first registered some years ago, it was thought that such high volumes were necessary for adequate coverage and thus good control, and in subsequent reregistrations the label was not changed. Whatever the reason, I do know that if a proposed label today was checked by almost any cotton farmer, aerial applicator, or extension entomologist, many unrealistic label instructions of this nature could be avoided.

Our concern is that a farmer using the specified dosage of active ingredient in a total spray volume less than called for by the label is misusing the pesticide. We ask that EPA be at least as flexible with this situation as it has recently indicated it would be on use of pesticides at less than label dosage rate (Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statement No. 1, Federal Register, May 5, 1975, Pages 19529-30).

The need for such flexibility was wisely noted by the Congress when amendments to FIFRA were being considered, as evidenced by the following quotation from House Agriculture Committee Report No. 92.511 (92D Congress, 1st Session), September 25, 1971:

11. Inconsistent with Label

the Committee recognizes the need to apply the standard of use "inconsistent" with respect to labeling in a common sense manner. Thus, for example, the use of pesticide solutions in lower amounts for aerial spraying, when otherwise determined to be safe, should be permitted.

INFLEXIBILITY IN APPROVING LABELS, ETC.

Failure of the Agency to exercise a reasonable degree of flexibility in matters of registration, such as approving labels, creates problems for the users as well as the registrants.

This situation can best be illustrated by using an actual case that occurred recently.

A petition was submitted by a formulator for label approval of a granular formulation of an important cotton fungicide. The fungicide itself has had full label clearance for several years for use on cotton. The proposed label called for in-furrow application at planting of one to two pounds active ingredient in drilled cotton and one-half pound in hill-dropped cotton. The EPA product manager who was handling the petition would approve the higher rate for drilled cotton, but not the lower rate for hill-dropped cotton because all of the efficacy data were collected under conditions of drilled cotton.

The fungicide is actually applied in the furrow in close proximity to the seed. The purpose is to provide protection for the cotton plants against seedling diseases in the early period of plant growth. It would not be economical or practical to treat the total soil volume even just to plow-depth in this situation. Neither would it be environmentally feasible.

The idea is to provide a protective zone of treated soil immediately around the young plants. If cotton is hill-dropped, the total volume of this treated soil is less than with drilled cotton, and it requires less fungicide. With many such chemicals, if the drilled rate is applied in hill-planted cotton, the seedlings would be killed or injured because of the higher concentration in a given volume of soil.

This is a basic principle that all field-oriented plant pathologists accept and farmers understand. It is reflected in the recommendations for plant disease control published by state Extension services. The prinicple is similar to that for a preemergence herbicide. If the broadcast rate is two pints of the material per acre, when it is used as a band application-say a 10-inch wide treated band centered on the drill-then the amount applied must be reduced accordingly. We think that EPA was too inflexible in handling this petition.

The result of such inflexibility, of course, is unnecessary delays in getting new pesticides cleared and increased costs for getting new materials on the market. In the end, farmers and other users suffer because of needed materials being denied to them because of the higher prices they have to pay.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION

In closing, we would like to make the following suggestions for this Committee's consideration.

More Definitive Expression of Legislative Intent

As discussed above, the interpretations by EPA of the provisions in FIFRA are often at odds with the legislative intent. We think this should be corrected

through amendment of the Act or through some other mechanism of specifically expressing the legislative intent of those provisions which seem to pose the greatest interpretation problems.

Specification of Funds to Help States Carry Out Their Responsibilities

We think that in the deliberations to extend authorization of funding, consideration should be given to requiring that a certain amount of funds be made available to the states to be used in setting up (including training) and carrying out certification programs and other state responsbilities under the Act. Extension of Deadline to Implement Sections 3 and 4

The October, 1976, deadline for implementing regulations on classification, registration, and certification at this point is totally unrealistic. Some EPA officials have unofficially confided that it will take at least two to three years to re-register pesticides after the classification scheme has been adopted. And the classification is not yet completed!

States are being forced to submit plans for certification by October, 1975, even though they cannot possibly comprehend the type of state programs that will be necessary until final regulations on registration and classification are known. In the same light, state Extension Services are gearing up to train applicators so they can be certified, even though at this point they don't know who will need to be trained.

For these reasons, we feel that the deadline for implementing regulations pursuant to the provisions on certification and classification should be extended to at least October, 1978, and possibly October, 1979, with a corresponding extension of the deadline for submission of state plans.

Labeling Flexibility

Amendment of the Act is needed to provide more flexibility in pesticide use with respect to labeling. EPA needs the authority to bring labels up to date with practical and generally accepted technology and usage without requiring registrants to undertake expensive, time-consuming procedures in applying for change.

Authorization For Funding

In view of the problems as cited above that have resulted from the way EPA has handled various activities under FIFRA as amended, it might be well to extend authorization for funding for one year only. This Committee could ask for an accounting from the Agency at the end of that year.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. SCOTT, MASTER, THE NATIONAL GRANGE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am John W. Scott, Master of the National Grange, with headquarters at 1616 H Street, N. W., Washington, D.C.

The Grange is a general farm organization, comprised of producers of most major commodities, rural, suburban and urban residents. The membership represents individual family members interested in preserving the family farm as an integral part of agricultural production and the development of rural communities where services will be available in parity with metropolitan areas.

Therefore the Grange is more than a farm organization. Its puropse is to serve the total interest of the rural community and the nation. Thus, policies and programs of the Grange encompass a broad array of circumstances affecting the lives of rural Americans; they result from member action generated by total community and national interest-not by agricultural interest alone.

The National Grange worked very closely with this committee in formulating the changes which led to the amended FIFRA of 1972. Inherent in those proceedings was an expressed concern for the effects of pesticides on the environment coupled with the realization that farm operations are highly dependent on agricultural chemicals for the abundant supply of food and fiber produced from the American consumers and the hungry of the world.

The amended FIFRA included a provision that certain pesticides, because of their potential danger to man or the environment, be restricted in their use. The legislative history indicates that it was anticipated that this list would not be extensive. All other pesticides would then be given a general use classification. The amended law requires that farmers be certified before they can use

restricted-use pesticides. This section of the law has generated a great deal of controversy among farmers and farm groups. Before the problem can be adequately addressed, it must be determined how extensive the list of restricteduse pesticides will be. A firm list of those pesticides that will be restricted has not been published by EPA. The extent and cost of the certification program will be based on this determination.

Section 4 of the amended law makes provision for each State to administer its own certification program. The Administrator of EPA has made the decision that there will be no Federal certification program, so as a consequence a State must develop its own program if its farmers are to be certified to use restricteduse pesticides by the deadline of October, 1976.

In order for a State to establish a certification program, it must, in most cases, pass enabling legislation, provide funds, designate a State Lead Agency to administer the program, and write a State plan which must be approved by EPA. This requires a great deal of lead time before a certification program can begin. A State must devise a program that will prepare and certify its farmers to use those restricted-use pesticides which are used on crops and animals within the State. Until the list of restricted-use pesticides is made available by EPA, it is difficult for a State to come up with a valid program.

Another factor which contributed to the controversy surrounding the certification of farmers was the lack of information from EPA on what mode and degree of certification would be acceptable. It was not until March of this year that EPA announced what would be acceptable. This announcement provided the States with a reasonable degree of flexibility in developing their certification plans, but the announcement was late in relation to the overall certification timetable.

These delays have affected States in different ways. Some States are approaching complete certification of all farmers while others are just beginning to approach the problem. Considering the wide variance between States and acknowledging both the efforts that have been made in some States and the valid problems in others, I recommend that the date of October 1976, which has been set to have all applicators of restricted-use pesticides certified, be extended one year.

Since the proposed appropriation in S. 1629 includes $10.2 million in funds for F.Y. '76 to be used for training of applicators and for developing State plans, I support and recommend the passage of this amendment. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS G. BLACKBURN, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, WISCONSIN FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVES, MADISON, WIS.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. During the upcoming consideration of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, we hope the Committee on Agriculture will take into account the concerns of the Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives.

The Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives is a statewide trade association of cooperatives, credit unions and mutual enterprises of all types. The 325 member organizations represent an unduplicated membership of over 350,000 citizens and do business in every county of the state.

The Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives is a statewide trade association of cooperatives, credit unions and mutual enterprises of all types. The 325 member organizations represent an unduplicated membership of over 350,000 citizens and do business in every county of the state.

Each year, the Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives develops a series of resoIutions that set the policy direction for the organization. The resolutions are drafted by a committee representing every facet of the cooperative movement in the state. The draft resolutions are reviewed and refined by the delegates at each of our eight district meetings. The final draft resolutions are presented to the 350 delegates who attend the annual meeting of the Federation.

I review this process with you because I want you to understand that these resolutions are carefully considered and members are given a number of opportunities to modify the language of each.

The 1974 Resolutions include one supporting FIFRA enabling legislation for state administration of the program. The resolution worded as follows, was unanimously adopted:

"We recognize that the Federal Pesticide Control Act requires at the state level the licensing of commercial applicators and dealers of designated pesticides. The deadline for the provision is 1976.

"The Wisconsin Pesticide legislation to date does not have such a provision. We urge legislative consideration of such a proposal that will fulfill the requirements of the Federal Act."

The Committee on Agriculture of the Wisconsin Assembly held an informational hearing on April 30, 1975. Representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources were invited to discuss proposed enabling legislation with the committee. Two key concerns were expressed by committee members and by other interested groups such as WFC who attended the hearing.

1. The difficulty in administering a certification program that might require every crop farmer in the state who uses restricted use pesticides to receive instruction, take an examination, apply for a certificate and have that certificate with him when he purchases the pesticide. There are two bills that would simplify this procedure. H.R. 4952 and H.R. 5972 provide for self-certification by private applicators.

2. The definition of a "restricted use pesticide" is a major concern. The representatives of the EPA did not have a list for the committee and they stated that their deadline for completing the list of October of 1976-the same date the state is supposed to have a plan in effect. Our legislators are hesitant to pass a law without first knowing the effect the law will have on constituents. There are no bills before your committee that would solve this problem, but I hope it is something you would take note of.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

STATEMENT OF EDWIN A. CROSBY, PH.D., DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL CANNERS ASSOCIATION

The National Canners Association (NCA) is a non-profit trade association with approximately 475 members operating canning plants in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa. Members of the Association pack 85 to 90 percent of the total U.S. production of canned fruits, vegetables, soups, juices, meat and poultry products, seafood, baby foods, puddings, and specialty items.

NCA is vitally concerned with the impact of Public Law 92-516 (an Act amending FIFRA) on the safe, economical, and effective use of pesticides for protecting canning crops. We support the Act itself, but we believe the following actions are needed to avoid unreasonable adverse effects in its implementation.

1. EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE DATES OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF FIFRA

a. FIFRA Section 4 (c) (1) requires regulations providing for registration and classification of pesticides under the provisions of the Act to be promulgated within 2 years after enactment of the Act; that is, by October 21, 1974.

The October 21, deadline should be extended to October 21, 1975, since EPA has not yet promulgated the regulations. It should be possible for EPA to meet an October 21, 1975 deadline.

b. FIFRA Section 4(c) (2) requires EPA to register and reclassify pesticides registered under the provision of FIFRA prior to the effective date of regulations promulgated under subsection (c) (1), after two years but within four years after the enactment of the Act; that is, between October 21, 1974 and October 21, 1976. EPA was thus allowed 2 years to act after the statutory deadline for promulgation of registration regulations under subsection (c) (1).

The October 21, 1976 deadline for registration and reclassification of pesticides should be extended to October 21, 1977, so that EPA will have at least two years to act after the actual promulgation of regulations under subsection (c)(1).

c. FIFRA Section 4(c) (3) provides that any requirements that a pesticide be registered for use only by a certified applicator shall not be effective until four years from the date of enactment of the Act: that is, not until October 21, 1976. This October 21, 1976 effective date should be postponed until October 21, 1977. A 1-year extension is necessary because promulgation and implementation by EPA of regulations setting forth criteria for classifying pesticides for restricted use have been delayed, and because establishment by EPA of standards for certification of applicators was delayed.

A further extension may be needed, as noted in item d below.

d. FIFRA Section 4 (c) (4) provides a period of four years from the date of enactment of the Act; that is, until October 21, 1976, for certification of applicators.

This October 21, 1976 deadline should be extended to October 21, 1977. A 1-year extension is necessary because promulgation and implementation by EPA of regulations setting forth criteria for classifying pesticides for restricted use have been delayed, and because establishment by EPA of standards for certification of applicators was delayed.

(1) FIFRA Section 4 (c) (4) (A) required standards for certification of applicators to be established by EPA one year after enactment of the Act; that is, on October 21, 1973. The standards were actually established on October 9, 1974.

(2) FIFRA Section 4 (c) (4) (B) requires a State desiring to certify applicators to submit a State plan for the purpose to EPA within three years after enactment of the Act; that is, by October 21, 1975. States were thus to be allowed two years after the statutory deadline for establishment of applicator certification standards to submit certification plans.

The October 21, 1975 deadline for submission of State plans should be extended to October 21, 1976, so that States will be able to submit applicator certification plans up to two years after the actual establishment of applicator certification standards under Section 4(c) (4) (A).

The statutory deadline for reclassification of pesticides under subsection (e) (2), for registration for use by certified applicators under section (c) (3), and for certification of applicators under subsection (c) (4) is October 21, 1976. Extension of the deadline to October 21, 1977 is recommended for each of these acts. If reclassification under subsection (c)(2) proceeds so slowly that the kinds and numbers of pesticides to be classified for use only by certified applicators cannot be ascertained well in advance of the deadline for registration for use by certified applicators under subsection (c)(3) and well in advance of the deadline for applicator certification under subsection (c)(4), then a further extension of these two deadlines, to October 21, 1978 will be recommended.

2. REVISION OF REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING FIFRA SECTION 4 (CERTIFIED
APPLICATORS)

Criteria for classifying pesticides for restricted use under Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act are oriented toward preventing unreasonable adverse effects on non-target organisms, particularly humans. Pesticide uses meeting these criteria may be applied only by certified pesticide applicators, or subject to other regulatory restrictions. It should be relatively simple to train a capable applicator to avoid effects which cause the pesticides he uses to be classified for restricted use, to certify him accordingly, and to identify the restricted use pesticides he is qualified to apply.

However, applicator certification regulations implementing Section 4 of the Act complicate training needs by requiring all commercial applicators to demonstrate extensive general and specific knowledge of pests and pesticides. Also, in establishing a complex array of certified applicators categories by types of pest control instead of pesticide classes or kinds of adverse effects, the regulations make it difficult, without extensive revisions of pesticide labeling, to identify restricted uses an applicator is qualified to apply. These regulations demand a higher degree of professional qualification than the Act requires, and should be amended in order to simplify applicator training, applicator certification, and control of restricted pesticide use.

As we represent an industry vitally concerned with the proper implementation of the provisions of P.L. 92-516 to protect the environment while allowing necessary use of pesticides in crop production, we respectfully urge that these recommendations be given serious consideration by your Committee and that they be made a part of the official record of your recent hearings.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. HROMADA, VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT, TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL, INC.

My name is Charles J. Hromada. I am Vice President, Corporate Development for the nationwide structural pest control organization, Terminix International,