Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Continuing Education Ipm topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves proposed continuing-education changes for 45‑day public comment, shifting hours to IPM-focused training

2067707 · January 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Structural Pest Control Board voted at its July 17 meeting to publish proposed regulatory text for a 45-day public-comment period that would revise continuing-education categories for license renewal, increasing required instruction in integrated pest management (IPM) while reducing hours classed as rules-and-regulations.

The Structural Pest Control Board voted at its July 17 meeting to publish proposed regulatory text for a 45-day public-comment period that would revise continuing-education categories for license renewal, increasing required instruction in integrated pest management (IPM) while reducing hours classed as rules-and-regulations.

Staff explained the move as a targeted, near-term change intended to increase IPM hours for field representatives and operators without increasing total continuing-education hours. The board noted the broader continuing-education and course-approval framework remains subject to federal guidance and ongoing Department of Pesticide Regulation review; staff proposed this narrower change so the board could make progress without waiting for final federal guidance.

Board counsel and staff introduced a motion to approve the proposed text for a 45-day public comment period and to delegate to the executive officer authority to adopt the proposed regulatory changes if no adverse comments are received and to make technical, non‑substantive edits necessary to complete the rulemaking file. The motion was seconded and passed by roll call. Board members voting in favor were recorded as voting yes; the meeting record shows unanimous approval for the motion as presented.

The board directed staff to incorporate public comment and DPR input as needed and noted the broader rulemaking effort discussing course categories and approval criteria will continue. If adverse comments are received during the 45-day comment period, the proposed adoption would return to the board for further consideration.