Winter Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee meeting

It was a cold, wet day in Austin this week as the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee met to discuss the business of pest control regulation in Texas. Much of the meeting was going over rules drafted by the SPCS staff that will impact just about anyone who does structural fumigation, provides termite estimates, or who want to get continuing education units online.

Mike Kelly, staff member for the Structural Pest Control Service (SPCS), presented a rough draft of new document requirements for termite treatment disclosures, or as they are now called: "Subterranean Termite, Drywood Termite and Related Wood Destroying Insect Treatment Disclosure Documents" (The new name may be good for clarity, but sometimes I think government rules eat as much wood--in the form of paper--as termites).  Most of the changes are minor, designed to make the regs easier to read; however one positive significant change is that written estimates using these documents will now have to be made by a licensed technician or Certified Applicator--not an unlicensed sales person or office staffer.

Following up on industry recommendations from last meeting, Kelly also presented proposed changes for Structural Fumigation Requirements.  To anyone who is not a fumigator, fumigation requirements are about as exciting as a wait at the DMV.  But to fumigators, any change in rules can be grounds for fightin'.  Acting on our last meeting's discussion, the biggest changes to the rules included an attempt to clarify the responsibilities of fumigation contractors and subcontractors.

Danielle Dean (right) and Betty Thornton explained the new
CEU course they have developed for pest control office
managers and staff. 

Now if it were up to me, I'm not sure I would let anyone subcontract fumigation jobs. Fumigation is risky and technically complicated, and way too many things can go wrong (communications wise) between the customer and the subcontractor(s) who actually does the work.  But that's not the law, so these new rules attempt to reduce the risk of misunderstanding between fumigator and customer. As you might guess, there will be more paperwork.

One proposed rule change specified that only a registered apprentice, licensed technician or certified applicator (CA) can assist the supervising CA with introducing fumigants, or performing reentry and aeration activities. Also Kelly proposed to clarify wording on the required condition of tarps used in sealing in fumigant gases, and what the official time for a start of fumigation should be based on.  Both Brian Springer, Bevis Pest Control, and Debbie Aguirre, Elite Exterminating, commented passionately on the requirements--Springer noting the stellar human safety record of structural fumigation in Texas in recent years.  If you have anything to do with fumigation in Texas, you'll want to review these new regs carefully when they come out this spring. None of the rules are official until you get a chance to review them, and if you're a fumigator I'm sure you'll have an opinion.

We also discussed online CEU courses as supplements or replacements for face-to-face training. There have been numerous proposals over the years to allow applicators to get training remotely; but concerns about accountability, quality of courses, and security have slowed approval of this option.  The committee heard from AgriLife Communications specialist Holly Jarvis and representatives from online training provider, eStrategy Solutions.  According to Jarvis, there are now multiple ways to make these courses interactive, and accountability can be even better than live courses. Committee members felt that it was time to make electronic courses a routine way for license holders to get the CEUs they need.  In addition to the convenience of getting training on any day you need it, online CEU courses allow the applicator a choice of training topics, including difficult-to-find CEUs, like fumigation.  We recommended eliminating the proposed restriction that online CEUs be allowed only every other year.  Such changes won't mean that CEU workshops with face-to-face training are going away anytime soon, but do they mean you'll have more choices when it comes to getting your CEUs.

The highlight of this month's meeting was a presentation by Betty Thornton, Alvin Pest Control, and Danielle Dean, bwi Companies.  Thornton and Dean met earlier in the year with staff at the SPCS to educate themselves about regulations that might affect office staffers at pest control companies. It turns out that a number of laws and rules limit what advice an unlicensed staffer can say to customers over the phone. An unlicensed person, for example, cannot diagnose a pest problem or offer price quotes to someone over the phone or via email. They took lessons-learned and developed a course for office staff and technicians that includes what you can and can't say over the phone, going paperless in a pest control office, role playing, how to get a new technician registered to take their license exam, how to survive a 14-point inspection, and avoiding the top 10 non-compliance issues.  Both Thorton and Dean were engaging and enthusiastic.  They have given their (approved CEU) course several times and are willing to go on the road for groups that want to sponsor them.

Office staff are a critical, and often neglected, segment of the pest control industry.  I commend the SPCS for their train-the-trainer efforts, and hope that all these efforts result in better trained office staff throughout the state. I think bringing office managers and staff into the training picture could turn out to be one of the single most significant things we can do to improve compliance with our pest control laws in Texas.

Perhaps not many of you make it to the end of these long reports.  But the last thing I want to say is that this meeting was very significant to me in that it marks the end of my appointment to the SPCS committee.  By completing the end of my second term I am required by another one of those dern rules to step down and let someone else get to drive to Austin four times a year.  I anticipate that my replacement will be Dr. Robert Puckett, our newly hired extension urban entomologist in College Station.  I know he is excited about the chance to serve and will do a great job representing Texas A&M AgriLife.  My thanks to all the faithful committee members who have served this committee on their own dime over the years, and to the TDA/SPCS staff who take the time to listen.  It's been a pleasure.

What's going on with pest control in Texas?

Who wants to go to a committee meeting?  Especially if you're not on the committee? So if visitor counts are any indication, either things are pretty slow in Austin these days or the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee is a hot ticket right now. Most visitor chairs around the room were full at last month's meeting in the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) headquarters building.  

Bad picture, I know.  But here's proof that
the SPCAC was hard at work last month
at the Texas Department of Agriculture
offices in Austin.

October 30 was the first followup meeting to last spring's lively session focused mostly on TDA Structural Pest Control Service's (SPCS) enforcement activity.  It's no secret that many in the industry feel that "the bad guys" (shady pest control companies operating under the radar and outside the rules in Texas) are not being sufficiently policed by regulators since the former Structural Pest Control Board merged with the Texas Department of Agriculture and formed the new SPCS division.  Based on what I heard at this meeting, I think the TDA has heard those complaints, and is responding, especially when it comes to fumigations.

Several inspection issues were brought up and solutions suggested at the meeting.  Pretreatment notifications have historically been a slow and cumbersome process with inspectors often not receiving word of a planned termite pretreatment until it was starting or already completed. According to official Mike Kelly, the department wants to bring this process online for increased speed and efficiency. This will allow pest control companies to go online to report a pretreatment appointment, and will allow inspectors to get electronic notifications of all planned pretreatments twice a day.  Current rules require operators to call, email or FAX notifications to the department. Last year there were 6,275 notices of termite pretreatment and 1,076 fumigation notices received...a lot of office time.  This change in procedures could save significant staff time handling notifications. Lots of smiles around the table!

Most of us were especially interested in a followup report from last spring's discussion of a May 2013  apparent violation by a fumigator that occurred in Boerne, TX and was detailed at that time by committee member Warren Remmey.  Mike Kelly of TDA explained some of the circumstances around the event including lack of evidence to verify that the fumigator was actually carrying gas cylinders when delivering tarps to a home in an unmarked truck (a violation of SPCS rules). After the meeting the inspector on the site, Kelly reported, the fumigator claimed that the reason no notification was filed was because a truck carrying gas was delayed with mechanical problems, and he didn't know when it would arrive--skeptical looks around the table. Nevertheless the tarps that were installed on the day of the incident remained in place over the house more than a week before the gas arrived and the SPCS was finally notified, and attended the fumigation. 

No citations were issued in the case (no smiles around the table), but Kelly reported that steps have been taken to improve training and enforcement of fumigators by their inspector staff.  For one thing, Larry Riggs of Ensystex, a former regulator, has agreed to help provide fumigation training for inspectors.  Dr. Rudy Scheffran at the University of Florida will also host four inspectors at his fumigation training school in Florida this year. TDA has also formed a task force to advise the agency on fumigation-related issues. Debbie Aguirre of Elite Exterminating, Corpus Christi, has been leading the group. Since the April 11 meeting, TDA has conducted 11 fumigation inspections.  The committee thanked Kelly and the staff for responding to concerns from the last meeting, especially the training initiatives for inspectors. The committee was smiling again.

After this Debbie Aguirre presented suggestions from the task force for changes to the structural fumigation requirements.  One of the major problems her team has identified is that companies often subcontract or sub-sub-contract fumigation jobs, and its not always clear who is the responsible party is when communicating instructions to the customer and when planning the job. TDA staff have agreed to review the fumigation committee suggestions and bring back legally suitable language for a second review by the SPCAC.  

Kelly also announced that TDA is planning to eliminate fees for CEU course sponsors.  Currently anyone organizing a CEU class must pay TDA a $48 fee for each CEU provided.  Kelly says the department has determined these fees were not necessary and will be eliminated.  I sensed CEU providers all over the state smiling at this one.

Also bringing smiles to all the PMPs on the committee was a proposal to change the long problematic rule on advertising.  A problem with this rule has been that the rule was written to require licensed companies to not use false or deceptive advertising. The current wording makes it difficult for the department to penalize unlicensed operators from making false or deceptive claims online or in newspaper.  The advertiser would have to be actually observed making a pest control treatment to be penalized under the existing rule.  Two new paragraphs will be added to the section expanding the rule to apply to anyone offering to perform pest control services. In addition all advertisements must include the official business name as listed on the business license. The committee objected to an additional requirement to include the business license number on all advertisements, and it was removed.  

Also in response to requests to provide more information about enforcement actions, Stephen Pahl introduced new staff members including new chief counsel Martina Berrera, a former prosecuting attorney and judge.  She has been with the department for two months and is eager to get to know the industry and work to address concerns. She replaces outgoing counsel David Gibson.   

The SPCS includes both "Program staff", including inspectors, and "Enforcement staff". Program staff are required by law to conduct 480 inspections of non-commercial applicators, 200 use observations of structural licensees, 950 commercial business inspections.  In addition they must inspect approximately 250 school districts each year.  Also program staff must respond to complaints (46 so far in FY2014). Not all violation cases investigated by program staff get turned over to enforcement.  In 2014, we learned, program staff forwarded 40 cases involving unlicensed activity to Enforcement. For schools with unlicensed activity a non-compliance advisory letter is usually sent without a fine.  For violations at commercial businesses and non-commercial locations, Enforcement may issue a Notice of Violation (NOV), a warning, or take no action (e.g., when a business has shut down or the complainant may not be willing to pursue the case).  

Numbers of consumer complaints (46) have decreased significantly this year from prior years (ave. 181 per year 2011-13).  Although the agency reports that the number of consumer complaints have been decreasing for the past 12 years, this year's large drop appears due largely due to the department no longer accepting consumer complaints about poor service or failure of a company to control pests. Now the only complaints accepted for investigations are those involving possible infractions of the rules or law. As I see it, this amounts to a significant change in policy, redirecting the agency away from  consumer advocacy, to being a law enforcement agency only.  These changes appear to be necessary given tighter budgets over the past several years.  Mostly blank faces on the committee.

Visitors who attend these committee meetings do get an opportunity to comment if they wish.  Don Ward left a comment from the Texas Pest Control Association suggesting that SPCS host a class for pest control office staffers to appraise them of what they can and can't say and do.  He also indicated TPCA support for the advertising changes. Bryan Springer with Bevis Pest Control, Houston, commented that with all the regulations and safety requirements in place, the safety record of professional fumigation is good.  Harvey West of Coastal Fumigators, Houston, encouraged SPCS to provide and train inspectors to carry fumigant gas measurement devices to ensure accurate dosing of commercial fumigations.  He also urged the department to do something to discourage the practice of allowing spot treatments for drywood termites to suffice for passing real estate transactions.  Spot treatments are notoriously unreliable for eliminating drywood termite infestations in homes.

The committee adjourned after approximately a three hour meeting.  Smiles all around. 

Winter Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee

I just returned from the Texas Department of Agriculture's quarterly Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee meeting.  The purpose of the committee is to advise the TDA and its commissioner on education and curricula for PMPs, examinations, proposed rules and standards on technical issues related to pest control, fees and other issues affecting the practice of pest control in Texas.

Today's meeting was relatively brief, but informative. We met two TDA staffers that work actively behind the scenes on pesticide-related issues.  Rafael Paonessa is in charge of reviewing and approving the structural pest control CEU courses that all license holders must attend each year.  Rafael is the person I deal with to get approval for CEU classes that we offer.  He is always efficient and easy to work with.  He reported on recent overhauls of forms and procedures used in the re-certification program.

The biggest changes in the recertification process are in how course providers handle class attendance records, a subject I wrote about in detail last November.   The most common issue in getting courses approved, he said, is when providers do not provide enough detail about the planned course(s).  It's important to provide enough information for his office to determine whether the course meets department guidelines. It's also important that class content relates directly to pesticide use or pest management. General horticultural topics, or workplace safety topics (unrelated to pesticide safety), for example, will not be approved. The department does conduct spot checks of CEU classes to make sure the content is being covered and does not consist of advertising for a particular product or company.  Detailed information on putting together a course for CEUs is available in the just revised Pesticide Recertification Course Accreditation Guide, which is available online.

A new EPA-mandated Pollinator Protection Icon
will appear on many new pesticide labels.

The other employee we met today was Dale Scott. Dale handles the pesticide product evaluation and registration system at TDA. Many people believe that EPA is THE agency that approves pesticide labels, but in fact all pesticides must also be registered by each state in which they will be sold. This is why not all pesticides are registered, or legal for use, in all states.  Approximately 16,000 pesticide labels are registered in the state at any time, and his office processes about 3,500 new pesticide registration requests every year.

Dale reviewed information about new pollinator protection guidelines that are beginning to appear on pesticide labels. Four neonicotinoid insecticides will be the first insecticides to come under the new pollinator protection label guidelines. Changes to look for include pollinator protection information under all Directions for Use statements, a new bee icon to draw attention to pollinator protection information, and consistent warning label language about applying insecticides when bees are actively foraging.  This is a topic that all pest management companies and technicians should be aware of. Dale promised to make his PowerPoint on the topic available to the committee.

Also, Maron Finley, IPM in Schools specialist in the department reported on the top ten violations found in school IPM program inspections this past year. Most, he noted, related to inadequate record keeping. In order, they included:

1. No written guidelines that identify pest thresholds.  (155 violations, 39% of schools)
2. Not maintaining records showing approvals of Yellow Category pesticides (93 violations, 23% of schools)
3. IPM program records not maintained for the required time period (64 violations, 16% of schools)
4. IPM Coordinator not conducting periodic facility inspections (63 violations, 16% of schools)
5. No system for keeping records of facility inspection reports, pest control service reports, or pesticide applications (57 violations, 14% of schools)
6. No plan for educating and informing school district employees about their roles in the IPM program (54 violations, 13% of schools)
7. No monitoring program to determine when pests are present (48 violations, 12% of schools)
8. No reference [in the IPM policy] to Texas laws and rules governing pesticide use and IPM in schools (40 violations, 10% of schools)
9. IPM Coordinator training not completed within six months of appointment (32 violations, 8% of schools)
10. Name and license numbers of persons applying pesticides not on file (31 schools, 8% of schools)

A more serious violation, which occurred only 10 times, and did not make the Top Ten list, was applications made by non-licensed applicators.  Maron noted that 9 of these violators were small, class 1A to 3A, schools, and that all were in rural communities.  

Several on the committee commented that the overall violation rates seem low, and that compared to when the school IPM program first started, the state has made very good progress.  Nevertheless, everyone agrees that there is more work to be done to increase compliance.  Stephen Pahl expressed the desire for TDA to do more outreach to school administrators.  TASB, TASBO, and TASA are three school-oriented organizations that have ongoing meetings where school IPM talks can be presented.  George Scherer, of Texas Association of School Boards, was present and commented during public testimony that it is possible to get the names and contact information for school board members if needed during the compliance assistance phase of helping a school district.

Arnold Anderson, from Katy ISD, provided testimony on the subject of violations during the public comment portion of the meeting.  He suggested that schools with little experience in IPM should be encouraged to seek out a mentor school district rather than being fined. A suggestion was made that perhaps the TDA could facilitate mentoring by maintaining a current list of districts willing to mentor other districts in their IPM program development.  This might be another way TDA could reduce the number of school IPM violations without having to resort to administrative fines or penalties.

Finally, we were advised today that there is still an opening on the Advisory Committee.  If you know of someone who is not connected directly or indirectly with the pest control industry, and is interested in serving as a public member of the committee (with no pay or travel reimbursement), Leslie Smith is accepting applicants.

Advising Austin

The Stephen F. Austin State Office Building in Austin is
home to the Texas Department of Agriculture.

Last Thursday, 21 November, was the first meeting of the new Structural Pest Control Advisory Committe (SPCAC), which provides input to the Texas Department of Agriculture's Structural Pest Control Service.  I say "new committee" because the size and composition of the committee has been significantly revamped since it last met in April. Only four of last year's committee members remain, and seven members are new.

By way of review, the SPCAC has an advisory role only and does not make or enforce rules governing pest control in the state.  The committee meetings are, however, one of the few venues where PMPs (and consumers) can formally offer input into the way the their industry is regulated (it is common, for example, for visitors to the SPCAC to sign up to present public testimony on subjects related to pest control).  The SPCAC is also a way for anyone who is interested in the sometimes mundane details of pest control in Texas to learn what is going on inside the halls of the Stephen F. Austin Building, home to the Texas Department of Agriculture.

The changes to the committee this year are the result of a bill passed during the 2013 Legislative session that expanded the committee to 11 from the original 9 set by the 2007 Legislature. The committee seemed even larger this time, however, since one position (a consumer advocate position) had remained unfilled since the original committee was founded.

I found the expanded committee excited and ready to assume its new tasks.  Much of the meeting was devoted to learning the requirements for Open Meetings, and how to handle Public Information Requests; however I thought it would be good to introduce the new committee and share a couple of the more significant new business items discussed.  

New Membership List

• Peggy Caruso, IPM Coordinator from Katy ISD, is an original committee member and represents the seat for a school district employee associated with school IPM.
• Dauphin Ewart, of the Austin company "The Bug Master" remains from last year's committee and is one of three members representing the interests of structural pest control operators.
• Warren Remmey, Jr. also represents the interests of structural pest control operators and is owner of Spider Man Pest Control in San Antonio.
• Scott Dickens is the third structural pest control operator member, Past President of TPCA, and owner of Champions Pest Control in Spring, TX.
• Some of you may remember Roger Borgelt as a former attorney for the Structural Pest Control Board. Roger was appointed as one of three members representing the public interest, and was elected to be the new committee chair at this meeting.
• Dr. Nancy Crider is a faculty member for the University of Texas Southwest Medical School and a registered nurse.  She represents the public interest.
• Nancy Zaiontz, of GSM Insurors of San Antonio, is the new member representing interests of consumers.
• Jay Jorns, of JNJ Pest Control in Katy represents pest management professionals with experience in natural, organic or holistic pest control.
• Dr. Thandi Ziqubu-Page is an original committee member and represents the Commissioner of the Department of State Health Services.
• I also serve on the committee representing an institution of higher education with experience in the science of pests and pest control.
• There remains one vacant, public member position on the committee.

I was impressed with the credentials and enthusiasm of the reformed committee, and I think it will work well together. I think the expanded size will also benefit all parties as more points of view are expressed.  Any of us who serve are always willing to answer questions and discuss issues with you.  For a current listing of the committee and its meeting dates, click here.

Revamped Web Search Tool

The new license search tool on the TDA website
provides a more user-friendly way to find
pest control licensees or businesses in Texas.

Mike Kelly, SPCS Coordinator, and Leslie Smith, Director for Consumer Service Protection at TDA, demonstrated and answered questions about the new web search tool for Texas Pest Control businesses.  Currently the TDA website allows consumers, or any interested party, to search for any license holder or business online.  Up until now the only way to search was to go to the SPCS page and click on Current Licenses.  There you see a set of files in CSV format (which can be opened in MicroSoft Excel).  One has to save the file and open it in a spreadsheet and search for the information. Not extremely user friendly.

The new search tool allows you to search by zip code and refine your search while looking on a zoom-able map. Choose by license category or search directly by a business name or license number.  This tool should be useful for anyone wishing to confirm a legal license holder, or to search for an official address and phone number.  Since its launch October 8th, 1245 people have accessed the map view feature. 

Compliant Advertising

A big issue for many pest control businesses is making sure that their advertising is compliant with state law governing deceptive advertising.  Texas Department of Agriculture staffer Michael Kelly asked the committee for input on some new wording for Rule 7.152, governing pest control ads.  The changes would mainly require all ads to include the business name as indicated on the business license, and the business license number.  It's interesting how many different issues must be addressed, even with such a simple improvement to the rules. For example, the committee pointed out that font size requirements (critical in Yellow Page or newspaper ads) might not apply to a website.  And the proposed wording didn't define clearly what constitutes advertising.  Would a Facebook page for a company, or a Craigslist or Angie's List ad, be subject to these new requirements? Keep your eyes open for a more refined version of the draft rules to come out soon for public comment.

New Testing System

In April the TDA rolled out its new examination system, implemented to allow anyone who has applied and pre-qualified to take their applicators' or technicians' or category exams.  Now applicants can test on any day of the week, and at any of 22 PSI Online testing sites throughout the state.  By all accounts the roll out has been successful with the new sites administering 582 certified applicator exams, 1 fumigator exam and 683 technician exams between 15 April and 13 November.  Statistics show that 44% of certified applicator candidates for pest control passed on their first try and 60% passed on their second try.  Pest control technicians passed 88% of the time on their first try.  

In addition to these topics, the committee discussed ways to better educate consumers on how to recognize and deal with unlicensed applicators, regulatory review of rules regarding license applicants with criminal backgrounds or arrests, and rules being written (in response to SB 162, recently passed) allowing military personnel to count relevant military experience in pest control toward their certified applicator and technician licensing requirements.  We also learned that the extensive rule clarifications, including CEU requirements for school IPM Coordinators, discussed in April have not yet been published in the Texas Register due to an unexpected staff shortage due to illness.  

Future Meetings

If you have any interest in attending future meetings of the SPCAC, they are normally held the third Thursday of the months of January, April, July and October.  Next year's scheduled meetings are on 23 January, 24 April, 24 July, and 23 October.  The meetings are always held at 9 am at the Stephen F. Austin Building at 1700 North Congress, in Austin, TX  78701. Because schedules do change, should a quorum not be available, it's a good idea to check with the agency or one of the committee members before showing up at the door.