fine levied by the commissioner was $552.

The Committee's decision became final on February 24, 2006.