Association directives
Download 1.19 Mb.
|
(REV. 7/98) Qualified Applicator Certificate Suggested Study Material Source List The purpose of this list is to provide you with reference material to help you prepare for the Qualified Applicator Certificate Examination. Please keep this listing for future reference. Suggested study material for the Laws, Regulations and Basic Principles Exam, and each Pest Control Category Exam is listed below. Instructions on how to order the publications can be found in the footnotes on page 8. You are not required to purchase any of the suggested study material. Prices are current until 6/30/99, thereafter, prices are subject to change. Laws and Regulations and All Categories (A through N)
A. Residential, Industrial, and Institutional
NOTE: If Principles of Weed Control in California is unavailable, the publications Weed Ecology: Implications for Management and Herbicide Handbook in combination with The Growers Weed Identification Handbook will comprise the recommended study guides. B. Landscape Maintenance
C. Right-of-Way
NOTE: If Principles of Weed Control in California is unavailable, the publications Weed Ecology. Implications for Management and Herbicide Handbook in combination with The Growers Weed Identification Handbook will comprise the recommended study guides. D. Plant Agriculture 1. Standards for Approved Fumigation Facilities (Q.C. Circular #218 - Will be sent to all applicants upon receipt and processing of the application and fees.)
7. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America (7th Edition) Authored and Published by the Weed Science Society of America (Sale Publication Price - $25.00 - ISBN: 0911733132). This publication can be purchased through the Internet at www.amazon.com and book stores. This book may be available at libraries. NOTE: If Principles of Weed Control in California is unavailable, the publications Weed Ecology: Implications for Management and Herbicide Handbook in combination with The Growers Weed Identification Handbook will comprise the recommended study guides. E. Forest
2. Forest and Right-of-Wav Pest Control (Sale Publication #3336, cost - $30.00, plus 8.25% State sales tax & postage and handling). F. Aquatic 1. Aquatic Pest Control (Leaflet #2961. cost - $1.25. plus 8.25% State sales tax & postage and handling).
G. Regulatory
13. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management (2nd Edition), Published by John Wiley & Son (Sale Publication - $98.95 -ISBN: 0471116068.) This publication can be purchased through the Internet at www.amazon.com and book stores. This book may be available at libraries. 14. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America (7th Edition) Authored and Published by the Weed Science Society of America (Sale Publication Price - $25.00 - ISBN: 0911733132). This publication can be purchased through the Internet at www.amazon.com and book stores. This book may be available at libraries. NOTE: If Principles of Weed Control in California is unavailable, the publications Weed Ecology: Implications for Management and Herbicide Handbook in combination with The Growers Weed Identification Handbook will comprise the recommended study guides.
/. Animal Agriculture
J. Demonstration and Research
K. Health Related
L. Wood Preservative (Subcategory of A and C) 1. Volume III - Wood Preservation (Sales Publication #3335 [Est. 1992], Cost - $15.00, plus 8.25% State sales tax & postage and handling). M. Antifouling Paints or Coatings Containing Tributyltin (Subcategory of A)
N. Sewer Line Root Control (Subcategory of A) 1. Sewer Line Pest Control This publication will be sent by the Department of Pesticide Regulation to all applicants testing in this category upon receipt and processing of the application and fees. Footnotes: Designates the name and address where the publications can be ordered. 1. This publication can be ordered by writing or calling one of the following locations: Publication, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, 6701 San Pablo Avenue, Oakland, California 94608-1239, or call 1-800-994-8849 (within California) or (510) 642-2431; Agricultural Information Publications, University of California, Davis, California 95616, or call (530) 757-8930; or the local County Farm Advisor's Office (University of California Cooperative Extension). Make check or money order payable to: The Regents of the University of California; or by telephone using your credit card. California customers add 8.25% State sales tax to the Merchandise Total; for shipping and handling, see Shipping Table below. Orders from other States, DO NOT add sales tax; for shipping and handling charges, see the Shipping Table below. Expect delivery of publication orders within 2 weeks of ordering. Shipping Table (to U.S. Addresses) Merchandise Total Shipping Charge $1 - $4.99 $1 $5-$9.99 $2 $10-$19.99 $3 $20 - $29.99 $4 $30 - $39.99 $5 $40 - $49.99 $6 $50 - $79.99 $7 $80 - $99.99 $8 $100 and more $10 All packages are sent either U.S. Postal Service 1st Class or UPS Ground. To arrange overnight or a second-day delivery, call 1-800-994-8849. 2 This publication can be ordered from the Department of Pesticide Regulation, 830 K Street, Sacramento, California 95814-3510. Make check or money order payable to the Cashier, Department of Pesticide Regulation. Sales tax is already included. 3 This publication can be ordered by writing to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, P.O. Box 942872, Sacramento, California 94271-2872. Please make check or money order payable to the Cashier, California Department of Food and Agriculture. Sales tax is already included.
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS & SEALERS ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION For the protection of water quality (surface and groundwater) from potentially adverse Effects of Pesticides BACKGROUND The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) have responsibilities relating to the protection of water quality from the potentially adverse effects of pesticides. Both agencies believe that the State will benefit by a unified and cooperative program to address water quality problems related to the use of pesticides. The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the SWRCB and CDPR is to ensure that pesticide B registered in California are used in a manner that protects water quality and the beneficial uses of water while recognizing the need for pest control. The Food and Agricultural Code, as amended by the 1991 Governor’s Reorganization Plan No. 1, charges CDPR with the responsibility of ensuring the orderly regulation of pesticides while protecting the quality of the total environment (including water quality) and the health, and safety of the public. SCOPE This MOU is intended to assure that the respective authorities of the SWRCB and CDPR, relative to the protection of water quality and beneficial uses from impairment by the use of pesticides, will be exercised in a coordinated and cohesive manner designed to eliminate overlap of activities, duplication of effort, and inconsistency of action. To that end, this MOU establishes principles of agreement regarding activities of the signatory agencies, identifies primary areas of responsibility and authority between these agencies, and provides methods and mechanisms necessary to assure ongoing coordination of activities relative to such purposes. This MOU also describes how the agencies will work cooperatively to achieve the goals of the respective agencies. STATUTORY AUTHORITIES The Porter-cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes a comprehensive water quality control program for California. The Federal Clean Water Act adds additional water quality control provisions to be implemented nationwide. The SWRCB and the nine California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (CRWQCB) are responsible for protecting the beneficial uses of water in California and for controlling all discharges of waste into waters of the State. The SWRCB sets overall State policy, adopts or approves all water quality control plans, and hears petitions to review CRWQCB decisions. The CRWQCB5 have primary responsibility for permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions. The CRWQCBs implement and enforce the policies adopted by the SWRCB. CDPR is the lead agency for pesticide regulation in California. California law requires CDPR to register and regulate the use of pesticides and protect public health and safety by providing for environmentally sound pest management. The Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act of 1985(Article 15, Chapter 2, Division 7 of the Food and Agricultural Code) authorizes CDPR to: 1. Collect and analyze environmental fate data on all pesticides registered for agricultural use in California to determine ground water data gaps and identify and monitor potential ground water contaminants; 2. Review any pesticide or related chemical found in ground water or in soil under certain conditions to determine if that chemical pollutes or threatens to pollute ground water as a result of legal agricultural use and take appropriate corrective action when necessary; and 3. Compile and maintain a statewide database of wells sampled for pesticide active ingredients and to make an annual report on that inventory and any corrective actions taken by CDPR and/or the SWRCB. The Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act (Act) also prescribes a cooperative working relationship between CDPR, as the lead agency, and the SWRCB for the purpose of protecting ground water from pesticide pollution as a result of agricultural uses. A subcommittee of CDPR’s Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee (PREC) is established by the Act for this purpose. The local administration of CDPR’s pesticide regulatory program is the responsibility of the County Agricultural Commissioners (Commissioners), with coordination, supervision, and training provided by CDPR. The Commissioners enforce pesticide laws and regulations and evaluate permit requests for the use of restricted pesticides. In addition, the Commissioners monitor and inspect pesticide handling and use operations, investigate suspected pesticide misuse, and take enforcement action against violators.
The SWRCB and CDPR agree that the use of certain pesticides may degrade water quality and threaten beneficial uses. To protect the State’s water, it is necessary to prevent water pollution by pesticides by establishing water quality objectives and by implementing control measures for those pesticides which have a potential to unreasonably affect beneficial uses. In order to provide for better protection of water quality and beneficial uses for the people of California, the SWRCB and CDPR mutually agree to: 1. Promote both technical and policy consultations concerning pesticide water quality issues through formal channels, such as standing interagency committees and SWRCB workshops and meetings, as well as through informal staff exchanges of information. The SWRCB and CRWQCBs and CDPR will consult during the early stages of planning any investigation related to pesticides and water quality. The agencies will provide technical assistance to each other upon request. 2. Implement a pesticide detection notification system to ensure mutual awareness of pesticide finds in the waters of the State. Results of pesticide monitoring will be provided in an expeditious manner. Results of pesticide monitoring related to ground water will be provided in compliance with “Minimum Reporting Requirements for Well Sampling’s approved by the SWRCB, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and California Department of Health Services in July 1986. Reporting requirements and procedures for data referrals relative to surface water will be described in an implementation document. 3. Collect, exchange, and disseminate information on (a) the use of pesticides, (b) impacts on the quality of the State’s waters from such uses, and (C) any efforts to mitigate those impacts. 4. Share information on pesticide formulations and environmental fate and toxicity of active ingredients, inert ingredients, and break-down products. Procedures to protect proprietary information will be described in an implementation document. 5. Consult each other in developing or revising water quality objectives for pesticides and in developing or revising regulations which may impact water quality. 6. Participate in the development of State policies, guidelines, and management plans relative to pesticide use and water quality control. 7. Promote the development and implementation of Best Management Practices (EMPs) whenever necessary to protect the beneficial uses of the waters of the State from the potentially adverse effects of the use of certain pesticides. CDPR’s plans. to implement BMPs, as furnished to the SWRCB and/or CRWQCBs, should (a) describe the nature of the actions which are necessary to achieve the objectives, including recommendations for appropriate actions by any entity, public or private; (b) set a time schedule for actions to be taken; and (C) describe the points of application and the monitoring to be undertaken to determine compliance with the water quality objectives. 8. Implement BMPs initially upon voluntary compliance to be followed by regulatory-based encouragement of BNPs as circumstances dictate. Mandatory compliance will be based, whenever possible, on CDPR’s implementation of regulations and/or pesticide use permit requirements. However, the SWRCB and CRWQCB5 retain ultimate responsibility f or compliance with water quality objectives. This responsibility may be implemented through the SWRCB and CRWQCBs’ Basin Planning Programs or other appropriate regulatory measures consistent with applicable authorities and the provisions of the Nonpoint Source Management Plan approved by the SWRCB in November1988. 9. Develop an implementation plan to (a) provide uniform guidance and direction to the CRWQCBs and to the Commissioners regarding the implementation of this MOU, (b) describe in detail procedures to implement specific sections of this MOU, and (c) make specific the respective roles of units within the signatory agencies. DISPUTE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION It is the desire of both agencies to establish a speedy, efficient, and informal method for the resolution of interagency conflicts. Conflicts between the SWRCB and CRWQCBs, CDPR, and the Commissioners which cannot otherwise be informally resolved will be referred to the Executive Director of the SWRCB and the Director of CDPR. Conflicts which cannot be resolved at this level will be elevated to the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency. To assist the Executive Director of the SWRCB and the Director of CDPR in resolving conflicts, two staff persons will be appointed by the Chairman of the SWRCB and the Director of CDPR representing the interests of the SWRCB and CRWQCBs and CDPR and Commissioners, respectively. This MOU shall become effective upon the date of final signature and shall continue in effect until modified by the mutual written consent of both parties or until terminated by either party upon a thirty (30) day advance written notice to the other party. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ______________________________ 12/23/1991 W. Don Maughánk Date CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION 12/23/1991 James W. Wells, Interim Director Date MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (COOPERATOR) AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine (Service) The purpose of this Agreement is to permit employees certified under the Service's certification plan approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to purchase restricted-use pesticides in the State of California and to use or supervise the use of such pesticides on lands under the control of the United States Government and upon private lands within California when such pesticide application activities are conducted within the Federal employees specific job assignment. Such Agreement is made pursuant to applicable provisions of the State of California laws, policies, and regulations thereto, and includes the following provisions: 1. An employee of PPQ/APHIS/USDA may purchase from a licensed pesticide dealer, possess, or use a restricted use pesticide or pesticides with State restricted uses in California if the following are possessed: a. A valid, qualified applicator certificate issued by the State of California. Federal employees possessing current federal certification certificates would be granted the specific California pest control category without further examination. But, in order to receive California certification (qualified applicator certificate), federal employees would be required to take and pass California's pesticide laws and regulations examination. b. A valid restricted materials permit obtained from the county agricultural commissioner. 2. The Service agrees to permit authorized personnel of the Cooperator to enter upon any Federal lands under its conditions upon arrangement with Federal personnel at such installations for purpose of: a. Inspecting any equipment used in the application of restricted-use pesticides or pesticides with State-restricted pesticide uses and to inspect the premises on which the equipment is held. b. Inspecting and sampling land exposed or alleged to be exposed to restricted-use pesticides with State-restricted pesticide uses. c. Inspecting areas where restricted-use pesticides or pesticides with State-restricted pesticide uses are stored have been disposed of or are alleged to have been disposed of. d. Observing the use and application of restricted-use pesticides or pesticides with State-restricted pesticide uses.
Deputy Administrator Date MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
And the
California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association Policy regarding Administrative Levy of Civil Penalties PURSUANT TO DIVISION 4 OF THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL CODE January 8, 1997 It is unlawful for any person to refuse to comply with any quarantine regulation established to carry out the provisions of the Food and Agricultural Code (Code). In addition to any other applicable penalties, any person who violates any requirement of Division 4 of the code, or any regulation adopted pursuant to that Division, may be prosecuted civilly in any appropriate court in this State. In lieu of civil action, the Secretary or the Commissioner may levy a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for each violation. A mutual objective of the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association is the uniform, fair and equitable enforcement of all laws for which each agency is responsible. This memorandum of understanding (MOU) will serve as a policy and set of guidelines for the administrative levy of civil penalties in this area. The following guidelines categorize, by severity, the unlawful sections of the Food and Agricultural Codes. They are provided to promote uniformity in the assessment of penalties for quarantine and other violations. They do not preempt the need for state officials or individual counties to analyze quarantine violations on an individual basis and to levy appropriate civil penalties as determined by the facts of the case. I. AUTHORITY A summary of applicable authority for the administration of civil penalties can be found in the following cited sections of the Food and Agriculture Code. For purposes of enforcement in all civil actins, the provisions of the Code shall be liberally interpreted (Food and Agricultural Code, Section 3). The due process provisions of Section 5311 must be followed. Division 4. Authority exists under Section 5311 to levy a civil penalty up to $2,500 for any violation of any requirement of this division except as provided in part 1, Chapter 8, Article 5 (commencing with Section 5781) relating to host-free periods and districts. Those sections which specifically provide for civil penalties are:
B. Section 5311 – In lieu of civil action, civil penalties, not exceeding $2,500, may be levied for each violation of a regulation of this division. C. Section 5341 .5 - Maximum civil liability of $1,000 for failure to obtain a required certificate of inspection II. VIOLATION CATEGORIES The degree of "seriousness" of any offense shall be determined based on the degree of actual or potential damage which occurred, or could have occurred, as a consequence of the violation Violations may be determined to be minor, moderate, or serious. This MOU defines each of these categories and gives examples for each. However, the final decision on the severity of any violation must be made on a case-by-case basis
Examples of minor violations include: first time violations of a procedural nature from someone with little or no experience with quarantines, or violations of public nuisance standards. Section 6155-6157 Caprifig violations. B. Moderate Violations - Violations which are repeat minor violations, or those which cause significant damage, undermine enforcement, or pose a reasonable possibility of harming the agricultural industry or the environment. The appropriate penalty range is $750 to $1,500. Examples of moderate violations include: repeat minor violations or first time violations which might have an impact on the agricultural industry or the environment. Section 5307 Public servant's failure to report Section 6304-6305 Prohibited exotic animal importation without permit Section 6925 Nursery stock movement Section 7207 Noxious weed violation Section 7501 Unlawful seed dissemination C. Serious violations - Violations which are repeat moderate violations, those which preclude or significantly interfere with enforcement, or those which cause major harm to the agricultural industry or the environment. The appropriate penalty range is $1,500 to $2,500. However, there may be cases where criminal and/or civil prosecution may be more appropriate. The decision as to how to proceed should be made jointly by the Secretary and the Commissioner Examples of serious violations include: repeat moderate violations, unauthorized certificate use, failure to hold for inspection, and deliberate circumvention of quarantine laws. These might include violations of the following sections':
Section 5306 Refusal to comply with quarantine regulations Section 5344-6 Failure to stop and declare at a border station Section 5349 Deliberately bypassing a border station Section 5402 Public nuisance violation Section 5553 Abandonment of a public nuisance Section 5704-5 Movement under hold, compliance agreement violations Section 5803 Nursery stock propagation violation Section 5826 Nursery stock certificate misuse Section 6048 Hydrilla violations Section 6303-5 Quarantine shipment violations Section 6321 Fruit fly host importation prohibition Section 6401 Interstate shipment quarantine violations Section 6721 Nursery stock license requirement Section 6921-3 General nursery stock requirements Section 6926-7 Nursery stock manifest requirement Section 6970 Yielding of nursery stock permit Section 7206-7 Harboring of noxious weeds Section 7501 Pest seed dissemination Section 7534 Seed certificate misuse  
2/5/97 Date
Harry A Krug, President California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association
Ann Veneman, Secretary 1/28/97 California Department of Food and Date Agriculture MEMORADUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION AND CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BACKGROUND AND SCOPE Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) section 11454.2 Pursuant to the Governor's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1991, effective July 17, 1991 [Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) section 11454.2], the California Environmental Protection Agency's Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is required to consult with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) regarding any action relating to special local need registrations pursuant to Section 136v of Title 7 of the United States Code, emergency exemptions from registration pursuant to Section 136p of Title 7 'of the United States Code, denial of new pesticide active ingredient registrations, suspension or cancellation of pesticide registrations or uses, or other measures adopted to mitigate unacceptable adverse pesticidal effects. The purpose of this agreement is to define the consultative relationship- between DPR and CDFA in order to ensure a smooth working relationship between the two departments and to ensure that CDFA is provided an opportunity to submit information to DPR, including, but not limited to, the impacts on agriculture resulting from "the specified actions, benefits derived from the use of a pesticide, and any recommended alternative action. This agreement establishes principles of agreement regarding the activities of the signatory agencies, identifies timelines for submission of information, and the types of information to be provided to DPR. This agreement does not limit CDFA in the lawful exercise of authority provided to CDFA pursuant to any other provision of law. PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT DPR and CDFA mutually agree that it is essential for CDFA to provide a consultative function to DPR regarding actions in the following areas. 1. Special Local Need Registrations and Section 18 Exemptions. a. DPR will notify CDFA when an application for a special local need registration or a Section 18 exemption from registration is intended to be returned without evaluation, and will identify the deficiency. b. DPR will provide CDFA with a copy of the weekly notice of registration applications that are being entered into evaluation, in a timely manner. c. DPR will provide CDFA with a copy of the weekly Notice of Proposed Decisions, in a timely manner. This notice includes proposed decisions on special local need and Section IS exemption applications that have been submitted to, and have completed, the evaluation process. DPR will notify CDFA of any proposed decision to deny registration of a special local need or Section 18 exemption application. CDFA will he afforded 30 days to comment to DPR regarding the proposed decision. CDFA comments nay include the impacts on agriculture resulting from the proposed action, benefits derived from the use of the pesticide, and any recommended alternative action. DPR will respond in writing to all comments made by CDFA. 2. Denial of New Active Ingredient Registrations. a. DPR will request in writing comments from CDFA regarding a possible decision to deny an application for. Registration of a new pesticide active ingredient. For new pesticide active ingredients which have bto the risk characterization process, DPR will notify CDFA of the possible decision no later than the time the draft risk characterization days, within which CDFA may comment to DPR. CDFA comments may include the impacts on agriculture resulting from the proposed action, benefits derived from the use of the pesticide, and any recommended alternative action. DPK will respond in writing to all comments made by CDFA. b. For new pesticide active ingredients which have not been submitted to the risk characterization process, DPR will notify CDFA of -a possible decision to deny an application and request comments in writing, as soon as practicable. but in no event later than the notice of a proposed decision. In this case, CDFA will be afforded 30 days to comment. DPR will respond in writing to all comments made by CDFA. 3. Suspension or Cancellation of Pesticide Registration. Except for emergency actions taken pursuant to FAC Section 12826, DPR will request in writing comments from CDFA regarding any of the proposed decisions to suspend or cancel pesticide registrations pursuant to the actions below. DPR will specify a time period, not less than 30 days, within which CDFA may comment. Comments may include impacts on agriculture resulting from the proposes action, benefits derived from the use of the pesticide, and any recommended alternative action. DPR will respond in writing to all comments made by CDFA.
4. Emergency Suspension Actions. DPR will to the fullest extent practicable notify and consider comments from CDFA regarding emergency actions taken pursuant to FAC Section 12826* 5. Other Measures Adopted to Mitigate Unacceptable Adverse Pesticidal Effects. a. DPR will notify CDFA of the development of regulations relating to pesticides and worker safety prior to the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, i.e., at the same time the University of California and the Department of Industrial Relations are consulted pursuant to FAC Section 12980. DPR will specify a time period within which CDFA may comment prior to the issuance of the notice of the proposed rulemaking. DPR will respond in writing to all comments made by CDFA. b. DPR will notify CDFA of the development of regulations relating to the possession and use of any restricted material pesticide prior to the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking. DPR will specify a time period within which CDFA may comment prior to the issuance of the notice of the proposed rulemaking. DPR will respond in writing to all comments made by CDFA comments made by CDFA.
d. DPR will provide CDFA with a copy of the notification to a registrant that an economic poison meets the conditions specified in FAC Section 13149(a), relating to groundwater contamination prevention. DPR will inform when the subcommittee submits its findings to DPR. CDFA may submit information to DPR relevant to any of the findings that may be made pursuant to FAC Section 13150, at any time; however, if CDFA submits information within seven days after the subcommittee submits its findings to the director, then DPR will respond in writing to the comments made by CDFA. Comments may include: (1) possible modifications of a pesticide use so that there would be a high probability that the pesticide would not pollute the groundwaters of the state; or (2) possible severe economic impacts that would be caused on the state’s agricultural industry if the pesticide use was modified pursuant to (1) or cancelled, and that no alternative products or practices can be effectively used so that there is a high probability that pollution of the groundwaters of the state would not occur. e. DPR will notify CDFA of other measures adopted to mitigate unacceptable adverse pesticidal effects. DPR will specify a time period within which CDFA may comment. DPR, will respond in writing to all comments made by CDFA. 6. CDFA will be granted access, comparable to that afforded to other state agencies, to DPR data on pesticides, on the condition that all rules governing the treatment of confidential information are properly observed.
H Department of Pesticide Regulation
James W. Wells, Director Date MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION FOR THE
Protection of Human Health from the Adverse Effects of Pesticides June 10, 1992 Directory: site site -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 site -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 site -> Glossary for Chapter 1 Algorithm site -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose site -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations site -> Physical custody of 1033 program property accountibility form statement of Physical Custody: By signing for the below 1033 property I am a Law Enforcement Officer of the aforementioned Law Enforcement Agency site -> Nstructions for Acquiring Excess Equipment online, through the 1033 Program site -> Memorandum of agreement Download 1.19 Mb. Share with your friends:
|
_2/6/1992
enry .J. Vess, Director Date