Sunset review of the Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission

              ARIZONA STATE SENATE
RESEARCH STAFF
LEAH BIRK
LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH ANALYST
TO: JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE COMMERCE & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Senator Robert Blendu, Chair Teleohone: ( 602) 926- 3 17 I
DATE: November 29,2007
SUBJECT: Sunset Review of the Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Attached is the final report of the sunset review of the Arizona Structural Pest Control
Commission, which was conducted by the Senate Commerce and Economic Development and House of
Representatives Commerce Committee of Reference.
This report has been distributed to the following individuals and agencies:
Governor of the State of Arizona
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
President of the Senate
Senator Timothy Bee
Senate Members
Senator Barbara Leff, Cochair
Senator Ken Cheuvront
Senator Pamela Gonnan
Senator Richard Miranda
Senator Jay Tibshraeny
Miscellaneous
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Office of the Auditor General
Arizona State Library, Archives & Public Records
Senate Majority Staff
Senate Research Staff
Senate Democratic Staff
Senate Resource Center
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Representative James P. Weiers
House Members
Representative Rich Crandall, Cochair
Representative Kirk Adams
Representative Mark DeSimone
Representative Robert Meza
Representative Michelle Reagan
House Majority Staff
House Research Staff
House Democratic Staff
Chief Clerk
LBIjas
Attachment
Senate Commerce and Economic Development and
House of Representatives Commerce
Committee of Reference Report
ARIZONA STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL COMMISSION
Background
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee assigned the sunset review ofthe Structural Pest Control
Commission ( SPCC) to the Senate Commerce and Economic Development and House of
Representatives Commerce Committee of Reference ( COR). Pursuant to A. R. S. § 41- 295 1 et seq., the
Office of the Auditor General ( OAG) completed a performance audit.
The SPCC was established in 1988 to protect the public from chemical hann and from the harm
caused by inadequate or improper structural pest control. Structural pest control includes controlling
public health pests, aquatic pests, household pests, wood- destroying insects, fungi and weeds. SPCC's
mission is to advocate and promote, through education, training and enforcement, the safe application of
pest control technologies, which will result in the maximization of the health and safety of Arizona's
residents and the protection of their property and the environment.
To fulfill its mission, the SPCC: 1) licenses pest control businesses, applicators and qualifying
parties; 2) conducts investigations and hearings concerning potential violations of statute or
administrative rule; 3) disciplines licensees that have committed violations; and 4) inspects pest control
companies to protect the public from improper pest control. By performing these duties, the SPCC also
meets its responsibility under the provisions of the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act,
which grants states the primary responsibility for enforcing pesticide regulation. In addition, statute
requires a pest control company, each time it inspects or treats a structure for termites, to submit a
Termite Action Registration Form to the SPCC within 30 days. The SPCC maintains the information in
a database that is made available to the public upon request.
The Commission is comprised of seven members, of which three are industry members with at
least five years of structural pest control experience, three are public members who have had no
involvement with the industry for at least five years, and one has at least a baccalaureate degree and is
an entomologist, plant pathologist, toxicologist, medical doctor, osteopathic doctor or individual with a
public health or occupational health degree. The Governor appoints all seven members for no more
than two consecutive three- year terms.
The Commissioners appoint an Executive Director to oversee the SPCC's day- to- day operations.
In FY 2005- 2006, the SPCC's total revenue was approximately $ 3.4 million and the SPCC Fund
( Fund), which contains revenues derived principally from licensing fees and charges for services, had
approximately $ 3.2 million at the end of the fiscal year. The SPCC deposits 90 percent of its fees into
the Fund and remits the remaining 10 percent to the state General Fund. In FY 2005- 2006, the SPCC
remitted $ 423,588 to the state General Fund.
A. R. S. tj 41- 3008.07 stipulates the SPCC is to terminate on July 1, 2008.
COR Sunset Review Procedures
The COR held one public hearing on Tuesday, October 30, 2007, to review the performance
audit prepared by the OAG and to receive public testimony. Presentations were given by the OAG and
by the SPCC.
The presentation given by the OAG summarized the findings and recommendations of the
Auditor General as follows:
Finding 1: Commission should improve inquiry and complaint processing.
Recommendations:
1. Establish internal time frames.
2. Ensure that complaints are processed within 180 days.
3. Monitor the progress of investigations.
4. Ensure the SPCC has sufficient staff.
5. Establish and implement policies regarding: violations that staff can handle; the
definition of willful and repeated violations; and documention of staff and licensee
actions.
Finding 2: Commission needs to better monitor inspections.
Recommendations:
1 . Fully implement the revised inspection plan.
2. Better monitor inspection activity by following the procedures implemented in
January and generating and reviewing monthly inspection reports.
3. Finalize the revision to the inspection manual.
4. Implement revised inspection forms.
5. Train staff on revised materials.
Finding 3: Commission should further improve its information management systems.
Recommendations:
1 . Continue with improvement efforts.
2. Develop needed management reporting capabilities.
3. Ensure the accuracy of information in SPCC databases.
4. Make complaint history information available to the public on the SPCC website.
In response to the presentation by the OAG, Jack Root, Interim Executive Director ofthe SPCC,
provided information regarding the SPCC and answered questions posed by the COR. He reported that
the SPCC staff agreed with the audit and that many of the recommendations had already been
implemented.
In addition, the COR heard testimony from several members of the structural pest control
industry and from the Institute for Justice. The opinion of those who testified was divided regarding
whether the SPCC should be continued.
COR Recommendations
The COR recommends that the Structural Pest Control Commission be terminated and that any
related statutes be repealed by bill, if necessary.
1. Meeting notice
2. Memo to COR members regarding sunset process
3. Minutes of COR hearing
4. Auditor General Report Highlights, August 2007, Report No. 07- 05
Format Document
REVISED
Page 1 of 2
Attachment 1
REVISED REVISED
Interim agendas can be obtained via the Internet at http: llwww. azleg. state. az. usllnterimCommittees. asp
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
INTERIM MEETING NOTICE
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE
OF REFERENCE
Date: Tuesday, October 30,2007
Time: 2: 30 P. M.
Place: SHR 109 ( Note Room Change)
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Opening Remarks
3. Sunset Review of Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Presentation by Auditor General
Response by Structural Pest Control Commission
Public Testimony
( No more than 3 minutes per speaker)
Discussion
Recommendations by the Committee of Reference
4. Adjourn
Members:
Senator Barbara Leff, Co- Chair
Senator Ken Cheuvront
Senator Pamela Gorman
Senator Richard Miranda
Senator Jay Tibshraeny
Representative Rich Crandall, Co- Chair
Representative Mark DeSimone
Representative John McComish
Representative Robert Meza
Representative Michele Reagan
Format Document Page 2 of 2
Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation such as a sign language interpreter, by contacting the
Senate Secretary's Office: ( 602) 926- 4231 ( voice). Requests should be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation.
Attachment 2
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
RESEARCH STAFF
' 0 : MEMBERS OF THE SENATE COMMERCE & LEAI- 1 BIRK
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND I- IOUSE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH ANALYST
COMMEItCE & ECONOMIC
COMMERCE COMMI'TTEE OF REFERENCE DEvI: LoPMEN- rcoMM1. r1‘ El:
DATE: October 25,2007
SUBJECT: Sunset Review - Arizona Structural Pest Control Coniniission
I'ublic Hearing - October 30, 2007, at 2: 30 p. m. in SHR 109
The Arizona Structural I'est Control Commission ( SPCC) is scheduled to sunset July 1,2008.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee ( JLAC) assigned the sunset review to the Corn~ nittee oi'
Reference ( COR) comprised of members of tlie Senate Commerce and Econornic Development
Coliimittee and the 1- louse of Representalives Commerce Committee. JLAC also directed the Auditor
Gcncral ( OAG) to conduct a perfor~ iiancea udit ofthe SPCC. ' The COIi will hold a public hearing on
October 30,2007, lo review the perlbrniance audit and sunset f'actors, to hear public testiliiony and to
adopt recoliiniendations.
The following is an explanation ofthe sunset review process, the items contained i ~ tihi s packet
and recent activities at the SPCC.
Sunset Factors
Section 41 - 2954, Arizona Revised Statutes, requires the COR to consider certain factors in
deciding whether to recommend continuance, modification or termination of an agency, board or
commission. Twelve of these factors are addressed in the performance audit. The agency is required to
submit to the COIi responses regarding four additional sunset factors ( Attachment A). Please note the
l'ollowing:
Altliougli tlie SPCC is required to provide to the COR answers to only 4 additional sunset
factors, it also provided answers to the other 12 sunset factors. All submitted responses are
included in Attachment A.
On 9/ 21/ 07, SPCC revised its answer to the lirst of the four additional sunset factors and
resubmitted tlie answers to all Sour additional sunset factors. The revised subniission is
included in Attachment A.
The SPCC submitted its most recent Lieensing/ Enforcemcnt Annual Report to the U. S.
EPA, tlie State Strategic Plan and the Licensing l'imeframe Compliance Report ( Attachmcnt
B).
Input from Interested Parties
As part of the sunset review process, the COR seeks public input by requesting written
comments liom interested parties who arc direclly impacted by the performance of the state agency,
board or coniniission that is ~ ~ n d ererv iew. The COR received written comments from several
MEMORANDUM
October 25,2007
Page 2
individuals and groups. All werc unanimous in their belief that the SPCC should be continued, while
some suggested the need for statutory and procedural modifications.
Attached are copies of the specific comments and recommendations as submitted by the
intcrested parties ( Attachment C). These documents will be part ofthe permanent record, as well as an
attachment to the minutes of the official COR meeting. Interested parties that submitted written
comments include:
Michael Katz, President, Western Exterminator Conlpany
Norman Goldenberg, Senior Vice President, Terminix
Ken Frederick, President, Arizona I'cst Professional Organization
Association of Structural Pest Control liegulatory Oflicials
Dan Sleezer, General Manager, S. O. S. Extcr~ ninating
Jay Ryan, Attorney at Law.
Recent Action Taken by the SPCC
011 October 19,2007, the SPCC held a public meeting to conduct a performance review ol'the
Executive Director, Lisa Gervasc, and to take possible action regarding the Executive Director's salary
andlor continued employment. By a vote of four ayes, two nays and one not voting, thc co~ nlnissioncrs
voted to terminate thc cmploymcnt of the 13xecutive Dircctor. The chairwoman, Commissioner
Runbeck, as opposed to voting, rcsigncd from the SPCC. This was followed by the resignations of
Commissioner Black and Commissioner DeVere, both of whom had voted against the Executive
Director's termination. As a result, the seven- pcrson con~ n~ issiohnas three vacancies.
At an October 23, 2007, public meeting, the con~ missionersv oted to appoint Michael Francis,
the Director of Compliance and Enforcement, as Acting Interim Executive Director and dctcrmined a
PI- ocess for locating an Interim Executive Director who will serve while the scarch for a permanent
Executive Director is conducted.
Please let me know if you need additional assistance.
ATTACHMENT A
& . ' Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
Arizona State Senate
Commerce and Economic Development Committee
Arizona House of Representatives
Commerce Committee
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Pursuant To Title 41, Chapter 27
Arizona Revised Statutes
Of The
ARIZONA STRUCTURAL PEST
CONTROL COMMISSION
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
ARIZONA STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL COMMISSION
SUNSET FACTORS
2007
Factor 1: The objective and purpose in establishing the Commission ( SPCC).
, The SPCC is responsible for protecting the public from chemical harm and harm resulting
from inadequate or improper use, storage and disposal of pesticides, and inadequate
inspectionlidentification of pests, under Arizona laws and rules. The SPCC also has primary
responsibility for enforcing pesticide regulation in Arizona, under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. It meets these responsibilities by, among other things:
. Licensing, educating and regulating persons who provide pest management services.
. Conducting compliance inspections of pest management offices and vehicles, and
pesticide use inspections.
. Setting standards of pest management services, providing pre- license examination
training and post- license continuing education classes, investigating inquiries and
complaints, and for remedying violations.
Factor 2: The effectiveness with which the Commission has met its objective and purpose
and the efficiency with which the Commission has operated.
b The SPCC updated overall licensing and enforcement operations by:
. Completing the processing of about 950 complaints that had been opened between
1989- 2002.
. The SPCC collected over $ 100,000 in old civil penalties and is seeking collection
of about $ 150,000 remaining in old civil penalties ( 100% is transmitted to the
state general fund).
. Implementing substantial law changes that became effective in 2003.
. Amending 14 year- old rules.
. Instituting increased electronic capabilities, including:
. Computer- based licensing examinations
= On- line license renewals
- On- line C. E. reporting
. Launching a new web site
Creating paperless monthly meetings
. An online system for licensees to update contact information and print licenses
and renewal forms.
. Reviewing, organizing, data- entering and purging hundreds of outdated files.
. Creating an organized, streamlined filing system.
. The SPCC instituted efficient procedures and forms to process license applications for the
three licenses it issues. Each license may be issued in up to eight different categories of pest
management, including general pest and public health, wood- destroying insect control, weed and
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
right- of- way, fumigation, turf and ornamental, fungi inspection, wood- destroying insect
inspection, and aquatic. It also issues temporary qualifying party licenses, branch office
registrations, and continuing education provider course approval.
* The SPCC processes license applications within required time frames. There are about
7,604 Licensed Applicators, 1,303 Licensed Qualifying Parties ( managers), 1,083
Licensed Businesses, 155 Branch Offices, and 150 Approved C. E. providers - a 60%
increase of licensees over ten years.
@ The SPCC instituted an efficient process for obtaining Commission review and
approval of all license applications, including applicator license applications that
previously had been approved by SPCC staff. It is anticipated that a law change will be
sought to return the responsibility for applicator license approval to SPCC staff.
, The SPCC handles its disciplinary actions consistently and appropriately, by using an
enforcement action matrix and considering discipline imposed in prior similar matters when
determining appropriate discipline in current cases.
b The SPCC closely monitors compliance with Commission orders to ensure that licensees meet
the required stipulations and retains evidence of compliance.
b The SPCC has established procedures for licensees who provide termite related services to file
Tennite Action Report Forms ( TARFs). The TARF database provides information to consumers
and others about termite control services and termite activity at homes.
b The SPCC has improved inquiry and complaint processing by:
@ Establishing written procedures and database reporting capabilities to better track and
meet timeframes for completing investigations and complaints.
Creating a list of violations that SPCC staff can address with a Corrective Work Order
as an Inquiry Investigation versus those that should be addressed by the Commission as a
Complaint.
@ Ensuring that the action taken by SPCC staff to remedy violations is documented and a
record of the Inquiry retained.
. Inspections are conducted at licensed offices, of pest control vehicles, and of the use of
pesticides. Office inspections include reviewing licenses, pest control treatment records,
pesticide labels and storage. Vehicle inspections include reviewing labels, pesticide storage, and
safety equipment. Use inspections are conducted at federal facilities, schools, healthcare
facilities, food handling establishments, childcare facilities, and involve both general- use
pesticides and restricted- use pesticides. The inspections ensure compliance with laws, rules,
pesticides labels, pesticide handling, storage, mixing, disposal and application. The SPCC has
improved monitoring of inspections by:
@ Establishing written procedures and inspection goals to better inform each inspector of
their required tasks, priorities, and deadlines.
* Updating database reporting capabilities to better monitor inspection progress.
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
* Amending inspection forms to ensure complete and consistent inspections.
* Creating written data- entry procedures to timely and accurately capture inspection data.
b To improve access to information, the SPCC has:
* Established priorities for I. T. projects.
* Created written data entry instructions and limited SPCC staff who perform data entry
tasks.
* Updated databases to generate management reports to track information.
* Begun the search and hiring process for an additional I. T. staff member.
@ Been researching options to outsource data hosting.
* Updated its new Web site to allow the public to obtain complaint history information
via the Internet, for complaints adjudicated from January 2000 to the present.
* Committed to creating a new inquiry and complaint- tracking database and integrating
its databases.
Factor 3: The extent to which the Commission has operated within the public interest.
b Licensing pest management professionals ensures they possess the minimum knowledge and
skills to properly perform pest management services.
b The continuing education courses provide updated information to licensees about laws, rules,
procedures and technical aspects of pest management to help them maintain current competence
to properly perform pest management services.
, Through its Web site, the SPCC provides all of the information and resources that the public
and the pest management industry need about the agency, its functions, and pest management
services.
@ As of July 3 1, 2007, this information includes complaint history of licensees from 2000
to the present, by retrieving meeting minutes for the specific licensee desired. This
search method will be more streamlined after the SPCC creates a new complaint- tracking
database.
Factor 4: The extent to which rules the Commission adopted are consistent with the
legislative mandate.
b The SPCC has adopted all rules required under its statutes.
b After many attempts to amend its rules that were 14 or more years old, the SPCC created a
first draft of new rules in January 2005 and persevered until the rules were adopted in April
2007.
* Minor changes to these new rules have come to light, from SPCC staff and the pest
management industry, over the past few months while implementing the rules. This is
not surprising, given the magnitude of the recent rule promulgation project. The SPCC
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
opened a new rulemaking docket in May 2007, and anticipates completing changes after
the 2008 Legislative Session.
Factor 5: The extent to which the Commission has encouraged input from the public
before adopting its rules and the extent to which it has informed the public as to its actions
and their expected impact on the public.
b The SPCC submitted a rule package to the Governor's Regulatory Review Council ( GRRC) in
November 2006, which were approved by GRRC and became effective in April 2007.
b The SPCC took several steps to inform and involve the public and stakeholders in the process,
in addition to the legally required notices of monthly public Commission meetings and the
notices to the Secretary of State for posting in the Arizona Administrative Register. These steps
included:
. February 2003: new Executive Director began attending industry meetings for input,
and sought input from Commissioners and Staff.
. October 2003, October 2004, August 2005, October 2006: mailed notices to industry
members.
. October 2003- November 2006: posted monthly meeting agendas and notices, including
discussion of rule changes, on the SPCC Web site.
. January 2005: began posting outline of rules discussion on Web site. First draft of rule
changes was circulated.
. January 2005- July 2006: sent e- mails to stakeholders about rule changes and
stakeholder meetings.
. June 2005: began placing rule drafts on Web site.
. December 2005: Cross- Reference sheet that compared existing rules with proposed new
rules was posted on the Web site with the draft of rules.
. December 2005 - July 2006: held 8 rules stakeholder meetings. Discontinued meetings
when no one attended.
. July 25,2006 and August 1,2006: held two days of Informal Public Comment Hearings
( in addition to discussion at several regular monthly Commission meetings).
Commission received and considered industry association's written comments, written
comments from two licensed businesses, and verbal comments.
. July 31, 2006: Industry association sent an e- mail to industry members that the SPCC
wanted to hear from them.
. September 8,2006: Commission's monthly public meeting notice announced the rules
scheduled for the GRRC meeting agenda.
. November 2006: Commission's Formal Public Comment Hearing.
Factor 6: The extent to which the Commission has been able to investigate and resolve
complaints within its jurisdiction.
b The SPCC has sufficient authority to investigate and adjudicate complaints.
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
. An investigation begins as an " inquiry" or " complaint", depending on the information
that the SPCC has at the time of opening an investigation.
. An inquiry is a threshold level investigation that is limited in scope and
completed in less time than a complaint investigation. Afterward, the SPCC can
close the inquiry if there is no violation or if the matter is not within the SPCC's
jurisdiction. If there is a minor violation, the SPCC may issue a Corrective Work
Order.
= A complaint is a thorough investigation that takes at least 180 days to complete.
Afterward, the complaint is presented to the Commission for adjudication. The
Commission can impose: revocation, suspension, probation, a civil penalty, cease
& desist order, additional education, a non- disciplinary advisory notice, or seek
injunctive relief. For imminent health, safety, welfare threats, the SPCC can
impose an interim summary suspension order.
. Commission orders typically are issued in a stipulated Consent Agreement and Order,
or after a formal hearing conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Factor 7: The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of state
government has the authority to prosecute actions under enabling legislation.
b The SPCC has full authority to enforce its statutes. The Arizona Attorney General has full
authority to act as the SPCC's legal advisor and prosecute SPCC complaints.
Factor 8: The extent to which the Commission has addressed deficiencies in the enabling
statutes, which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
b Substantial law changes were implemented in 2003, and minor changes were implemented in
2004 and 2005. In 2006, changes were made pertaining to a weed control license exemption, a
utility worker license exemption, and pre- notification of pesticide applications at childcare
facilities.
b There are no deficiencies in the SPCC's statutes that prevent it from fulfilling its statutory
mandate.
Factor 9: The extent to which changes are necessary in the Commission's laws to
adequately comply with the factors listed in the sunset review statute.
b There are no statutory changes needed to adequately comply with the sunset factors.
Factor 10: The extent to which the termination of the Commission would significantly
harm the public health, safety, or welfare.
b Terminating the SPCC could significantly harm the public health, safety, welfare, and the
environment. The inspections conducted by the SPCC are a critical activity to help detect and
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
prevent hazardous situations and financial losses. Without regulating the pest management
industry and investigating alleged pesticide misuse by unlicensed persons, Arizona citizens
would have little assurance that a pest management professional has adequate experience and
training to safely and properly perform pest management services.
b By definition, pesticides ( including insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, tem~ iticides, etc.)
kill things, hence the suffix " cide" ( i. e. " homicide), means to kill. These chemicals, if misused
pose significant hazards. Therefore, they carry toxicity category words, such as " caution,
" warning" or " danger".
. Although pesticides are useful to society because they kill potential disease- causing
organisms and insects, weeds, and other pests; without effective regulation and control,
exposure to these potentially toxic substances can result in damage to human health,
property, and the environment. While pesticides can negatively affect the health of the
average adult, children are potentially more susceptible to the negative effects of
pesticide exposure since their bodily systems are still maturing and do not provide the
same level of protection as an adult's.' Persons with chemical sensitivities or chronic
respiratory illnesses, such as asthma or allergies, are also more susceptible to the
damaging effects of pesticide exposure. If used improperly, certain pesticides also can
contaminate soil and water, endanger animals and wildlife, and damage crops and other
property.
b The Agency's licensing and regulatory functions, described above, protect the public and
environment. Eliminating competency requirements, oversight, education and training of
industry and consumers, and regulation of licensees and non- licensees, will cause harm to health,
property and the environment, and cause financial losses as a result.
b Without the SPCC to cany out these functions, pest management related issues might be
completely handled by the U. S. EPA, resulting in a loss of local control over the public and
environmental protections. There is no other state or local regulatory control over these issues.
Moreover, the EPA's jurisdiction is limited. For example, the EPA has no interest in areas such
as termite pretreatment inspections, an area of great Arizona consumer interest.
b Without the Agency's inspection and complaint resolution process, consumers and industry
members would not have access to an inexpensive and timely means of resolving problems with
pest management licensees.
* No other agency provides the number and level of continuing education courses that the
SPCC has provided. The resources spent to prepare and conduct education courses, in
conjunction with educational compliance inspections, have proven effective in reducing
investigations and complaints from about 450 in 2004, to 250 in 2006.
' A keartbreolzing e. rumnple is the recent case ofa two- year 0 1 1 girl who died 011 Julv IS, 2007 in Lubbock. Texas
ji- o~ rr e. xposure to PIzosto. rirr, a pesticide that relea. ses a toxic gas i. t: heir in colrtuct with lrzoistlrre ( reported in
klrou. corn by the Associated Press).
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
. The SPCC provides " one- stop shopping" to consumers and industry members for pest
management, licensing, regulation, education, training, and awareness. Every call is returned
within about 24 hours. Every email is answered within about 72 hours. Any customer who does
not get full satisfaction at the most direct staff level, has easy access to supervisors, managers,
and the Executive Director. One or more staff members can be available on a moment's notice
to provide assistance when needed, even before or after normal working hours. Examples of this
level of assistance have included: ( 1) helping a widow with licensing upon the untimely death of
her husband who held the licenses to run the family pest management business; and ( 2) seeking
to help a pest management licensee with a possible pesticide spill after a traffic accident.
b Significant cases:
( 1) The SPCC took swift action in 2006 upon learning that one of its licensees was
arrested for stealing from customers. In that case, the business license, qualifying
party's license, and applicator's license ultimately were revoked.
( 2) In a case that began as an office inspection and was investigated and adjudicated in
2005- 2006, the SPCC revoked a business license, qualifying party's license and
applicator's license when the investigation revealed that hundreds of consumers did
not receive proper termite pretreatments because the licensees were not purchasing
sufficient termiticide to do the jobs they claimed were done.
( 3) In a complaint that was adjudicated in 2003 involving a company that misapplied
pesticides at schools' food- handling areas, the SPCC imposed a significant civil
penalty, and required the licensee to report to the SPCC all pesticides applications at
schools for 30 months.
( 4) A complaint that was adjudicated in 2001 involving misuse of pesticides at an
Arizona DPS office in northern Arizona that resulted in the death of one or more
pets, the SPCC suspended the licenses, followed by a year probation, obtaining
additional education and paying high civil penalties.
, There also may be a negative impact on interagency service agreements with other state
agencies and contracts with private vendors, such as the Attorney General's Office, Office of
Administrative Hearings, General Accounting Office, Department of Administration Rules
Consultant, Exam administration vendor, and Exam writing consultants.
Factor 11: The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the Commission is
appropriate and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be appropriate.
b The level of regulation is appropriate and provides adequate public protection.
Factor 12: The extent to which the Commission has used private contractors in the
performance of its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be
accomplished.
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
b The SPCC has used private contractors to administer all license exams, assist with editing
exams, assist with promulgating rules, for government liaison services, and some data entry
services. The SPCC anticipates obtaining a private contractor to help create technical and user
documentation for some of its databases.
b The SPCC advocates the use of private contractors, to complete one- time projects and help
perform tasks during times of high demand.
ADDITIONAL FACTORS
1. The problem or needs the Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission ( SPCC)
intends to address.
A Possible statute changes include:
= Permit the SPCC to revise Qualifying Party experience requirements in rules.
= Permit Applicator license approval by SPCC staff.
= Amend the definition of business of structural pest control.
A Possible rule changes to correct or clarify some issues that have arisen since implementing the
new rules that became effective in April 2007.
A Edit license exams and update exam study materials.
A Phase- in process to meet timeframe goals of completing inquiry investigations in 60 days and
complaint investigations in 180 days.
A Create new inquiry and complaint tracking database.
A Integrate all databases.
AEvaluate staffing needs after implementing new efficiencies and processes, and pursue
approval to hire more staff, if needed.
A Complete inspection/ investigation manual.
A Create documentation for both technical users and end- users for all databases.
2. The SPCC's objectives and anticipated accomplishments, quantitatively and
qualitatively.
A Licensing:
= Continue to meet all licensing timeframes.
-
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
Continue to update licensing database to data- enter each step of the application process
for every license application (" application tracking"), and easily generate management
status reports.
- Add continuing education course approval applications to application tracking system.
. Encourage licenses to renew licenses online, to achieve higher than 75% usage.
Continue to provide high quality continuing education throughout the state for licensees.
Consider having applicants to submit license applications online.
. Edit and update license exams.
A Inspections:
. Track compliance with written procedures and goals.
A Inquiries:
. Work toward 60- day turn- around time.
- Establish list of violations that SPCC staff can resolve with a Corrective Work Order.
A Complaints:
. Work toward 180- day turn- around time.
A Databases:
Create inquirylcomplaint tracking database.
- Integrate databases.
Create technical and user documentation.
out source data handling for 2417 access, maintenance and security., -
A Web site:
. Add online feedback form.
. Enhance online self- help features for licensees.
. Launch Web- based TAW reporting system.
Create efficient licensee complaint history tracking.
3. Other agencies having similar, conflicting or duplicative objectives, and how the
SPCC avoids duplication or conflict with other agencies.
A The Registrar of Contractors ( ROC) issues a ' specialty license' to persons engaged in
installing barrier devices on structures to prevent pests such as rodents and birds, if the work
exceeds the $ 1,000 handy- man exemption. The SPCC licenses persons who use pesticides in
conjunction with devices.
The SPCC and ROC communicate regularly to avoid duplication of tasks and to
collaborate on areas of common interest. The ROC has done an excellent job of creating
* 4
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
educational and outreach programs for consumers and builders. The SPCC has served on
the ROC's Consumer Advisory Network, and has participated in the ROC's educational
programs directed toward consumers and builders.
A The Board of Technical Registration licenses home inspectors. Some home inspectors also
are termite inspectors.
. There has not been any conflict or confusion, so no action has been necessary to avoid
duplication or conflict. If any question arises, the two agency Executive Directors, who
have enjoyed a long- term professional relationship, would easily be able to resolve any
confusion.
A The Arizona Department of Agriculture Environmental Services Division ( ADA- ESD)
licenses pesticide applications in the agricultural setting, such as crop aerial applicators, in food
growing areas, and in forests.
. The SPCC and ADA- ESD have an excellent working relationship, including conducting
joint training and inspections when there is overlap between rural ( agricultural) and urban
( structural) pesticide use issues. This relationship was fostered, in great part, to having the
ADA- ESD Associate Director as a public member Commissioner on the SPCC for over three
years. In January 2006, to prevent duplication or conflict pertaining to which agency had
licensing jurisdiction, the two agencies created a " jurisdiction chart" that outlines the scope of
work that falls within each agency's jurisdiction. The ADA- ESD, who has the sole legal
jurisdiction to register all pesticides for use in Arizona, also has graciously allowed the SPCC to
provide input about urban pesticide labels that have been submitted for registration in Arizona,
since the SPCC is charged with ensuring that users follow those label directions.
4. The consequences of eliminating the SPCC or consolidating it with another agency.
In addition to the consequences of stated above in Sunset Factor 10, please note the following
consequences.
b The SPCC has a healthy fund balance, and the amount over what would be needed to cover 6-
12 months of operating expenses should be used for the benefit of consumers who receive, and
pest management professionals who provide, urban pest management services. The only way to
ensure the long- term integrity of these funds is to maintain the independent integrity of the
SPCC. Sweeping the fund reserves from fees paid by SPCC licensees will result in the regulated
population paying more into the general fund than others who are not regulated. In essence, the
tax burden for SPCC licensees will be disproportionately higher than that of the general
population.
Revenue for the SPCC comes from persons who pay fees, not from taxpayer
contributions, in order to maintain the functions of the regulatory agency to protect the
public. As a 90110 Agency, 90% of the revenue is used for operating expenses and 10% a
year, or approximately $ 300,000, is deposited in the general fund. Additionally, about
. I - Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
$ 70,000 a year is paid to the state for the services of the Attorney General, Department of
Administration, and Office of Administrative Hearings.
b Eliminating, or consolidating the agency within a mega- agency, would negatively impact the
SPCC's ability to protect the public and would increase fees for licensees. Furthermore,
consolidation of regulatory operations has not resulted in economies of scale, which is the sole
legitimate argument for con~ olidation.~
b Larger consolidated boards are associated with more management levels and increased
bureaucracy. In addition, other states' experiences with umbrella or consolidated boards have
shown an increase in the time to process investigations and a reduction in effectively resolving
complaints and violations.
b Without sufficient funds to support the SPCC activities, processing of applications and
investigations and complaint adjudications will be slowed, which can increase the public's risk of
harm.
b Independent boards have definite advantages in public protection over centralized boards
including:
Administrative efficiency due to fewer management levels versus those created in
centralized agencies
Less bureaucracy for the public and licensees
Increased accountability for regulatory outcomes
Increased ability to make decisions without political pressure
Better control by the legislative checks and balances
Greater control over allocation of funds and reduced potential for subsidizing other
regulated professions.
Reduced cost and timeframes in completing inspections, investigations and complaints
since multiple agencies or multiple disciplines within a large agency are not competing
for inspector time and expertise.
5. Attached are the SPCC's most recent LicensingIEnforcement annual report to the
U. S. EPA, State Strategic Plan, and Licensing Timeframe Compliance Report, that
comprise information equivalent to an annual report.
2 Report on Texas Health Regulatory Programs, 2000, at http:// www. hhsc. state. tx. us/ Pubs/' ptthrp12~ 2000. pdf
Revised 912 1 107
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
ADDITIONAL FACTORS
1. The problem or the needs that the Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
( SPCC) is intended to address.
A Pursue reasonable regulation pertaining to pest management services in Arizona by working
with all stakeholders to seek legislative and rule changes as issues arise, or public policy dictates.
A Protect public and industry health and safety, and the environment by:
. Providing education to the pest management industry to obtain voluntary compliance
with regulatory requirements
. Seeking enforcement action when warranted
. Providing information to the public about pest management and regulatory requirements
. Setting appropriate minimum qualification for licensees
. Ensuring a balanced licensing process that is thorough, yet streamlined
. Having a neutral inspection program that provides compliance assistance to licensees,
where inspections are conducted frequently enough to be effective, yet not overly
burdensome
. Conducting thorough investigations, as efficiently as possible
A Providing customer service to the public and industry by:
. Timely and accurately responding to questions and requests
. Providing open and easy access to information and the agency
A Meeting federal mandates pertaining to licensing and enforcement of licensees to maintain
state jurisdiction over these responsibilities
2. The SPCC's objectives and anticipated accomplishments, quantitatively and
qualitatively.
A Licensing:
. Continue to meet all licensing timeframes.
. Continue to update licensing database to data- enter each step of the application process
for every license application (" application tracking"), and easily generate management
status reports.
. Add continuing education course approval applications to application tracking system.
. Encourage licenses to renew licenses online, to achieve higher than 75% usage.
. Continue to provide high quality continuing education throughout the state for
licensees.
. Consider having applicants to submit license applications online.
Revised 912 1 107
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
. Edit and update license exams.
A Inspections:
. Track compliance with written procedures and goals.
A Inquiries:
. Work toward 60- day turn- around time.
. Establish list of violations that SPCC staff can resolve with a Corrective Work Order.
A Complaints:
Work toward 180- day turn- around time.
A Databases:
. Create inquirylcomplaint tracking database.
. Integrate databases.
. Create technical and user documentation.
out source data handling for 2417 access, maintenance and security
A Web site:
. Add online feedback form.
. Enhance online self- help features for licensees.
. Launch Web- based TARF reporting system.
. Create efficient licensee complaint history tracking.
3. Other agencies having similar, conflicting or duplicative objectives, and how the
SPCC avoids duplication or conflict with other agencies.
A The Registrar of Contractors ( ROC) issues a ' specialty license' to persons engaged in
installing barrier devices on structures to prevent pests such as rodents and birds, if the work
exceeds the $ 1,000 handy- man exemption. The SPCC licenses persons who use pesticides in
conjunction with devices.
The SPCC and ROC communicate regularly to avoid duplication of tasks and to
collaborate on areas of common interest. The ROC has done an excellent job of creating
educational and outreach programs for consumers and builders. The SPCC has served on
the ROC's Consumer Advisory Network, and has participated in the ROC's educational
programs directed toward consumers and builders.
Revised 912 1 107
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
AThe Board of Technical Registration licenses home inspectors. Some home inspectors also
are termite inspectors.
. There has not been any conflict or confusion, so no action has been necessary to avoid
duplication or conflict. If any question arises, the two agency Executive Directors, who
have enjoyed a long- term professional relationship, would easily be able to resolve any
confusion.
A The Arizona Department of Agriculture Environmental Services Division ( ADA- ESD)
licenses pesticide applications in the agricultural setting, such as crop aerial applicators, in food
growing areas, and in forests.
. The SPCC and ADA- ESD have an excellent working relationship, including conducting
joint training and inspections when there is overlap between rural ( agricultural) and urban
( structural) pesticide use issues. This relationship was fostered, in great part, to having
the ADA- ESD Associate Director as a public member Commissioner on the SPCC for
over three years. In January 2006, to prevent duplication or conflict pertaining to which
agency had licensing jurisdiction, the two agencies created a " jurisdiction chart" that
outlines the scope of work that fills within each agency's jurisdiction. The ADA- ESD,
who has the sole legal jurisdiction to register all pesticides for use in Arizona, also has
graciously allowed the SPCC to provide input about urban pesticide labels that have been
submitted for registration in Arizona, since the SPCC is charged with ensuring that users
follow those label directions.
4. The consequences of eliminating the SPCC or consolidating it with another agency.
In addition to the consequences of stated above in Sunset Factor 10, please note the following
consequences.
b The SPCC has a healthy fund balance, and the amount over what would be needed to cover 6-
12 months of operating expenses should be used for the benefit of consumers who receive, and
pest management professionals who provide, urban pest management services. The only way to
ensure the long- term integrity of these funds is to maintain the independent integrity of the
SPCC. Sweeping the fund reserves from fees paid by SPCC licensees will result in the regulated
population paying more into the general fund than others who are not regulated. In essence, the
tax burden for SPCC licensees will be disproportionately higher than that of the general
population.
. Revenue for the SPCC comes from persons who pay fees, not from taxpayer
contributions, in order to maintain the hnctions of the regulatory agency to protect the
public. As a 90110 Agency, 90% of the revenue is used for operating expenses and 10% a
year, or approximately $ 300,000, is deposited in the general fund. Additionally, about
$ 70,000 a year is paid to the state for the services of the Attorney General, Department of
Administration, and Office of Administrative Hearings.
Revised 912 1/ 07
Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Sunset Factors 2007
b Eliminating, or consolidating the agency within a mega- agency, would negatively impact the
SPCC's ability to protect the public and would increase fees for licensees. Furthermore,
consolidation of regulatory operations has not resulted in economies of scale, which is the sole
legitimate argument for consolidation.'
b Larger consolidated boards are associated with more management levels and increased
bureaucracy. In addition, other states' experiences with umbrella or consolidated boards have
shown an increase in the time to process investigations and a reduction in effectively resolving
complaints and violations.
b Without sufficient funds to support the SPCC activities, processing of applications and
investigations and complaint adjudications will be slowed, which can increase the public's risk of
harm.
b Independent boards have definite advantages in public protection over centralized boards
including:
. Administrative efficiency due to fewer management levels versus those created in
centralized agencies
. Less bureaucracy for the public and licensees
. Increased accountability for regulatory outcomes
. Increased ability to make decisions without political pressure
. Better control by the legislative checks and balances
. Greater control over allocation of hnds and reduced potential for subsidizing other
regulated professions.
. Reduced cost and timeframes in completing inspections, investigations and complaints
since multiple agencies or multiple disciplines within a large agency are not competing
for inspector time and expertise.
' Report on Texas Health Regulatory Programs, 2000, at http:// www. hhsc. state. tx. us/ Pubs/ rpt~ hrp~ l2~ 2000. pdf
ATTACHMENT B
ARIZONA STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL COMI\' IISSION
FFY06 Consolidated Cooperative Agreement Final Report
Licensure ( Certification) & train in^ Proeram Work Plan
1 Licensing Process
The SPCC continued to maintain a user- friendly, streamlined and timely process for
license applications, approving applicants to take license exan~ inationsa nd issuing or
denying licenses within its rule- required time frames.
2. Continuing Education
The SPCC provided at least seven all- day continuing education ( CE) courses throughout
the state, for free, to its licensees. It also provides at least one initial license training
( ILT) course each month at locations throughout the state. CE and ILT schedules are on
the agency's website, with easy to access responding via telephone and email ( 480- CEU-SPCC
or ceu@, sb. state. az. us; and 480- ILT- SPCC or ilt@, sb. state. az. us.
The SPCC also has over 100 approved CE providers. CE attendance is reported to the
SPCC via its on- line reporting tool that interfaces with the on- line license renewal
system.
3. Monitoring
SPCC Staff members have monitoredparticipated in 155 C. E. course hours throughout
FFY06. There is insufficient data to opine about specific C. E. courses. Overall,
conlnlents were that C. E. courses offered by the SPCC and a handful of approved C. E.
providers were excellent. Most other C. E. courses were adequate. The SPCC is re-evaluating
all CE courses as the providers submit new applications for approval to ensure
relevant information is included in all programs. The SPCC took no actions against C. E.
providers in FFY06.
4. Examination services
The SPCC continues to use a contracted vendor to provide computer based testing at
several sites throughout the state.
5. State Plan
The SPCC is minimally involved in CTAG related events. The SPCC provided input to
1
the Arizona Depaitment of Agriculture who has responsibility for the state plan. Exams
and study illaterials are constantly evaluated to ensure proper applicability and changes
are made as necessary
6. Examinations
The SPCC reviewed and amended exam questions on an as- needed basis, to ensure
continuing relevance. Informal and ongoing exam validation activities continued in
FFY06. The SPCC updated the study inaterial list for all exams; advertised the need to
study the study materials through the license applicatioil process, discussions with
applicants and licensees, and web site notice; provided monthly public reports about the
exams and exam process, including the nunlber of exanls administered, passing rates,
trends, statistics, exam content issues, and logistical issues.
The SPCC ( via the testing vendor) continue to provide score reports to exam takers that
included the exam blueprints and the number of questions answered correctly/ incorrectly
by coiltent area.
7. Compliance
The SPCC continued to maintain reports of enforcement actions and the nature of the
violations involved. The types of violations remained fairly standard froill prior years
and questions to educate applicants and test their knowledge about these areas were
incorporated into the exams between early 2003 and into the FFY06. The SPCC has
found that educating industry members about recurring problems has been more effective
through its monthly meeting agendas and minutes, and C. E. courses that the SPCC
sponsors or at which SPCC employees participate. On a monthly basis throughout
FFY06, the SPCC listed enforcement actions and the type of violation in a narrative form
on meeting agendas and minutes. The SPCC continues to conducted full- day education
courses in 2006, incorporating common problems and ways to avoid them. The SPCC
also participated in education courses in November, December, January, March, April,
July and August totaling 70 hours where attendees were infonned of updates and current
issues. Monthly, the SPCC conducts initial licensure training ( exam preparation) and
incorporates common problems into those classes. 72 hours of instruction was provided
in FFY06.
Training and education regarding following label directions, laws, and rules; pest
identification; calibration, application, and fom~ ulationss; afety and disposal continue to
be areas of need. Proper hiring, training, equipping and supervision by businesses and
qualifying parties is needing increasing attention. To accomplish this the SPCC is
continuing to conduct courses during FFY06 addressing these issues.
8. Initial License Training Classes
See above ( CE) discussion.
9. Examination study materials
These continue to be provided at the SPCC's cost. A study material and price list is on
the agency's website.
10. License examinations
See above ( Examination services) discussion.
11. Testing Centers
The SPCC opted not to conduct an audit of testing locations as it has in the two prior
years, but rather focused on evaluating and revising the testing vendor contract, issuing a
new request for proposals, obtaining the procurement training necessary to be approved
as evaluators, and evaluate ail proposals received. Based on the evaluation, the state
procurement office contracted again with Metro Institute for computer based testing
services for the SPCC, beginning 3/ 1/ 07.
12. IPM
As of October 2004, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has taken the
lead with respect to IPM in schools. The SPCC provides training and information to
consumers and the industry as requested. The SPCC also provided consumer and
industry notices on its web site pertaining to IPM steps that can be taken to control roof
rats, mosquitoes, and bark beetles. The SPCC stands willing to participate in IPM
progranls as identified and requested.
13. Participation
The SPCC attended the ASPCRO mid- year meeting in March 2006 and annual meeting
in August 2006. The SPCC also attended the May 2006 Western States Regional ( and
SFIREG) meeting. The SPCC participated in the PIRT course in September 2006. The
SPCC continues to evaluate courses and meetings and will participate as needed and
allowed.
Enforcement Work Plan
1. Use Inspections
The SPCC completed 108l" use" inspections ( vastly more than the 80 targeted). 25 of
these were " for cause" inspections ( above the 6 targeted). These 108 1 do not include
approximately 4 15office inspections and 7 15 vehicle inspections that are, in part, " use"
inspections because pesticide storage andlor disposal is inspected, but inay not meet the
EPAYsc riteria of a use inspection. Of the approxin~ ate4 1 5 office inspections conducted,
22 also were certified applicatcrlrestricted use pesticide inspections.
The 1081 use inspections were in the following categories:
The SPCC conducted 4 Federzl Facilities inspections.
Wood- destroying insect inspections ( 639, now including tennite pretreatment " tag"
inspections). This is more than the 10 targeted.
GeneralIPublic health inspections ( 359). This includes:
Food establishments ( 19). This exceeds the 10 targeted.
Healthcare facilitieslantimicrobial inspections ( 19). This is more than the 10
targeted.
Schools ( 1 I), This exceeds the 10 targeted.
Fumigation inspections ( 1).
WeedIRiglrt- of- way inspectionslAquatic ( 64). This includes:
Golf CourseIAquatic ( 20). The SPCC targeted 20 use inspections of golf course/ aquatic
facilities.
Turf and Ornamental inspections ( 18).
2. " Inquiries"
Beginning in mid- September 2003, the SPCC had the legal authority to open matters as
" Inquiries". An inquiry is information of possible violations of laws or rules. The SPCC
opened and investigated 175 inquiries in FFY2006. Many were closed without becoming
complaints for various reasons, including, clearly no evidence of a possible violation, lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, etc. An investigation was conducted on each inquiry to
make a threshold level determination of whether the matter should become a complaint,
closed, or handled in a less formal manner ( such as educational letter). Some of these
were then opened as complaints. There were 70 reported conlplaints in FFY2006.
3. Ag Pesticides
The SPCC did not detect any agricultural- labeled pesticides used in urban areas.
4. Health Claims
The SPCC continued to look for the use of antimicrobial ( public health claim) products
while conducting inspectionslinvestigations. None of these products, nor unregistered
products, were found in use at locatio~ lsin spected in FFYO5.
5. Federal Credentials
SPCC is co~ nlllittedto obtaining federal credentia!~ fo r our inspectiodinvestigative staff.
The SPCC cul- rently has three staff members with federal credentials.
6. Repeat Violator Percentage, Complying Actions Percentage, Efficiency h. leasu1- e
Reported on separate f01n1.
7. Misuse by unlicensed persons
The SPCC uses misuse as an aggravating factor in deteimining civil penalty in these
cases, or refers to EPA as appropriate.
1 These do not include 175 " inqi~ iries" investigated in this reporting period ( see narrative report).
2 This does not include corrective action required after inspections, for which SPCC provides 10 days to comply, or else Complaint is filed.
United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460
Pesticide Enforcement and Applicator Certification Cooperative Agreement Accomplishment Report
FFYO6 Targets
Cooperallve Agreement Only
State
Ar~ zonaS PCC
Experr-mental
Use
----------
(" Proballon")
Number of Warnlngs Issued
Stop-!; ale. Selzure. Quarantme, or Embargo
(" Cease 8 Deslsl")
Cases Fowarded to EPA for Actron
Other Enforcement Act~ ons 2
Number of Cases Assessed Frnes
(" CIVI~ P enalties")
F~ scaYl ear
FFY 2008
5
92
7
0
29
66
Report~ ngP erlod
Enforcement Accomplishments
This Reporting Year
Total lnspectlons Conducted
Federal Fac~ lrt~ es
How many addressed the followlng
a) WPS T~ eIr Compllance Monltorlng lnspectlon
b) WPS T~ erII Compllance Monltorlng lnspectlon
Samples Collected Physlcal
Documentary
C~ vrCl ompla~ nlsIs sued 1
Cr~ mlnaCl omplaints Referred
Admlnlstratlve Hearrngs Conducted
Producing
Estab-llshment
- -
----
L~ cense/ CerIlflcateS uspenslon
License/ CerIlficate Revocalron
----
LrcenselCert~ ficateC ond~ t~ on~ onr gM od~ f~ catlon
9
21
26
10- 01 - 05 through 09- 30- 06
Nonagrlcultural
Use
1001
Agr~ cultural
' . Use
Market-
For Cause Place
22 ( all were
also Uses)
70
0
For Cause
_
Imports Exports
Cerlified Use
Applrcator Restr~ cted Total
Records Pestlcrde
2
----
Dealers
1003
United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460
1 CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING ACCOMPLlSHlVlENTS THIS REPORTING PERIOD
Pesticides Enforcement Cooperative Agreement Output Projections
State: Arizona Fiscal Year: 2006 Project Period: 10- 01 - 05
SPCC through 09- 30- 06
IS tate: Arizona SPCC
- Enfor cement Projections
lnspoctions Projected for Fiscal year
Samples Projected for Fiscal year
Fiscal Year: 2006
I Private
Certification Accomplishments Applicators
Training Sessions participated in
or Monitored ( listed in ho- urs) 4
Agricultural
Applicators ( Individuals) Certified 3 1
Use
Applicators Recertified (" Renewed")
Nonagricultural
Follow up
Total Applicators Iiolding a Valid
Certification as of Sept. 30th
Experi-mental
Use
-.
Use
79
liecertification Period ( in years) (
Follow up
6
Commercial
Producing
Estab-llshment
Reporting Period: 10- 01 - 05 through 09- 30- 06
Ornamental Seed
Forest and Turf lreatment
11
153
Market-
Place
GeHn'epaulbth Regulatory I Demonstra
tlon and
research
Imports
Other
€ PA Form 5700- 33H - -
Export
3 This is the number of new individuals licensed/ certified as applicators in this reporting period. The specific categories total more than this number because many
applicators are licensed in more than one category.
Certified
Applicator
Records
20
Use
Restricted
Pesticide
Desk
Total
105
*
United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460
Pesticides Enforcement and Applicator Accomplishment Report
FFYOS Targels Cooperative Agreement Only State Actrv~ t~ eOsn ly
State
Ar~ zona SPCC
Certification Cooperative Agreement
Reporting Per~ od
10- 01- 05 through 09- 30- 06
F~ scaYl ear
FFY 2006
Enforcement Accomplishments
This Reporting Year
Total lnspect~ onsC onducted
Federal Fac~ l~ lres
How many addressed the following
a) WPS Tier IC ompl~ anceM on~ torrngln spectlon
b) WPS T~ erII Compl~ anceM on~ torlngln spectlon
7
Samples Collected Pliyslcal
Documentary
CIVII Compla~ ntsIs sued
Cr~ mlnaCl ompla~ ntsR eferred
AdmmlsVatlve Hear~ ngsC onducted
L~ censeICerl~ f~ cSautesp ension
L~ censelCert~ frcaRtee vocat~ on
L~ censelCert~ ficaCteo ndrtlonlng or Mod~ ficatlon
Number of Warnlngs Issued
Stop- Sale, Seizure, Quarantme, or Embargo
Cases Fowarded to EPA for Actlon
Other Enforcement Act~ ons
' Number of Cases Assessed Flnes
z EPA Form 5700- 33H
Expen-mental
Use
Agricultural
Market-
Place
Total
100
4
75
Producing
Estab-llshment
Certlfled
Appl~ cator
Records
20
Nonagrlcultural
Use
80
4
Use
Use
Restr~ cted
Pest~ c~ de
Dealers
For Cause
6
( all 6
were also
" Uses")
-- 75 -
SEE
For Cause
- - -----
Imports
STATE ACTlVlTES
Export
ONLY FORM
SEPA u- rc Curs
(... . r_ 0~ 2... 1;. 12. ail i* Pesticide Enforcement Outcome Measure Reporting Form
(-- rantee Arizona, Structural Pest Control Commission
Fiscal Year FFYO6
Measure No. 1 - Repeat Violator
Measure No. 2 - Complying Actions
D. Total # of Enforcement Actions Resulting in Verified Compliance: 243
E. Total # of Enforcement Actions ( from form 5700- 338): 246
C. Repeat Violator
Measu re-- BIA
,434&
A. # of Regu1ated
En tities Receiving
Enforcement Actions
173
F. Complying Actions Measure-- Dm: 98.7
B. Total # of Entities
~ ~ subseque~ nt ~ i ~ i ~ Enforcement Actions ( i. e.
subset of column A)
6
Measure No. 3 - Efficiency
G. Grantee Pesticide Enforcement Funding: $ 1.446.200
H. EPA Pesticide Enforcement Funding: $ 69.500
Base Enforcement
Worker Protection
Enforcement Discretionary
Lab Equipment
I. Efficiency Measure--( G+ H)/ E: $ e1161
( Revised 1012005)
SBA 0.0
-
AGENCY SUMMARY
STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL COMMISSION
Director Lisa Ge~ aseE. xecutive Director
Phone: ( 602) 255- 3664
A. R. S. 5 32- 2301 et. seq.
-
Mission:
To advocate, through licensure, education, compliance and enforcement, the safe application of pest control technologies that benefit the citizens of
Arizona.
Description:
The Structural Pest Control Commission ( SPCC) licenses and regulates pest control companies, qualifying parties, and applicators; provides
education and training to applicants and licensees; and provides education and information to the public regarding pest control activities in non-agricultural
settings.
Strategic Issues
lssu f Better protect consumers ( homeowners) through responsible legislation
The SPCC continues to work with stakeholders to foster responsible, consumer oriented legislation. Most recently, in the last legislative session the
passage of HB 2341 made numerous positive changes. Two of the many changes were redefining the areas of structural pest control and,
mandating that only licensed applicators may apply pesticides in schools. Efforts to better protect the public remain a strategic issue and the SPCC
will continue to initiatelsponsor responsible, consumer oriented legislation in subsequent legislative sessions.
lssu 2 Ensure, through program analysis/ eramination, that the Commission provides statistically valid, legally defensible tests that are
based on best practices and contain the most current Yield specific' content.
Examination validat~ ona long with a thorough review of all training materials and programs provided by the Commission to Qualifying Parties and
Applicators preparing for licensure is scheduled to commence during this fiscal year In a phased approach contingent upon fundlng availability.
Efforts to review and update Commiss~ on- offeredte sts in all categories have been completed while the function of test administration has been
outsourced in compliance with HB 2189.
1 % ~ 3 Enhance regulatory protection for consumers and improve customer service to the pest control industry.
The SPCC has effected a computer based testing program statewide through a third party contract. As noted previously, the many benefits of this
initiative are statewide accessibility ( convenience); test consistency, i. e., the same experience at every test site; the effectlve optimization of
resources for better protection of the public; technology that is on the cutting edge in terms of movement towards e- government and taxpayer
convenience; and, ' real time' test results. The SPCC will aggressively monitor outsourced testing to ensure appropriate quality assurance and fiscal
responsibility. In another area of program operations, the SPCC is closely reviewing outsourced laboratory sampling activities with the goal of
attaining an improved level of service, consumer protection, and accountability.
+ Goal 1 To provide accurate and efficient service to prospective and licensed businesses, appltcators and qualifying parties in obtaining and
maintaining Ilcenses.
Objective 1 2007 Obj: Provide timely, efficient processing of applications.
2008 Obj: Provide timely. efficient processing of applications.
2009 Obj: Provide timely, effcient processing of applications.
Performance Measures:
ML Budget Type
1 - g - IP Total applications received
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Estimate - Estimate
2 3 EF Average calendar days from receipt of completed 10 10 20 20 20 20
application to issuance or denial of certification
3 7 - . --- OP Average calendar days from receipt of completed 27 27 30 30 30 30
application to rullng on application for Qualifying
Party testing
4 - 2- --- OP Qualifying Party License renewals issued 1201 1300 1225 1200 1200 1200
5 3 OP Total individuals or facilities licensed 7958 8200 9000 9500 9500 9500
6 i? --- OP Applicator licenses renewed 5732 5990 6209 6500 6500 6500
7 - 7 --- EF Percentage of licenses processed within overall time 100 100 100 100 100 100
frame
-- B Y -- QL Percentage of Applicator License renewals 54 60 72 75 75 75
processed on line
9 - 7 .*- l QL Percentage of Qualifying Party License renewals 37 60 47 75 75 75
processed on line
lo 3 1. OP Percentage of Business License renewals processed 36 60 47 75 75 75
on line
.- . .-. -- . - -- . - . . . - .- .. . .- .
Friday, August 31, 2007 4: 55 PM Page 1
OP Business License renewals issued
+ Goal 2 To provide continuous quallty education to the publ~ ca nd ~ ndustrym embers through Structural Pest Control Commission presented
or approved programs
Objective 1 2007 Obj: To Increase and enhance tralning for the public and lndustry members.
2008 Obj: To lncrease and enhance trainlng for the publ~ ca nd lndustry members.
2009 Obj: To lncrease and enhance train~ ngfo r the publ~ ca nd lndustry members
Performance Measures: FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
ML Budget Type
Actual Estlmate Actual Est~ mate Est~ mate Est~ mate
- . . - - -- - -- - --
1 Q -
-. .. OC Number of contact hours for initial license training 2640 2000 800 800 800 800
taken annually from the SPCC
2 q : OP Number of CE contact hours taken annually from the 12190 4000 5000 5000 5000 5000
SPCC
3 v OP Number of Educat~ ona nd Tra~ ningc ontract hours 100 100 100 100 100 100
provided to the Public by the SPCC
+ Goal 3 To Monitor pesticide applications and ensure compliance with SPCC Laws and Rules.
Objective 1 2007 Obj: To conduct Inspections in proportion to licenses issued in each category
2008 Obj: To conduct lnspections in proportion to licenses issued in each category
2009 Obj: To condud lnspections in proportion to licenses issued in each category
Performance Measures: FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
ML Budget Type Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate
-
1 $_ g OP Total inspect~ onsco nducted 2641 2,649 1645 2,780 2780 2780
-
2 7 . > OP Number of Bustness Licensees ~ nspected 507 602 600 600 600
3 1-- -- OP Number of Appl~ cators~ nspected 21 36 1730 1855 1855 1855
4 --- --- OP Number of termite control category ~ nspectlons 875 650 650 650
5 --- --. OP Number of compl~ ancea ct~ onsu ndertaken as a 0 749 975 975 975
result of all inspectlons
6 -- -- OP Number of all other category ~ nspect~ ons 390 500 500 500
+ Goal 4 To efficiently and professionally investigate inquiries and complaints to protect and maximize the safety of the general pubiic.
Objective 1 2007 Obj: To complete all investigations and present them to the Commission within 180 days of opening the complaint.
2008 Obj: To complete all investigations and present them to the Commission within 180 days of opening the complaint.
2009 Obj: To complete all investigations and present them to the Commission within 180 days of opening the complaint.
Performance Measures: FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
ML Budget Type Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate
1 2 , OP Total Inquiry investigations conducted 273 280 200 250 250 250
-
2 3 OP Total Complaint investigations conducted 135 150 80 100 120 120
- 3 3 -- OC Number of Consent agreements reached 194 180 90 90 90 90
- 4 3 -- OC Number of formal hearings held 27 30 10 20 15 15
- 5 z - OC Percent of ~ nvest~ gat~ orenssu lt~ ngIn dlsc~ pllnary 49 50 48 50 50 50
act~ on
6 --- -- OC Number of l~ censesS uspended 0 10 24 20 20 20
- 7 2 - OC Number of licenses Revoked 1 1 38 20 5 5
8 3 IP Total consumer and Commission generated 135 150 80 100 120 120
. complaints
-.
9 v < EF Average calendar days from receipt of complaint to 180 180 270 200 200 200
resolution
-- - -- - -
Friday, August 31.2007 4: 55 PM Page 2
. ARIZONA MASTER LIST OF STATE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Structural Pest Control Commission
. .-
AGENCY NAME
STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL COMMISSION
Director: Lisa Gewase, Executive Director
Contact: Charmayne Skow Structural Pest Control Commission Phone: ( 602) 255- 3654
SBA. O. 0 A. R. S. § 32- 2301 et. seq.
-
Performance Measures:
ML Budget Type
--
$ d OP Total inspections conducted
d EF Average calendar days from receipt of completed
appllcation to Issuance or denlal of certrficat~ on
-- --
d V OP Total individuals or facilities llcensed
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate
- -
. IP Total consumer and Commission generated 135 150 80 100 120 120
complaints
-
d EF Average calendar days from receipt of complaint to 180 180 270 200 200 200
resolution
-- --- - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - . . . - -- - - -- - - - - - - - .. - - - -- -
Fr~ dayA, ugust 3 1,2007 Page 1 of 1
2007 - 2009 ARIZONA MASTER U S OF
SBA 0.0 Agency Summary
STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL COMMISSION
Lisa Gewase, Executive Director
Phone: ( 602) 255- 3664
A. R. S. 3 32- 2301 et. seq.
. . .
Mission:
To advocate, through licensure, education, compliance and enforcement,
the safe application of pest control technologies that benefit the citizens of
Arizona. . t
Description:
The Structural Pest Control Commission ( SPCC) licenses and regulates
pest control companies, qualifying parties, and applicators; provides
education and training to applicants and licensees; and provides education
and information to the public regarding pest control activities in non-agricultural
settings.
Strategic Issues
lssu 1 Better protect consumers & omeowners) through
responsible legislation
The SPCC continues to work with stakeholders to foster responsible,
consumer oriented legislation. Most recently, in the last legislative session
the passage of HB 2341 made numerous positive changes. Two of the
many changes were redefining the areas of structural pest control and,
mandating that only licensed applicators may apply pesticides in schools.
Efforts to better protect the public remain a strategic issue and the SPCC
will continue to initiatelsponsor responsible, consumer oriented legislation
in subsequent legislative sessions.
lssu 2 Ensure, through program analysis/ examination, that the
Commission provides statistically valid, legally defensible
tests that are based on best practices and contain the most
current ' field specific' content.
Examination validation along with a thorough review of all training materials
and programs prov~ dedb y the Commission to Qualifying Parties and
Applicators preparing for licensure is scheduled to commence during this
fiscal year in a phased approach contingent upon funding availability.
Efforts to review and update Commiss~ on- offeredte sts in all categories
have been completed while the function of test admin~ strationh as been
outsourced in, compliance with HB 2189.
Isu 3 Enhance regulatory protection for consumers and improve
customer service to the pest control industry.
The SPCC has effected a computer based testing program statewide
through a third party contract. As noted previously, the many benefits of
this initiative are statewide accessibility ( convenience); test consistency,
i. e., the same experience at every test site; the effective optimization of
resources for better protection of the public; technology that is on the
cutting edge in terms of movement towards e- government and taxpayer
convenience; and. ' real time' test results. The SPCC will aggressively
monitor outsourced testing to ensure appropriate quality assurance and
fiscal responsibility. In another area of program operations, the SPCC is
closely reviewing outsourced laboratory sampling activities with the goal of
attaining an improved level of service, consumer protection, and
accountability.
+ Goal 1 To provide accurate and efficient service to prospective and
licensed businesses, applicators and qualifying parties in
obtaining and maintaining licenses.
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Performance Measures Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate
. . . . -. - .. . .- - - - - - - -- . - - - -. -.
Total appl~ cationsre ceived 11792 11500 11500 11500
Average calendar days from receipt 20 20 20 20
of completed application to issuance
or denial of certification
Average calendar days from receipt 30 30 30 30
of completed application to ruling on
appl~ cationfo r QualifyingP any
testlng
9ATE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Oual~ fyigP any L~ censere newals 1225 1200 1200 1200
Issued
Total ~ ndividualso r facil~ t~ eInsc ensed 9000 9500 9500 9500
Appl~ catolri censes renewed 6209 6533 6500 6500
Percentage of licenses processed 100 100 100 100
m i n overall tlme frame
Percentage of Applicator Llcense 72 75 75 75
renewals processed on line
Percentage of Ouallfylng Party 47 75 75 75
License renewals processed on line
Percentage of Bus~ nessL lcense 47 75 75 75
renewals processed on line
Business License renewals ~ ssued 1014 1036 1036 1036 + Goal 2 To provlde continuous qual~ tye ducation to the public and
industry members through Structural Pest Control
Commiss~ onp resented or approved programs
M 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Actual Estimate Est~ mate Est~ male
- -- -
Number of contact hours fof ~ n~ tial 800 800 & CO 800
11- tralning taken annually from
the SPCC
Number of CE contact hours taken SMM jOOO 50M) 5000
annually from me SPCC
Number of Education and Training 100 100 100 100
contract hours provided to the Publr
by me SPCC + Goal 3 To Mon~ torp esticide appllcations and ensure compliance
w~ thS PCC Laws and Rules.
FY2006 FY2W7 FY 2008 Ff2009
Performance Measures
- - - - -. .
Actual Estimate Estimate Esttmate - - -
Total inspections conducted 1645 2.780 2780 2780 + Goal 4 To efficiently and professionally ~ nvest~ ga~ ten quirlesa nd
compla~ ntsto protect and maxim~ zeth e safety of the
general publ~ c
FY2006 FY 2007 FY2008 FY20W
Performance Measures - - - - - . - -.. -
Actual Estimate Est~ mate Esllmate
- - - - - - . - --
Total lnqu~ ryln vestlgabons 200 250 250 250
conducted
Total Compla~ nt investigations 80 100 120 120
conducted
Number ol Consent agreements 90 90 90 90
reached
Number of formal heanngs held 10 20 15 15
P m n t o f invesllgations result~ ngm 48 50 50 50
d~ sapl~ naaryd lon
Number of l~ cemes Revoked 38 20 5 5
Total consumer and Comm~ ssion 80 100 120 120
generated mmpla~ nis
Average calendar days from recelpt 270 2W 200 200
of mmpla~ nt to resolutmn
- - -.- - - -- - -. ... . - -- - - - -- - -- -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - -- - .-- .- -- - - - -- --
Fr~ dayA. ugust 31,2007 4.55 PM Page 1
f Agency : STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL COMMISSION
License Time Frames : 0710112006 - 0613012007
I Compliance Level Summary Form
License, Registration, Change, Approval Type
( with A. R. S. or A. A. C. cite)
Applicator Licenses - A. R. S. 32- 2312
NEW - A. A. C. R4- 29- 203
RENEWAL - A A. C. R4- 29- 207
BROADEN - A. A. C. R4- 29- 212
ACTIVATE - A. A. C. R4- 29- 210
Number of all
applications
received
- --
Qualifying Party Licenses - A. R. S. 32- 2314
NEW - A. A. C. R4- 29- 204
RENEWAL - A. A. C. R4- 29- 207
TEMPORARY - A. A. C. R4- 29: 208 -
TEMPORARY RENEW - A. A. C. R4- 29- 209
BROADEN - A. A. C. R4- 29- 212
ACTIVATE - A. A. C. R4- 29- 211
Continuing Education Approval ( 1)
A. R. S. 32- 2319 and A. A. C. R4- 29- 216
9460
2427
644 1
572
20
Business Licenses - A. R. S. 32- 2313
NEW - A. A. C. R4- 29- 206
RENEWAL - A. A. C. R4- 29- 207
BRANCH OFFICE - A. A. C. R4- 29- 213
NAME CHANGE - A. A. C. R4- 29- 214
Number
within time
frame
1659
185
1234
25
16
35
164
-
( 1) Insufficient data to report This was not part of the
SPCC's timeframe rule until April 2007.
- -
oe1aol2lW
RLT
9154
2167
6412
555
20
1140
80
1029
19
12
1 I I I I I i
Number Issued
after pass
exam( s)
1632
169
1232
24
13
3 1
163
TOTALS .
1452
1189
NIA
263
NIA
1139
82
1028
19
10
Number
Denied
within time
frame
106
87
NIA
NIA
NIA
19
NIA
Agency Representative: Lisa Gervase Date: 8131 107
4
3
1
0
0
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
12259 1 11925.
Number acted
upon
outside time
frame
5
0
1
1
2
0
1
1558
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
amount of
fees
returned
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 0
$ amount of
fees
excused
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$ amount of
penalties
paid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ATTACHMENT C
Page 1 of 2
.
Leah Birk
L ..... " "- . .... - "
From: Michael Katz [ mkatz@ west- ext. com]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 2: 50 PM
To: Leah Birk
Subject: Sunset Review Process for the Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Dear Ms. Birk:
I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment regarding the sunset review process for the Structural
Pest Control Commission. The determination from this process is an important one, both to the industry as well
as the publlc, as it's eventual outcome will impact both concerns. I've spent 37 years as a member of the
structural pest control industry, working primarily in Arizona, California and Nevada, but I've had the opportunity to
work with the regulatory community for our industry throughout the country through my involvement in our national
trade association.
Based on my observations and interactions with Commission staff members it appears to me that the Arizona
Structural Pest Control Commission is extremely efficient in respect to daily duties and tasks. Staff members
appear to be extremely conscientious and interact with industry members in a friendly and professional manner.
It appears to me that the staff members are very dedicated and hard working, and understand their various
responsibilit~ es. Based on the efficiency of their operation, I'd have to say that the Executive Director is an
effective and efficient manager and a strong leader. The entire staff seems to work very well together and
responds well to the leadership style of the Executive Director.
My experience with the Commission members comes through observing them in their monthly meetings. They
seem to be very involved in this process. They remain focused throughout the meetings as they patiently work
through the various issues, and consistently exhibit strength, fairness and kindness as they deal with the people
who have to come before them. There appears to be a good mix of expertise and an overall dedication to their
responsibilities.
The one thing I've noticed that can be problematic is the fact that there has been no structure or mechanism to
allow for on- going communication between the Commission members and staff and the industry at the regular
monthly meetings. Other than individuals who appear on the agenda for various administrative issues, there is
no way for the'industry to ask questions nor make comments during meetings. I think this should be changed, as
the ability to exchange ideas and information between the Commission members and staff and the industry will
benefit all lnvolved in the process, ultimately including the public. The way Commission meetings are currently
structured, there is no opportunity for industry to ask questions nor make comments during the meeting, other
than a 5- mlnute opportunity at the beginning of each meeting. That is really not adequate, and I believe that
it prevents the Commissloners from being able to obtain valuable insights and perspectives that can aid them in
the performance of their duties. Earlier this week there was a special meeting held just for the purpose of having
important ~ nterchangeb etween the Commissioners, Commission staff and the industry. The meeting came about
due to some dissatisfaction on the part of some members of the industry with some of the policies of the
Commission, which I belleve came about because there was no mechanism in place to facilitate the type of two-way
communication that would have avoided the frustrations in the first place. I think the meeting ended up being
Incredibly productive and positive, and I believe provided Commissioners and Staff members with information and
insights that will aid them in the performance of their respective responsibilities in the future. It also served to
provide Industry members with a better understanding of the Commissioners and staff, and the processes under
which they have to perform their various functions. It was truly a good start to an on- going, productive dialogue
that will ultimately help all sides in the performance of their respective responsibilities. A broadening of
perspective for everyone is a very positive thing, and in this type of a situation, a strong, positive working
relationshrp between the regulators and the regulated will only serve to improve the finished product for all sides,
including the public. It was indeed a good start, but this process needs to become a regular, continuing function.
In conclusion, I believe that the Structural Pest Control Commission should be granted the opportunity to function
in the future, and that the current management and staff should be retained. With a few minor procedural
adjustments, I believe the Commission will very properly fulfill the needs of both industry and the public.
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this input, and for your consideration of my thoughts.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Katz, President
Western Exterminator Company
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
October 3,2007
Leah Birk
Arizona State Senate
1700 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
The Nationwide Pest Control ExperCs The Termtnrx Interna:~ onal
Company L. P.
860 H~ dge Lake Boulevard
Memph~ sT. N 381 20
9011766- 1105
Fax. 9011766- 1 275
ngoldenberg@ termlwx corn
Norman K. Goldenberg
Scriirx Vrcf! Pies~ deru
Governmenl 1 Pilbl~ cA ffn~ rs
an0 lc'chnical Services
RE: Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission Sunset Review
Dear Ms. Birk:
Thank you for the invitation to commen't on the sunset review of the Arizona Structural Pest Control
Commission ( SPCC). Terminix International is the largest pest control company in the world operating in 46
states and the District of Columbia. We also operate in foreign countries through licensed franchise
agreements. In Arizona, Terminix performs its services through five licensed business locations where we
employ over 150 associates.
In my role I am intimately familiar with state laws and regulations that effect pest control businesses. While
most states regulate the structural pest management through the departments of agriculture, some are regulated
by departments of environmental protection, consumer protection or public health as well as state universities.
Some of the state agriculture and consumer protection agencies that regulate the structural pest management
industry have established strong boards or commissions within those departments to expressly oversee the
industry, including California, Hawaii, Georgia, Louisiana, and North Carolina. Relative to other states, we
have found that the performance of the SPCC in Arizona is a very well run organization that has given the
regulated community and consumers alike a very balanced regulatory scheme.
As a member of the Arizona Professional Pest Organization ( AzPPO), the state's trade association, we support
the positions that have been presented by AzPPO which represent certain refinements that will allow the
SPCC to operate more fluidly and with minimum delay in achieving its goal of industry regulation and
consumer protection.
It has been Terminix' experience that whenever we have called upon staff or commissioners, both present and
past, we have received prompt answers to our concerns and needs. We therefore would like to see the SPCC,
including its staff retained and continued with a few of the minor suggestions and changes to the law submitted
by the AzPPO.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and please be advised that I would be pleased to offer
additional testimony to the Committee of Reference should that be desired.
Sincerely yours,
Norman Goldenberg
Dear Ms
F
Page 1 01 1
Leah Birk
From: Ken Fredrick [ ken@ tucsonpest. com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02,2007 9: 05 PM
To : Leah Birk
Subject: Dear Ms. Birk sunset review letter
Dear Ms. Birk, October 2,2007
I appreciate the opportunity to make comments on the Spcc during the sunset review. I have been
serving the people of Arizona since 1979 in the pest control industry. There have been many changes
over the years and I am sure there will always be changes. I believe very strongly that the SPCC should
continue into the fbture. I believe the agency serves the public and the industry effectively. Recently the
industry association AzPPO( Arizona Pest Professional Organization) has held several meetings around
the state and overwhelmly the industry wants to see the continuation of SPCC. Recently we sent to the
members of the Committee of Reference our position paper stating that fact with some changes we
would like to address in the next session. I would like to add that very recently the seven Commissioners
have given us the industry the opportunity to voice concerns or objectives during the conln~ ission
meetings. I believe this simple change will make a difference in the relationship between the Spcc and
industry. I look forward to working with the commission in the future. Thank you again
Ken Fredrick
President
October 8,2007
Leah Birk
Arizona State Senate
1700 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Ms. Birk:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on pending sunset review of the Arizona
Structural Pest Control Commission. Our organization, the Association of Structural Pest
Control Regulatory Officials, exists to promote the protection of the health and welfare of the
citizens of each state, to promote the protection of the environment against the misuse of
pesticides, and to promote a more professional standard for the structural pest control
industry, by supporting the effective and fair regulation of the pest control industry. We
bring regulatory officials together from across the country to share information, develop new
ideas and approaches to regulation, and work together on national issues.
As current President of the Association, I have had the opportunity to work with Lisa
Gervase, Executive Director of the Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission in all of
these areas. Lisa, and the Commission, have a reputation for diligence, integrity, and
dedication to the ideals of protecting the public and the environment through fair and
effective regulation of the structural pest control industry. In her work with the Association,
as a member of the Board of Directors, and as Chair of the Termite Control Discussion
Group, Lisa has shown dedication, skill, and innovation in the regulation of pest control.
The most pertinent example of this is the commendable work Lisa has done in the creation
and development of the concept of performance based enforcement. She has quite ably taken
a nascent idea of a new way to regulate the termite protection segment of the structural pest
control industry based on the results of the protection offered to consumers, and developed a
workable set of guidelines and documents that can be used to initiate a pilot project of this
new concept. Several states have expressed interest in trying this out as a way to more
effectively use limited resources to improve the protection of consumers from fraudulent pest
control practices.
The importance of fair and effective regulation of the pest control industry is difficult to
overstate. Structural pest control practitioners apply pesticides and perform other pest
control activities in people's homes, in their children's schools and day care centers, in
hospitals and nursing homes. Pest control practitioners are responsible for protecting the
economic value of the major property investment of people's homes against termite damage,
and increasingly, protecting people against disease carrying mosquitoes and ticks.
If not properly regulated, pest control services that people have come to expect would not be
performed properly. Fraud and deceptive practices would increase, and applications of
pesticides that are unsafe for both the public and pest control employees would become more
common. Inevitably, without effective regulation, poorly performed pest control would
become the norm and the incidence of diseases and economic damage that are the reason for
pest control would increase.
Because of the importance of pest control, good regulation - defined as impartial,
transparent, predictable, and sufficient to correct the behavior of the industry - is absolutely
crucial. A professional staff of regulators, with ample experience, led by a knowledgeable,
innovative director with high standards of integrity and a strong commitment to public
service is essential for this to occur. It is evident that the current Commission, with the
demonstrated leadership of Director Gervase, fulfills that need.
Please contact me if I can provide more information.
Sincerely,
Steven Dwinell
President
Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials
Assistant Director
Division of Agricultural Environmental Services
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
cc: ASPCRO Board of Directors
Arizona Structural Pest Control Con~ mission Sunset Review
Leah Birk
Page 1 of 1
From: Dan Sleezer [ dsleezer@ sosexterminating. com]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1: 01 PM
To: Leah Birk
Subject: RE: Spam: Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission Sunset Review
September 20,2007
Leah Birk,
I am Dan Sleezer, General Manager for S. O. S. Exterminating. We are a large termite and pest control company
with over $ 20 million in annual revenues in Arizona. Our pretreat division is our largest revenue division, and we
serve virtually every large builder in Arizona. I am writing in support of continuing the SPCC and believe that the
industry is well served by this current commission and staff.
I have been General Manager of S. O. S. Exterminating since 2001, and have had many opportunities to work with
the commission on a multitude of issues during my tenure. The staff have been very helpful, even during times
when our company was " out of compliance", and I have nothing but compliments for them. While there tends to
be a natural schism between almost any industry and its' regulators, I am of the opinion that the SPCC works well
with the Arizona pest control industry. My experiences have been positive and I would be remiss not to say so.
Without the SPCC and its staff the pretreat industry would be in complete pandemonium, and the public would
suffer grave consequences.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if I may be of assistance or provide further information.
Sincerely,
Dan Sleezer
S. O. S. Exterminating
480- 497- 1 500
From: Leah Birk [ mailto: lbirk@ azleg. gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10: 15 AM
To: ken@ tucsonpest. com; demorest. allen@ epa. gov; dwinels@ doacs. state. fl. us; sbrietwei@ rollins. com;
ngoldenberg@ terminix. com; Dan Sleezer; mkatz@ west- ext. com; chris@ generalexterminating. com; Marcia Unell
Subject: Spam: Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission Sunset Review
Please find attached the memo regarding the sunset review of the Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission.
The Committee of Reference that will conduct the sunset review would appreciate any input that you are able to
provide. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Leah M. Birk
Senate Research Analyst, Commerce and Economic Development Committee
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
( 602) 926- 3171 ( phone)
( 602) 417- 3216 ( fax)
<< request to interested parties. doc>>
D. Jay Ryan
Attorney at Law
41 50 West Northern Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85051
Voice ( 623) 93 7- 3 73 7
F a ( 623) 93 7- 21 89
September 12,2007
To: . Legislative Committee of Reference
Re: Structural Pest Control Commission / Sunset Review
Dear, Senate and House Members:
The undersigned is not a registered lobbyist, but I am an Attorney
practicing in Arizona since 1968. During these last 39 years I have had
occasion to interface with the Commission in different capacities. Early- on
as an Assistant Attorney General; later, briefly, as a Hearing Officer for
the Commission and more recently as Counsel for companies and
individuals licensed by the Commission.
During that time I have seen and participatedin major improvements in
the operation of the Commission. Under the teaure of Executive Director
Lisa Gervase, the statutes and rules have been updated with the input of
the Industry and others who appear before the Commission. Last year
there were multiple public meetings on how to improve and revise the
rules to address everyone's concerns. Those meetings were well attended
by both the large and small firms, as well as attorneys who practice before
the Commission.
Last, but certainly not least, the staff has been reorganized and become
more efficient in the use or its time and resources. Ms. Gervase knows the
Commission well, having previously been its Assistant Attorney General,
Counsel for licensees and prior her appointment as Director, an
Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ) for the Commission. Her tenure as
Director, combined with new Commissioners, revised Rules and Statutes,
has dramatically improved the image of the Commission locally and
nationally.
During the 80' s and the 90' s I participated in several Sunset Reviews on
behalf or the Arizona State Board of Accmntaacy. T- 1 my opinbfi the
continuation of the Structural Pest Control Commission is no less
important and equally beneficial to the citizens of Arizona.
Thank you for taking time to consider the foregoing in your deliberations.
Copy: Lisa Gervase Esq.
Attachment 3
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSE COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
Minutes of the Meeting
Tuesday, October 30,2007
2: 30 P. M., House Hearing Room 3
Members Present:
Senator Barbara Leff, Co- Chair
Senator Pamela Gorman
Senator Richard Miranda
Senator Jay Tibshraeny
Representative Rich Crandall, Co- Chair
Representative Mark DeSimone
Representative Kirk Adams
Representative Robert Meza
Representative Michele Reagan
Members Absent:
Senator Ken C heuvront
Staff:
Leah Birk, Senate Commerce Analyst
Justin Weaver, Senate Finance Assistant Analyst
Diana O'Dell, House Commerce Analyst
Maureen P. Kane, House Democratic Counsel
Co- Chairman Leff called the meeting to order at 2: 26 p. m. and attendance was taken.
Sunset Review of Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission Presentation by
Auditor General
Dale Chapman, Performance Audit Manager, Arizona Auditor General's Office,
distributed " Performance Audit and Sunset Review Arizona Structural Pest Control
Commission" ( Attachment A) and a copy of his Powerpoint presentation " Arizona
Structural Pest Control Commission" ( Attachment 6). He explained the responsibilities
of the Commission and how it is set up. In addition, Mr. Chapman explained the
findings of the audit and recommendations by his office.
Representative Crandall distributed " Structural Pest Control Commission Sunset
Hearing- October 30, 2007" ( Attachment C) and conveyed that it contains additional
information pertinent to the subject of the hearing.
Response by Structural Pest Control Commission
Jack Root, Interim Executive Director, Arizona Structural Pest Control
Commission ( ASPCC), distributed " Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission sunset
Factors 2007" ( Attachment D) and explained the Commission's response to the Auditor
General's Report.
Public Testimony
Jennifer Perkins, Staff Attorney, Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter, conveyed
why in her opinion the ASPCC should be discontinued.
Ken Fredrick, President, Arizona Pest Professional Organization ( AZPPO),
informed the Committee that with a few improvements he supports continuing the
ASPCC.
Doug Wyly, General Manager, Arizona Exterminating Inc., explained why he feels
the SPCC should continue, but under new direction.
Robert Hartley, Vice President of Technical Operations, Truly Nolan of America,
communicated why he thinks the Commission is the best in the Country and should
continue.
Phyllis Farenga, self, reported that a few independent pest control companies
requested she explain how wrongly the Commission is being run and that it should be
abolished.
Henry Schneiker, self, expressed why he thinks the SPCC should be disbanded.
Ray Sardociaski, self, explained why the Commission does not work properly and
should be disbanded.
Richard Nelson, Warrior's Pest Control, informed the Committee that his company is
under investigation. Some of the complaints he hears from small businesses lead him
to come speak.
Jack McClure, Chemtech Supply, requested that the Commission continue as an
independent agency with a sunset in 10 years.
Gavin Gallifant, National Environmental AZPPO, expressed that the Commission
should continue and that any problems can be fixed.
Gene Harrington, National Pest Management Association, revealed why he
supports the continuation of the SPCC.
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSE COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
October 30,2007
Page 2
Discussion
The Committee further discussed the issues at hand.
Recommendations by the Committee of Reference
Senator Miranda moved that the Committee of Reference recommend
to the Legislature that the Arizona Structural Pest Control
Commission be continued for one year, until July 1, 2009, and that
the legislative Committee of Reference conduct the next sunset
review of the Structural Pest Control Commission.
Committee discussion continued.
Representative Crandall moved the following Substitute motion:
That the Committee of Reference recommend to the full
Legislature that the Structural Pest Control Commission be
terminated, and that any related statutes be repealed by bill, if
necessary. The motion PASSED by hand vote of 5 ayes and 3
nays.
Attached is a record of the individuals who registered their position on the
recommendation ( Attachment E).
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4: 15 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
~ helleyP once
Committee Secretary
( Tapes and attachments on file in the Secretary of the Senate's Office/ Resource Center, Room 11 5.)
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSE COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
October 30, 2007
Page 3
Attachment 4
Arizona
Structural Pest
Control Commission
Commission should
improve inquiry and
complaint processing
By law, the Commission must investigate
all potential violations of statute or
administrative rule by its licensees.
Licensees as of January 2007
1,006 Pesticide businesses
6,995 Pesticide applicators
1,217 Qualifying part~ es( p ersons
responsible for supervising
applicators)
These investigations take two forms:
inquiries and complaints.
Inquiries-- The Commission receives
" inquiries" from the public or staff, which
provide information about possible
statute or rule violations. Staff investigate
these inquiries to initially determine ( 1) if
the Commission has jurisdiction, and ( 2)
whether a violation occurred. These
investigations typically involve
interviewing the person who initiated the
inquiry, the licensee, and others;
reviewing documents; and possibly
conducting an inspection. If there is no
basis for the inquiry or the Commission
has no jurisdiction, it is dismissed.
Dismissed inquiries are not reported to
the public, and the files are destroyed
after 6 months.
Complaints- If the inquiry investigation
substantiates a violation that is not minor
in nature, then the inquiry becomes a
complaint. The licensee is notified of the
complaint and asked to respond in
writing to the allegations. Staff also
conduct further investigation into the
matter.
Source: The Arizona Slruclural Pest Control Commission
Information the Commission or staff
receives may also begin as a complaint,
such as when violations are discovered
during an inspection.
The Commission opened 176 inquiries
and 72 complaints in calendar year 2006.
Investigations adequate- we found most
inquiries and complaints that auditors
reviewed are adequately investigated.
Commission staff performed the
necessary investigative steps, including
interviewing the complainants, licensees,
and witnesses; collecting sufficient
evidence; and writing a detailed
investigative report.
When an investigation substantiates a
violation, the Commission may take one
or more disciplinary actions.
Investigative process not timely- Although the . Failure to monitor progress- Not all needed
Commission's investigations are adequate, they do information on how a case is progressing is entered
not meet the Commission's goals for timeliness. into the databases. Instead, some cases are closed
The Commission prescribes that inquiries be and purged before the information is entered, and
some information is not entered until after the case is
estimated 45 percent of their time conducting
violations. The Commission has delegated to its
staff the authority to close or remediate inquiries
with minor violations. In a few instances, staff have
remedied an inquiry where a violation was
. substantiated without appropriately documenting Lack of investigative time frames- Time frames have the remedial actions taken by staff and, or the
not been established for the different steps in the licensee. For instance, in the case of an apartment
investigative process. Such time frames could help
prevent cases from sitting for long periods of time. complex employee who applied pesticide without a
. license, the staff educated those involved that a Combined inquiry/ complaint completion goal too license was necessary. However, the file does not
long-- We also found that allowing 240 days to have any documentation of the action taken.
complete an inquiry that becomes a complaint is too
long. For several complaints auditors reviewed, most TO improve how substantiated violations are
of the investigative work was actually completed handled, the Commission should: . Establish and implement policies regarding violations
its staff can handle.
Establish internal time frames for the steps in the investigative process.
Adopt a 180- day investigation and adjudication time frame for inquiries becoming complaints.
Improve quality of inquiry and complaint databases.
.. RDDeeevvvieeellwoop pa aannnddd p iirmmiopprillteeizmmee einnnvtt e rpesotcilgiocariedtoskr e rreeegpsaipnrogdn ipnsrgiob ciinleitqideuusirr. ye vsi foolra tvioionlas ttihoants irtse ssotalvffe hda bnyd sleta. ff.
lnspections protect the public by helping to ensure Many companies not inspected-- Companies
that licensees properly and safely use and apply should receive each of these inspections at least
dangerous pesticides. Inspections include: once every 2 years. However, from July 1,2004
. through June 30, 2006, the Commission did not Use inspections- Assess the proper and safe
application of pesticides, including inspections of
meet its inspection goals, and many of the 812
termite treatment applications that involve a review of companies licensed during this time did not receive
information recorded on a tag at the application site. inspections. . Vehicle inspections- Assess whether licensee Other companies received multiple inspections-maintains
safety equipment and Although 138 licensees received no inspections,
. pOeffsicticei dines poenc vtioenhsic- lDese. t ermine whether the licensee some received multiple inspections during fiscal
maintains required records. years 2005 and 2006. For example, 5 companies, 3
page 2
Company lnspections
Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006
Use Inspections I
Vehicle Inspections I
488 - 324
Inspected Not Inspected
Office Inspections I
-. 256
Not Inspected
of which have both a main and branch offices,
received more than 50 use inspections each,
including tag monitors. One of these companies
received 156 use inspections during this time.
According to the Commission, this is because
some are large companies that are involved in
termite control, which is an area that receives more
consumer complaints. However, we noted that
some termite control companies did not receive
conducting a use, vehicle, and office inspection
of all 81 2 companies licensed during this time.
Revised inspection approach-- During the course
of the audit, the Commission revised its
inspection plan. It still requires each company to
receive all three types of inspections at least
once every 2 years. However, the revised
inspection plan now provides more guidance
and direction for how any additional inspections
should be distributed among licensees. The plan
allocates the additional inspections based on the
type and volume of pest control that companies
are performing and establishes monthly goals for
each inspector.
In order to ensure that all companies receive the
minimum number of required inspections, the
Commission should ensure that supervisors
follow procedures established in January 2007
for monitoring inspections.
Improve guidance for inspectors- Although the
Commission has developed an inspection
manual, inspectors do not use it because it has
been in revision. The Commission has also
provided inspectors with inspection forms, but
these forms do not provide sufficient guidance
for performing inspections.
Ensure violations are corrected- The
Commission requires that licensees correct
violations detected by inspections. However, the
Commission has not ensured that licensees
provide documentation of corrective actions in all
cases. Therefore, the Commission should require
its staff to ensure that licensees have taken
corrective action. This may include follow- up
inspections where necessary.
any use inspections during this time.
The disparities in inspections appear to result from
the Commission's not actively monitoring the
numbers and types of inspections its inspectors
are performing. For example, the Commission
reported conducting 4,888 inspections during fiscal
years 2005 and 2006. This was more than twice the
number of inspections needed to meet its goal of
Source: The Arizona Struclural Pest Control Commission
T... h CePR roeConqvotuiimdnireuem a bsilsletyast ftmifeo trnoo i nns fihostopollroeu iwclndts i: uo ppne gcotnuio idinnassn pacenecd tt iooin nistssp teihncasttop riedsce' tcnootrimsfi. e pdli avnioclaet iwoinths . t he inspection plan.
The Commission uses various databases These limitations reduce commission
to track licensing, complaints, inquiries, management's ability to monitor the
inspections, and termite action timeliness of investigations, to review and
registration forms ( TARFs). However, analyze information regarding
certain impediments limit commission Commission functions, and to provide
management's access to database timely information to the public.
information. For example:
The inquiry database contains inaccurate The Commission has taken steps to
information, and the inspections database improve information management. It has
does not contain all completed inspections. only two IT staff, but has received
Data is not easily accessible, and standard authorization to hire an additional IT
management reports cannot be readily person and retain a consultant to provide
c~~ stomseerr vice, m-:-'-:- " -. .-'---
Information on how the databases function and creare aaraDase aocumenrarlon. ir 1s
and can be used is insufficient. also engaged in identifying the IT needs
The Commission should continue efforts to improve the management of its IT
resources including: . Ensuring the accuracy of the data in its databases.
Developing needed management reporting.
Addressing insufficient database documentation.