STATEMENT OF O. A. WOLCOTT, MANAGER, PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES, CENEX, INC., ST. PAUL, MINN., PRESENTED BY REUBEN L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Mr. Chairman and member of the committee, I am O. A. Wolcott. I am Manager of Planning and Technical Services, Agri-Products Division of CENEX Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota and today speaking for the National Farmers Union, a nationwide farm organization. I am accompanied by Reuben L. Johnson, Director of Legislative Services for the organization.

I appear here today to voice the need for a new provision in the E.P.A. Program for "State Plans for Certification of Private Applicators."

The Program provides for the proper use and application of that group of pesticides known as "Restricted-Use" pesticides.

E.P.A. has over-reacted, and have developed regulations that are highly restrictive.

I am concerned with the intent of E.P.A. :

(1) To require that each farmer pass a test or to hire a commercial applicator.

(2) To restrict the use of pesticides, and thereby allow pests to reduce both the quantity and quality of crops and livestock grown in the United States for our food and for export.

The Program for the Certification of Private Applicators (Farmers) as developed by E.P.A. in its Regulations creates harassment of the farmer and serves no useful purpose in improving the use of pesticides. They will result in more red tape which would discourage the use of pesticides and would create an enforc ing bureaucracy wasteful of the nation's funds and resources. The E.P.A. pesticide regulations were created by urbanites with the express purpose of reducing the use of pesticides and developing a federal pesticide record on every farmer in the United States.

We expressed our views to Congress when the Act was in Congressional hearings. We expressed our views to E.P.A. when the Regulations were in E.P.A. hearings. We were told by E.P.A. there was provision for the "sign-up" method of Certification in their program. Gentlemen, the E.P.A. is now taking the position that there is no place in its Regulations for the "sign-up" method, except on a temporary basis. We ask that the "sign-up" procedure of certifying farmers be made an alternative in the E.P.A. Certification procedure and acceptable in the States' plans. We believe the Federal Pesticide Act of 1972 and the Regulations do provide for this, but E.P.A. does not consider it an enforceable procedure. It is my opinion that less than one-third of the farmers could be certified with the E.P.A. method by the due date of October 22, 1976. This then creates more problems for the State Administrators. The entire burden of Certification is delegated to the states. The states don't like the examination procedure nor the tremendous expense.

I speak for some 80,000 farmers in Minnesota and I believe I express the opinion of one million farmers in the United States in stating that we do not need a Federal Pesticide record on each farmer. It is unnecessary and unwarranted. It would create a new and unwarranted expense of $15 to $20 million annually. This personal examination of every farmer would also create harassment and serve no useful purpose to him or the public.

This nation's farmers have been using pesticides extensively for the past 20 years without incident or cause to consider this a hazard to our Society. We now use more mercury for filling teeth and in the doctor's thermometers that are broken, than is used in the seed treating for the farmers. This is an indication of the source of exposure to people.

We have an E.P.A. Pesticide pilot project on farmer training in Minnesota. From it we have learned that the farmer response to classroom testing is 20% below his capability outside the classroom. The tests are not a practical measure of one's capability to use pesticides properly.

The uses of pesticides are specifically regulated. There is only one way to use a pesticide, and that is according to the directions on the label. This is specific in the statement to be on the label of each pesticide. "It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." This leaves little to the discretion of the user. It brings us to the point of whether there

is a constructive purpose for an E.P.A. examination. It seems to me that we need the integrity of the user to use it properly. The use of pesticides by farmers has shown that their integrity is the single most important factor in proper pesticide use. It is our objective to ensure this quality of integrity through the "sign-up" method of certification.

We do have a plan for certifying farmers. It has worked for the past seven years and we have a good record of pescticide use in Minnesota. We did discard the old plan which was like the present E.P.A. plan. It was not workable. It was not acceptable to farmers. It was costly and ineffective to administer. We speak from eight years of experience. We are offering the "sign-up" plan as a far better plan for certifying farmers than E.P.A. has or has been willing to acknowledge in an acceptable state plan.

I quote from Dr. Dennistoun, Administrator of Minnesota Department of Agriculture, "The Minnesota sign-up' plan is a program which both the Minnesota Extension Service and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture can impiement within the monetary and personnel limitation under which both state agencies must operate. It is an effective, workable plan capable of achieving the desired objectives of regulatory officials."

I quote from the letter sent to Mr. Train at E.P.A. by Carroll G. Wilson, President of the Minnesota Farm Bureau, January 24, 1975. "Our Minnesota 'sign-up' plan for certifying farmer applicators is practical, workable and inexpensive. It is functioning so well in Minnesota, that the Minnesota Farm Bureau urges E.P.A. to give serious consideration to its adoption in preference to the applicator certification procedures it currently proposes for the individual states. The signup mechanic will make a real contribution to determining whether farmers will be able to meet our needs for Agricultural production new and in the future." The sign-up plan will accomplish the same end results of pesticide safety as the E.P.A. proposals and requirements. We are confident of this. We have seen the results and we have 80,000 farmers in Minnesota that can attest to it.

The sign-up method of certification is pertinent, factual, efficient and effective. This is how it works. Each time the farmer wants to purchase restricted-use pesticides, he enters the proper information in the Restricted-Use Pesticide Register. A copy of a page is attached. The Registers are kept by the local dealers for the State Administrator. The information includes date of purchase, name and address, the pesticide, the amount, the crop and the pest. The user signs that he has read the pesticide label, understands it, will follow the directions, and precautions to protect himself and the environment and that he certifies that he is competent to use it. The dealer is available to assist, when needed, in explaining the label, but is in no way responsible for the product use or misuse. The dealers have the qualifications for this service, have passed the tests and are licensed by the State Administrator as pesticide dealers.

This method of certification reminds the user at the time of each purchase of his responsibilities and provides a source of current information on each pesticide just before its use. It utilizes the important feature of people, their integrity. It honors their integrity to do a good job. The act provides penalties for those who do not.

We support and will assist the University in its program of training and dissemination of pesticide information.

The sign-up program has many advantages over the current E.P.A. program. It is adequate to achieve the desired safety results, and to protect the environment from unreasonable harm. It can be administered. The cost of administration is reasonable, and it can save the E.P.A. and state administrators $15 to $20 million per year. We do not have a $15 million problem. It avoids harassment of the farmers.

The farmer is out on the land producing crops and livestock because he is a businessman. No one is forcing him to produce. He is producing top yields and high quality because it is his nature to do a good job and be proud of it. If we interfere with his free enterprise, his ability to obtain the supplies he needs to do a good job, he can produce accordingly. He can neglect feed control on his corn and come up with 60 to 70 percent of normal yield and of poor quality. He can forego weed control and seed treatment on his wheat and barley and get a 60 percent crop and of poor quality. We need the good will of the farmer for top crop production. To the nation, poor crop production means higher food costs and very little for export.

We urge the adoption of the sign-up method of Certification of farmers in the E.P.A. program for State Plans.

Senator LEAHY. I call Mr. Hance, Mr. Deck, and Mr. Stackhouse. Senator DOLE. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement from Roland Rhodes, United Pesticide Formulators & Distributors Association, which I would like to have made a part of the record at this point. Senator LEAHY. Without objection, that will be placed as part of the record.

[The statement of Mr. Rhodes follows:]

STATEMENT OF ROLAND L. RHODES, UNITED PESTICIDE FORMULATORS & DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT LIAISON COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, my name is Roland L. Rhodes, I am the immediate past-president of the United Pesticide Formulators & Distributors Association and am currently chairman of the Government Liaison Committee for the association. On behalf of the association, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to testify regarding the effects that the amended FIFRA and its implementation is having on our membership and the structural pest control industry.

For the information of the committee, I have attached to the end of my statement, our membership list. Our association is comprised of formulators and 54-495-75-7

distributors of pesticides, application equipment, and other materials sold primarily to the structural pest control industry. It is estimated that UPF&DA members now supply approximately 75% of the pesticides sold for structural pest control uses.

Testimony was given by our association before this committee in March, 1971, on H.R. 4152 from which the amended FIFRA evolved. We emphasized at that time of our support of legislation to provide adequate protection for mankind and his environment from the misuse and abuse of pesticides. We wish to reaffirm that position to you, today and recommend the continued authorization of funds for the amended FIFRA.

The implementation, to date, of the amended FIFRA has resulted in several concerns for our members and our customers, the structural pest control operators.

PRODUCT REGISTRATION-SECTION 3

1. The ever-increasing cost of developing pesticide formulations has resulted in a fewer number of formulators developing, registering, and marketing fewer pesticide products for the structural pest control industry. The smaller formulators can not justify the expense to develop products for a small trade area. Likewise, products with specialized or limited uses can no longer carry the burden of product registration. It is recommended that criteria be established so that products with low total volume usage in the environment for specialty or limited uses, and for use only by certified applicators or under their direct supervision, be granted EPA registration without the tremendous testing now required. Otherwise only high total volume usage pesticides will reach the market place leaving minor pests and specialized uses of pesticides without any EPA registered product available.

2. There are several insects and other bugs that occasionally become a pest of man and his environment for which no registered product is available for their control. We strongly recommend that this committee direct the EPA to allow the use of a registered product, with site application directions in the area where the occasional pest is found, to control these pests. As the present time it is illegal to do so. Yet it has been a successful industry practice for many years. The difficulty of tests on these pests that occurs only intermittently or infrequently, for registration purposes is tremendous.

3. Product labels are becoming more specific as to pests to be controlled and application sites. In the past, similar pesticide products contained different label statements depending on which industry the product was being marketed. Whenever a pesticide user was unable to obtain the product with the label directions for his particular use, he purchased the similar product and used it according to the label directions that were on the pesticide he formerly purchased. Now this is illegal under the law. It is recommended that the pesticide user be allowed to use similar products according to approved labeling without being cited and assessed fines by EPA. We also recommend that general groups of pests appear on the label rather than specific specie of pests. No willful intent to misuse the product is indicated and no significant adverse effect on mankind or the environment will result.

4. The combining of pesticides by the pesticide applicator, at the time of application, to control different pests in a given area at the same time, has been a common industry practice. We understand that this practice is no longer legal unless specific directions for this appear on the label of each product. This is an industry concern that EPA should re-evaluate. Separate applications of each pesticide will result in horrendous increases in costs to the pesticide applicator and ultimately to the consumer.

CERTIFICATION-SECTION 4

The regulations containing the standards for Certification of Applicators and the State Plans for Certification of Applicators have been finalized. Several states have addressed themselves to these regulations. Our association has several concerns about this section, primarily on behalf of our customer, the structural pest control operator.

1. Many states are going beyond the intent of the law and have imposed business license fees and certification examination fees upon the applicators. They are also requiring re-examinations of the applicators for which a fee is charged. This is primarily resource for state funds, rather than a means of protecting man and his environment. The law states in Sect. 22 that "the administer is authorized

to enter into cooperative agreements with States to (1.) cooperate in the enforcement of the act (2.) assist in programs for training and certification of applicators."

The commercial applicators are being wrongly assessed for the administration training, certification, and enforcment of the amended FIFRA. This is a federal law. It, in our opinion, should be federally funded, at no cost to the applicator. It is also our opinion that re-examinations are not a valid method of determining a persons continued competency. Most commercial applicators attend shortcourses, conferences, etc., to keep informed on industry changes.

INSPECTION OF ESTABLISHMENTS-SECTION 9

The interpretation of this section of the law causes our association members and our customers the most concern. Section 9(c)(3) states "WARNING NOTICES-Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring the Administrator to institute proceedings for prosecution of minor violations of this Act whenever he believes that the public interest will be adequately served by a suitable written notice of warning." Several of our association members have been cited and assessed civil penalties in the magnitude of several thousand dollars for minor violations. Cases in point are:

1. Member firm in Pennsylvania was cited for minor graphic errors on label. 2. Member firm in California was assessed $1,500.00 for graphic error on label.

3. Member firm in Georgia was fined $2,000.00 for cross-contamination of product containing minute amounts (ppm) of similar pesticide.

(We recommend that acceptable levels of tolerance be established particularly when the cross-contamination will not affect the effectiveness of the product, mankind or his environment.)

4. Member firm in Michigan was fined $1,500.00 on products prepared for him by private label formulator. The products, rodenticides, didn't meet minimum efficacy standards.

(We question the validity of the results. We recommend that testing procedures be more fully developed so that these rodenticides can be tested on norway rats from the environment rather than laboratory animals (albino rats and mice) raised in captivity on a laboratory diet at Beltsville, Md.)

5. Member firm in Pennsylvania was assessed $4,000.00 for having identification label on containers rather than registered label. The member firm always places registered label on containers before shipment. Also included in citation were four counts of using sharp symbol (#) instead of word number or No. on the EPA registration line.

(We recommend that a comprehensive program of free on-site consultative inspections be established that would provide support to the formulators and pesticide users in their sincere desire for voluntary compliance with the amended FIFRA.)

During a meeting with EPA staff on December 19, 1974, it was recommended that EPA Enforcement Division field personnel become more acquainted with the structural pest control industry and that they assist in the education of industry firms on the requirements and interpretation of the amended FIFRA, giving industry firms (formulators and users) an opportunity to comply rather than the present approach of immediate citations with assessment of civil penalties for any non-compliance of the law. EPA could better accomplish its aim of protecting man and his environment by working with the formulators and users of pesticides, in the implementation of the amended FIFRA.

Many of the recommendations appearing in House Report 93-1608, Chapter V. on the Effects of the Administration of OSHA on Small Business are applicable in the administration of the amended FIFRA, in our opinion. Thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns to you today.

UNITED PESTICIDE FORMULATORS & DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, INC., COLLEGE PARK, GA.

ROSTER, 1975

T. J. Humphrey, Afa Corporation (allied), 14201 N. W. 60th Ave., Miami Lakes, Fla.

A. M. Phillips, American Fluoride Corporation, 17 Huntington Place, New Rochelle, N.Y.