New TREC SOP & Template posted for review at Texas Register

The SOP Sub-Committee has completed their work after two years.

The TREC Commissioners have given initial approval and the new SOP and 7-3 Report Template and related rules have been posted at the Texas Register as of 11/23/12.

This is the public posting of the SOP, Rules & Report Template. Once the posting time has passed and the comments reviewed and changes made the SOP and template will become effective.

According to documents in the public posting the earliest possible adoption date is: 12/23/12.

The link to the State of Texas - Texas Register is below. It is not the easiest reading.

I’ve also attached the PDFs of the proposed SOP, Template Rules and 7-3 Template for a bit easier viewing.

Another close inspector friend of mine pulled the data at the URL above into a PDF that is also included.


The 12/2312 date above is noted as the proposed documents only need to be posted for 30-days on the Texas Register. In the past it used to be 60-days.

The TREC Commission will review input/comments at their 02/11/13 meeting and could give final approval for the proposed SOP, 7-3 Template and Rules.

If approved the likely “in effect date” would be in March-2013.

I posted this last month and no one responded! I guess guys aren’t interested in TREC updates anymore!


Can’t say for sure anymore. I saw your posting of the same documents that Brian had forwarded to many of us at that time.

This notice is official in that the TREC Commission has approved what was proposed by Brian’s committee and it is now posted in the Texas Register for public comment.

Once it is past this step it will become law and then all the inspectors will have to comply.

Your help/efforts is most appreciated.


Thank you for the update. Has any email address been provided for making comments or has TREC decided they would like to stay in The Dark Ages and use Snail Mail only? I could find nothing on the TREC WEB site regarding email address for comments.

I missed that part of your post. Thanks Nolan. Good to be updated on its progress!

Below is a link to the TREC website that has PDF links for the proposed SOP, Form Rules, 7-3 Template and repeal of old templates and SOP.

There is also an e-mail address at this page where one can submit their comments on the proposed documents.

I see that Gas Supply System was removed from Optional. I certainly don’t have a problem with that; however, I feel it should be addressed somewhere in the information section that TREC provides on page 1. Someone, somewhere is gonna get ticked when they find out we didn’t check their old, rusted, leaky (or whatever) system.

Glad to see trash compactor, outdoor cooking equipment and doorbell gone.

Gas supply is technically a “plumbing” item. I convinced Brian and the sub-committee to add “Optional” under the Plumbing section (as well as a few others) for the ‘catch-all’ things.

If this is approved I’ll do my comments on gas supply under the Plumbing Section/Optional.

good idea. yeah, i don’t think we can just leave it. it’ll have to be addressed, even if we just boilerplate it that we don’t inspect it.

Jeez! I need new glasses! I looked at that page several times and did not see the email.


Don’t you inspect the gas system to the extent it can be inspected?

Shoulda said “even if I just boilerplate it”

Actually I don’t check inspected on a gas supply system. I check “not inspected”. Maybe all for nought, but I’ve been doing it that way for a few years.

In my twisted way of thinking, it is in the Optional section therefore I’m not required to. I do examine or look for certain issues/items where the gas physically connects to the unit and I look to see if it is bonded. If there was a blatant issue, I’d call that out. But I have a line that I insert that states I do not “inspect” a gas supply system.

As I said, maybe for nought…

The biggest problem with putting multiple items under “Optional” is it defeats the purpose of the rating check boxes. Makes it more confusing. This is prevalent throughout the TREC form. The “I.K. Porches, Balconies, Decks and Carports” section is another good example.

I see they got rid of the vertical insulation question and the static water pressure reading.

Item D and E under the Optional Systems are missing the “Comments:” headers.


This is why it is posted for public review and comments. Submit your observations so they can be taken into consideration.

It is open for input until 12/23/12 … per what it appears is noted by TREC Legal in each document.

All input/comments will be reviewed and gone over at the next TREC Commissioners meeting on 02/11/13.

I’m not the conduit for anyone’s input. Honestly there are few of us who would even take the time I did to post the information and links on the various HI forums for some visibility.

Compile your observations and send them to the e-mail address at the TREC website on the page with the notice about the proposed SOP.

I did similar over the past two years and was able to get ‘some’ changes made. Several other of my suggestions were shot down by the Inspector’s Advisory Committee and/or the TREC Commission.

Your comments (from my perspective) are well founded, but again … write 'em up and send them along to TREC.

I have done that. We will see if I get any response. I have had communication before with the attorney in the olden days but we will see.


You may not get any direct response as part of the input from the proposed SOP/7-3 and such. I’m not even real sure of the process once the review time frame is over as to who actually looks at all the items and then makes decisions about changes from the input.

I had noted the missing “Comments:” item a couple of months ago when things were still developing and it either fell through the cracks or didn’t hit the ‘need to change’ button.

TREC Legal is all new (for the most part) so if you talked with Devon Bijansky in time past … she is no longer there. Another attorney who was brought on took it as his personal mission to “get” inspectors is also no longer with them.

I’ll have to say it is a constant interesting environment. :wink:


Just starting to work through it now. I’ll edit additional comments into this post as I work through - I understand that posting comments here is not a substitute for communicating back to TREC.


  • (E) an inspection of a building or addition that is not substantially complete;
    I’m happy to see this added as an exclusion to the rule for use of the promulgated form. This clarifies that the promulgated for is NOT required for construction phase inspections performed on behalf of buyers. This has been a point of confusion and conflicting communication coming from the TREC IAC and Attorney.
  • I would like to see specialty inspections that do not directly overlap the scope of the defined SOP added to the subsection "(6) This section does not apply to the following:". Specifically, infrared thermography inspections should not be required to be reported using the promulgated form, whether performed at the same time as a TREC regulated Real Estate inspection or as a stand alone inspection performed as part of a real estate transaction. The same should apply to energy surveys and energy audits.

A little history: (information)

TREC Advisor August 1998 Vol. 9 No. 3 -

“The inspector is not required to use the TREC forms for quality control construction inspections of new homes, inspections for remodeling, re-inspections, or for inspections performed for a lender or a person other
than the prospective buyer or prospective seller.”

The form was not initially designed for new construction and is very cumbersome (for phase inspections). The SoP and form were designed for resale real estate. From way back the SoP only applied to inspections where the TREC promulgated contract was used.

IMO under construction inspections using the form look amateurish. I built for many years and had a better inspection format I used until the lights blinked over night and someone said use the form. The form format is hard on builders to follow. They don’t build to the TREC format.

I’ll wait and see. In the mean time -

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s…”

Contrary to popular belief, it has not been my experience that input from the field has any positive effect whatsoever on policy changes at the TREC or its popcorn section, the TRECIAC. For a very long period of time John Cahill spearheaded a request for interpretation (ROI) effort which seems, at best, to only have irritated the muckety-mucks at the TREC.

If you are truly a consumer advocate you need proceed with caution when even addressing the TREC or the TRECIAC. They are prone to be duplicitous, vindictive, deceitful, and devoid of anything remotely resembling common sense (Republicans). In all fairness, this does not apply to every single individual at the commission and its feckless appendages, just to the vast majority.

If you are not a consumer advocate, but merely, as the infamous J. Hime refers to you as, a Roboinspector, then write to them and believe whatever far-fetched BS you choose. It won’t change the facts as stated above.

As to the significant changes being proposed, there aren’t really any. In order to appear to be doing something constructive, when all the while only sucking up to a commission in the position to forward their individual agendas, the TRECIAC performs what amounts to little more than magical monkey spanking of the already seriously flawed SOP. Bravo! Encore!:smiley:

Is there any place we can view comments already submitted? Is that sacrilegious?