develop what I would call enforcement quotas. Recently issued policy state ments, however, give some promise of alleviating this situation.

As one responsible for a State regulatory program which is designed to be enforced cooperatively with a Federal agency, I am concerned because regulations continue to be developed on a unilateral basis. Considerable improvement in allowing State input has been seen; however, any degree of unilateral development of a regulatory program makes it very difficult for the States to operate as full partners with the EPA.

Major problems have developed with respect to minor or special pesticide uses; and historically, these special uses of pesticides have been a problem. The provisions of Section 12 (a) (2) (G) of the FIFRA make it an illegal act to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Many of the uses on ornamental corps have never been registered uses, but have been recommended uses resulting from specialized research. Those who employ the commonly recommended uses are now in jeopardy and, in fact, extension specialists who make such recommendations may now risk a considerable amount of personal liability.

Congress, by requiring the States to certify private applicators, has imposed a tremendous financial burden on the States-both by additional work to be carried on by their staffs and by the expense of preparing and conducting examinations, of travel and of supplies and postage. Funding provisions have been made for the educational phase of the program, but apparently no provision has yet been made for funding examination and certification of private applicators. Because Section 3 was not fully implemented prior to Section 4, we have no idea how many pesticides are to have restricted uses, and therefore, no way of estimating the percentage of farmers who will have to be certified as private applicators. If the figure turns out to be 100 percent, this could range up to 117,000 in Ohio. Conservatively, we are estimating 50 to 60 thousand will require certification. We submitted a budget request for $250,000 each year of the next biennium to initiate this program. Since our departmental budget has already received a substantial cut it is unlikely that our supplemental requests will be granted.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE AND TO CONGRESS

I recommend that the EPA truly cooperate with the USDA as required by Section 22 of the FIFRA and that the USDA set up a proper and adequate mechanism to handle this consultation. At the present time, I believe this cooperation has improved but I do not believe that a true cooperation between the two agencies yet exists. Nor do I believe that the USDA has an adequate staff to work on an effective and timely basis with the EPA on these matters.

I strongly recommend that EPA-proposed regulations be subject to review by members of Congress, particularly by members of the Senate and House Agricultural Committees, on a routine basis, for approval before these regulations are sent to the Federal Register for publication.

It is my further recommendation that the EPA be directed by this Committee to coordinate proposed programs and regulations under the FIFRA, the Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Presently some of the proposed regulations under the Clean Water Act would in fact invalidate some registered uses of pesticides.

An agricultural advisor to the Administrator of the EPA has been appointed. This was a step in the right direction. In addition, I would hope that there would be an agricultural advisor appointed to assist Mr. Agee, particularly with respect to coordinating the impact of various programs under his direction as they affect agricultural production. In addition, I recommend that an agricultural advisor, and perhaps an agricultural advisory committee, be provided for each Regional EPA director since many of the problems are regional in character.

The USDA should be directed to develop standards applying to agriculture. which must be used by the EPA to determine cost and benefits before making determinations with respect to any proposed cancellation or suspension proceedings.

The Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act must be updated to meet present conditions. At the time the Delaney Amendment was enacted, the kind of instrumentation and methodology involved with chemical analysis was relatively crude. This methodology has been tremendously refined over the past few years and now, instead of talking in terms of parts per million

as an analytical level, we now talk in terms of parts per billion and parts per trillion, thus increasing the sensitivity by a thousand or a million times respectively. The true significance of these very minute amounts of the different compounds in food remain largely unknown. Still, it is imperative that we continue to have adequate food production. To accomplish this, pesticides as chemical tools are just as necessary as tractors and harvesters. Congress is urged to delay no longer in taking a realistic attitude toward the revision of the Delaney Amendment. Otherwise, many of the technologies developed in the last thirty (30) years will have been made in vain, costs of agricultural production will soar and higher food prices will inevitably follow.

I recommend that this Committee direct the EPA to provide for adequate funding for all state agencies involved in the implementation of these pesticide programs, if in fact it is the intent of Congress that these programs be handled on a cooperative basis with the States. If Congress does not intend for these programs to be, in fact, a cooperative effort, but to be solely a Federal program, then this intention can be best conveyed through the lack of funding to all State agencies involved.

Additional recognition must be given to the "minor use" or "special use" problem and a solution to this problem must be developed. It is my considered opinion that unless Congress provides for additional time in this area, and unless the EPA comes up with some workable regulations with respect to Sections 24 (C) of the Act and Section 5 (F) of the Act, growers of many of the specialty crops will not have these necessary tools available to them after October 21, 1976. If necessary, additional time could be provided through some type of Congressional Directive to the EPA to deal with this problem.

This Committee should mandate that the EPA conduct realistic economic impact studies, and that copies of these studies be provided to interested parties such as State agencies, pesticides users, and research and extension personnel. Adequate time must be provided for them to evaluate these economic impact studies prior to the adoption of any proposed regulations.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for your consideration today. Your interest in agriculture, and the awareness that a healthy Agricultural Industry undergirds the whole fabric of our society, is important to the future and well-being of all of us. Plentiful, wholesome food has been a basic need throughout the ages and will continue to be so. Synthetic, organic pesticides, since their advent about thirty (30) years ago, have played a major part in the dramatic increase in agricultural production and the increased productivity of the American farmer. Your willingness to take time to conduct these oversight hearings on the future of pesticides and agriculture is greatly appreciated. Senator LEAHY. At this point I would like to insert the views of Mr. Leo O'Brien, on behalf of the Vermont Department of Agriculture, as addressed to the House Committee on Agriculture for their consideration in this matter.

STATE OF VERMONT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Montpelier, May 8, 1975.

Hon. Toм FOLEY,

Chairman, House Agriculture Committee,
Longworth Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN FOLEY: We wish to present this statement on behalf of the Vermont Department of Agriculture, to be incorporated as part of the written testimony of the hearing to extend the implementation of the FIFRA as amended for two years. This department is the so-called lead agency for the State of Vermont for the Certification of Pesticide Applicators under FIFRA.

We support the extension of the full implementation of FIFRA for two years for the following reasons:

1. Whereas Vermont feels they are as well advanced as any state in meeting the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency for approval of the Certification of Applicators, we would be hard pressed to meet the present October 21, 1976 deadline. It is conceivable that Vermont might not meet the EPA standards by that date.

2. Certification of Private Applicators as detailed by EPA is a task of great magnitude, both in numbers of potential applicators, examination, and record keeping. Since no certification has been achieved at this date, the October 21, 1976 deadline appears unrealistic as a goal.

3. The classification of pesticides for "restricted use" and "general use" has not been attained by this date. This classification is the key to the certification of applicators' program. The Environmental Protection Agency is the only group who can interpret the classification standards as they are presently drafted.

There is no doubt that there will be considerable opposition to some specific product classifications by industry, users, and states when a list is finally developed, and it will take a period of time to reconcile the differences of opinion. 4. An extended period for final enactment of FIFRA would ease the transition to the certification program and result in less confusion and misunderstandings by all concerned parties.

5. There is no crisis or emergency situation in pesticide use today which would make it necessary to keep the present deadline.

6. The certification process would continue as planned in 1975, 1976 without interruption.

Respectfully submitted.

LEO O'BRIEN, Jr., Commissioner of Agriculture.

Senator LEAHY. The committee will recess until 1:30. We have three more witnesses, and rather than take a chance of cutting off time for questions, I would prefer doing it this way; otherwise, we will be in too tight a time bind. I will be back here at 1:30.

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. the same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator LEAHY. Our next witnesses are Mr. Winton Etchen and Mr. Leo Sterk. Mr. Etchen is vice president of the Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association, Des Moines, Iowa.

Mr. Etchen, would you care to start?

STATEMENT OF WINTON ETCHEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, IOWA FERTILIZER & CHEMICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., DES MOINES, IOWA

Mr. ETCHEN. We appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Senate Agriculture Committee to testify on the future funding to EPA for administration of the amended FIFRA-at least that is the way I understand the purpose of the hearing here today.

Because we are in the midst of our busy spring season, only two representatives of our respective associations are able to attend. My colleague, Mr. Leo Sterk with Laverty Sprayers, Indianola, Iowa, is vice president of our Iowa association and has expertise in areas of pesticide application.

Senator LEAHY. I might point out, Mr. Etchen, that the committee appreciates having you come in. It is a fair distance from Iowa. We appreciate the fact that you would take the time and the fact that you would spend what must have been a considerable amount of time putting together this statement you have, which will become a part of the record.

Mr. ETCHEN. We have made quite an indepth study, we think, of the amended FIFRA act. We would like to put some comments into the record and for the benefit of the committee.

I also work as a pesticide applicator, more of a private applicator than a commercial applicator. But as I said Mr. Sterk here is active in commercial application.

While our position on Public Law 92-516, which is the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act-received our support for passage back in 1972, and having worked closely with then-Congressman John Kyl in the passage of the act we consider the bill workable and in the best interest of the Nation as Congress passed it. Therefore, we do endorse an extension of funding for an additional 2 years. We have some reservations concerning that, though.

No. 1 is that Congress do concern itself with the intent of this law and the interpretive guidelines that are being written by EPA to implement the law.

We would also ask that Congress continue to monitor these interpretive guidelines issued by the EPA to determine that they do, in fact, represent the law as Congress did intend; and, that Congress take some prompt action and assert its authority to secure regulations that meet the intent of the law and are workable for agriculture; and also that Congress recognize the need to extend these effective dates for provisions of the act in view of the fact that the established deadlines of the law have not been met to date.

In support of this position we offer the following as factual background information regarding this implementation.

Senator LEAHY. If I could interject for a moment, you have heard testimony from a number of people this morning who suggest that EPA has been very slow in getting out regulations, and-at least in a number of their preliminary moves-have not followed what was considered to be the intent of the law when it was passed.

Is that generally your feeling.

Mr. ETCHEN. Yes, that is generally the gist of our statement, concerning it.

Senator LEAHY. Although, if they did follow what seems to be the intent of the law in subsequent regulations, you would be in favor of another 2-year funding of the program?

Mr. ETCHEN. I would think we would have to say that.
Senator LEAHY. I did not mean to interrupt.

Mr. ETCHEN. With reservations, of course.

On the effective dates of the provisions of the act, they are included in that act. As you know, I will not read all of the references to those effective dates, other than to state that section 4 (c) (2) provides that all product registrations of those estimated 33,000 pesticides that are presenly registered under the old FIFRA act shall carry forward and be registered under the new law. This section also provides that all of these compounds shall be classified according to general or restricted use after 2 years, but within 4 years of that effective date. Of course, we have already passed the 2-year date. This process should have begun on October 21, 1974, and as a number of the witnesses indicated this morning, no listing has yet begun of these compounds.

Then, I would skip over the references to the other regulations that are supposedly to have been enacted, and go to page 4 of our statement, where you will note that section 4 (B) and (C) states that within 3 years after the enactment of this act, that each State desiring to certify applicators shall submit a State plan to the administrator for approval.

This simply cannot be accomplished by many States because the EPA has failed to meet the deadlines prescribed for it in this act.

These guidelines are a very necessary part of developing a State plan because the plan submitted must meet or exceed these adopted guidelines. They are promulgated by the EPA.

I would say that States are having to go forward. Many of them are writing laws that may or may not allow them to qualify in order to meet this October 21, 1975 deadline, which is set up in the law.

The statement has been made at meetings that we have had with them that no restricted use pesticides will be allowed to be shipped into the State or sold after October 21, 1976. I think that is a matter of record. The law so states it. So this is also the effective date for all of the provisions of this act.

We say if they had met the time schedule prescribed in the law and had written guidelines according to the intent of Congress and as the law specifically directs, that all States could very well have met the deadline for submitting a State plan based on the Federal guidelines. In view of these facts, we believe it is imperative that Congress take action to extend the effective date for final implementation of all phases of this act for at least 1 year, particularly on this matter of the State plan; because we believe in Iowa that we are considerably ahead of many other States in this respect; because we have had a program of licensing of commercial applicators for at least 10 years on the books. We did pass legislation the last session of the Iowa Legislature that would in fact allow us, we thought, to qualify for the minimum guidelines of the Federal plan.

But we find now, that we have some things in there which possibly are in excess or not up to the guidelines that have been promulgated in the meantime.

So, this is our first concern.

Secondly, of course, our other great concern is that the proposed and adopted regulations that are being promulgated by the EPA under section 25 of this act-we would ask that this committee review these regulations from three important aspects. Number one is do they reflect the law as it is written. No. two, do they reflect the intent of Congress in passing this law as expressed in the reports that were generated by the two committees that presented the bill in Congress. We have references to them here in our report.

Have the requirements of section 21, Solicitation of Comments, Notice of Public Hearings, been complied with insofar as section (a) and (b) are concerned? I would particularly wonder about section (a) and whether or not the Secretary of Agriculture has been consulted on these promulgated regulations before they were in fact printed in the Federal Register.

We contend that these three requirements have not been met and that most of the inputs that have been supplied from persons connected with agriculture, including qualified scientists, commercial applicators, farm organizations, and so forth, have been ignored or at best given little consideration. I think you had testimony to that effect this morning.

To illustrate our concern, we refer to the published proposal for the registration, reregistration, and classification of pesticides under section 3 on October 16, 1974, in the Federal Register. We say that if these regulations are allowed to become final, you will find that EPA fully intends to restrict pesticide uses to a much greater extent than