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.

Structural Pest Control Service Winter Update

Whether companies who provide canine bed bug and termite
sniffing services should be licensed or require certification
was a topic of discussion at the January Advisory Committee
meeting.

The Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee met today after a (literally) stormy day in Austin--and I don't mean politics.  Yesterday brought some wet relief to parched central and north Texas, as well as rare winter tornadoes in several communities.

Today's committee meeting was mostly uneventful in terms of actions; however some interesting topics were introduced that should lead to follow-up discussions in later meetings.  The meeting started off with a moment of silence for Bill Stepan, our committee member who passed away in November. David Kostroun then led the committee through responses to the Self-Assessment Questionnaire that we were asked to fill at the end of the year.

Priorities for the Committee
One of the priorities for the coming year that some respondents mentioned was better communication with the public about pest control issues and how to help the public find answers to questions about pest control, the reliability of pest control businesses, and pesticides.  Tommy Kezar noted that the TDA website formerly allowed visitors to view regulatory actions to see what companies had been recently cited or fined for violations.  This page is no longer view-able on the agency's new home page. In fact, apart from information on how to file a structural pest control complaint, there is relatively little useful pest control-related information for consumers on the new consumer protection site.  Given that the site is new, I trust that this will change.  One feature I always found useful was the ability to check a company's license information to assure myself that it was operating with a valid license.  I hope this feature is restored.

Kezar also noted a couple of cases that he has seen where license renewals have been held up because of problems with background checks. Department staff were, allegedly, not very helpful in responding to efforts by licensees to discover the particulars about why a background check failed.  Chief Administrator Kostroun promised to look into procedures for responding to such requests for information.

Performance Data for SPCS
Stephen Pahl, Administrator for the Consumer Protection Division of TDA (the new division that houses structural pest control) gave a brief presentation on data that the agency is required to report to the LBB (Legislative Budget Board). The data includes statistics on numbers of new business and individual licenses issued, complaints resolved and inspections conducted each quarter.  Some of the more interesting numbers for the Sep-Dec Quarter included:

• 275 SPC business inspections were conducted in the fall of 2011 (slightly exceeded target goals).
• 45 complaints were resolved that resulted in a formal enforcement action (more than double the target goal).
• The 43 non-commercial establishment inspections (hotels, restaurants, local governments, etc.) was about a third of the target for the quarter; however staff attribute this to the priority they have placed on conducting school IPM inspections and some difficulties with new schedule-optimization software. 
• 139 schools were inspected, representing nearly 70% of the schools scheduled for inspection in the year.  I understood that the rate of quarterly school inspections will likely taper off this year as software improvements are made to rebalance the scheduling of commercial and non-commercial establishments over the next few months.
• Although quarterly data on school compliance rates for FY 2012 were not available, last year 52.4% of Texas schools were found to be in (complete) compliance during inspections. This metric, however, gives little insight in to the type or significance of non-compliance issues found by inspectors.
• Complaint case sufficiency rate is the percent of cases sent to Austin from local SPCS inspectors that ultimately are approved for enforcement action.  A high sufficiency rate indicates that inspectors are not submitting many frivolous or unenforceable cases.  This year's sufficiency rate was 92%.

School IPM Coordinator CEUs

Michael Kelly noted that the Department will be prioritizing the effort to publish formal rules for the new school IPM Coordinator CEU requirement imposed by Sunset committee action two years ago. To refresh your memory, as of January 1, 2011 School IPM Coordinators are required to obtain 6 CEU hours on pest control, pesticide and IPM-related topics every three years.  We are now 13 months into the three year period, and rules for how this system will work have not yet been published.  Kelly handed out the draft rule which specifies that only one of the six hours must be in laws and regulations specific to IPM programs in schools (I have stated in the past that I think this is inadequate, but won't go into that today).  What is still missing from the rules, however, is a mechanism for approval of the school IPM laws and regs CEU, and specific instructions for when CEUs will be due.  It was suggested that there may need to be a new CEU category for School IPM rules and regulations. The committee agreed that coordinators who were certified prior to Jan 2011 should be required to complete their six hours by Dec 2013.  Newer coordinators should be required to get their 6 hours within three years of taking their initial 6 hour orientation course (which they must take within six months of appointment as IPMC). Presumably the Department will be publishing new rules for public review within the next quarter.

Should Bed Bug Dogs be Licensed?

One of the most interesting discussions was a review of some information collected by Leslie Smith on bed bug dog certification, and discussion about whether dog handlers should be licensed.  While no one is actually proposing that dogs be licensed, handlers and companies who provide dog-sniffing services appear to be another matter.  The committee asked if Kelly would come up with some proposals on possible licensing options so that the issue could be discussed more rigorously, and recommendations formalized by the committee at the next advisory committee meeting.

Agency Legal Staff

Deputy General Counsel for Enforcement, David Gipson, reported that the SPCS has been without an official attorney for several months. It has been difficult, he said, to find qualified lawyers willing to work for the salary offered by TDA. As a result, legal work for SPCS has been divided among three TDA legal staff. According to Gipson, this has the added advantage of minimizing the impact on SPCS programs when an attorney leaves for any reason.

The next committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for April 26. The SPCS is receiving applications for positions on the advisory committee, especially the two open seats for industry and a consumer position. If interested, you should contact Michael Kelly.

New TDA leadership learning pest control

Yesterday was the first Structural Pest Control Service Advisory Committee (SPCS-AC) meeting since the retirement of Jimmy Bush, and the new leadership showed up eager to listen and learn. Leading the meeting was David Kostroun, new Chief Administrator for Agriculture and Consumer Protection.  Also in attendance was Stephen Pahl (Administrator for Consumer Protection) and Leslie Smith (Director for Consumer Service Protection), who directly supervises Michael Kelly the Coordinator for SPCS.

David Kostroun is one of the good guys.  By that I mean that he's an entomologist and former Extension specialist (:-)).  He has has worked for TDA for 16 years, has little background in structural pest control, but is eager to be better acquainted with the industry.  Leslie Smith has 23 years in pesticide programs, but is also new to structural pest control, as is Stephen Pahl is a former TDA ag inspector. Over the next year or so it's important for all of us to get to know these new leaders, so if you run into any of them at industry functions I know they would like to meet you and learn about your interests and concerns.

Impact of Legislative Session on TDA

Last summer the agency that regulates pest control and oversees the state's agricultural programs was hit by the state legislature with a 40-45% budget cut.  This meant reducing TDA staff by 140 full-time equivalents (FTEs) and forcing the agency to rely even more on "cost recovery".  Fortunately the cuts did not affect inspector ranks, but it did require the agency to raise fees by 57%.  House bill 2742 also reinstated the agency's powers to regulate advertising and soliciting pest control business.

The budget cuts and layoffs spurred the agency to reorganize.  This fall the agency has gone from ten divisions to three: food and nutrition, Trade and Business Development, and Agriculture and Consumer Protection (home of the SPCS, our regulating agency). Jimmy Bush, former agency head who steered the SPCS for the past three years or so, retired at the end of August.  His successor, David Kostroun, has a big job in front of him as he tries to balance a smaller budget against the need to maintain public safety.  His mantra for the agency is "quality, consistency, and efficiency."

Clean Water Permit program for pest control

In earlier blog posts I wrote about the clean water permitting system slated for implementation this year. According to TCEQ staffer Joy Tegbe, the permitting system is scheduled to go into effect on November 2; although a recent article by the Delta Farm Press reports that a possible two-year moratorium is still being debated by Congress.  If the NPDES rules do go into effect, cities and agencies who meet the thresholds in the law will have 90 days to apply for permits to use pesticides that might be applied to, or drift into, waterways.  This will affect pesticide applications made for mosquito control, aquatic weed or animal control, area-wide pest control and forest canopy pest control.

Since my original post, several clarifications have been made about who is required to get a permit.  For one, the thresholds for groups requiring permits have been liberalized.  For example, a permit is only required for entities that apply pesticides for mosquito control, forest canopy pests or area-wide pest control to more than 6,400 acres of land.  A permit for pesticides to control of aquatic animal or plant pests will only be required when treating more than 100 acres of water or 200 miles of stream bank each year. Contrary to early reports, re-treatments of the same land or water are not counted toward the annual acreage count.  In other words, if you treat the same 640 acres ten times, you've still only treated 640 acres--not 6,400 acres as we were originally told.

Now that the cards are all on the table, I believe the new NPDES rules will not greatly affect us in the pest control industry, although some of you may be asked to help explain these rules to large customers, such as municipalities.  The requirement that will affect most people are those for Level II entities.  These are public or private entities that annually treat more than one acre and less than 6,400 areas of land with General or Restricted Use pesticides.  These folks will have to keep on hand a letter of self certification, stating their intention to comply with the state's general use permit.  Failure to have such a letter would put these folks out of compliance with the law.  Golf courses, cities, park systems, and school districts are likely Level II entities and will probably need letters.  Most homeowners and smaller scale pesticide users will be classified as Level III entities and will not self-certify, rather they will only be required to follow label directions and precautions.  More about self certification letters in another blog.

To read the whole permit: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/stormwater/pesticidegp_stakeholder_group.html
WARNING: this permit is long and dense reading.  If you have questions, I suggest calling a real human such as Joy Tegbe or James Moore at 512-239-4671.

Need for New Members
The SPCS-AC was formed two legislative sessions ago to serve as a sounding board for TDA on structural pest control issues. The committee gets its mandate from Chapter 1951.101 of the Texas Occupations Code, and consists of nine members (two experts in structural pest control application, three public members, one member from an institution of higher education knowledgeable in pest control, one member recommended by the pest control industry, a consumer member, and a designee of the commissioner of state health services).

Almost all of the advisory committee terms have either expired or will expire in February, meaning that the SPCS is accepting applications for most seats on the committee.  If you are interested, call Michael Kelly of the SPCS for an application.  The consumer seat on the committee has never been filled, so if you are a consumer with interest in the pest control industry, this is your chance to get involved.

Structural Pest Control Advisory Board to meet this month

Leslie Smith, new TDA Director for Consumer Service Protection (and replacement for Jimmy Bush), has announced the next Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee to be held on Thursday, October 27th, in Austin, Texas.  This will be the first meeting of the committee since last spring, and the first opportunity to hear first-hand from the new director about changes at the Texas Structural Pest Control Service since massive agricultural department budget cuts this year.

Anyone interested in the activities of the SPCS is welcome to attend this meeting.  Since the merging of the old Structural Pest Control Board into TDA three years ago, this is the only regular public venue for agency to hear and respond to public comments about its programs and plans.

The committee will meet at 9:00 am in Room 1003A of the Stephen F. Austin Building in Austin, Texas.  Anyone who wants to make a statement about anything can sign up to do so at the beginning of the meeting.

The Texas Structural Pest Control Service is the TDA division that regulates structural pest control in the state of Texas.

What is the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee?

The Structural Pest Control Advisory committee meets this Thursday, the 29th at the Texas Department of Agriculture headquarters in Austin.  So what is this committee and what does it do?

The SPCAC met for the first time in March, 2008 following the dissolution of the Texas Structural Pest Control Board.  Members of the committee serve at the invitation of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Todd Staples.  Committee composition is required by law to consist of two members who are experts in structural pest control application; three members who represent the public; one member from an institution of higher education who is knowledgeable in the science of pests and pest control; one member who represents the interests of structural pest control operators and who is appointed based on recommendations provided by a trade association of operators; one member who represents the interests of consumers; and the commissioner of state health services or the commissioner's designee. Experts in structural pest control on the committee include Tommy Kezar (CTN Educational Services) and Greg Orr (Terminix, Houston).  Public representatives include Peggy Caruso (Katy ISD), Johnny Hibbs (Carrollton/Farmers' Branch ISD) and Judge William Roberts (Attorney from Plano). Bill Stepan (Orkin Pest Control, Houston) was selected to represent the pest control industry and Dr. Thandi Ziqubu-Page represents the Commissioner of the Department of State Health Services.  I represent an institution of higher education and a consumer representative has yet to be appointed.

In one sense the Advisory Committee does nothing.  Unlike the previous Structural Pest Control Board, it has no statutory or rule-making authority.  But we do advise, and I believe the Department of Agriculture does listen.  So in essence all of us on the committee are your representatives, to ensure that your interests and the interests of all in Texas with an investment in pest control are represented in the halls of the TDA.

Of interest to schools this week the committee will be revisiting the CEU requirements for school IPM coordinators--a sticky issue for some committee members (including myself).  A draft proposal circulated this week shows that TDA has attempted to mollify different points of view by allowing IPM Coordinators to get their CEUs by either attending an approved, dedicated class designed on school IPM, or by earning CEUs through various conventional CEU forums.  Also to be discussed is a plan to allow use of sticky cards and glue traps by school IPM Coordinators if the traps are being used principally for monitoring and not pest control.  Clarification of this grey area should be welcomed by all parties involved in school IPM.

Other agenda items include updating members on the transition into a new licensing and inspection system, status of evaluations being made of the current Wood Destroying Insect(WDI)Reports, development of a Consumer Information Sheet for Exempted Activities, and discussion of possible modifications of how to obtain a structural fumigation license. Heady stuff, I know.

As always, the meeting will have a time for public comment and input.

If you have an issue of interest with regard to the way the Department administers laws and regulations affecting the pest control industry, here's your invitation. I invite you to drop an email to any of the committee members expressing your concern or input on a subject. I am not suggesting you shouldn't call us, but a clearly expressed email is much more likely to be carried by one of us to the meeting and discussed before the whole group.  The committee meets every three months, so you have plenty of time to compose your thoughts.

Advisory Committee gets briefing on TDA issues

Yesterday the Structural Pest Control Service Advisory Committee (SPCSAC) held its summer meeting with Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) to hear updates and offer input on current activities of the agency that regulates commercial pest control in Texas.

Much of the meeting was devoted to a review of changes resulting from the recently ended legislative session in Austin. Two bills that passed this session will limit the activities that can be regulated by TDA. Falconers with permits, who use raptors to control or scare away pestiferous wildlife, are now clearly exempt from needing a pest control license (H.B. 693, sponsored by Vicki Truitt, House District 98, Keller). A more expansive bill, (S.B. 768, sponsored by Glen Hegar, Senate District 18, Katy) added falconry (repetitive with H.B.693), chimney sweeps, use of live traps, mechanical weed removal, and installation of "non-pesticidal barriers" to the list of people and activities that are exempt from requiring a pest control license.

The most significant legislative event for TDA this year was passage of the Sunset Bill (S.B. 1016). In Texas every state agency is required to go through Sunset Review every 12 years. A Sunset committee exaustively reviews all agencies up for review to ensure that the agencies are still needed, are performing their jobs properly, and that laws and regulations governing the agencies are up-to-date and operating efficiently. The result of this year's sunset review is that TDA has been reauthorized. Also, a number of sections of the Agriculture and Occupations Codes have been revised to make sure that the regulations governing the agricultural and occupational (pest control) parts of TDA's regulatory authority work efficiently together.

Some of the key changes resulting from the 2009 Sunset Bill include:

• An increase in the maximum fines the Agency can impose for violations of the Agriculture or Occupational Codes. Previously the agency could fine violators $2000 per infraction per day for a maximum of $4000. Now the Agency can impose fines of $5000 per infraction per day with no limit to how many days the fines can accumulate.
• Clarifying language that allows the agency to modify license renewal dates for ag and pest control licenses, harmonize testing procedures for both ag and pest control areas, and adjust length of terms for various licenses.
  
• Agency is now required to conduct regular analysis of its records of complaints and pesticide violations for analysis and planning purposes.
• Agency may conduct unannounced inspections during regular business hours (Assistant Commissioner Bush assured the committee that unless there is a good reason, the agency plans to continue its policy of providing notices of inspection ahead of time).
• Clerical employees and manual laborers who are not directly involved in pesticide applications for a pest control business are no longer required to have a pesticide applicator's license.
• The need for pesticide applicators who perform pest control on growing plants, trees, shrubs and grass to obtain a nursery-floral certificate to qualify for agricultural licensing is now eliminated. Such applicators can be licensed through either the agricultural code licensing or the occupational code licensing programs.
• Allows the TDA to appoint a consumer representative to the SPCSAC without the specific recommendation of a consumer's group (TDA could get no recommendations from a Texas consumer's group when approached last year. So this provision will allow them to quickly fill the remaining slot on the SPCSAC).
• Authorized TDA to enter into reciprocal licensing agreements with other states (for CEUs, certain testing requirements, etc.)
• Changed multiple rules that required applicators to for "give" or "provide" or "leave" pest control information sheets with workplaces, schools, apartments and other customers. Now the applicator is required only to "make available" the consumer information sheets to such customers. The significance of this change was discussed at some length, with some of us expressing concern that this change would encourage applicators to neglect informing their customers of the availability of these sheets, and result in fewer consumers knowing about their rights and who to contact in the case of complaints. Assistant Commissioner Jimmy Bush said that it is their hope that there is little change people receiving the information. The intent of the change was to reduce the need to provide repetitive paperwork everytime a service visit is conducted and encourage electronic notifications. The essence of the discussion seemed to be that TDA is going to take a more relaxed attitude towards applicators providing consumer information sheets at every service visit.

In addition to updates from the legislative session, the committee discussed the new plans for CEU requirements for school IPM coordinators (SIPMC). Under the recently updated regulations that went into effect July 7, SIPMCs are required to obtain six hours of department-approved CEUs every three years. General discussion points included the question of whether a certain number of CEUs would have to be on laws and regulations, whether each CEU could be obtained separately, what criteria TDA should use in determining whether a course would qualify for a SIPMC CEU, and how the CEUs would be enforced.

The committee agreed that some of the CEUs should include laws and regulations, most of us thought that at least 2 CEUs should come from this category. The committee seemed to agree that CEUs should be available to be obtained individually, and that obtaining them electronically would be a cost-effective and environmentally sound alternative to face-to-face meetings--especially for small, isolated school districts. Some of us, however, felt that at least some CEUs should be obtained through face-to-face training--something that Jimmy Bush said could be worked into the rules. One suggestion was that the CEU requirements might be vetted through the new SIPMC association that will be organizing in November in San Marcos.

The topic of use of pesticides as part of school curricula was brought up briefly, with Jimmy Bush stating that TDA would have no objections to exemptions to the school IPM rules for pesticides used as part of school lessons or laboratory experiments. Pesticides in such cases would be handled by schools in a manner similar to any other hazardous material in a lab.

Insurance remains a hot topic between the industry and TDA. At issue is whether the current requirements do enough to protect the consumer from errors and omissions that might be made by a licensed applicator. Although some insurance policies include provisions for errors and omissions made by an applicator (e.g., not noticing a termite infestation during a wood-destroying insect (WDI) inspection), many do not. The TPCA objects to making E&O insurance a requirement due to increased costs. Apparently the only other occupation regulated by the state that is required to have E&O insurance is home inspection, a profession that has many similarities to pest control, especially WDI inspectors. Mike Kelly of TDA noted that inspectors have been instructed not to review insurance policies during this time, until the department can determine its position on the kinds of liability insurance it will require for licensed businesses.

Poor or illegal termite pre-treatments is a chronic problem that numerous committees and regulators have struggled with over the years. A subcommittee of the SPCSAC began meeting after this session to start discussions on how to improve regulations of termite pre-treatments without overly burdening honest operators. If you have thoughts on this subject, you should contact me or (even better) one of the members of this subcommittee (Bill Stepan, Greg Orr, or Tommy Kezar).

These meetings are long, but very informative in knowing what is going on in the state with respect to regulations. The meetings are always open to the public. The next meeting will take place October 29 in Austin at TDA headquarters.

TDA considers wide range of pest control issues

Texas Department of Agriculture officials met yesterday with the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee (SPCAC) to discuss school IPM rules and other areas of improvement for pesticide regulation. The SPCAC was created last year as an advisory body/sounding board for the Structural Pest Control Service (SPCS)--the regulatory agency that oversees all structural pest control activities in the state.

I have discussed the committee's activities in previous blogs, but wanted to give you an update on this most recent meeting. The first order of business was reviewing proposed legislation that could probably affect pest control in Texas. Catherine Wright-Steele, legislation director for TDA reported on five bills related to TDA/SPCS.

The SB 1016, the TDA Sunset Bill passed the Senate 4/16/2009 and has been referred to the House Ag & Livestock Committee. This year the TDA has been subjected to the same sunset review that the old Structural Pest Control Board faced during the last legislative session two years ago, before it was shut down and responsibilities transferred to TDA. The sunset process looks at state agencies and determines whether the agency is doing it's job and needs to be continued or shut down. Sunset review frequently also results in the legislature making changes to the way an agency's rules and regulations. According to Ms. Wright-Steele, the sunset process is going well for TDA and consists of mainly of ensuring that provisions of the Agriculture Code that apply to TDA programs also apply to the Occupations Code. No major changes to TDA operations are expected from the sunset process.

Other bills are generating some interest, comments and concerns by some in the pest control industry. Senate Bill 768 and HB 2038 make modifications in who might be exempt from regulation by the SPCS. Examples include those who use raptors (e.g., hawks) to control nuisance birds, anyone who uses live catch traps, chimney sweeps, and other non-pesticide (low risk) methods of controlling pests.

These bills illustrate the debate in the industry between those who want to require a license for nearly every kind of pest control action, and others who call for more freedom from regulation (especially for non-pesticide-related activities). The Texas Pest Control Association, for example, is concerned about exempting all activities that involve minimal risk to the public, as in SB 768. These are significant issues at stake here and it would be good for all readers to look these bills over and comment to their legislators very quickly. According to Catherine Wright-Steele, SB 768 appears poised to move forward quickly for full vote.

The committee also reviewed comments received in response to the proposed new rules for school IPM. In contrast to the first draft of the rules, when over 200 comments were received by TDA, less than two dozen comments were made. It appears that schools and PMPs appeared to be relatively satisfied with the new rules, though there were in fact few explicitly favorable comments received. Another difference with this round of comments was that most of those received appeared to come from community activists concerned with minimizing or eliminating pesticide use in schools. The committee went through all of the comments, and for the most part declined to recommend any significant changes in the proposed school IPM rules.

Finally, the committee considered three new areas of concern identified by Jimmy Bush and TDA. The areas of concern included unethical and illegal termite pre-treatments, inadequate insurance coverage by many Texas PMPs, and wood destroying insect reports. These issues were discussed at some length. Both pre-treatments and WDI reports have been dealt with at length in recent years by the Structural Pest Control Board. Three committee members volunteered to form the core of a committee to look into those three issues and make recommendations to the whole advisory committee and TDA. The problem with ensuring that termite pre-treatments are done properly is one that is repeated in states throughout the country. One of the public participants at the meeting, Mitch Wassom, recommended that TDA focus on improving the quality of residential pre-treatments instead of focusing on commercial pre-treatments. The termite risk is generally higher for residential homes, consequently the economic impact of poor or incomplete treatments is greater for new home buyers. This will be an extremely difficult problem to solve.

Background checks on all certified pesticide applicators in the state are nearly completed. Only a handful of licenses were revoked after consideration by a committee of five TDA employees. This has been a very time-consuming and ambitious undertaking but should serve to make professional pest control a safer and more secure service industry.