Changes in the rules of the game for Texas PMPs

New rules start as laws passed by the Legislature under
the Texas Capitol dome.  Laws become enforceable only
after rules are drafted and published for public comment by
the lead agency, like Texas Department of Agriculture.

New rules governing the pest control industry in Texas were published last week and are now in effect.  While none of the changes in the "rules of the game" are major, there may be a few things that affect your business or school district.

The rules governing pesticide use in Texas can be complicated, and are passed down to us through two sets of documents.  First, the Texas Occupations Code (TOC) contains  the official list of laws as passed by the legislature pertaining to different occupations, including structural pest control. If you go to this code online, the chapter having to do with pest control is Chapter 1951. Chapter 1951 lists all the state law as passed over the decades that relate to the business of structural pest control.
 
The second, and probably most relevant set of rules to our industry is the Texas Administrative Code (TAC).  The TAC records how the various state agencies choose to interpret and administer the laws. For example, Section 1951.212 of the TOC directs the Texas Department of Agriculture to establish standards for an IPM program for public school districts.  The TAC Sections 7.201-7.205 spell out what the standards are, including requirements for IPM coordinators, pesticide categories, posting requirements, etc.

But wait a minute. How can non-elected bureaucrats in a state agency write rules outside the legislative process?  The answer is that legislators don't have the time or the expertise to write detailed regulations, so they pass their rule-making authority on to Executive branch agencies like the Department of Agriculture.  Of course the rules have to fairly interpret the law, and they must be published ahead of time in the Texas Register so that all of us can review and comment.

Publication of several new or revised sections of Subchapter H of the TAC (Texas Department of Agriculture) marks the end of this process for pest control rules this year.  On December 18 the Texas Register published the results of public comment and listed the final versions of proposed rules originally published on September 18. With this final version, the rules are now considered to be in effect.

Most of the changes were made simply to clarify wording of the old rules.  There was also some reorganization of section numbering, so that old rule citations may no longer apply.  Here are the essential changes:

• Sec. 7.122 Changes in wording that include giving power to the Department to deny a license to anyone who holds a similar license that has been revoked, suspended, probated or denied within the last five years by another state or by the federal government.
• Sec. 17.127 There are no more fees for providing a continuing education course.
• Sec. 7.141  Rewording of rules pertaining to ID that must be carried at all times by license holders.  Basically, if you have a license you must carry it on your person at all times and show it to any customer or relevant government employee who asks. If it's not legible, then its not a legal ID.  Also, language on vehicle signage has slightly changed to require all marked or unmarked vehicles being used for customer contact or service must have the business license number prominently displayed (magnetic signs are not OK).
• New Sec. 7.150 requires all pesticides be used consistent with the pesticide labeling, and prohibits use of any pesticide missing a complete label when the identity of that pesticide is unknown.
• New Sec. 7.151 prohibits anyone from hurting people or the environment, and making the pesticide owner, the applicator and/or the mixer equally responsible for proper storage and disposal of pesticide containers and contents. It also requires all pesticide containers to be labeled with the name of the pesticide.  And it specifies that hard copies of all pesticides being stored shall be available for inspectors visiting the storage site.
• Sec. 7.152 states that no one may advertise to perform structural pest control services without a license, and that all advertising must include the same business name as is on the license.  This rule was rewritten to ensure that companies not use multiple business names under the same business license, and to clarify that pest control advertising includes online ads such as might appear on sites like Facebook, Craigslist and Angie's List.  
• Sec. 7.193 is a new section number which clarifies who may qualify as a member of the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee from an institution of higher learning (the position I formerly held, and now is being held by Dr. Robert Puckett).  
• Sections rules for the IPM program for public school districts have been moved to a new Division (7) and renumbered from Sec. 7.150-7.154 to 7.201-7.205.  The biggest changes in this section relate to CEU requirements for IPM Coordinators.  
• Sec. 7.202  School IPM coordinators no longer are specifically required by rule to personally conduct periodic inspections of their school district.  While this remains desirable, taking away this rule frees the coordinator to rely on other trained inspectors to provide inspection reports.
• Sec. 7.204 includes slight wording changes to clarify that outdoor areas treated with a pesticide may be posted at all entry points with a sign in lieu of a lock, fence or barrier tape until the reentry time is over.  This section also allows IPM Coordinators, or their supervised employees, to use non-pesticide containing monitoring devices like sticky traps, to monitor pests without a license.

Perhaps the most significant change heralded by these rules is that expanded CEU requirements for school IPM Coordinators (IPMCs) are now officially in place.  Over four years ago, as a result of Sunset Commission recommendations, the legislature decided that ongoing CEUs would be required for school IPMCs.  Until now, the only CEU requirement was that IPMCs have six hours of department-approved training at the beginning of their appointment.  Under the new rule IPMCs must have six hours of verified, approved training every three years.  While most of these CEU requirements can come from any approved, relevant pesticide CEU class, at least one of the hours must be related to school IPM rules and regulations.  The countdown for existing IPMC's three years will start this January, or for new IPMCs at the date whenever their initial training is completed. Pesticide CEUs obtained in support of a pesticide applicator's license can be double-counted toward the CEU requirements for IPMCs.

After seeing how long it can take the TDA to publish its rules, I don't feel nearly as bad about the stacks on my desk.  

Training site has big ambitions

I just had the opportunity to check out the new distance learning website sponsored by PCT magazine.  I think it offers a good training option for PMPs, and has tremendous potential as a way to ensure your technicians are familiar with labels of products used by your company.

Under the Find A Course pulldown window you have
the option to take any of over 25 different label modules.

According to the site's author, Stoy Hedges, the site became active last August and will be free to anyone for the first two years.  After that time, the site should have a good mix of vetted training courses, and PCT will begin charging a modest monthly fee in exchange for offering courses for CEU credit in your state.

Right now lessons simply consist of label review courses.  So for example, if you want to ensure that your technicians are familiar with the Bayer Suspend® Polyzone label, have them take the review course and exam.  A certificate they print out after completing the course provides proof that they have read the label (possibly several times) and have passed an exam to show comprehension over the label contents.

Eventually the course will expand to include most of the popular pesticide labels and other subject matter including the contents of the PCT field guide series.  Hedges envisions 40 courses alone based on the PCT Field Guide to Ants.

"We have 400 current subscribers; but there are 100,000 pest professionals out there that we want to reach," he said. Hedges designed the site for training new and experienced technicians, but the current label modules are a great way for any pesticide user to learn a new label or get a refresher course for an older product.  The reviews are so thorough that one user reported that after taking the class he better understood his own company's insecticide...for which he wrote the label!

Wave of the future?

It's yet to be seen whether this type of training format will come to dominate the way we do continuing education in the future.  Online courses are certainly not the same as having a human instructor. But it does offer rigor that is sometimes missing from a one-hour continuing education class.

In Texas the Structural Pest Control Service does not yet allow online training classes to substitute for face-to-face CEUs.  But this may slowly be changing.  The Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee last year gave favorable input to the idea of allowing online CEUs for PMPs at least every other year; however I notice the new regulations filed in the Texas Register on September 4 (and open for comment until October 18) did not address any rule changes in this regard.

No one has a bigger stake in face-to-face training than me and my colleagues. Our entomology department faculty offer CEU classes to thousands of applicators every year.  These classes provide us with a personal connection to the industry, not to mention some financial support for our programs. But we support online training, and don't see it as a threat to the many conferences and face-to-face classes we offer. I don't think any online course can fully replace sitting with trained experts sharing knowledge and personal experiences and answering questions in real time.  But I like the idea of allowing applicators to get CEUs online every other year as a nice compromise.  It would make getting CEUs quicker and more convenient for many who choose that technology, but would preserve face-to-face training.

For better or worse, the wheels of change can move very slowly in our state. Perhaps in two years, by the time the PCT site is up and fully running, Texas will catch up with the rest of the world.  Meantime, sites like the PCT Distance Learning Classroom provide a great way to hone your skills and make sure your technicians know pesticide labels as well as if they had helped write them.

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.

Most common inspection failures

Inspections are never fun, but are mandated for every school
district, non-commercial applicator and commercial business
in Texas.

If you own or work for a pest control business, you know that it's no fun getting inspected. So many things can go wrong!  To make things worse, if you mess up, chances are that you'll see an inspector again soon, much sooner than if you pass with flying colors.

Fortunately, you don't need to have a bad inspection. At last month's Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee meeting, the good folks at TDA provided a list of the most common mistakes being found by regulatory inspectors during routine business and school inspections.  As you'll see, most of these mistakes relate to paperwork and record keeping--stuff that's relatively simple to correct.  So as the end of the year approaches, it might be a good time to use these  non-compliance lists as checklists to see where your team stands. Take the test and see if you pass:

Most Common Mistakes for Commercial Pest Control Businesses in 2014

• Are the name and license of the person(s) applying pesticides or using devices, recorded on use records stored at your business location? (21% failure rate)
• Do your service report forms have a jurisdiction statement? (18% failure rate)
• If you present a termite bid, do your forms include the required definitions for partial, pier and beam, slab construction, spot treatments, baiting systems and barriers?  (16% failure rate)
• Are all your employees getting the necessary continuing education units (CEUs)? (15% failure rate)
• When providing a termite bid are you providing your termite customers with a diagram, blueprint or building plat with a description of the structures to be treated? (8% failure rate)
• When conducting WDI inspections for real estate transactions, does your paperwork record the name and affiliation of the person purchasing the inspection, as well as the owner/seller of the property? (7% failure rate).
• For WDI reports, are you providing all customers with a properly labeled diagram of the structure inspected?  (6% failure rate)
• Do you provide all termite customers with the required termite treatment statement?
• I'm surprised this failure rate isn't higher: Do your service report forms record the purpose for which pesticides or devices were used (e.g., the target pest)?
• Can you document on a verifiable training records (paragraph n) form that your technicians have received the required training?

Most Common IPM Rule Mistakes for School Districts in 2014

• Are you creating and maintaining records showing approval of use of Yellow Category pesticides? (d)(6)(B)(ii)  (30% failure rate)
• Do you maintain written guidelines defining action thresholds (a)(1)(f), at least for your key pest problems?  (24% failure rate)
• Are you maintaining your IPM records for two years (b)(3)(B)(do you even have all your records?)? (16% failure rate)
• Do you have a system for storing and retrieving all records (b)(3)(B) of facility inspection reports, pest-related service reports, pesticide applications and pesticide complaints?  (14% failure rate)
• Do you keep training records for all employees approved for incidental use of pesticides?  (10% failure rate)
• Would you be ready to provide all your IPM program records on the spot to an inspector if they were to request them? (b)(3)(B) (9% failure rate)
• Are you creating and maintaining records showing approval of use of Red Category pesticides?  (d)(6)(C)(ii) (8% failure rate) 
• Have you the IPM Coordinator provided the required training for any employee on the District making incidental use applications of pesticides?  (e.g., electricians carrying wasp spray for when they open electrical panels with a wasp nest inside) (8% failure rate)
• Do you have a plan for educating your employees about their role in an IPM program? (a)(1)(E)  Note, this includes teachers, administrators and staff outside your pest control staff.  (8% failure rate)
• Do you have a pest monitoring program in place? (a)(1)(B) Word to the wise: if you don't have properly-maintained sticky cards in your school kitchens you definitely do not have a monitoring program! (8% failure rate, and I'm surprised this isn't higher)
• If you're a new IPM Coordinator, have you got proof of taking your 6 hour mandatory IPM Coordinator training?  BTW, we can help with that. (8% failure rate)
• When any pesticides are applied outdoors, is your staff in the habit of posting pest control signs  (d)(2) at the time of application until the minimal reentry time?  (8% failure rate)

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. 

IPM Experience House: A training venue for pest control professionals

The structure for the planned IPM Experience
House already exists.  The house is an old
dormitory that will be remodeled as an extension
facility for pest control training.

How many hours have you spent in classrooms trying to improve your professional knowledge? Can you guess how many PowerPoint presentations you have sat through for the sake of CEU credits?  Now ask yourself, how many hours have you spent practicing new skills under the supervision of a knowledgeable teacher--someone who provided immediate feedback on your performance? Most of us would probably say we’ve spent a lot more time sitting than doing.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with a good classroom presentation.  But most of us also need hands-on instruction to help us grow and retain new ideas.  That’s the idea behind the IPM Experience House, a planned training facility at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center in Dallas.

IPM Experience House will be modeled after similar training facilities at the University of Florida and at the Orkin House in Atlanta, GA.  The idea is to provide a site where PMPs can practice new skills while getting feedback from teachers and fellow students. 

Wall cut-aways in the Orkin House remind
technicians what's behind the walls of a home.  

Features of the House will include wall cutaways to see normally hidden construction features, actual and mock insect damage, and sites to practice pesticide application.  The facility will include both an existing house retrofitted specially for pest control training, and an outdoor pavilion.  The pavilion will provide a year-round site to observe and interact with different construction features, such as crawl spaces, chimneys, and various foundations and walls.  The house will include a residential and commercial kitchen, hospital room, hotel room and possibly a mock daycare room. 

Besides the visible structure of the house, a critical part of Experience House is a behind-the-scenes curriculum.  Each feature of the house will be built with a learning objective and lesson plan in mind. The House will be set up to allow for different lessons to be tailored to each group.  Apprentices and technician trainees will have a set of training exercises for beginners, while advanced technicians and certified applicators will have more advanced courses to choose from.

An outdoor pavilion, similar to this structure at the
University of Florida's Pest Management University, is
planned as part of Phase II of the project.

Some have asked, why Dallas?  Why not build in College Station?  Since at least 1980 Texas A&M has had an urban entomology presence in Dallas. The Dallas Center currently houses two urban entomology staff, including myself and Janet Hurley, with the school IPM program.  In addition, Dallas is a regular training site for the Ag and Environmental Safety Department when training new technicians.  The Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex is also a major Texas pest control market.  Of the almost 15,000 certified pesticide applicators, techs and apprentices in Texas, about 28% work within a 1.5 hour drive of the Center.  This means that businesses can minimize training time and travel expenses by having a training site that is convenient and local.

IPM Experience House is further evidence of the Texas A&M University System’s commitment to the pest control industry. Experience House will complement the new Center for Urban and Structural Entomology and the Philip J. Hamman Termite Control Training School at the Texas A&M main and Riverside campuses, respectively, in Bryan/College Station. Together with the hiring of a new endowed chair of urban entomology, these activities reflect a time of tremendous growth for the relationship between the Texas pest control industry and the University.

The IPM Experience House has been, and will be, a team effort.  Since last year a group of 16 local business owners and industry reps have met as an advisory committee to craft a vision and a plan for the project. Out of this committee came a fundraising campaign and draft blueprint for the site.  By taking advantage of an existing building on the AgriLife campus, a currently unused student dormitory, the committee realized that building costs for the project could be kept to a minimum.  We estimate the cost of remodeling the existing dorm and constructing a 50 x 100 foot outdoor pavilion will be $250,000.  So far, through the generous donations of individuals, our local associations, and local pest control businesses and support industry, we have raised approximately $170,000 in external donations toward this cost.  The committee and I hope to start construction within the next six months.

We still need your help to make Experience House happen.  While Texas AgriLife is providing the land and the existing building, and a significant chunk of start-up dollars, it’s up to the pest control industry to help make this new training facility a reality.  If you or your company are interested in giving to IPM Experience House, click here to download a pledge card.  To learn more about the project, and see a blueprint of the building, visit http://citybugs.tamu.edu/experiencehouse

Mentoring of School IPM Coordinators

A group of school IPM Coordinators learn how to conduct
a kitchen inspection during a recent IPM training at Northside
ISD in San Antonio, TX.  IPM Coordinators come from diverse
job backgrounds in school districts.

One of the subjects discussed in last week's Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee, which I didn't report on in my last post, concerned how to better mentor Texas school IPM coordinators.

In Texas, every school district must appoint an IPM coordinator to oversee the pest management program, whether pest control in conducted in-house or by outside contractors. Over the years I've realized that school IPM coordinators are an interesting group of folks. Relatively few of them come into the position with a pest control background. Most of them hold multiple positions of responsibility in addition to their pest control role. Some are superintendents or principals, others are environmental managers or HVAC experts.  Some are experts on indoor air quality and asbestos. Some are in charge of school buses, others tend landscapes. Almost all come into the job with wide-eyes and wonder about what they've gotten themselves into.

School IPM rules are, shall we say, more than a little confusing to most new IPM coordinators.  For this reason, the last time the advisory committee met, the idea of a mentoring program was proposed. Certainly I and my colleagues who train IPM coordinators have seen that one of the best ways to help a struggling new person is to pair them with someone with more experience. No Extension employee can offer as good advice as a colleague who has sat in the same chair.

At last week's committee meeting, Maron Finley, TDA's IPM Specialist, proposed the following draft criteria for mentors.  These criteria are not regulations, but would serve as informal guidance for the mentoring program:

• Serving as a mentor would be voluntary; 
• Anyone interested in becoming a mentor would contact TDA/SPCS IPM Specialist (Finley) to initiate the vetting process to be approved as a mentor;
• Mentors must have experience with at least two routine school IPM inspections which resulted in a "Compliant" or "Validate Next Routine" result;
• Prospective mentors will comply with a facility inspection by a TDA inspector to demonstrate their ability to successfully implement an IPM program in a school district;
• Once approved, the mentor may mentor another school district of equal or smaller size using the UIL Classification System.

If you're an IPM coordinator, what do you think?  Is it too tough?  Would you be willing to serve as an official mentor under these requirements?  If you have mentored another school informally, what do you think of the idea of having a TDA authorized mentoring program?

Granted, these criteria do not mention how mentors would be assigned to apprentice coordinators, or how long the relationship would last.  It does not say if proteges would voluntarily sign up, or if there would be mandatory assignment to a mentor.  There are still a lot of questions to be answered.

If you have any comments or suggestions for this first draft, please add your comment via the comment link below.  I will pass your thoughts on to Mr. Finley. Or you can contact him at the TDA directly.  Let's get the dialog going.

TDA told more enforcement needed

Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee meets in
conference room with a great view of the State capitol.

The spring meeting of the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee took place last Thursday at the Austin offices of the Texas Department of Agriculture.  If you've never been to the hub of regulatory activity for pest control in the state, it's a massive square building with a great view, from upstairs, of the "sunset red" granite of the state capitol building.  This quarter's lively meeting focused on enforcement actions--or what some in the industry feel is not enough enforcement action.

The discussion started with a report from Assistant General counsel AJ Wilson and her staff. They reported that the percent of cases referred to the enforcement team that resulted in enforcement action has seen a slight increase.  Last year 54.4% of complaints resulted in some sort of enforcement action, such as a fine.  This was up from 43% and 44% in 2010 and 2011.  Warren Remmey, industry member from  San Antonio, expressed concerns about a need for more investigators, especially for checking up on illegal fumigations. He shared an example of a case from 2013, concerning an unmarked vehicle allegedly carrying fumigation equipment that has still not resulted in any enforcement action.

Later in the meeting, during the public comment period, Debbie Aguirre, of Elite Exterminating in Corpus Christi, expressed concern about what she termed "lax oversight" of illegal operators. "And no place is enforcement more important than fumigations," she said. Harvey West with Coastal Fumigators in Houston, echoed her concerns, expressing his belief that there was benefit to the whole industry and regulators in making examples of people who were blatantly in violation of the law with respect to fumigations. Dale Burnett, former regulator, spoke on behalf of Worldwide Pest Control in San Antonio, noted that administrative penalties during the latter years of the Structural Pest Control Board averaged $100,000 to $200,000 annually. According to a recent Open Records Act request, last year the TDA collected only $20,087 in penalties, though penalties have been increasing, with a more than 230% increase since 2011.

If it seems unusual for industry members to ask a regulatory agency for more fines and enforcement actions, it probably is. But the pest control industry in Texas is not just any industry.  It is sensitive to its reputation, and leading business owners are often split on the need for more, or less, enforcement. Only a few years ago, industry voices were heard in Austin about perceived overly-zealous enforcement, which ultimately led  to the closing of the Structural Pest Control Board and its blending into the Department of Agriculture. Most industry leaders are especially sensitive to the issue of unlicensed operators, however, and few reputable pest control operators seem to begrudge quick and decisive action against businesses that threaten public health and the reputation of the industry. For it's part, the TDA team listened respectfully. Policy dictates that they not comment on ongoing investigations, so there was no opportunity for them to respond to critical comments, only listen.

In other business, Randy Rivera reported on upcoming changes to regulations affecting pesticide applicators holding Agriculture (3A) licenses. Most of the proposed changes will be administrative updates, and designed to harmonize TDA and Structural pest control regulations.  Definitions for Lawn and Ornamental (formerly Plant and Turf), Nursery Plant Production (formerly Greenhouse Plant Production) and Landscape Maintenance (formerly Plant Pest and Weed Control) categories have been added to the rules.  There will also be a new proposed rule requiring TDA decals (not numbers) on vehicles being used by non-commercial applicators, including those who use non-restricted use insecticides.  If you carry a TDA applicator's license, you should expect to see publication of these proposed regulation changes in the Texas Register by mid-May.

The status of continuing education regulations for school IPM coordinators was requested, and the committee was informed that the proposed rules outlining CEU requirements should come out as a package in May with the other proposed (3A) regulation changes.  State law mandates that school IPM coordinators begin obtaining 6 CEUs every three years, but enforcement of the law cannot take place until actual rules are in place.  Janet Hurley, my colleague at Texas AgriLife Extension who works with school IPM programs, also offered a comment on the need to waive the 48 hour posting requirement for insecticide baits and gels. This would take the regulations back to an earlier standard, under the rationale that baits and gels, unlike sprays, pose little or no drift hazard to passersby.

The next meeting will be held July 24 at TDA headquarters in Austin. Anybody with an interest in pest control is welcome to attend.

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.

TDA announces new penalty guidelines

It would be nice if we all would be motivated to do the right thing solely by the promises of good things (carrots!).  But in reality most of us need painful consequences (the proverbial stick!) to keep us consistently honest.  That's the reason for the new Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) penalty matrix.

On June 14 the TDA and the Structural Pest Control Service published new penalty guidelines and a penalty matrix (table) for companies in violation of pest control rules and regulations.  The TDA has always worked from a table of penalties, though the industry rarely saw it.  The new penalty guidelines and tables are an attempt to make the process more transparent to your business and the public.

Because these are not new rules or regulations, the penalty matrix does not require public input, though the TDA has indicated that it will accept and consider comments and recommendations. Draft versions of the matrix were previously shown to the Texas Pest Control Association and the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee, and comments were incorporated into the final draft published last week. The matrix will go into effect July 1.

As a member of the Advisory Committee I hear comment from many of you concerning enforcement of rules.  I know one of the major concerns by conscientious applicators around the state is that penalties be significant, yet fair and consistently enforced.  The new matrix does involve increases in some fines, and is designed to encourage more consistency in penalty assessment over the previous matrix.

The table allows the TDA some freedom in determining the exact fine, and a fine may be higher that indicated on the table depending on intent of the violator and consequences of the violation.  I encourage everyone with a structural pest control business to become familiar with the matrix, and review it with employees this summer as a reminder that the carrot is always better than the stick.

Advisory committee puts in a full day

State law requires that the Texas Department of Agriculture's Structural Pest Control Service be advised by a special public advisory committee.  Last week the SPCAC met for its quarterly meeting with a full agenda.  Present were Peggy Caruso (Katy ISD) and Johnny Hibbs (Carrollton Farmer's Branch ISD), public members; Dauphin Ewart (Bug Master Pest Control, Austin) representing the pest control industry; Dr. Thandi Ziqubu Page (Texas Department of State Health Services); and me, representing an institute of higher education.  Three other members (two pest control and one public member) were unable to attend, and one position on the committee (a consumer group representative) has been unfilled for three years.

This month's agenda was packed with topics about significant changes in pest control regulation in Texas.  I apologize for the long post today, but it was a long session with a lot of interesting discussion.

Penalty Matrix
As I discussed in my last report, one industry complaint heard around the state, especially during the tenure of the former Structural Pest Control Board, concerned the consistency of penalties for various infractions.  Two different companies with the same infraction might have substantially different fines.  To bring more transparency to the penalty process the SPCS has proposed a new penalty matrix, taking into account comments and recommendations made at our last advisory meeting.

The new version of the penalty matrix consists of a list of all possible infractions, each of which is assigned to one of three tables of penalties. The three penalty tables include: S1 (low hazard potential fines), S2 (moderate hazard potential fines) and S3 (high hazard potential fines).  As you might guess, fines go up from tables S1 to S3.  In the new matrix, a given violation type is merely classified as an S1, S2, or S3 infraction, with final assignment of low, moderate or high hazard to be determined by SPCS staff in consultation with counsel.  This will still allow some flexibility and discretion in assigning fines, but is more transparent than the previous system.  Discussion centered around whether it was better to have a very rigid or flexible system.  The committee preferred keeping some flexibility in the system, with the idea that the new matrix is less subjective and should be more consistent than the current matrix with its wide ranges of penalties.  This particular internal system does not have to be publicly reviewed, but can always be commented on once it is implemented.  A copy of the new penalty matrix should be available upon request to the SPCS.

Testing 
The new system for taking technician and license exams is now up and running. The TDA has contracted with a test service provider, PSI Exams Online, to take over the examination role for structural pesticide applicators.  The new web page describing changes to the process of getting your exam is accessed here.  The new system is not only $11 cheaper, there are more testing centers than before, making it more convenient for most people.  Testing will no longer be offered at TDA offices, only at the PSI test centers.  To find a center near you go to the PSI website. To learn about the whole process, there is a detailed information booklet for test takers.

Changes to TDA Rules
As part of a routine four year review by the legislature, TDA staffers have been reviewing and updating the regulations pertaining to structural pest control. The committee was shown these proposed changes and provided feedback on each of them. Twenty-nine rules were reviewed, with some of them deferred for later action.  Some of the more interesting and important changes and clarification included:

• Rule 7.134. Every other year licensees will be able to get all continuing education credits for the year via online or self study courses. The reason for the every other year limitation is that the TDA wants to continue to encourage face-to-face contact with instructors, and is still concerned about a certain loss of accountability of course attendees who do not physically appear at a CEU course.  This is a change from the current rule which only allows one CEU per year to be obtained using self-study or electronic courses. 
• Rule 7.134. The rules will be clarified to ensure that certificates of completion for CEU courses must be kept for two calendar years after the calendar year in which the CEUs were obtained.  Apparently some folks were discarding their CEU proof of attendance exactly two years after the date of the class, which is earlier than was intended by TDA.
• Rule 7.141. Every licensee and apprentice must carry their license or registration card with them at all times when doing pest control, and must show the card when requested by a customer, a TDA employee, a State Health Services employee, an EPA employee or a state or federal law enforcement officer.
• Rule 7.146 (d. to be deleted) Indoor posting for schools, and other sites that require it, will no longer be required if the only pesticide application to be made to the structure is an outside perimeter treatment. 
• Rule 7.147 clarifies that the applicator or technician does not have to physically hand or deliver the Consumer Information Sheet to a customer, only make it available to them (e.g., via website).  This wording is being changed to reflect changes made to the statute two years ago.
• Rule 7.150 (a)(1)(D). Schools will no longer be required to conduct or produce records of annual facility inspection reports. While everyone agrees that facility inspections are important to do, there was a feeling that the requirement was burdensome on even the most diligent schools. The school members of the committee had no objection to this change.
• Rule 7.150 (b)(2,3) The rules for CEU requirements for school IPM coordinators (SIPMCs) have been developed and, according to TDA staffers, will not go into effect until final posting of the rules. This means that, despite some understanding to the contrary over the past few years, SIPMCs are at this time still  not required to complete any CEUs. So if you're an SIPMC and you've been sweating getting your six CEUs before the end of the year--and wondering what classes you need to get, you can relax--at least for the moment.
  
  This rules clarifies specifically what the new CEU requirements will look like.  While SIPMCs do not have to carry a pesticide applicator's license, they do have to take a 6-hour class to teach them how to be a SIPMC. Four years ago the legislature passed an additional statute that requires all SIPMCs to have continuing education.  The proposed rule says that all IPM coordinators must obtain 6 hours of CEUs every three years, starting whenever the rules become effective (later this year), or at the date of completion of mandatory school IPM coordinator 6-hour training.  One of the six CEUs, according to the rules, must be in laws and regulations specific to school IPM in Texas.  The other five CEUs may be in pest, lawn and ornamental, weed control or general IPM categories, approved for a structural pest control licenses. According to what we were told, 3A (agriculture) credits would not be acceptable for re-certification.  Any SIPMC who does hold a structural non-commercial applicator's license, can also count any structural CEUs for SIPMC re-certification, and vice versa.
• Rule 7.150 (d)(4). This rule now allows use of monitoring devices that do not use pesticides by unlicensed school district personnel for purposes of monitoring.  The committee asked that the rule clearly specify such devices are only to be used for monitoring, and that any applications of monitoring devices be under the supervision of the IPM coordinator. This rule attempts to balance schools' desires to be able to use sticky traps to know what's going on in their buildings with concerns about untrained and unlicensed individuals doing pest control. 
• New Rule 7.151. This new rule is proposed to improve safety of stored pesticides by requiring that all pesticide containers in storage have a physical label and that any containers without a label, and of unknown identity, be disposed of, and not used for pest control.
• Rule 7.176.  A new paragraph to this rule would prohibit pest control companies who provide WDIRs from providing termite estimates or conducting termite service on the same property as covered by the WDIR.  As a result of our discussion SPCS staff agreed to reexamine better ways to deal with concerns about fraudulent WDIR reports.

Lastly, there was some discussion of a House bill, HB3567, that would mandate a change in the composition of this advisory committee.  The bill, sponsored by Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt, would eliminate the Texas A&M (higher ed) representative and the representative of the Department of State Health Services, replacing them with industry representatives.  The existence of the bill in its current form puts at least a couple of us on the committee in limbo between now and the next scheduled meeting in July. If you have thoughts about this bill you can contact Representative Kleinschmidt or the Texas Pest Control Association.

TDA meets with its advisory committtee

While the bright lights and news cameras focused on Austin politicians introducing their latest bills at the 83rd Regular Legislative Session, the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee met quietly this week with leaders of the Texas Department of Agriculture's Structural Pest Control Service.  The focus of the meeting, as always, was to provide TDA administrators with feedback on new ideas for how to streamline operations and minimize pest and pesticide risk to the public.

The flu season may have explained the low turnout at this quarter's meeting (the first time I recall no public comments), but committee members still found stuff to discuss, especially with regard to the first draft of TDA's proposed penalty matrix.

So what's a penalty matrix? It sounds boring.

I guess a penalty matrix is pretty boring unless you're the one being penalized. The SPCS has always used some form of matrix, or chart, to assign penalties to different possible violations of the Structural Pest Control Act and its regulations.  Under the law, the TDA Administrator is given leeway in assigning penalties to violators, up to a maximum fine of $5,000/violation/day and/or license suspension, revocation or denial. The matrix provides a transparent and objective means of pre-assigning penalties for different violations.  While not constraining the Department from giving a higher or lower fine, it sets guidelines for fair penalties if you, say, fail to provide an inspector with a valid applicator's license.

The draft guidelines list approximately 70 possible violations and puts each into a table of low (S1), medium (S2) or high (penalty) violations.  Within each of these three tables an offense can be categorized as minor, moderate, or major. Penalties increase in each of these columns from the first to third instances of violations over a five year period.  So there are three tables, each with three rows and three columns of penalties.

For example, failing to have your company's TPCL number on any vehicle in which you do pest control business is considered (in this draft) to be an S1-Moderate violation. You would expect to receive a $150 fine for a first violation.  That fine would increase to $300 and $450 fines for the second and third violations.

Moving up the scale, failure to provide an accurate or complete WDI Report is an S2 Moderate violation, worth $750 for a first offense.  Operating out of category (say doing weed control without a weed license) is considered an S3-Moderate offense, and will cost you $1000 for a first offense.

While assigning penalties to a long list of crimes may sound a little like a job for Les Miserables Inspector Javert (Russell Crow in the latest movie musical version), having the matrix is to everyone's benefit. It makes the TDA's job easier and more objective, and it adds transparency to the process. Anyone can look up the matrix online and know exactly what to expect for a given violation.

The committee's job in all of this? Review all the assignments and penalties and give our input. It's not as fun as it sounds.

Perhaps the most upbeat news to come out of this quarter's meeting was the announcement that TDA has decided to contract out its examinations to a private firm.  PMPs should see some immediate benefits such as lowering of fees from $75 to $64 per exam. In addition, the number of locations will increase from 13 to 23 offices around the state.  Exam locations will no longer be associated with TDA or other government offices.  And sites will be open five days per week, with registration open 24/7.  This should speed up the process of getting new licensees on the street considerably.  The only down side to the announcement is if you are computer-phobic.  All exams will be online and you will receive score feedback immediately.

The committee also discussed ways that TDA could better reach the public with a simple message that when hiring someone to control pests, make sure they are licensed and qualified. One of the ideas proposed was to make that official message available through the many pest control company websites around the state.  Look for TDA to come up with creative ways to get the word out to the public about the value of your pest control license and your training over the next year.  They may be contacting you for your company's help.

Pest Prevention by Design

Imagine a community where the newest buildings were pest resistant. It would be a place where architects and engineers worked hand in hand with pest management experts to take pests into consideration during building design and construction. Foundations of these new buildings would be reinforced with termite barriers, kitchen walls could be opened easily for inspection and treatment, access points to electric utility chases would be easily reachable, exterior doors and utility penetrations would be rodent-proof, and birds would find few easily accessible perches or nesting holes. Now imagine schools and government buildings, homes and shopping centers with features that greatly simplified pest control and reduce the need for pesticides.

That's the idea behind the new Pest Prevention by Design Guidelines published this month by San Francisco Environment, a department of the city and county of San Francisco, CA. The principal author and leader of this effort is Dr. Chris Geiger, a trained entomologist and Urban Pest Management Program Manager for the City and County of San Francisco's Department of the Environment. I love Chris' up-front and down-to-earth admission in the report:

"The world is blessed with many charming, pleasurable, glamorous and enticing subjects on which to ponder. Pest management is not one of these."

How true. But of course a world without pest management would be unlivable too.

The format of the report is clean and easy
to follow. The recommendations are based
around 18 building features, and cite technical
references for the guidelines where they exist.

The new publication was and is a team effort, involving a Technical Advisory Committee that included pest management experts, PMPs, architects, and engineers. Universities in the mix included Cornell, Penn State, Texas A&M, UC Davis and Riverside, and the NJ Institute of Technology. The National Pest Management Association was involved, as well as several pest control companies.  My point is, this is not just the wild imaginings of some California tree-huggers (apologies Chris), but a serious effort to start a dialogue between us in the pest control industry and the folks who build both green and not-so-green buildings. The project was funded by the Centers for Disease Control.

I think anyone with an interest in the subject of pest proofing, owes it to themselves to take a look at the report. The authors limited the scope of the document to commercial buildings, and it is far from a perfect or complete document, as the writers will admit. But it's a start.

Looking forward there are several hopes for this project. First, we intended it (yes, I was involved too) to serve as a starting point for better dialogue with architects and engineers--two groups that historically have not been very interested in pest control.  With the current interest in green or sustainable buildings (IPM is actually a part of today's LEED green points rating system) it appears that the time may be ripe to entice these folks to take pest control more seriously. Consider that built-in pest control should mean longer useful lives for buildings, more pleasant and livable indoor environments, cleaner air and less need for pesticides--all admirable green goals.

Second, we hope that the guidelines will be referenced by green building advocates, builders of schools, those in the apartment and hospitality industries, and government officials wanting to reduce the long term maintenance costs of public buildings.  After all, pests are  frequent contributors to building decay and decline--an expensive problem for all.

Last, we intend these guidelines to be a living document. Ultimately it is intended to reside as an editable database, where suggestions and revisions can be made over time. Once a suitable web home is found, it will be easy to update and improve. If, as you read through the document, you see things that can be added or improved, we want to know about it.

I can hear grumbling by some that "if we build pest proof buildings there won't be any work left for PMPs". That I seriously doubt. It's my personal belief that as long as there are people living in buildings, there will be plenty of pests. I think that what this effort does is raise the status and profile of pest management into more of a science and less of a fire station mentality (constantly putting out preventable fires). There will be a need for PMPs to get involved with the building planning and execution process. Yes, if this concept catches on, there might be less for PMPs to do in these newer and greener buildings; but the lost jobs will be the kinds of problems that no one wants anyway--those institutionalized, chronic pest problems that seem to never go away because of filthy conditions or rundown facilities.

As for me, I know I'd rather live in a condominium or apartment, or stay at a hotel, or eat at a restaurant that was built with IPM in mind. Wouldn't you? And that's what pest prevention by design is all about.