Local Ordinances

Following the regulatory process along its winding road, even at the local level, can be a time-consuming chore. After all, who has the time to monitor every city council meeting or spend time watching C-SPAN to see what the House of Representatives debated that day? It is not an easy task, but one that must be addressed if pest control professionals hope to establish fair, common-sense regulations.

No one is asking PCOs to be able to recite provisions of the House Agriculture subcommittee's amendment to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), but instead to ask questions and stay current with the legislative trends impacting their jobs.

In 1996 the pest control industry revisits legislative issues it has become all too familiar with: the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act; securing an exemption from Department of Transportation regulations relating to the Hazardous materials Act; and the status of methyl bromide.

To provide PCOs with a flavor for what the industry's 1996 legislative agenda looks like, we've broken down the issues and let you know where the industry stands on them.

FIFRA. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is the federal law which governs the manufacture, distribution and use of pesticides. It was last amended in 1988, and the industry is seeking several amendments to FIFRA that would benefit technicians and the industry as a whole. Among the FIFRA changes the industry is seeking are the following:

• Commercial applicators of any pesticide should be subject to federal and state regulation.
• Technicians employed by companies that apply pesticides should be required to undergo mandatory verifiable training.
• In-house pesticide applicators should be required to undergo mandatory verifiable training.
• The authority to regulate pesticides should be exclusively granted to the federal and state governments.
• Innovative solutions need to be developed for addressing the problem of reregistering minor-use pesticides, particularly those with public health applications.
• The Delaney Clause in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act should be replaced with a flexible modern negligible risk standard.

"Inclusion of the industry support amendments into the FIFRA reauthorization would benefit the industry in three ways," said Rob Rosenberg, director of government affairs for the National Pest Control Association. "The adoption of training standards in states not already having a system in place and having in-house applicators undergo the same training would be a benefit because it would put everyone on a level playing field in terms of proper training.

"Second, it would deny local government the right to enact special pesticide legislation on top of existing federal and state laws. PCOs and their technicians would no longer have to memorize numerous regulations and be able to use their full arsenal of pest management methods.

"Finally, rewriting the Delaney Clause on pesticide tolerances would keep some of the products technicians currently use on the market. If the Delaney Clause isn't updated, the industry will lose products like DDVP which PCOs and their customers currently depend on."

However, with the current debate over the budget and the November elections looming, Congress is unlikely to send a FIFRA bill down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. This doesn't mean Congress has stopped dealing with the issue because the House Agriculture Committee recently passed out of committee the FIFRA bill containing the NPCA's training and pre-emption language.

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. The Endangered Species Act is the law governing the protection of endangered and threatened wildlife species. Based on 1988 amendments, it was determined that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would determine whether pesticides threaten the existence of endangered and threatened species.

"Failure to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act would have a localized but direct impact on technicians working in certain regions of the country, especially those involved with rodent control work," said Rosenberg. "If current laws stay in place, the use of rodenticides would be banned outright in some instances."

This provision allows the EPA to prohibit and severely restrict technicians from using pesticides in areas where endangered species are thought to be located. In reality, this means in certain situations a PCO would not be allowed to use a rodenticide to control an infestation at a restaurant of food-processing facility located within a "critical habitat." Any technician familiar with rodents and food realizes that restricting the use of rodenticides in these situations could lead to disastrous consequences.

Technicians in Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii and Utah are most likely to be impacted by restrictions like these, and the EPA has announced its intention to go ahead with the program this year.

"In other cases the use of rodenticides on the exterior of accounts would be severely limited," said Rosenberg. "It is very important for PCOs to have flexibility in their treatment programs and have all the necessary tools available to them. Inclusion of the NPCA's proposed language would give PCOs the flexibility they need.

The industry has proposed language in H.R. 2275 that would allow technicians flexibility when working in "critical habitat" areas. The revisions would prohibit the EPA from banning certified applicators from using pesticides around commercial facilities, such as food warehouses, grocery stores, feed lots, restaurants and shopping malls.

The proposed bill was approved by the House Committee on Resources last fall and is currently awaiting review by the House Agriculture Committee.

DOT REGULATIONS. In Pest Control Technology's coverage of Legislative Day last month ("Changing DOT Regs Are Focus Of Legislative Day," April, page 20), it was reported that the industry is seeking support of H.R. 3153, which would provide an exemption from DOT regulations, specifically from having to complete complex shipping papers, container marking and undergoing mandated DOT training. (For further coverage of this legislative initiative, see "Lightening the Load" in May PCT.)

The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), owner of Albo Pest Control in Houston, Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.) and nearly 50 other congressmen, would exempt small commercial vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or less unless the vehicle is transporting a material that requires placarding, such as a fumigant.

Most pest control service vehicles fall into this category, and having technicians complete detailed shipping papers on a daily basis with information commonly found on product labels and MSDSs is redundant, according to industry officials.

"In terms of having an immediate impact on a PCO's daily activities, the bill seeking an exemption from DOT regulations would be the most significant," said Rosenberg. "Complying with DOT regulations is a big part of every technician's job, and H. R. 3153, if passed, would certainly lessen the administrative burden for almost every PCO."

The cost associated with compliance of current DOT regulations is another significant issue with the industry. An estimated $135 million is spent each year by pest control companies to comply with these regulations. To put that figure in perspective, the costs of compliance makes up 3% of the industry's gross revenue.

METHYL BROMIDE. Under provisions of the 1992 U.S. Clean Air Act, the production and importation of methyl bromide was frozen at 1991 levels, and an eventual phaseout of the product was ordered by January 1, 2001. Methyl bromide is used extensively by the pest control industry in protecting the country's food supply from pest and rodent infestation.

While the industry supports the protection of the ozone layer and the environment, it also needs to take into account the welfare of its customers, especially when it comes to protecting food supplies. At this time there are no safe and viable alternative products to replace methyl bromide, and without it or an acceptable substitute, these important pest control services can't be performed.

As a result, the pest control industry is supporting H.R. 2230, which would amend the U.S. Clean Air Act to permit industry professionals to continue to use methyl bromide until the Department of Agriculture certifies on a use-by-use basis that viable, cost-effective alternatives are commercially available, or other nations agree to end their use of methyl bromide at the same time.

"For PCOs using methyl bromide in fumigation jobs, passage of this bill is critical if they hope to continue using the product," said Rosenberg. "As it stands now, as of January 1, 2001, methyl bromide will be gone, and with no suitable option available, the industry will lose a valuable tool to treat for pests such as drywood termites and stored product pests."

 Jeff Fenner is senior editor of Pest Control Technology magazine.