DPR has responsed to the request for clarification of requirements relative to the amendment of Title 3 of California Code of Regulation (3CCR), sections 6000, 6400 and 6471 concerning Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticide (SGAR) restricted material supervision requirements.

Question:

Can a Structural Pest Control Business (SPCB) applicator (non-certified applicator) transport and apply SGAR's after they become designated as a California Restricted Material?

Answer:

Yes. In a non-agricultural structural pest control setting, a SPCB applicator can apply SGAR's only under the direction supervision of a certified applicator [Structural Pest Control Operator (OPR) or Field Representative (FR)] as required by section 6406 for Supervision Standards. It states:

"The certified applicator responsible for this supervision shall be aware of the conditions at the site of application and be available to direct and control the manner in which applications are made by the noncertified applicator. The availability of the certified applicator shall be directly related to the actual or potential hazard of the situation."

Additionally, 40 CFR Section 171.29 (a) (28) – Federal definition of "Under the direct supervision of" means:

"The act or process whereby the application of a pesticide is made by a competent person acting under the instructions and control of a certified applicator who is responsible for the actions of that person and who is available if and when needed, even though such certified applicator is not physically present at the time and place the pesticide is applied."

Question:

As of July 1, 2014, SGARs will be California restricted materials. Section 14015 states that a restricted material shall only be possessed or used by or under the direct supervision of a private applicator or a certified commercial applicator. Does direct supervision mean being available electronically (phone, pager, two way radio)?

Answer:

The Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide (PUE) Use Enforcement Standards Compendium Volume 4, Chapter 8, Requirement 14 – Guidance for interpreting 3CCR section 6406 – Certified Applicator Supervision-Restricted Materials states as follows:

A certified applicator must be available to direct and control an application by a non-certified applicator. The availability of the certified applicator shall be directly related to the hazards of the handling activity. The ability to have immediate voice communication via radio, cell phone or other device is required. This does not include text messaging, computer generated voice paging, voicemail or any other device that does not provide immediate and direct human-to-human communication. Is the certified applicator aware of conditions at the application site? Can the certified applicator stop the application when conditions (ex: weather, odor) warrant? Does the non-certified applicator have to a way to contact the certified applicator if there is a problem?

Question:

Direct supervision by the certified applicator requires the ability to have immediate voice communication via radio, cell phone or other device with non-certified applicator (e.g., SPCB applicator). What if a non-certified applicator's direct supervisor does not answer can he call another certified applicator (OPR or FR) in the company?

Answer:

Yes, the other certified applicator (OPR or FR) should be able to answer yes to the following questions found in DPR's PUE Standards Compendium Volume 4, Chapter 8, Requirement 14 – Guidance for interpreting 3CCR section 6406 – Certified Applicator Supervision – Restricted Materials:

· Is the certified applicator aware of conditions at the application site?

· Can the certified applicator stop the application when conditions (ex: weather, odor) warrant?

· Does the non-certified applicator have a way to contact the certified applicator if there is a problem?

Please note that 3CCR section 6406 – Certified applicator supervision requirements would not prohibit a pest control business from designating (as a good business practice) a second certified applicator as back up to ensure that the non-certified applicator has electronic contact with a certified applicator if there is a problem.

NEW APPLICATORS' LEGISLATION

 All registered companies in California should have received the letter regarding the upcoming changes to the Structural Pest Control Act that were included with the SPCB's sunset bill SB1244. One of the changes implemented pertains to the duration a new employee can apply pesticides for training purposes.
From the date of employment, individuals may now apply pesticides for the purposes of training under the direct supervision of a licensed field representative or operator employed by the company for 90 days rather than the previous 30 days. This change was supposed to go into effect January 1, 2015; however, the Structural Pest Control Board has asked the County Ag Commissioner to not enforce the previous 30 days even before January because of the compromised applicators' exam. This will allow employers to keep new hires on even if they cannot take the test because it is suspended. The board plans on having a new computerized exam as of January 2015.
One note: when you read "direct supervision" in this code in the SPC Act, it does not have the same definition as DPR's "direct supervision." In this case, the SPCB views supervision as an unlicensed individual being in the company of a licensed field rep or operator. This makes sense because you would not want an unlicensed individual applying chemical without a licensee on site.

UC IPM ADVISOR NEEDED

The University of California Cooperative Extension Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources is looking to hire a UC IPM Advisor to be headquartered in Los Angeles County. For more information, please see the attached FLIER.