tag:agrilifeblogs.tamu.edu,2009:/mt/sipm//41 2007-03-21T16:22:44Z School IPM Programs Movable Type 4.23-en tag:tceblogs.tamu.edu,2007:/mt/sipm//41.1047 2007-03-21T16:21:13Z 2007-03-21T16:22:44Z

On March 20, 2007 the Texas House Agriculture and Livestock Committee held a public hearing on HB 2458 -relating to the licensing and regulations of structural pest control by the Department of Agriculture and the abolition of the Texas Structural...

Janet Hurley On March 20, 2007 the Texas House Agriculture and Livestock Committee held a public hearing on HB 2458 -relating to the licensing and regulations of structural pest control by the Department of Agriculture and the abolition of the Texas Structural Pest Control Board. The Ag & Livestock Committee heard testimony from 26 citizens, the majority of which were from the pest control industry. The majority of the speakers were against the bill and there was much discussion from the Committee and the public about how this Bill would affect the pest control industry. After two hours of testimony, Chairman Sid Miller called a recess as all Representatives were called to the House floor for a vote. The committee reconvened at 1:00 pm, where the Chair called for a vote of this bill to be sent back to the House floor. The vote was 4 to 1 to send the bill back to the house without any changes. What this means is that the Bill stands as it is written. The companion Senate bill is still in committee and as of today it has not been scheduled for a hearing. If both bills pass the House and Senate, changes in structural pest control will be finalized by September 1, 2008. Whereby, TDA will assume all pest control responsibilities and the Structural Pest Control Board will no longer be a state agency. tag:tceblogs.tamu.edu,2007:/mt/sipm//41.1035 2007-03-09T14:43:35Z 2007-03-09T14:55:50Z

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...

Janet Hurley 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. ]]> tag:tceblogs.tamu.edu,2007:/mt/sipm//41.1031 2007-03-02T17:27:32Z 2007-03-02T19:46:29Z

Although certification is not required for IPM Coordinators in Texas and other states, it's an option that many are choosing. Certification is a decision that must be based on your own circumstances. A certified applicator (CA) is someone who is...

Janet Hurley Although certification is not required for IPM Coordinators in Texas and other states, it's an option that many are choosing. Certification is a decision that must be based on your own circumstances. A certified applicator (CA) is someone who is licensed by the state to apply pesticides. In Texas, only certified applicators and licensed technicians can conduct pest control services on school and childcare facilities. In Texas, a school district or childcare employee can be licensed as a non-commercial applicator, a less expensive option. A non-commercial applicators license does not require a business license, but does require training. As a CA, you may engage in pest control treatments, such as fire ant baiting, herbicide application, and much more. Another benefit of being licensed is that through your training and recertification requirements, you gain a better knowledge about the details of pest control. You might even save your district money by performing some of the simpler procedures such as monitoring with glue boards. There are, however, additional costs to being certified, including license fees and the time associated with testing and preparing for exams. In addition, as a CA there are yearly fees and training requirements to keep your renewal credits up to date. Most districts we talk to have concluded that having at least one CA on staff is a benefit. The next major decision concerns what agency to license with. In Texas, outdoor applicators can license with Texas Department of Agriculture or the Structural Pest Control Board. Those who want to put out glue boards or indoor pesticides must be licensed with the SPCB. For a new applicator, it is recommended that you take an 8-hour pesticide applicator training class to learn the basics. For more information about the training classes or obtaining the study materials, you can contact 979-845-3849 for more information. tag:tceblogs.tamu.edu,2007:/mt/sipm//41.1030 2007-03-02T17:25:23Z 2007-03-02T17:26:08Z

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) require that all pesticides, with very limited exceptions, be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before they can legally be sold or used in the United States. However, in 1996,...

Janet Hurley The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) require that all pesticides, with very limited exceptions, be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before they can legally be sold or used in the United States. However, in 1996, the EPA Administrator exercised her authority to exempt certain pesticides (considered to pose ‘minimum risk’ to humans and the environment) from this requirement. In an effort to reduce costs and regulatory burdens on businesses, the EPA exempted a list of so-called 25(b) products as part of an effort to help the Agency focus its limited resources on higher risk pesticides. Products identified as exempt under Section 25(b) do not require EPA label approval and do not undergo review by Agency They also are not required to have an EPA registration or establishment number, signal word, or personal protective equipment (PPE) statements. Pesticide Registration Notice 2000-6 states, “EPA does not review, or issue notices of exemption for products which meet the conditions for exemption.” Section 25(b) pesticides are required to have a tolerance established if they are intended for use in or on foods, food crops, food contact surfaces, or animal feeds, unless they are exempt from a tolerance under other regulations. The 25(b) exemption is not without its critics. Regulators and Extension educators are frequently uncomfortable with the lack of safety testing and the confusion caused by 25(b) exemptions. Because states are not required to automatically exempt 25(b) products, the situation varies from state to state. Texas, for example, exempts 25(b) products from registration. However, Oklahoma does not recognize 25(b) exemptions and requires that these products be registered yearly like all other pesticides. One of the biggest headaches for regulators occurs when sales representatives claim that their 25(b) products are ‘safe’ and legal for anyone to use, including school employees. Safety issues aside, not all states allow 25(b) pesticides to be used by non-licensed applicators in schools. The application of 25(b) products are a non-issue in New Mexico and Oklahoma; however, because anyone can apply non-restricted use products. Texas, for example, requires ALL pesticide applications, including 25(b) applications, be performed by a licensed applicator. As with all pesticides the Southwest Technical Resource Center recommends you use caution, understand all the risks involved and ALWAYS read the label. Exempt 25(b) products can be a great solution to a pest problem, when the problem is minimal and isolated. To obtain a full list of active and inactive ingredients, follow the link to the EPA web site for a full article about 25(b) products. www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr2000-6.pdf We have received several calls about EcoExempt products. These products are generally classified as Green List for Texas, and still must be applied by a certified applicator. To learn more about their products you can obtain information at www.ecopco.com. tag:tceblogs.tamu.edu,2007:/mt/sipm//41.1028 2007-03-02T14:29:24Z 2007-03-02T20:02:42Z

For IPM Coordinators, administrators and pest control applicators one of the most confusing aspects of the Texas school IPM regulations is the terminology used in pesticide classification. Under Section 595.11, the term used is Green list, Yellow list, and Red...

Janet Hurley For IPM Coordinators, administrators and pest control applicators one of the most confusing aspects of the Texas school IPM regulations is the terminology used in pesticide classification. Under Section 595.11, the term used is Green list, Yellow list, and Red list products. For most people when they see the word list, they assume that there is a list out there for them to find which products fall under the green, yellow, or red category. You can stop your searching. Currently there is no official list of green, yellow, or red list products. However, there are classifications under the green category that you can use to determine if a product is green or not. Under Section 595.11 (h) (1) Green List Products. All products must be one of the following: inorganic pesticides (i.e., boric acid, disodium octoborate tetrahydrate, silica gels, diatomaceous earth); insect growth regulators; insect and rodent baits in tamper-resistant containers or for crack and crevice placement only; microbe-based insecticides; botanical insecticides (not including synthetic pyrethroids) containing not more than 5.0% synergists; biological (living) control agents, pesticidal soap and natural and synthetic horticultural oils. The preceding description gives you a general guideline as to what is acceptable Green product based on the products active ingredient. The majority of these products carry a Caution Signal word; however, occasionally some of the botanicals carry a Warning signal word due to concentration levels. The main difference between Green products and Yellow and Red List Products is the active ingredients and the signal words. Yellow products are generally synthetic and carry a signal word of Caution. Red List Products carry a Warning or Danger signal word. Under the current regulations, most herbicides fall under the Yellow or Red List category.