As most of you know the Structural Pest Control Board last year went under Sunset Review. In November of 2006, the Sunset Commission voted to abolish the Structural Pest Control Board and transfer their function to the Texas Department of Agriculture. Many of you have asked us for more information, below you will find a summary of the proposed Senate Bill 906 and it's companion House Bill 2458.
SUMMARY OF SB 906/HB 2458
The following is a summary of the House and Senate bills introduced this month to eliminate the Texas Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB), transfer its functions to the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) and incorporate recommended changes from the Sunset Committee into the Structural Pest Control Act. From where I sit,
Background: On March 1 and March 5, 2007 Senator Kim Brimer submitted Senate Bill 906 and Representative Byron Cook introduced House Bill 2458, respectively. These are parallel, identical bills that must each pass their respective bodies and go through hearings and votes. Should they both pass, they will go to a joint House/Senate committee to work out any differences in amendments that have been made by the committees. Then the joint bill must pass both houses and be signed by the Governor to become law. There will be several opportunities to comment on and change the bill in the next few weeks.
Most of SB 906 is comprised of legal language needed to eliminate the SPCB and transfer its functions and responsibilities to the Texas Department of Agriculture (essentially moving all structural pest control regulatory authority from a Board to a Department). However, some of the bill is devoted to making some modifications to the wording and requirements of the Structural Pest Control Act that pertain to the school IPM program. For the most part, these school-related amendments reflect recommendations made last year by Texas Cooperative Extension/Southwest Technical Resource Center.
To see the history of the Senate Bill and read the complete bill, you can go online to http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=SB906
Analysis: The following section includes the text of the portion of the new SB 906 along with our interpretation and analysis. Note that any changes to the original 1991 law are indicated by either strikeouts (wording being eliminated from the current law) or underline (new text proposed to be added to the law). Within the proposed bill is section 1951.212 that offers several changes. Here is a summary of those changes. To help you understand this - you will find the proposed bill and then in italics and bold you will find the interpretation.
NEW SB 906/HB 2458
SECTION 1.25. Section 1951.212, Occupations Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 1951.212. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS. (a) The department [board] shall establish standards for an integrated pest management program for the use of pesticides, herbicides, and other chemical agents to control pests, rodents, insects, and weeds at the school buildings and other facilities of school districts.
Here and throughout the bill the term “board” (SBCB) is struck and replaced with “department” (TDA) to make all wording in the law consistent with the Department of Agriculture’s new responsibilities (set out elsewhere).
(b) The department [board] shall use an existing advisory committee or create a new advisory committee to assist the department [board] in developing the standards for the integrated pest management program. In developing the standards, the advisory committee shall consult with a person knowledgeable in the area of integrated pest management in schools.
Note that the original advisory committee was set up in 1993 and helped write the existing school IPM regulations. The new wording does not make it clear whether TDA will reconstitute the advisory committee to look at possible changes to the regulations; but it makes this a possibility.
(c) The department [board] shall include in standards adopted under this section[:
Here is where the meat of the state law governing school IPM programs begins.
[(1)] a requirement to use the least toxic methods available to control pests, rodents, insects, and weeds[; and
[(2) a list of products that a school district is allowed to use in its applications].
(d) The department by rule shall establish categories of pesticides that a school district is allowed to apply. For each category, the department shall specify:
Elimination of section (c)(2) reflects the recommendation made last year to remove the term “list” from the law and replace it with terminology more in line with current regulations. A static list was viewed as impractical and unworkable by the original advisory committee and was replaced with the Green, Yellow, Red List concept that encouraged use of less toxic pesticides while allowing schools to use any pesticides they felt necessary to manage pest problems.
(1) the minimum distance a school district must maintain between an area where pesticides are being applied and an area where students are present at the time of application;
(2) the minimum amount of time a school district is required to wait before allowing students to enter an indoor or outdoor area in a school building or on school grounds for normal academic instruction or organized extracurricular activities after pesticides have been applied;
Sections (1) through (5) codify what already exists in the SPCB regulations and accompany (d). This is a routine and necessary change that supports the color-coding approach taken under current regulations.
(3) the requirements for posting notice of the indoor and outdoor use of pesticides;
(4) the requirements for obtaining approval before applying the pesticide; and
(5) the requirements for maintaining records of the application of pesticides [board shall require that a pesticide may be applied to a school building or on school grounds only when students are not expected to be present for normal academic instruction or organized extracurricular activities for at least 12 hours after the application].
The striking of this section concerning the 12-hour re-entry interval is very significant and allows more flexibility in determining re-entry intervals for Green, Yellow and Red category products. There will need to be modifications to the current regulations to fully comply with the new wording.
This might allow schools greater flexibility in the time between when treatments can be applied and when students may be present, but it will require participation in the rule-making process to ensure schools are happy with new re-entry intervals. There is no scientific evidence supporting a 12 hour waiting interval (the longest required waiting interval imposed by any state). This could allow adoption by TDA of either a longer or shorter waiting interval.
(e) Each [A] school district shall:
(1) adopt an integrated pest management program that incorporates the standards established by the department [board] under this section;
(2) designate an integrated pest management coordinator for the district; and
(3) report to the department not later than the 90th day after the date the district designates or replaces an integrated pest management coordinator the name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of the district's current coordinator.
Section (e)(3) fixes a problem that has existed for the SPCB since 1995 —namely, that there is currently no requirement for schools to register their IPM coordinator with the state and provide contact information. This will require schools to do a small amount of extra work (sending in the name of their IPM coordinator) but it will facilitate better record-keeping and communication among coordinators.
(f) Each person who is designated as the integrated pest management coordinator for a school district shall successfully complete six hours of continuing education in integrated pest management every three years.
Another big change in that now all IPM coordinators will be required to complete 6 hours of CEU training every three years. We supported this change to encourage IPM coordinators to remain up-to-date on IPM technologies and state rule changes affecting the IPM program.
(g) The department shall inspect each school district at least once every five years for compliance with this section and may conduct additional inspections based on a schedule of risk-based inspections using the following criteria:
(1) whether there has been a prior violation by the school district;
(2) the inspection history of the school district;
(3) any history of complaints involving the school district; and
(4) any other factor determined by the department by rule.
(g) Although the SPCB has maintained a verbal commitment to visit 20% of all districts in the state every year, this new provision improves fairness by requiring all schools to get a visit at least once every 5 years. This will make the inspection process more equitable so that the same schools are not re-inspected yearly while other school districts have never been visited by an inspector.
The new requirement says that state inspectors may visit a school district more frequently if there is just cause.
Implications and Interpretation: The most controversial part of these two bills is the elimination of the Texas Structural Pest Control Board as the regulatory agency overseeing the school IPM program. There is ongoing debate about the wisdom of this change. Arguments against elimination of the Board include: (1) the Board isn’t broken, so why eliminate it?; (2) Problems and inequities with the administration of the law will remain unless the underlying problems (e.g., low salaries, poor morale, etc.) are not corrected; (3) a large, bureaucratic department is less likely to be responsive to the concerns of schools and pest management providers than a smaller board. Arguments for the transfer of power seem to center around dissatisfaction with Board responsiveness to complaints and fairness and training of local inspectors. The Technical Resource Center does not have a position on whether the Board should be eliminated and functions transferred to TDA.
It is important to understand that the rules governing use of pesticides and requiring IPM in Texas public schools include both law (created by the Legislature) and regulations (developed by the regulatory agency). This law will almost certainly require review and changes to be made to the current school IPM regulations. Although the law makes explicit how some of these regulations will read, there are other areas (such as required re-entry intervals following pesticide use) that are “up for grabs”. New regulations could stay essentially the same, or they could get either more strict or looser.
What we do not see in this bill is any reference to funding of the school IPM program. This topic may be handled through a separate, financial appropriations bill. The current school IPM program never received addition funding for enforcement or education—two essential components of a successful regulatory program. Representative Vicki Truitt during the November Sunset Commission hearing recommended a $100,000 appropriation for educational and compliance assistance purposes to be directed to the Texas Cooperative Extension (Southwest Technical Resource Center for School IPM). This recommendation will have to be handled through a separate appropriations bill.
A timeline for transfer of functions from SPCB to TDA is discussed in another section of the bill. The bill gives the agencies approximately one year to make the transition and to shut down the SPCB office.
Comments (10)
According to what I read in the condensed version, there might be some things to be gained from doing business with TDA rather than SPCB.
What about the chance to get the tough-to-live-with "12 hours before re-entry time" rule relaxed?
What about a chance to have the chemical classifications clarified or made simpler to work with by the end users?
What about the chance to have an IPM Coordinator on the panel that establishes the rules we are governed by?
What about the chance to have an organization that truly understands IPM (used in agriculture for ages, literally) in charge of things rather than an organization built on little more than (my own personal view here) rules, fines and punishments with little or no effort to educate or assist us? Of course, having never dealt with the TDA before, I can't say firsthand that they would be better. Mike Wynn, our Grounds Supervisor, has been taking care of our exterior pest and weed control on areas like open fields, athletics fields, curb appeal areas and that sort of thing under a TDA license for the past couple of years, or so, and has had no problems in dealing with them.
Posted by Dempsy Winans | March 9, 2007 9:00 AM
Posted on March 9, 2007 09:00
BUT THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE CASE SCENERIOS BACKING HOW WELL THEY COULD OVER SEE STRUCTUAL PEST CONTROL AND IPM IN SCHOOLS PROGRAM YOU WOULD HAVE THE SAME GUY WHO INSPECTS GAS PUMPS AND CHICKEN FARMS INSPECTING OUR SCHOOLS WHATS UP WITH THAT
Posted by CLAYTIN SCHIEGG | March 9, 2007 10:30 AM
Posted on March 9, 2007 10:30
Clayton is right. TDA has no track record with structural pest control, and most of the folks down there have never dealt with structural pest control issues before. On the other hand, some (or most) of the board staff will undoubtably move over to TDA during transition. So deciding what would happen if TDA takes over boils down more to the question of size and politics. Would you rather be overseen by a large agency or a small agency? In my experience larger agencies are more prone to inertia and more difficult to change. Regarding politics, TDA historically has been more politically influenced (it has an elected commissioner) in its activities compared to the SPCB , which is more driven by the personality and administrative skills of its director. Under the political climate of the past 20 years or so, Democratic commissioners have tended to be more environmental (hence stressing environmental regulations and enforcement) and Republican commissioners more status quo and not wanting to upset business (read less likely to step in and levy big fines). Do you want this kind of wavering in enforcement of school IPM laws and regs? In my opinion, you are more likely to have it under a politically driven agency like TDA. I could be wrong, but since we're making predictions...
Posted by Anonymous | March 9, 2007 12:02 PM
Posted on March 9, 2007 12:02
There's a big difference between agricultural and structural pest control.
The Board has been around since 1927. They've regulated this industry in Texas longer than I've been alive. I'd rather see most of the changes take place, the Board remain intact, more funding for the Board, and funding for IPM education.
Our industry is one that can't be treated like plumbing or HVAC. We should be regulated by a department that knows structural pest control and that knows IPM in a structural setting.
Posted by Kelli Mays | March 9, 2007 2:19 PM
Posted on March 9, 2007 14:19
If we could get the SPCB to do the things I (and Kelli Mays) mentioned above, I would be happy to keep them. Problem is, as stated by my fellow IPM coordinators (I didn't verify the statement but am assuming it to be correct), they've been around since 1927 and they haven't changed yet... why do you think they will now?
So far, they have made very little effort to educate us or help us. They basically threw out the new rules and told school districts, "live with them or else we'll fine you up to $5,000/day/occurence." They made sure to emphasize the monetary fines and gave barely a hint as to where we could find help to avoid them. Basically, they scared the thunder out of us and made us figure things out on our own. That was the extent of the "training and guidance" I got. Was your experience different? Was I the only one that felt this way back in '95?
Now, all of a sudden I'm supposed to believe that they've (SPCB) learned their lesson and are my friend?
Am I also to believe that the SPCB is now willing to hire more educators to train/guide/lead us towards a common goal, give us some relief from the most restrictive re-entry rules in the nation, provide funding for the Technical Resource Center and be a partner with us instead of the dictator they'be been up to this point? Maybe a leopard CAN change its spots...
If you understand IPM, in ANY form, you can manage it. How is using IPM to control boll weevils on a cotton crop, or rats in a granary, different from using IPM to control cockroaches in a teachers' breakroom or rats at your Ag Science Center? You STILL have to know the biology of your prey, you STILL need to try to get rid of them by excluding them, taking away their harborage or their food sources and if you can't do that, then you STILL need to use the least poisonous, yet effective pesticide/s available to control them. The TDA may not have "case scenarios to back them up" but if they can use IPM to fight the hordes of insects and pests that attack food and forage crops, I don't think they'll have much of a problem with learning the biology of a few more "critters" to control inside schools.
In my district, I wear many hats. I am a certified welder, an IPM coordinator, a certified playground safety inspector, a signmaker, a parking lot striper, a fence builder and I am responsible for many, many other jobs. I am willing to bet that most of my fellow IPMC's are in the same boat. So, if we can do more than just "bug stuff" why couldn't a TDA inspector look at a school one day and a chicken farm the next? (Gas pump inspectors, scale weight verifiers, etc work in the Weights and Measures Division, if I remember correctly)
I still haven't heard anything other than, "TDA might be worse," as an argument against change. No one has told me, specifically, why they think TDA would be worse than the SPCB. No one has shared any "horror stories" with me about how the TDA directly wronged them, or why the TDA is to be feared. So, I'm not convinced that we would be any worse off with the TDA and, in fact, we MIGHT even be better off under their direction.
Sorry this was on the long-winded side, but it's something that I am passionate about and something that I need background information on to help me make up my mind as to which I should be lobbying for, SPCB or TDA.
Those of you that have had direct dealings with the TDA now have a chance to educate me. Is the TDA really that bad and has your experience with SPCB really been that great?
Posted by Dempsy | March 12, 2007 10:25 AM
Posted on March 12, 2007 10:25
I just wanted to interject two comments. The first is the effective date of the Structural Pest Control Board. The Board was charged with regulating structural pest control in 1972, after FIFRA was adopted by the U.S. EPA in 1971.
Also please everyone remember TDA and SPCB are regulatory agencies, like Dept. of State Health Services and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The majority of regulatory agencies are charged with regulating the industries they cover, rather than educating them. For example, TCEQ regulates water and wastewater plants; however, it is up to the Texas Engineering Extension Service and Texas Rural Water Association to offer educational training for water and wastewater operators.
Posted by Janet Hurley | March 12, 2007 10:41 AM
Posted on March 12, 2007 10:41
THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT SEEM TO HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH STRUCTUAL ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN IN TROUBLE WITH THEM.
Posted by Anonymous | March 12, 2007 2:31 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 14:31
Hmm, anonymous, and as usual, terribly misinformed finger pointers are among us. That's okay, maybe they'll learn something. This forum is not (in my mind, anyway) meant to lay blame or poke unfounded allegations at other people or even agencies, but is simply a forum to exchange ideas and to educate one another through our own personal experiences.
As for the Mansfield ISD, we have NEVER had ANY problems with Structural in regards to inspections by their investigators. We're not perfect, but we have no problems whatsoever in dealing with structural. They did scare the bejeezus out of me when the new director came into power a few years ago, but that turned out to be a good thing.
Kevin Anderson came in and went over our records with a fine-tooth comb. He told me that the new director wanted us to vacuum up fire ants and to not use pesticides of any form to control them inside the buildings. He laid out a couple of other "How in the world am I going to do that?!" sort of things and then gave me Janet Hurley's phone number and suggested I call her. I called and she came by and went over our records with me. She even went so far as to meet with my boss and explain things to him. So, in the long run, it was a good thing that Kevin scared me that day, but it sure wasn't pleasant while it was happening.
So, at least in my instance, you are wrong Ms. Anonymous. And since I appear to be the only one that thinks TDA might not be so bad, that means you are batting ZERO. Now, either find something constructive to add to the blog, or get lost.
Posted by Dempsy | March 14, 2007 2:09 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 14:09
The only thing that I would wish to happen out of this is if TDA does take over that the IPM in schools program stays the same with the changes that are in the bill even if structural stays around I think we need the changes mentioned in the bill. And to date I have never had a problem with structural, they visited my district about a month ago and things are great here no problems were found but that is just me I am a little anal when it comes to paperwork and all IPM procedures in the IPM law. I have school age children and the district they attend does not follow good IPM practices and it makes me wonder about their safety and wellbeing, I just don’t want this to happen if we lose our IPM program as we know it today, no data suggest this will happen but I guess it could. This is my only concern right now if this takes place we need our IPM in schools program. And another fear I have is I hear the testing in TDA is much easier and that is not a good thing that would mean that almost anybody could pass there test would you want just anybody using pesticides around your kids are anyone else’s kids not a good thing.
Posted by Clayton | March 15, 2007 8:03 AM
Posted on March 15, 2007 08:03
One good thing in relation to Clayton's concern, is that just because the regulatory agency might change, it doesn't mean that we will no longer be Integrated Pest Management Coordinators (IPMC's.) There is no regulation saying that you cannot be more strict in your district than the law requires. You cannot be LESS strict, but, as an exagerated example, if you want to have a 16 hour re-entry time in your district, you are certainly welcome to do so. So long as those of us running the show now are in our positions, I would hope that we would not relax our standards just because a new agency MIGHT have less strict standards than already exist. I would also hope that our district administrators would want the same level, or greater, protection for their students as they have now. As for my district, I can't see them telling me to be less vigilant, or to use more pesticides so I am not personally worried that we will be "dousing the place" with insecticides. We will continue to use IPM because it works and makes sense.
I, too, have a "perfectionist" attitude towards record-keeping and compliance. I don't intend to change that attitude, as I know you won't, if the regulatory agency that oversees my operations should change. I will use the best of what I have learned from my past experience and hope that maybe they could show me a new trick, or two, that might make things even better than they were before. I know... I may sound a bit like a dreamer, but it doesn't cost a penny to dream. :) I am a positive person and choose not to look at the upcoming (apparent) changes as something to worry about or fear. Until they prove me wrong, I intend to give the new agency (if the change comes to pass) the benefit of the doubt when it comes to whether they'll be better, or worse, than the old one.
I have enjoyed this forum and hope I haven't alienated my fellow IPMC's by voicing my displeasure with the SPCB. I have no problem working with them, but I won't be crying in my beer if they go away, either.
Posted by Dempsy | April 13, 2007 8:57 AM
Posted on April 13, 2007 08:57