The Exam Experience

It's been a long time since I've had to take an exam that meant anything. This morning, however, as I sat waiting to be processed to take my pesticide applicator's exam I felt a familiar, almost forgotten feeling. Test anxiety. Can I do this? Sweaty palms. What if I don't pass?

After all, I worry, I've been doing pest control and pesticide application for more years than I care to count. If I flub the exam, my research technician, who is taking the exam today too, will know. How embarrassing would that be? I'm supposed to know this stuff. I teach CEU classes for goodness sake.

So why after 27 years as an Extension specialist am I taking my applicator's exam? Well truth is that I did have a TDA non-commercial applicator's license for most of these years; but several years ago, amidst the busy-ness of life, I let my license expire. Then I discovered that it was kind of nice not having a license.  I go to plenty of CEU classes every year, so the education requirement wasn't the problem. It was just the minor but annoying process of keeping track of certificates, and sending in renewal forms (and money) every year. Also, my job doesn't really require that I maintain a license.  When doing research, all the compounds I've worked with recently are already registered, and so don't need a Research and Demonstration license, which TDA requires for researchers working with unregistered (numbered) compounds. When I do put out insecticides for trials, I have worked with other licensed applicators, so it didn't seem necessary to retest and re-establish my license (in Texas, folks can work under the supervision of non-commercial certified applicators).

So why go through the trouble of re-upping now? I guess it felt like the right thing to do. I don't like relying on other people for my licensing credentials. And it didn't seem right for me to be an instructor of pesticide applicators and not have a license myself. And the part of me wanted to remember what it was like to go through the study manuals and take the test like a raw recruit.

So this morning I sat in the sixth floor, PSI Services exam office of the Empire Central Building off of Stemmon's Freeway in Dallas. Even though the employees there were very nice, a kind of static anxiety hovered over the room and the testing center.  PSI has provided testing services for TDA since June 2014, and serves other industries as well.  The nervous young man next to me was sitting for his electrician journeyman's license. The test takers I saw were not a talkative bunch.  Sort of like sprinters at the Olympics, focused inward, centered... thinking "help me, God."

So for me the anticipation for me was much worse than the test. The test itself would be challenging without study or good familiarity with pesticides and the law.  It's definitely not a "no-brainer". But once the clock starts ticking and the questions start flashing I knew I could do this. I was signed up for three exams: General Standards, Landscape Maintenance, and Demonstration and Research.

The testing room was silent with a half dozen test takers sitting quietly, focused on their screens.  I found the quiet relaxing, but also noticed that the testing center provides ear plugs for those who want them.  I guess they are needed by some for our protection against "sighers" or "groaners" in the room.  Everything, by the way, is under video surveillance--so security is high.

If you haven't taken a "final" in awhile, and the thought of a test scares you, you're not alone.  I think the longer it's been since high school or college, the scarier the thought of sitting for an exam. This is normal, especially for us adults who have a lot of pride on the line. So here is my personal set of advice for pesticide exam test takers:

• Relax.  If you've studied, you've retained a lot more stuff than you probably realize.  It's all in there; you just have to relax and let it flow.
• Read the instruction screen explaining all the available buttons.  There is some interesting stuff there that can help you be a better test taker. 
• Take the test one question at a time.  If you come to a question you're not sure about, the PSI test allows you to mark it.  Put the answer you think is right, then tag the question with the Mark button.  When you get to the end of the test, you can use the GO TO button to go back and view all the questions that you've marked.  It's a nice testing feature, and it's also amazing how those questions sometimes clarify themselves after you've had a few minutes to reflect and think about something else.
• Read all the choices. Carefully.  Eliminate the obviously wrong ones (called "distractors" in test writing jargon), and focus on the remaining choices.  The tests, by the way, are all multiple choice with only 3-4 choices.
       BTW, another nice feature of the exam is that you can Comment on questions.  If you think a question is poorly worded or unclear, hit the comment button and explain why you think the question isn't fair or how it could be improved.  As you write, you may actually develop a clearer idea of what the best answer is.  I did this on several questions.  I didn't know if anyone would actually read my comments, but at least I felt a lot better getting it off my chest.
• Don't be surprised to see math problems on the exams.  If math is not your strong suite, be sure to work and rework the problems in the AgriLife Pesticide Applicator License Exam Study Materials ahead of time.  Learn the formula "Gal/Min=((Gal/Acre) x Speed x nozzle width)/5940".  And learn how to convert milliliters and fluid ounces to gallons, and how to estimate square feet and convert to acres. Trust me, you'll need this.  The study materials I would say are essential.  In my testing center the staff did not allow writing tools (I guess so you can't write down questions), though they said we could have scratch paper if requested...???  
• When you get to the end of the test hit GO TO all your marked questions.  Review them, choose your final answer, and Unmark them one by one.  If you have time, GO TO all test questions.  Quickly scan through all the question and reassure yourself you did a decent job. 
• Don't leave any question unanswered. If you do, you will get the question wrong.  If you have to guess at least you've got a one-in-three chance or better of getting the answer right. At the top of the test screen it will tell you how many questions are unanswered.  Check it to make sure you didn't forget to answer a question.
• Once you finish your test, you'll fill out a short feedback form and then receive your results on the screen.  No waiting for days or weeks to find out how you did.  Passing score is 70%, an achievable score for most people who study. The software also shows you how you performed on the various kinds of questions (calibration, legal, pests, etc.), but this will be the only time you see that data, so look at it closely and see where you went wrong and right (especially if you didn't pass, this will tell you what to study).  As I left the Center I was given a printout showing my final score for the three tests I took (passed them all!), but this sheet did not show the score breakdown.

I communicated with Allison Cuellar of TDA about the Commenting feature of the exams.  She said that staff at TDA do have access to the comments, but most of the comments they see are the ones sent via email directly to their offices. She seemed genuinely interested in feedback about the testing process.  So if you feel moved to provide positive or constructive feedback about your exam experience, contact Allison Cuellar (on the Structural Pest Control Service side) or Perry Cervantes (on the Ag side).

If you or someone in your company is preparing for the exam, being a little nervous is normal (as I was reminded this morning). But for most of us the anticipation is worse than the event. As for me, I had so much fun this morning, I'm thinking that maybe I need to go next for the Structural Pest Control non-commercial applicators license. I wonder if there's a loyal customer discount?

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.

Just for CEU providers

Pesticide re-certification classes, like the 2013 Fall IPM Seminar held at
the AgriLife Center in Dallas, serve over 15,000 urban pesticide
applicators each year in Texas.

The Texas Department of Agriculture is changing the way pesticide applicator training providers must operate.  The recently published Texas Pesticide Re-certification Course Accreditation Guide provides step by step instructions on how to put on a re-certification course, and get course approval.  It also outlines the new process of completing and submitting course rosters to verify attendance at the meeting.  

After studying the requirements, it looks to me like the new system is not a major change overall, but the reporting requirements will increase the administrative burden on some CEU course providers. My office puts on two large CEU training courses every year, with hundreds of participants; but I've concluded that the new system shouldn't affect our office's administrative time significantly.  This is because (1) we already have all participant names and license numbers in electronic format, and (2) the courses we provide consist of one big all-day meeting (without concurrent sessions).  But for some providers, substantially more time will be needed to document attendance and credits awarded.

Under the new rules, now in effect, TDA requires CEU providers to send an electronic roster of all participants in a CEU course within 14 days of course completion (previously we only had to supply copies of the sign in sheets filled out by participants). Presumably this system wasn't working well for TDA. Paper records are notoriously slow to access and deciphering hand written rosters could be a problem. To address the issue, TDA now has two electronic forms depending on the type of CEUs being rewarded: form PA-411E for agricultural licenses (including 3A licenses) and form PA-418E for structural pest control license holders.  

Under the new reporting system, if a person holding both a structural pesticide applicator's and an agricultural pesticide applicator's license wants to receive both kinds of CEUs for attending a meeting, that person's name must appear on both rosters.  Each roster must list all the appropriate CEU credits earned by those on the roster. 

So far, so good.  The only big difference between the current and former system is that attendance records must be submitted electronically.  For many providers this shouldn't be too difficult, as the names, addresses, and license numbers can be cut and pasted from an existing electronic roster and placed on the appropriate TDA roster(s).

Unfortunately, things get tricky when real life hits.  Suppose 100 people attend a training in which five CEUs are offered, and 2 people leave early, missing the last CEU.  You will now need to supply TDA with two rosters.  One roster will list the 98 people who sat through the whole training and received credit for five CEUs, and one roster will contain only the two early-departers.  The second roster will show that they only earned (the first) four CEUs for the day.  

Consider a parallel situation where 98 attend the full day's training and two people miss one CEU each--however one person comes in too late for the first CEU and the other leaves early, missing the last CEU. Now the course provider has to supply three forms: one with 98 names on it (showing they earned all five CEUs), one (showing the last four CEUs) for the late-arriver, and one for the early-departer (showing that he earned only the first four CEUs).  Conceivably this could get complicated with a large program and lots of people not staying for the whole program.   

Another tricky situation occurs when concurrent sessions are offered at a training.  Suppose you offer two concurrent sessions at your meeting.  For the first concurrent session people can choose between a talk on, say, (A) Lawn and Ornamentals or (B) Termite.  At the second concurrent session they choose between a talk on (C) IPM or one on (D) General Pest Control.  For this scenario the provider will need at least four rosters including one for people who attended each of the following combinations of talks: AD, AC, BD, and BC.  If there are three sessions, eight rosters will be required; for four concurrent sessions there will be 16 possible roster combinations.  Most providers will conclude that it is easier to just have a separate roster for each concurrent session.  It will also take a very patient administrative assistant to retype the name, address and license number of each session attender.

I strongly recommend all CEU providers maintain session sign-in sheets, or use some other paper means of documenting attendance at each session.  This will help tremendously in ensuring accuracy of the computer rosters, and will serve as a backup for the spreadsheets.  Remind all course attenders that they must have their license number if they want TDA to verify their attendance.  If you're a sponsor, you must keep course roster and attendance records for a minimum of two years (six years for private applicators). And lastly, remember that certificates of completion must still be supplied for all attenders as their proof of CEU completion.  

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 lowers licensing fees

When was the last time you heard of a government agency lowering license fees? Yet that's exactly what the Texas Department of Agriculture is doing this month.  According to David Kostroun, Chief Administrator for the Agriculture and Consumer Protection section of TDA, not only are some fees being reduced, refund checks are in the mail. Checks will cover the difference between the old and new fees you may have paid between September 2011 and September 2012.

According to Kostroun, recent cost cutting initiatives by the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) have made it possible for Commissioner Staples to implement a 20% Structural Pest Control fee reduction.  And this from an agency that took a 45% cut in funding during the past legislative session! Keep in mind, these reductions are for structural pest control licenses, and not the traditional TDA (outdoor) licenses.

The new fees are as follows:

• $224 for an original business license (formerly $280)
• $224 for renewal of a business license (formerly $280)
• $108 for an original certified applicators license (formerly $135)
• $100 for renewal of a certified applicators license (formerly $125)
• $81 for an original technician license (formerly $100)
• $76 for an renewal of a technician license (formerly $95)
• $48 for anyone wishing to get approval for a continuing education course (formerly $60)

Fees that have not changed include:

• $30 for duplicate business license, certified applicator license or technician license when the original has been lost or destroyed
• $30 for reissuing a business license, certified applicators license or technician license due to a name change in the license
• $75 for administering exams in each category
• Renewal fee for applications received 90 days or less after expiration date equal to 1-1/2 times the normally required renewal fee
• Renewal fee for applications received greater than 90 days but less than one year days after expiration date equal to 2 times the normally required renewal fee (No change.)

So, if after this good news you're feeling a little lucky, think about taking that refund check and buy a lottery ticket. Despite the apparent generosity of the refunds, I'm sure the State of Texas would be mighty happy to get your money back. 

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.

No new taxes (but maybe new fees)

If it didn't hurt so much, it might be funny. In case you haven't noticed, there's nary a politician in the country who wants to be caught voting for higher taxes these days. Yet in order to balance budgets without dismantling essential programs, fees are quietly being raised for many different state and federal programs.  The latest proposed fee hikes for pest control licenses are just one example.

The Texas Department of Agriculture has published a proposal to raise licensing fees an average of 57% for business, applicators' and technicians' licenses and continuing education courses.  The reason for the fee hike is that this year's Texas legislature declined to fund benefits for TDA employees, with instructions for the agency to make up the budget shortfall with fee increases.  As predicted in an earlier post, the agency took a major (45%) cut in its overall budget, though the major impact of this on the structural pest control service was in employee benefits.

According to TDA Assistant Commissioner Jimmy Bush, "The initial review for the structural program indicated that an estimated 80% increase in fees would be required.  In an effort to reduce the impact of the fee increase as well as comply with the intent of the legislation, TDA has further reviewed the mandated requirements and department activities to identify efficiencies.  This review has resulted in the 57% fee increase as opposed to the initial estimate of 80%."

Some of the proposed fee changes are as follows:

• Original business license fees will increase from $180 to $280
• Renewal of business license fees will increase from $180 to $280
• An original certified applicator's license will increase from $85 to $135
• Renewal of a certified applicator's license will increase from $80 to $125
• An original technician's license will increase from $65 to $100
• Renewal of a technician's license will increase from $65 to $100
• Fee for taking an exam in each category will increase from $50 to $75
• The cost for registering a CEU course will go from $40 to $60
• The option for paying fees in six month increments will no longer be available

If you have comments on the schedule of proposed fee increases, you may contact Jimmy Bush, Assistant Commissioner for Pesticides, Texas Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 12847, Austin, TX  78711.   You must have your comments in by August 7.

The name for this approach to keeping things running is "cost recovery".  You will be seeing this occurring in many state agencies (including my agency) unless and until someone comes up with a more equitable way to keep state government running.  Daniel DeFoe, Ben Franklin and Margaret Mitchell all had it right.

P.S. There will be no Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee this summer.  Meetings will resume in October.

Austin report

Travel in Texas is beautiful this time of year.  Bluebonnets, Indian paintbrush, and greenthread line the Texas highways, making my trip from Dallas to Austin this week more enjoyable than usual.  The meeting with the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee was enlightening and relatively productive.  Here's a brief recap:

• The committee voted to recommend to the Department of Agriculture to accept a proposal drafted by Jimmy Bush that sets up the structure for school district IPM coordinators (IPMC) to obtain their mandatory CEU credits every three years.  The draft rules will allow IPMC to meet five of their six required CEUs by attending pesticide applicator training classes approved in the Pest, Lawn & ornamental, Weed control, or General IPM categories.  Alternatively, an IPMC can attend a class that has been approved by the Department to meet all six hours of continuing education.  All IPMCs should be relieved to finally see a decision made about this, as this is an important part of the law change that has been in limbo for the past year or so.  The committee further recommended that the CEU change take effect January 1, 2011.  As with all other CEU requirements on the books for TDA, it will be the responsibility of the IPMC to keep personal records of all classes attended, and to present these to an inspector on request.  
• Also regarding school IPM, the committee voted to recommend to TDA a proposal to allow IPMCs  put out and check sticky cards and glue boards for the purpose of assessing and monitoring pest problems in a school.  Under this clarification, non-licensed IPMCs will be able to replace damaged monitors and keep track of the progress of pest control efforts between service visits.
• Mike Kelly of TDA presented a summary of the new PIER (Pesticide Inspection and Enforcement Report) system that all structural pest control inspectors will use in their site inspections of pest control businesses, non-commercial applicators, schools, lawn care companies, etc.  We have been hearing rumors from schools that inspectors are coming with a "100 question inspection".  I counted the questions in the school inspection template and it's more like 60-70 questions, but the idea is correct.  All business and school inspections are being standardized and should become much more consistent and thorough.  The questions in the laptop spreadsheet carried by inspectors have been taken directly from the law and regulations to ensure a more complete and objective assessment of a business's degree of compliance with all legal requirements.  At the end of each inspection the program prints out a summary of the inspection results, showing any deficiencies that have been discovered.  Depending on the significance of the deficiencies, the business or school may be issued a notice of correction, have a follow-up visit scheduled, or a penalty may be assessed.  This is one change that will impact nearly everyone in the pest management industry in Texas. 
• Review of WDI reports was on the agenda, but discussion was delayed until the July meeting while an industry committee assembled by TPCA President Eric Melass (Killum Pest Control, Lake Jackson, TX) prepares a report.
• Another interesting agenda item was discussion about possible modifications to requirements needed to obtain and maintain a fumigation license in Texas.  Debbie Aguirre (Elite Exterminating, Corpus Christi) and Harvey West (Coastal Fumigation, Houston) both argued that, if anything, current standards should be strengthened.  The committee had a discussion about the need to tighten requirements on commodity fumigation.  Commodity fumigation jobs in Texas, for example, are not required to have guards and non-certified applicators are allowed to break seals on fumigation tarps.  This seems like a prudent next step for TDA to take, both for agricultural and structural fumigators to reduce the risk of accidents like those that were reported recently in Utah and Texas.

Just an encouragement to get out this weekend and enjoy springtime roads and wildflower displays.  My wife Heather and I will be riding bicycles this weekend in support of research to find a cure for multiple sclerosis.  If anyone is interested in helping sponsor my ride, check out my participant page.  It's never too late to donate for MS.

Concerns about the new school IPM rules

Austin, TX. Today the Texas Department of Agriculture meets to hold public hearings concerning the new rules that will guide the Structural Pest Control Service's regulatory activities for the future. The biggest proposed changes deal with rules governing the way pesticides are regulated in public schools.

Texas has one of the longest-standing and most comprehensive set of laws and regulations governing pesticides and integrated pest management (IPM) in schools in the nation. In the course of the past 13 years that the rules have been in effect, schools in Texas have significantly changed the way they do pest control. A study our office completed in 2007 details some of the shifts. For example, in 1994 the two most common insecticides used by nearly all school districts were diazinon and chlorpyrifos (Dursban®). Today, the most commonly used pesticides include a variety of baits, insect growth regulators and lower toxicity insecticides. Granted, diazinon and Dursban® are no longer registered for use in buildings, but their replacements--the commonly used pyrethroid insecticides--are used frequently by only 13% of school districts. This represents an enormous shift for an industry that has often been slow to change.

Certainly, part of the success of the school IPM rules is due to the way the rules gently encourage the use of less toxic pesticides. Under the system, pesticides are categorized into Green, Yellow, or Red based on a variety of criteria that include signal words, acute toxicity and the likelihood of hazardous exposure. For schools, any green category pesticide can be used at the discretion of the pest control technician. Yellow and Red category pesticides require written justification and approval by either the certified applicator or the school district's IPM coordinator.

By making it a little more difficult to use the more toxic products, while keeping all potential pesticides that might be useful to schools still available, Texas has managed over the past thirteen years to successfully balance opposing interests. Those who were most concerned about children's exposure to hazardous substances have been satisfied, while maintenance and pest management professionals have been left with the freedom to use any pesticide product they determine is necessary to control pests in schools.

As evidence of the success of this system, today one can find virtually no environmental group criticizing pesticide use in Texas schools. Fifteen years ago anti-pesticide lobbyists were a common site in public sessions of the Texas Structural Pest Control Board, protesting the use of a variety of pesticides in schools. Today it is hard to interest community activists (in Texas anyway) in school pest management issues, because there have been so few problems in our schools. By this and other measures, the rules have been a success.

Unfortunately, the new rules threaten to upset this balance in several important ways. Specifically, the TDA is proposing to tighten certain requirements and eliminate some pesticides from the green category. For example, pyrethrins and insect growth regulators will no longer be included in the green category.

Pyrethrins are organically derived compounds that are very commonly used during inspections as a tool to flush insect pests out of hidden harborages. They are also used to provide fast knockdown of a variety of pests including cockroaches, ants, bees, wasps, flies and stored product pests. Their toxicity is in the low range for humans (LD50 values above 1500 mg/KG) and they break down very quickly, making them widely used in restaurants and food manufacturing plants.

Similarly, insect growth regulators are low toxicity (commonly used IGRs have LD50 values greater than 2000 mg/kg) products with a variety of useful applications. They are among the few low-toxicity sprays for long-term population reduction of cockroaches in kitchens, and they provide some of the lowest toxicity control options for fleas, fire ants and mosquitoes. Over 21% of all schools in our study used IGRs on a regular basis.

In addition to restricting the use of these former green category pesticides, the TDA proposes to restrict entry of all non-pesticide applicators into all treated areas for 6 hours after an application is made. What's new here is not that students are required to stay out of treated areas, but also employees of the school. To keep non-authorized personnel out of treated areas, the areas will need to be monitored or secured by fence or lock and posted for six hours.
This requirement goes far beyond EPA standards for re-entry into treated areas (usually until sprays have dried), and will make it significantly more difficult and expensive for schools to treat sports fields, grounds, kitchens and hallways for pest problems.

There ought to be a reason for adding regulations to an already-heavily regulated industry. In this case there appears to be no smoking gun, no pattern of complaints, no illness reports, just a regulatory agency that wants to add rules that no one in the community is asking for.

Before TDA can formally establish and begin enforcing these rules, the state requires the agency to publish them for public comment for 30 days, ending August 3. If you have an opinion on these matters, you will never have as much opportunity to influence the shape of these rules as you do right now. For more information about the rule changes and how to respond, see my July 16th post.