mine directions for use, and to register all pesticides distributed and used within their boundaries. Our suggested wording of Section 24 (c) is as follows: "(c) A state may register pesticides formulated for intrastate distribution to meet specific local needs and pesticides formulated for interstate distribution shipped for sale or use in a state and it may assist the Administrator in registration of pesticides if that state is certified by the Administrator as capable of exercising adequate controls." Another area of concern to us is that of certification of private pesticide applicators, including farmers who may apply "restricted-use" pesticides on their own land or land which they control. Implementation of a successful program of control of all applicators, including private pesticide applicators, will be accomplished only through strong federalstate cooperation, jointly funded. Section 23(a)(2) of HR 10729 has wording which indicates the Federal Government may "assist State agencies in developing and administering State programs for training and certification of pesticide applicators consistent with the standards he (the Administrator) prescribes." This scetion does not clarify the type of federal assistance offered and makes no reference to funding. To avoid any misunderstanding with respect to funding, we suggest the following amended wording: "Section 23(a) (2) to assist State agencies, through means including grantsin-aid, in developing and administering State programs for training and certification of pesticide applicators consistent with the standards which he prescribes." We request your thoughtful consideration for amending HR 10729 in the sections suggested. With these two questions clarified, HR 10729 would become a workable bill, acceptable to states, and would provide the framework for development of a strong federal-state cooperative program of pesticide control. Sincerely, IRVIN MANN, Jr., Director. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT AGENCY, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senator, U.S. Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: H.R. 10729, introduced by Mr. Poage, Mr. Belcher, Mr. Goodling, Mr. Bergland and Mr. Sisk to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, is a comprehensive bill and provides a good base from which to operate. The provisions for greater authority relative to training, certification, and specific use of pesticides would equip New Mexico with an environmentally aware, unifying framework. We do however, foresee a problem in the designation of responsibility regarding certification and training. New Mexico law is such that responsibility for certification is split between two agencies. The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency is responsible for the licensing and certification of structural pest control operators and the New Mexico Department of Agriculture is responsible for licensing and certification of agricultural applicators. In order to provide needed flexibility regarding administrative responsibilities, we suggest the following amendments to H.R. 10729: (a) On page 24, line 4 of the bill, between the words "Agency" and "as", insert the words "or agencies". (b) On page 24, line 4 of the bill, at the end of the line insert the words "or agencies". (c) On page 24, line 8 of the bill, strike the word "has" and insert in lieu thereof the words "or agencies have". (d) On page 24, line 13 of the bill, between the words "agency" and "will", insert the words "or agencies". (e) On page 55, line 5 of the bill, between the words "agency" and "of", insert the words "or agencies". Yours very truly, LARRY J. GORDON, Director. Hon. PETER H. DOMINICK, Old Senate Office Building, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEAR SENATOR DOMINICK: This is to reaffirm my expression of deep concern over the usurping of States' rights and the possible adverse consequences to Colorado pest control programs in agriculture, disease vector control and in ornamental and household fields from certain provisions of H.R. 10729-the proposed amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. H.R. 10729 as introduced into the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry does permit the States to restrict the uses of any pesticides under the authority of Section 24(a), but subparagraph (b) of this section negates such authority-"such State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling and packaging in addition to or different from those required pursuant to this Act." This section also eliminates the means whereby States may meet the local needs with registrations and approval based upon scientific data and the recommendations of the re search colleges and experiment stations or other state agencies, whereas the inconsistencies of this bill to tighten registration requirements with the intent that the user be more knowledgeable about active ingredients and the label, provides for a nonquantitative active ingredient statement. I would like to urge your support to the following proposed amendments to H.R. 10729: SECTION 2-DEFINITIONS Page 8, line 20.-After the word pesticide add the word "AND"; strike all of lines 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, and the Roman numeral (ii) on line 26. Page 9, line 2.-Strike the last nine (9) words starting with the word "and"; all of line 3 and the first two words “required under” and the designation “(ii)” on line 4. SECTION 3-REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES Amend Section 3(b), page 16 by the addition of subparagraph 3; (b)(3) which shall read: "Those pesticides intended for intrastate commerce only shall be exempt from the registration requirements of this section." SECTION 4-USE OF RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE; CERTIFIED APPLICATORS Page 23, line 23.-Strike the last five (5) words beginning with the word “If"; all of lines 24 and 25. Page 24. Strike all of page 24, lines 1 through 24. Substitute the following on line 23 of page 23 following the words "State Certification"-"The Administrator shall submit to the State agency designated as the enforcement agency of the State's Pesticide Use Law, for their consideration, a proposed memorandum of agreement for assisting the Administrator in the certification of applicators in accordance with the standards for such certification established by the Administrator. SECTION 24-AUTHORITY OF STATES Page 56, line 8.-Strike all of lines 8 through 14. Amend Section 24(b), page 56, line 8 to read: A State may register any pesticide intended for intrastate commerce only to meet specific local needs if that State is capable of exercising adequate controls. Enclosed for your convenience are photocopies of those sections to which I have referred; and if there is any way that I might assist, please let me know. Thanking you for your interest in this matter, I remain. Sincerely, CLINTON E. JEFFERS, Commissioner, Hon. JAMES B. ALLEN, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Washington, D.C., March 3, 1972. Chairman, Subcommitte on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ALLEN: As you know, the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, of which you are chairman, held hearings in March of 1971 on S. 745, "The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971." The Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives held extensive hearings on H.R. 4152, a similar bill carrying the same title. After careful consideration the House Committee on Agriculture reported a clean bill, H.R. 10729, carrying the same title, namely, "The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971." The American Farm Bureau Federation by a letter dated October 1, 1971, advised each member of the House of Representatives of its support of H.R. 10729 as reported by the Committee. This legislation was considered by the House of Representatives on November 9, 1971. One amendment was accepted and the bill given endorsement by the members of the House by a roll call vote of 288-91. Under date of November 6, 1971 we wrote to each member of the subcommittee and the full committee as follows: "We assume the provisions of the House-passed bill, H.R. 10729 will now be considered by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry along with S. 745, the bill that was the subject of hearings by the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation. "We believe provisions of H.R. 10729 have been carefully considered, and we respectfully request the subcommittee and the full committee report to the Senate the language of the House-passed bill." Your subcommittee has announced plans to hold public hearings on the Housepassed bill, H.R. 10729, on March 7 and 8. It is fully understood that there may be a need for minor technical or clarifying amendments to H.R. 10729 but we wish to reiterate our recommendation that the subcommittee and the full committee report H.R. 10729, essentially as passed by the House, or a commtitee bill carrying essentially the provisions and language of H.R. 10729 with only minor technical or clarifying amendments. We request that this letter be made a part of the hearings on H.R. 10729. MARVIN L. MCLAIN, STATEMENT OF JOHN W. SCOTT, MASTER, NATIONAL Grange Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The National Grange supports H.R. 10729, to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. In our judgment the bill as passed by the House is a major improvement over the legislation as it was first introduced by the Administration. The bill is basically sound and is a substantial improvement over present law. We supported passage of the House Agriculture Committee bill before the House. There are, however, several amendments that have been proposed by various witnesses which we feel should not be adopted and several important amendments which we feel should be made to the bill in order to get the best possible legislation. We are opposed to all the amendments suggested by Senator Gaylord Nelson and supported by many witnesses that appeared before the subcommittee. There is one exception, however. We do support the striking of the indemnity section (Section 15) unless it can be amended to cover any crop loss suffered by a producer which is the result of the cancellation, suspension and/or stop-sale and seizure of a previously approved and registered pesticide by the Administrator of E.P.A. The delegates at the 105th Annual Session of the National Grange adopted the following resolution which fully explains our position: "INDEMNIFICATION TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS" "Be it resolved, That the National Grange recommends that agricultural producers be indemnified for financial losses sustained due to the confiscation of any agricultural commodity because of contamination by the application of pesticides and/or from any other source, by the appropriate regulatory agency, Congress or persons responsible for the contamination, if such contamination is due to no fault on the part of the producer; and be it further "Resolved, That agricultural producers be indemnified for financial losses sustained due to crop losses which are the result of the cancellation, suspension and/or stop-sale and seizure of a previously approved and registered pesticide by the Environmental Protection Agency, if such cancellation, suspension and/or stop-sale and seizure regulation is issued after the start of the growing season of the crop in question. Such indemnification shall be made by the regulatory agency issuing the regulation or by the United States Congress; and be it further "Resolved, That no language be permitted in any pesticide legislation now pending or proposed in the future before the Congress that would foreclose an agricultural producer from seeking indemnification from the courts or from the U. S. Congress." In our judgment, based on the advice of legal counsel, if the indemnification section remains in the bill as written, without any reference to reimbursement for crop losses, it will foreclose any chance of a producer from seeking relief for such losses from Congress or through the courts, because all Congress or the courts would have to do would be to refer to that section of the bill and cite that it was only the intent of Congress to indemnify the producer, or persons who owned any quantity of such pesticide, for the cost of the pesticide owned by such persons. Therefore, if Sec. 15 cannot be amended to cover crop losses to the farmer, we would urge that the entire Sec. 15 be deleted. We do not believe that indemnification of persons suffering losses which are the result of government action sets a precedent. Quite the contrary is true. We are presently indemnifying dairy farmers and beekeepers for pesticide contamination that is not the result of their own actions. In addition, ten years ago the cranberry growers were paid indemnification for crop losses they sustained when a previously registered and approved agricultural chemical was found to be dangerous to human health, resulting in a portion of their crop being confiscated by the Federal Government. Likewise, at this present time, there is a bill that has been approved by a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee to reimburse soft drink bottlers and other firms for losses caused by a government ban on cyclamates. H.R. 13366 has the support of the Administration and therefore we do not believe that a "bad precedent" will be set if Sec. 15 remains in the Act. Our concern, Mr. Chairman, is that if the language is not changed to cover crop losses, then the section should be deleted so that the opportunity to seek relief from Congress for such losses will not be denied agricultural producers. The National Grange will support needed minor technical or clarifying amendments to H.R. 10729 as contained in the Committee Print prepared by the staff of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. In addition, we support the following, proposed amendments: 1. A provision on page 19, lines 7 through 11, prevents data submitted by an applicant to substantiate claims for registration from also being considered in support of any other application. Admittedly, agricultural chemical manufacturers invest huge sums in research. The fact still remains that much of the data, particularly in the area of effectiveness, is derived from land grant colleges which are publicly financed. Chemical manufacturers today are provided patent protection for some 17 years. However, the secrecy provision in the bill as written in effect extends the exclusive right to produce and market beyond any patent coverage, and thus subverts patent laws. We strongly urge the removal of this provision as it can only result in higher costs to farmers. If this recommendation is accepted, page 19, lines 23, 24 and 25 will require modest rewording. 2. The provision on page 23, lines 1 through 10, gives the Administrator broad powers for classification of products to restricted use. Certain compoundsaldrin, DDT. 2.4,5-T, 2,4-D, toxaphene and others-have been on the market for many years. They have been tested and tried not only for their effectiveness but also for the effect of their application upon the environment. We would hope that this committee with the help of the EPA could spell out the intent of this legislation with respect to classification for use of those pesticides which have been thoroughly tried and tested in actual field use over a long period of time. 3. We are puzzled by the specific instruction given on page 55, lines 23 through 25, to give priority to biologically integrated alternatives for pest control. We recognize that this language may have special appeal to some, but it really is meaningless. If the intent is to limit choice of research by emphasizing methods of biological pest control, then we question whether this is in the best interest of the public. There is ample proof that biological methods are not necessarily free of hazard to any greater extent than are chemical methods. We suggest that the Administrator not be limited in the pursuit of practical, safe and economical means of pest control. 4. We also support the amendment as proposed by the National Agricultural Chemicals Association as an alternative to the third party procedure as stated in the proposed EPA Rules of Practice published in the Federal Register on January 22, 1972. We believe the proposed amendments to Sec. 3, Subsection (c) (page 21, line 7) and Sec. 6, Subsection (b) (page 29, lines 1-17) show on the part of registrants a recognition of third party intervention. at the same time maintaining an equitable position for all parties involved. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the Federal-State approach contained in H.R. 10729 for carrying out the purposes of the Act. However, we also are just as strong in our support for adequate Federal monies being authorized so that the participation by the States will be encouraged. The States are now struggling under severe financial strains in carrying out their responsibilities under various Federal programs. We therefore respectfully request that the Subcommittee keep this in mind during the drafting of the final legislation. We appreciate this opportunity to present the Grange's views on H.R. 10729 and wish to express our appreciation to you and the Subcommittee for conducting further hearings on such a vital and important legislative matter that will affect the lives of everyone. Hon. JAMES B. ALLEN, NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA, Memphis, Tenn., March 7, 1972. Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ALLEN: Mr. Lon Mann, cotton farmer and ginner from Marianna, Arkansas, testified for the National Cotton Council before your Subcommittee on March 23, 1971, in connection with several pesticide bills under considertion at that time. Earlier, Mr. Mann presented similar testimony before the House Committee on Agriculture. Subsequently, the House Committee developed H.R. 10729, "The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971," which was approved by the House of Representatives. As Mr. Mann's testimony stated, the cotton industry is vitally concerned with any legislative and regulatory actions relative to pesticides used. Likewise, our industry has a great interest and concern in the condition of our environment and recognizes its responsibility in this area. We believe that the provisions of H.R. 10729 fulfill the needs of agriculture and the American people. Except for No. 2, page 1 of the Committee Print, we also endorse the amendments suggested by the staff of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Suggestion No. 2 is to amend section 2(n) (2) of H.R. 10729. We feel that regardless of the classification of a pesticide, its label should always show the percentage of active ingredients. Pesticides are often formulated and sold at different strengths. For row crops, a farmer sometimes will use them on a broadcast basis, and other times in a band. He must know the percentage of active ingredients in order to calibrate his application equipment to put out the correct amounts. State experiment stations and extension services generally make recommendations on the basis of pounds of active ingredients per acre (generally broadcast basis). It seems rather awkward and unnecessary for a farmer to have to calculate the percentage of active ingredients by substracting the percentage of inert ingredients from 100 when the percentage of active ingredients could be easily shown on the label. In summary, we support the provisions of H.R. 10729 and the suggested changes, except suggestion No. 2. Respectfully, CHARLES F. YOUNGKER, President. |