EXTENSION OF THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1975 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND GENERAL LEGISLATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 324, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. James B. Allen (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Allen, Leahy, Bellmon, and Dole. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES B. ALLEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA Senator ALLEN. The subcommittee will please come to order. There is a quorum of the subcommittee present, so we will proceed with the hearing. On October 21, 1972, the President signed into law the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972. Enactment of this legislation resulted from 2 years of work by the Congress and the executive branch in an effort to balance the delicate issues of protecting the environment against harmful pesticides and the need for chemicals for the control of insects harmful to man and the need for the use of chemicals for crop production. Because the Congress felt that it would be necessary to conduct legislative oversight over the administration of this important new law, it provided that the authorization for funding would expire at the end of fiscal year 1975. Thus, it is necessary that we enact legislation to extend the authorization for the act before the end of this fiscal year on June 30. We have before the subcommittee S. 1629, a bill requested by the administration to provide for a 2-year authorization for funding. The departmental request bill would provide for $47,868,000 in authorized funding for the fiscal year 1976, and $47,200,000 in funding for fiscal year 1977. In the last 2 crop years, those of us who are interested in American agriculture have become acutely aware of the importance of farm chemicals in food production. The energy shortage has resulted in extreme shortages of certain farm chemicals because these chemicals are derived from petroleum and natural gas. The energy shortage, plus the cancellation and suspension by the Environmental Protection Agency of pesticides that farmers are accustomed to using, has made weed and insect control particularly difficult in some areas. The cost of farm chemicals has soared, increasing over one-third in the last 2 years. Therefore, we are particularly interested that the EPA not administer the law in such a manner as to create greater burdens for American farmers. The EPA's proposed procedures for certifying applicators of restricted use pesticides have been extremely controversial. We are interested in determining how the Environmental Protection Agency intends to go about certifying thousands of farmers in each State and whether the certification process will impose an intolerable burden on farmers. The entire Southeast, including my own State of Alabama, has had tremendous problems with infestation of fire ants in recent years. The USDA has previously conducted a fire ant control program, but recently USDA ended the program completely charging the EPA's restrictions on the use of Mirex were too stringent to make the program worthwhile. I was extremely distressed by this action, because fireants are not only a hazard to livestock, to plants, and to agricultural production, but they are also extremely harmful to humans. There have been many cases of severe injury to children stung by fire ants. We would like to know how the Environmental Protection Agency intends to resolve this problem. We have a fine list of witnesses and I am sure they will fully explore the issues involved in the administration of the law and give us suggestions for its improvement. We will hear from you, Mr. Agee, and Mr. Johnson in such a manner as you see fit. Now traditionally, the Senate Agriculture Committee limits the oral testimony of witnesses to 10 minutes. We do not enforce that too strictly, but if you would try to limit your oral testimony to 10 minutes, I dare say you will be given even longer time with an opportunity to respond to questions. Before we begin, if there are no objections, I will insert a copy of S. 1629 and a staff explanation of the bill, plus a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency concerning S. 1629. (S. 1629, the staff explanation of S. 1629, and the EPA letter follow :) [S. 1629, 94th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To extend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, for two years Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 27 of the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 136(y), is amended by adding at the end of such section the following: "There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of this Act $47,868,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and $47,200,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977.". SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY-STAFF EXPLANATION OF S. 1629 S. 1629 would extend for two years the appropriations authorized for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The bill authorizes to be appropriated $47,868,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and $47,200,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977. Hon. NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Enclosed is our proposed bill "To extend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, for two years." The bill would extend our authorities under section 27 of the Act. These authorities expire on June 30, 1975. This extension is suggested in order to enable us to continue the programs envisioned by the Act. We recommend that this bill be referred to the appropriate Committee for consideration, and that it be enacted. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that this legislative proposal is consistent with the program of the President. Sincerely yours, RUSSELL E. TRAIN. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES L. AGEE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Mr. AGEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I do have Mr. Johnson with me, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Pesticide Programs. I have a very short summary statement as a substitute for the longer statement, which I will submit for the record. I am James Agee, Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials of the Environmental Protection Agency. I welcome the opportunity to summarize the progress that the Agency has made in implementing the 1972 amendments to the Pesticide Act. Let me state at the outset that we support S. 1629, which would extend for 2 years the appropriations authority of the act, which expires at the end of the present fiscal year, and urge your favorable consideration of this bill. During the 2 years since enactment of the 1972 amendments we have promulgated proposed and final regulations which put into effect the new authorities of the act. The tremendous response to our proposals from all interested segments of the community has helped insure that the regulations are reasonable but has also caused delay in some cases. The basic premise underlying our regulations is that pesticides can, and will remain essential to the public well being, but that adequate control must be exercised to eliminate or minimize the risks which pesticides unavoidably entail. This premise gave rise to the statutory concept of "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment," which is the basis for a judgment of the desirability of registering a pesticide as well as the degree of control which should be imposed on its use. A fuller explanation of the precepts which guide our pesticide registration and use decisions is contained in the attached copy of my August 16, 1974, statement before the Senate Commerce Committee. The 1972 amendments greatly expanded our authority to impose controls on the use of pesticides. We have made substantial progress in implementing these controls, including the most important, which pertain to registration, classification, and certification of applicators. Based on an assessment of "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment," a pesticide might be denied registration or registered and classified for general or restricted use. Classifying pesticides for restricted use and requiring applicators to be certified are two control measures made available by the 1972 amendments of the act. The criteria, test protocols, other requirements, and our analytical procedures leading to registration and classification procedures are contained in two documents: proposed regulations published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1974; and a major revision to our "Guidelines for Registering Pesticides in the United States," which is about to be published. Briefly our analytical procedures involve a preliminary search for indicators permitting a presumption that a pesticide poses an unreasonable risk. Then, where necessary, we conduct a full analysis of the potential hazards and its implications for registration and classification. A presumption of unreasonable risk can be rebutted by the registrant or applicant. The classification process would then follow, and unlike the earlier assessment which sought circumstances indicating further analysis is necessary, classification involves a precise measure of several characteristics of the pesticide. Classification will soon be underway and is scheduled for completion by October 21, 1976. Persons who use certain restricted use pesticides will be required to be certified under a State program. Our progress in the area of assisting States includes final regulations governing the programs, Federal financial assistance, cooperative interagency agreements with the Department of Agriculture, and a wide range of training materials. Also, the States are making good progress in developing and finalizing their certification plans. One planning tool, the list of pesticides to be classified restricted, is essential to the States. We have published a preliminary candidate list and expect a greatly refined candidate list by June 30 of this year. The applicator certification program is essential to insure that applicators' knowledge keeps up with the rapidly changing state of the art of pesticide handling and application. At the same time, farmers should not fear that they will be forced to undergo a difficult academic and administrative process to be certified, or that they will be denied pesticides pending certification. Our plans avoid these problems. The status of regulations required by the 1972 amendments is summarized in a chart to be submitted for the record. However, I would like to conclude my statement by briefly discussing certain regulations. The proposed experimental use permit regulations were thoroughly discussed with representatives of the Department of Agriculture, experiment stations, land grant universities, and other research organizations before being signed as final regulations on April 25, 1975. Final regulations providing for three types of emergency exemptions from the act requirements-that is, Specific, Crisis, and Quarantine/ Public Health-were published on December 3, 1973. We are now circulating the fourth draft of the National Pesticide Monitoring Plan, under the research and monitoring authorities of the FIFRA. The plan will be one component of a comprehensive pesticide hazard evaluation system we are developing. Finally, we are near promulgation of regulations to implement authorities pertaining to State registration of pesticides for "special local needs." Two major drafts have been circulated among State regulatory officials and other interested groups for comment. To sum up, we have made considerable progress toward full implementation of the 1972 amendments to the act. While some elements of the program may be less advanced than we would like, the deadline for fully implementing the act is still 17 months away; we expect to substantially meet this deadline. We believe our implementation efforts have been reasonable and fair, and we have drawn on as wide a scope of interested persons as possible in writing regulations. Our goal remains unchanged: Administration of the authorities given us by the Congress with deep respect for the continuing role of pesticides in agriculture and the essential task of protection of health and the environment. This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Agee. You have a very fine statement. You do not make any recommendations for changes in the existing law. You and the administration recommend a simple extension of the law. Is that correct? Mr. AGEE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We do not recommend any changes in the basic legislation certainly at this time. The act is relatively new, being passed in 1972. We think we are just getting up to speed and the momentum is going. We still have every hope of meeting the mandatory dates of both registration and classification and also the certification of operators by October 1976. Senator ALLEN. You were invested with great authority and great discretion in the 1972 act and you apparently feel that the present law does give you all of the authority that you need to enforce the insecticide, pesticide, and fungicide and rodenticide law. Is that correct? Mr. AGEE. That is correct, sir. Senator ALLEN. Do you issue or file impact statements, cost impact statements, when you issue agency regulations? Mr. AGEE. Yes, sir, generally we do file inflationary impact statements. We do an environmental assessment in every case. Senator ALLEN. You are required to do that under Executive order, are you not? Mr. AGEE. Yes; we are. Senator ALLEN. How often have you found it necessary to file these statements? In other words, what regulations have you had that would require you to file impact statements of the type you have described? Mr. AGEE. Perhaps Mr. Johnson can cite definitely what we have done in this area. STATEMENT OF EDWIN L. JOHNSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PESTICIDE PROGRAMS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Mr. JOHNSON. In the case of all the regulations, we need to develop an economic analysis within the Agency. This has been a requirement of the Administrator even prior to these Executive orders. Under the Executive order, the EPA is developing criteria which would define |