Congress envisioned. Here we refer to the Senate report by the Committee in which they said, "A few pesticides which are now registered would be classified for restricted use."

According to Rollin Dennistoun, who is an Administrator for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, our neighboring State, he states that the EPA pesticide classification scheme will place from 50 to 60 percent of all pesticide uses in the restricted category. We believe this is a very conservative estimate.

In addition, the proposed regulations indicate that EPA will control restricted pesticide uses through sales and possession and not as directed in the law, and I quote, "By additional regulatory restrictions in addition to those on the label which will make the pesticide safe to use and thereby bring it within the criteria for registration." That was on page 5 of the Senate report.

A preliminary draft of classification for a number of common pesticide compounds dated January 27, 1975, was circulated recently by the EPA. This draft was proposed from the criteria that were published on October 16, 1974. I understand that these are proposed criteria and not adopted.

The common herbicides such as Lasso, appear in the restricted use category in our list, which simply means practically every farmer in the State of Iowa must become certified. We do not believe that Congress intended this, nor do we believe that the States will be able to fund and provide staff and facilities to train farmers far in excess of what the law intended or the scientific facts show is necessary. In our State of Iowa, this classification program will-if allowed to become law-result in an estimated 100,000 farmers having to be certified at a cost to the State in the area of $500,000 to $1 million.

A final draft of the regulations on classification will probably appear in the Federal Register this month. I believe the gentleman that testified this morning for the EPA said in 2 weeks. They were telling us that 3 months ago, but that is neither here nor there. We must look to Congress to insist upon modification of these promulgated rules and regulations to reflect your intent so that few of our presently registered pesticides will fall in the restricted use category.

We would also call your attention to the proposed requirements of reregistration of all existing pesticide compounds that were previously registered under FIFRA. The proposed section 162.8 (c) and (d)— and this is part of the Federal Register printout-provides that substantial additional information and data must be provided for reregistration of all these products, and in addition, and I quote, "The Agency shall periodically revise the information needed to support the registration of a pesticide."

We get a little worried about this matter of periodically revise. This could be 1 week, it could be 3 months, it could be 2 years. We do not know.

If manufacturers are forced to abide by these reregistration rules and submit these large amounts of new data that are required in addition to having new requirements promulgated at the discretion of the Agency, we predict a wholesale abandonment of registration of pesticides with low uses and pesticides labeled for minor crop uses. It is very simple. The economics of new data generation for reregistration will dictate this. What this will do to the total U.S. food

supply and the cost of producing adequate wholesome food-we have not gone into that speculation.

We believe that these proposed reregistration regulations show clearly that the Agency does not understand or possibly does not want to understand the basic economics of pesticide use in American agriculture. I think you had that attested to this morning.

Senator LEAHY. So your conclusion, as you are indicating here, is that you would support the law, provided action is taken on the points you have outlined, and that if it is not, you would not be able to support it.

Mr. ETCHEN. That is right.

When we look at the fact that we are spending $47 million, I believe. of tax money on this particular law, we think we should be getting something more.

Senator LEAHY. Senator Allen and I-Senator Allen is the chairman of the subcommittee-discussed this during the lunch hour. I know that he has a concern in this matter.

I appreciate your coming, Mr. Sterk.

Did you want to add anything?

Mr. STERK. No.

Senator LEAHY. The whole statement will be in the record. If you find, subsequent to returning to Iowa that there is further material that you feel we should have, do not hesitate to write. We will include it as part of the record.

Mr. ETCHEN. We appreciate that very much, Senator.

Thank you.

If you have any further questions, we would be more than happy to

answer them.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Winton Etchen follows:]

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

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Senate Agriculture Committee to testify concerning future funding to EPA for administration of the amended FIFRA.

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 is active in the sales and application of agricultural chemicals. He will be available for questions following presentation of our statement.

This statement is presented on behalf of the membership of the Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association. It is a Trade Association representing approximately 900 members that are primarily retail dealers and custom applicators. I also serve as executive director of the Midwest Agricultural Chemicals Association— a group of approximately 100 members actively engaged in the formulation and distribution of agricultural chemicals.

The position of the M.A.C.A. parallels that of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association and I represent M.A.C.A. in that light. Both the M.A.C.A. and the I.F.C.A. organizations are a part of the N.A.C.A. and endorse the oversight statement presented by them at his hearing.

Public Law 92-516, The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 received our support for passage and we worked closely with Iowa Representative John Kyl and others to secure passage of this legislation.

We considered the bill workable and in the best interests of the Nation as Congress passed it and therefore, would endorse an extension of funding for an additional two years provided that:

1. The Congress concerns itself with the intent of this law and the interpretive guidelines being written by EPA to implement the law.

2. That Congress continue to monitor the interpretive guidelines issued by EPA to determine that they do in fact represent the law as Congress intended. 3. That Congress take prompt action and assert its authority to secure regulations that meet the intent of the law and are workable for Agriculture.

4. That Congress recognize the need to extend 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 the Implementation of FEPCA and the provision for effective dates.

First: Effective dates of Provisions of Act:

[Reference: Public Law 92-516, Dated October 21, 1972]

Page 26.-Section 4(c) (1). Two years after the enactment of this act, the administrator shall have promulgated regulations providing for the registration and classification of pesticides under the provisions of this act and thereafter shall register all new applications under such provisions.

Fact: The provisions of Section 4 (c) (1) were not met on the date specified (October 21, 1974). The proposed regulations providing for registration and classification appeared in the Federal Register, Volume 39, No. 201, October 16, 1974. As of this date, we do not know what has been adopted.

Page 27.-Section 4(c) (2). After two years, but within four years after the enactment of this act the administrator shall register and reclassify pesticides registered under the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, prior to the effective date of the regulations promulgated under Section (c)(1).

Fact: This section provides that all product registrations of the estimated 33,000 pesticides registered under old FIFRA 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 the effective date. This process should have begun October 21, 1974. It cannot begin until the regulations provided for in 4(c) (1) are put into effect. Page 27.-Section 4(c) (4) (A). One year after the enactment of this act, the administrator shall have prescribed the standards for the certification of applicators.

Fact: The date these standards should have been adopted was October 21, 1973. The date the adopted standards were printed in the Federal Register was Wednesday, October 9, 1974.

Page 27.-Section 4(c) (5). One year after the enactment of this act the administrator shall have promulgated and shall make effective regulations relating to the registration of establishments, permits for experimental use, and the keeping of books and records under the provisions of this Act.

Fact: Regulations relating to the registration of establishments were printed in final form in the Federal Register, Volume 38, No. 213, Tuesday, November 6, 1973.

Fact: Proposed regulations on the permits for experimental use were published in the Federal Register, Volume 39, No. 60, Wednesday, March 27, 1974. Final regulations on the keeping of books and records were published in the Federal Register, Volume 39, No. 182, Wednesday, September 18, 1974.

You will note that Section 4(c) (4) (B) and (C) states that within three years after the enactment of this act-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 EPA has failed to meet the deadlines prescribed for it in the act. These Guidelines are a very necessary part of developing a state plan because the plan submitted by any state must meet or exceed the adopted Guidelines promulgated by EPA.

States are having to go forward writing laws that may or may not allow them to qualify in order to meet the October 21, 1975 deadline.

The statement has been made at meetings held with EPA that unless the states meet this requirement of the law-No restricted use pesticides will be allowed to be shipped into the state or sold after October 21, 1976-the effective date for all provisions of this act.

If EPA had met the time schedule prescribed for it in the law and had written guidelines according to the intent of Congress and as the law specifically directs, all states could have met the deadline for submitting a state plan based on the Federal Guidelines.

In view of these facts, we believe it imperative that Congress take action to extend the effective date for final implementation of all phases of this act for at least one year.

Secondly: Our other great concerns are the proposed and adopted regulations being promulgated by the EPA under Sec. 25 of this Act. We would ask that this committee review these regulations from 3 important aspects:

1. Do they reflect the law as it is written?

2. Do they reflect the intent of Congress in passing this law as expressed in Reports No. 92-511 to the House of Representatives and No. 92-838 to the Senate?

3. Have the requirements of Sec. 21 Solicitation of Comments; Notice of Public Hearings been complied with insofar as Sec. (a) and (b) are concerned?

We contend that these 3 requirements have not been met and that most of the inputs supplied from persons connected with agriculture including qualified scientists commercial applicators, farm organizations, etc., have been ignored or at best given little consideration.

To illustrate our concern, we refer to the published proposals for the registration, reregistration and classification of pesticides under Sec. 3 on October 16, 1974, in the Federal Register. 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 Congress envisioned (See Senate Report No. 92-838, Page 5Restrictions on Use.) (Quote:) (2) Few pesticides which are now registered would be classified for restricted use. (Unquote).

According to Rollin Dennistoun, Administrator for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, he states that the EPA pesticide classification scheme will place 50 to 60 percent of all pesticide uses in the restricted category. We believe this is a very conservative estimate.

In addition, the proposed regulations indicate EPA will control restricted pesticide uses through sales and possession and not as directed (quote) by additional regulatory restrictions in addition to those on the label which will make the pesticide safe to use and thereby bring it within the criteria for registration. (Unquote). (See Page 5 Report No. 92-838).

A preliminary draft of classification for a number of common pesticide compounds dated January 27, 1975, was circulated recently by EPA. This draft was proposed from the criteria_published, October 16, 1974.

Common herbicides such as Lasso, (Alachlor) appear in the restricted use category which simply means practically every farmer must become certified. We do not believe that Congress intended this, nor do we believe that states will be able to fund and provide staff and facilities to train farmers for in excess of what the law intended or the scientific facts show is necessary.

In our state of Iowa, this classification program will-if allowed to become law-result in an estimated 100,000 farmers having to be certified at a cost to the state in the area of $500,000.00 to 1 million dollars.

A final draft of the regulations on classification will probably appear in the Federal Register this month. We must look to Congress to insist upon modification of them to reflect your intent so that few of our presently registered pesticides will fall in the restricted use category.

We would also call your attention to the proposed requirements of reregis tration of all existing pesticide compounds previously registered under FIFRA. The proposed Section 162.8 (c) and (d) (See pages 36984 and 36985, Federal Register) provide that substantial additional information and data must be provided for reregistration and in addition that (Quote) the Agency shall periodically revise the information needed to support the registration of a pesticide. (End of Quote).

If manufacturers are forced to abide by these reregistration rules and submit the large amounts of new data required in addition to having new requirements promulgated at the discretion of the Agency, we predict a wholesale abandonment of registration of pesticides with low uses and pesticide labeled for minor crop

uses.

The economics of new data generation for reregistration will dictate this. What this will do to the total United States food supply and the cost of producing adequate wholesome food is beyond our speculation.

We believe these proposed reregistration regulations show clearly that the Agency does not understand or possibly does not want to understand the basic economics of pesticide use in American Agriculture.

We are of the firm opinion that to allow regulations for registration to be promulgated periodically at the discretion of the Agency will also effectively discourage any manufacturer from further research and development of new pesticide products.

We also believe that the indices of presumptive refusal to register (Page 36989, Federal Register) are another serious violation of the intent of the law as written. The law specifically directs the administrator to register a pesticide that meets the requirements of Section 3 (c) (5). It says nothing about the administrator setting up arbitrary criteria which would impose additional unreasonable restrictions upon registration of a product. Here again, it would appear that regulations are being written by a staff of Washington legal experts that choose not to understand or listen to the comments solicited under Section 21 (a) and (b) of the Act.

There are many more points that could be brought up regarding other proposed guidelines issued to date where we believe EPA has exceeded the authority of the law and the intent of Congress.

We believe Congress must intervene and review the record to determine the extent to which the Agency has exceeded its authority on Guidelines issued to implement this Act. To do otherwise, will allow EPA to continue down the pathway of judge, jury and prosecutor of the Ag Chemical Industry and Agriculture. In summary, we submit we support this law as written-we would endorse an extension of funding for the Agency for a maximum of 2 years beginning July 1, 1975, provided action is taken on the points we have outlined.

We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be heard and enter our comments into the Hearing Record.

At any time we can be of service to you through this office, please get in touch at your convenience.

Senator LEAHY. Our next witness is Peters D. Willson. Mr. Willson is the conservation liaison with the National Wildlife Federation.

STATEMENT OF PETERS D. WILLSON, CONSERVATION LIAISON, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. WILLSON. Mr. Chairman, my name is Peters D. Willson and I am conservation liaison with the National Wildlife Federation. The Federation is a private, nonprofit organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means. We are supported by approximately 3.5 million individuals who either are members of our State and territorial affiliates, hold direct associate memberships in the organization, or contribute to the Federation in other ways.

On behalf of the Federation I would like to thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to testify on the need for reauthorization of FIFRA. The Federation is a longtime advocate of the concept of multiple-use management of natural resources because it recognizes the importance of striking a balance between the benefits offered by natural resource use and environmental costs which misuse entails.

In keeping with this we have strongly supported the development of integrated pest management control strategies because we believe that they emphasize and maximize the benefits of pest control while seeking to minimize the environmental risk of pesticide use.

Recently, our affiliate membership reaffirmed its particular concern about the use of chemical substances such as pesticides in the environment. Two months ago at our 39th annual meeting the elected representatives of our 112 million affiliate members passed a resolution which recommended as national policy that the burden of proof for the environmental safety of the use of chemical substances be shouldered by the advocate of the substances' use.

54-495-75- 9