California DPR Announces Proposed Revisions to Enforcement Response Regulations

On June 12, 2026, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced proposed revisions to its enforcement response regulations. The initiative proposes to increase fines, revise the criteria for referring violations to enforcement, re-define violation types, and make other clarifications or amendments to enforcement procedure. The last major substantive update to the regulations took place in 2006.

Purpose and Substance of Proposal

DPR states that the proposed action will revise enforcement responses to be taken by the county agricultural commissioner (CAC) each time a violation(s) occurs, to improve effectiveness and clarity of the regulations. The purpose of the updates, noted in DPR’s Initial Statement of Reasons, is to “…strengthen the enforcement response regulations to further deter pesticide misuse and reinforce a consistent statewide enforcement program….” DPR lists five “key elements” of the proposed revised regulations:

• Increase in fines. DPR proposes to charge higher fines for violations categorized as human health hazards. The regulations would set the violation categories as well as associated fines.

• Increase accountability for violations. The proposal adjusts penalty levels, such as changing minimum civil penalties for serious violations, and increasing penalties for entities with repeat violations. Penalty determination would require documentation and compliance history consideration.

• Bolster consistent enforcement. The proposal seeks to bring consistency across definitions, timelines, and other aspects to support consistent decision making statewide.

• Streamline coordination. The proposal identifies where coordination with District Attorneys and other authorities could be utilized as a resource.

• Ensure transparency. The proposal would require DPR to issue an annual enforcement report.

The proposed updates included under these key elements would add Section 6132 to Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) to require transparent reporting from DPR for use of its enforcement authority. These elements also would be incorporated through amendments to Sections 6128 and 6130 of the CCR, which set out violation types and penalty amounts.

DPR proposes to clarify Subsection (a) to specify a civil penalty action by the CAC must be taken on one or more of the violations with the highest violation class in the incident to ensure that the most egregious violation(s) stemming from an incident are enforced on. Currently, Class A violations are defined as a violation that caused a “health, property, or environmental hazard.” DPR proposes to amend and renumber Subsection (b) to separate Class A violations into Class A(1) and Class A(2) violations.

DPR proposes defining Class A(1) as a violation that causes a health hazard and Class A(2) as a violation that causes a property or environmental hazard. DPR states that the proposed separation of hazard classifications ensures the regulations address the relative severity of potential harm. Violations that cause health hazards warrant stronger deterrence because they can result in immediate and significant impacts on the health and safety of Californians. DPR states that elevating the enforcement response to violations that cause a health hazard ensures that violators are held accountable when handlers, field workers, or bystanders are affected by pesticide misuse.

DPR also proposes to amend and renumber existing Subsection (b)(2) to (b)(3) to define a Class B violation as any violation that is not designated as a Class A(1), Class A(2), or Class C violation for clarity and to simplify the classification process. DPR states that classifying a violation as Class B under the current definition is a subjective determination of whether — and to what extent — a regulation mitigates a risk, so this has led to inconsistent classifications of similar violations among CACs.

The current definition of a Class C violation is a violation of a law or regulation that does not mitigate the risk of an adverse health, property, or environmental effect. DPR proposes to amend and renumber existing Subsection (b)(3) to (b)(4) to limit which violations are considered Class C violations by replacing the existing illustrative language with an exhaustive list of the statutes and regulations that only can be considered as Class C violations. DPR states that these proposed amendments are necessary to limit Class C violations to only laws and regulations that do not mitigate the risk of adverse health, property, or environmental effects and are ministerial requirements.

The proposed regulation amends and renumbers Subsection (c)(1-3) to Subsection (c)(1-4) to include separate fine ranges for added Class A(1) violations and Class A(2) violations, and to increase the minimum penalty fine amounts for Class A(1), Class A(2), and Class B violations. DPR proposes to set the fine amount to a range of $3,000 to $15,000 for Class A(1) violations, $1,200 to $15,000 for Class A(2) violations, and $300 to $3,000 for Class B violations. Class C violation fines would not change from the current $50 to $400 range.

DPR proposes to amend Subsection (d) to require the CAC to consider a respondent’s prior statewide enforcement action history when determining the appropriate fine amount for a current Class A(1) or Class A(2) violation. The proposed regulation defines “same violative conduct” as referring to repeated instances of the same type of action or omission that violates a legal requirement arising under Division 6 or 7 of the California Food and Agricultural Code, or any regulation issued pursuant to Division 6 or 7 of the California Food and Agricultural Code. Division 6 covers pest control operations, including businesses, applicators, pilots, advisors, and dealers, and Division 7 covers registration, residues, restricted material pesticides, use, and worker safety. DPR proposes adding a table for CACs to use when determining the minimum fine amount for prior Class A violations that have occurred:

When a violation is classified as a Class A(1):

Prior Enforcement Action History	Current Penalty Amount
Class A(1)	A minimum 20 percent increase from prior violation penalty up to the Class A(1) penalty maximum.
Class A(2)	A minimum 20 percent increase from the minimum of Class A(1) or a minimum 20 percent increase from the prior violation, whichever is higher, up to the Class A(1) penalty maximum.
Class A prior to the effective date, [insert date]	A minimum 20 percent increase from the minimum of Class A(1) or a minimum 20 percent increase from the prior violation, whichever is higher, up to the Class A(1) penalty maximum.

When a violation is classified as a Class A(2):

Prior Enforcement Action History	Current Penalty Amount
Class A(1)	Minimum penalty starts at least at $3,000 up to the Class A(2) penalty maximum.
Class A(2)	A minimum 20 percent increase from the prior violation penalty up to Class A(2) penalty maximum.
Class A prior to the effective date, [insert date]	A minimum 20 percent increase from the prior violation penalty up to Class A(2) penalty maximum.

DPR states that the requirement to apply a minimum 20 percent penalty increase, or a specified minimum starting amount, establishes a clear and objective framework for how CACs escalate consequences when serious violations occur. Class A(1) and Class A(2) violations represent the most serious threats to human health or the environment and, therefore, repeated occurrences warrant a more severe base penalty to address significant compliance concerns. The proposed 20 percent penalty escalation is consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’s (FIFRA) Enforcement Response Policy for increasing fines based on a past history of serious violations.

DPR proposes to phase in the increase to a five-year compliance review period over three years. Starting on January 1, 2028, CACs will be required to review three years of compliance history; by January 1, 2029, CACs will be required to review four years; and by January 1, 2030, CACs will be required to review five years. DPR states that increasing the compliance history review period provides a transition period for the CACs to adjust their enforcement practices and record retention policies and allows businesses to adjust their compliance strategies in light of longer-term consequences of past violations.

Public Process

The public comment period for the proposal runs through July 28, 2026. Comments may be submitted online through DPR’s virtual comment portal, or via e-mail to dpr26002@cdpr.ca.gov.

DPR will hold a series of public hearings during the comment period on July 8, July 21, and July 28, 2026, to present the proposed regulations and receive oral and written comments.

Information about meeting times, agendas, and more can be found on DPR’s events page.

Commentary

The proposed changes increase civil penalties for the most serious pesticide use violations, hold repeat violators accountable, and increase coordination to support enforcement of pesticide use laws and regulations in California. The changes are considered by some as long overdue and unsurprising. The proposed changes align with federal enforcement efforts. Pesticide registrants should review the proposed changes carefully, consider participating in the public hearings being offered by DPR, and submit any comments before the comment period closes.