Regulating The Future

There have been many discussions in this column about the regulatory climate surrounding our industry. The various agencies that influence our work and the way we run our businesses are well-established and show little sign of relinquishing any of their authority.

The preponderance of regulations is sometimes mind-boggling. Place on top of this the ongoing investigation by the FTC and the looming of the FQPA. Well, there is a way to keep up on all this. Certainly the NPCA does much to notify its members and the industry about important happenings. Numerous articles have been written concerning regulations. And there is the web.

ASPCRO ACTIVITIES. The main subject of this column, though, is the organization known as the Association of Structural Pest Control Officials (ASPCRO). This group of state regulatory representatives has made great strides over the last several years. Their annual meeting, held each August, is usually chock-full of things that influence their operations and ours. This year was no exception. The agenda included a FTC update, a discussion of EPA’s ongoing examination of data and pesticide exposure, consumer protection trends, FQPA, and, of course, termite control.

As you sit and listen to this information and discussions, you have to wonder why every state association is not represented at the ASPCRO meeting. It is an important meeting and gives everyone attending a chance to see some of the directions the various states are going in some critical areas, including IPM in schools, exposure questions, and technician training. This meeting is also a place where listening is very important. For instance, the hot topic is still termite baits. The agenda of the business meeting demonstrated this because a new committee has been appointed to come up with a set of model codes for regulating termite baits. This coupled with a soon-to-be-released EPA pesticide regulatory notice on termite baits has some interesting and maybe ominous tones for the industry.

The PR notice is to be essentially a retroactive data call-in for any termite bait on the market, and a data protocol of sorts for any new bait coming into the market. Its intent is to delineate what data is needed and the parameters of such things as geographical distribution of the data, as well as the number of sites treated. This will be a very interesting document when released. One state has already initiated its bait assessment program. Louisiana has instituted a pilot program for the use of baits in their state. This is a preliminary allowance for the use of the bait while data is collected. Registrations could be based on this type of information gathering. It will affect all baits, professional products and homeowner products. This PR notice has been a collaborative effort between NPCA, RISE, ASPCRO and the manufacturers, as well as the EPA.

TERMITE TREATMENT STANDARDS. The next item is the development of standards for termite treatment. This document released at the meeting is quite a mixture of information. In my estimation there will be changes. This document has been in the works for some time, in fact years, and with the issuance of the PR 96-7 notice for termiticide label changes, there are questions as to why certain wordings are included in the document being considered by ASPCRO. You can view the document by going online and viewing their web page, located at www.aspcro.org.

There are some interesting clarifications in this document that go a little further in explaining some of the label directions currently on the termiticides. For instance, the current “new” labels state that in post-construction treatment, the pest control professional must trench, or trench and rod from the trench when treating the exterior soil around a structure. However, in this document there is wording that allows PCOs to rod if trenching is “difficult” or impossible. Hey, this is just some common sense being used, but the current labels do not have this wording. Obviously there will be some “new” labels later explaining this. In another section, the document implies that when performing pre-treats, if you cannot or do not have the opportunity to treat the footing area prior to the footing being poured, then you have to treat the block or masonry. This is an interesting statement because all the current labels indicate that the foundation block treatment is optional on pre-construction treatment. As you can see, there are always things cropping up that need interpretation.

In these and other areas, ASPCRO has grown to be a fairly powerful organization. These regulators are intimately involved in our daily operations. In addition, the discussions between different state representatives may lead to individual states enacting legislation or rule changes. As we head into the winter months, take some time to review some information on the ASPCRO page and maybe do a little surfing on the EPA and FQPA web pages. Keep in touch and do not take anything for granted.

George Rambo is president of George Rambo Consulting Services, Herndon, Va.