11. The Act completley exempts pesticides intended for export from its provisions. We believe that the information which is available on a pesticide which is manufactured for use in this country should also be made available when it is exported in order to encourage proper usage.

12. We advocate deletion of the indemnities provision. As it is written in the Act it is completely unworkable. Such a provision would only reward negligence and act as an almost unsumountable barrier to removing hazardous products from the market.

13. We believe the dates at which the Act would become effective as much as four years-are much too long to wait. We propose that effective dates be reduced and none be more than two years.

14. We support addition of wording which will insure provision of information and regulations for the protection of persons having to work directly with and around pesticides chemical workers, farm laborers, and farmers.

15. We want to see balanced and impartial representation on scientific advisory committees, and the potential for delay through their use be kept to a minimum. Their finds should not be considered binding upon the Administrator. 16. We propose that submission of all test data be made mandatory and that wording be added which will make it clear that the burden of proof lies with the applicant.

17. We see no need for changing the established term "economic poisons" which appears in three other laws-particularly as they relate to foods-to be changed to the more palatable term "pesticides."

18. Strict prohibition against allowing EPA to require private pesticide applicators to keep records should be removed.

19. A subsection of the definition of misbranding, which was in the original Administration bill and is in the current law, should be restored.

USEFUL PROVISIONS

We would like to express our support for the following provisions: (1) that the regulation of pesticides is extended to their manufacture (including producing establishments) and use, and that Federal regulation authorities apply throughout the States, not just to interstate commerce;

(2) that EPA is given enforcement powers to issue warnings, bring court injunctions, seize pesticides or devices, impose civil penalties, and bring criminal charges;

(3) that EPA is given new powers to examine books and records, inspect premises, and take samples of pesticides in the possession of persons covered by the Act;

(4) that EPA is given authority to do expanded research and monitoring in order to find new and better methods and materials for controlling pests, although we do suggest some improvements.

SIERRA CLUB STATEMENT ON PROPOSED STAFF AMENDMENTS IN SENATE COMMITTEE PRINT OF H.R. 10729

We would like to comment separately upon the Committee Print of HR 10729 in order to avoid confusion. (The number correspond to those in the suggested changes.)

(1) No comment.

(2) We do not believe this sufficiently clarifies what we see to be the central issue the need for complete and full description of ingredients. We believe that the name and percentage of each active ingredient as well as the names of each inert ingredient be shown.

(3) We do not believe that that changing "bill" to "may" really solves the problem. Perhaps a better solution would be to insert a provision for extension of the deadline.

(4) While we appreciate the attempt to avoid confusion by requiring distinct and separate packaging of a pesticide for its genereal uses and its restricted uses we are not persuaded that separate and distinct packaging will solve the problem. We have serious reservations about the dual classification system. (5) No comment.

(6) No comment.

(7) We believe that the changes proposed only exacerbate the problems we forsee with the scientific advisory committee as it is currently written in H.R. 10729.

(8) No comment.

(9) Again, we believe that the proposed change only exacerbates the problems we forsee with the certified applicator system, and we oppose the proposed change. (10) Allowing States to provide registration to meet specific local needs may have some justification; however, it is a complex issue and such exceptions will have to be strictly supervised.

ENVIRONMENTAL, CONSERVATION, CONSUMER PROTECTION AND LABOR GROUPS'
SUGGESTED REVISIONS OF H.R. 10729

1. In the definition of "Ingredient Statement", Sec. 2(n), on page 8, line 19, immediately following "name" insert "and percentage", and strike all of lines 21 through 26. On page 9, line 1 strike "and" and insert in lieu thereof “(2)”. and on line 2 strike all following "the pesticide; and" down through line 4. The current wording is too confusing, and the suggested revision would enable the public to know how much of each active ingredient, as well as the names and total percentage of inert ingredients, are in a product.

2. In the definition of "Ingredient Statement", Sec. 2(n), on page 9, line 7, immediately following "arsenic," add "Provided that: This provision shall not be interpreted as prejudicing a determination to cancel registrations." EPA is currecently considering cancellation of the use of arsenic in pesticides. Specific mention of arsenic in this bill could be interpreted as Congressional intent to sanction the use of arsenic, thereby circumventing the administrative proceedings.

3. In the definition of "Label and Labeling", Sec. 2(p), on page 10, between lines 8 and 9, insert: “(3) Labeling of Substances Used in Producing Pesticides. For the protection of workers engaged in the production and formulation of pesticides, all substances used in the production and formulation of pesticides must bear written identification of the name of the chemical composition of the substance(s) and/or be clearly posted in the workplace." It is essential for workers to know what chemicals they are being exposed to in order to take appropriate precautions to protect their health.

4. In the definition of 'Misbranded", Sec. 2(q) (1) (E), on page 11, lines 6-9, there is no recognition in the bill that there is often a language barrier for farm workers, who often cannot read directions in English. A discussion of this problem would be appropriate to grant the Administrator authority to develop appropriate regulations.

5. In the definition of "Misbranded", Sec. 2(q) (1) (F), page 11, on line 16 immediately following "ment" strike "; or" and insert in lieu thereof: "and, in particular, for the protection of the health of farmworkers, farmers, and others who may come into contact with pesticides or pesticide residues in the air, on crops or on other foliage, during or following application of the pesticides, in the course of their employment or otherwise; or". Since the hazard from pesticides is high for workers and farmers actually handling them, it is essential that the bill give attention to the protection of their health. With the increasing use of highly toxic organophophates, the stage is set for real tragedy, both for man and the environment.

6. In the definition of "Misbranded", Sec. 2(q) (1) (G), page 11, line 21 immediately following "environment" strike the period and insert in lieu thereof: ", including man, and, in particular, farmworkers, farmers, and others who may come into contact with pesticides or pesticide residues in the air, on crops or on other foliage, during or following application of pesticides, in the course of their employment or otherwise." As with the above, specific additional wording is needed to recognize the special, hazardous conditions of persons who work directly with or around pesticides. EPA needs the authority to set regulations which will protect these persons such as re-entry time limits.

7. In the definition of "Misbranded", Sec. 2(q) (2) (D), on page 13, line 14 immediately following "man" add the words "(acutely or chronically)". Since pesticides may have both acute (immediate) toxicity and chronic (long-term) toxicity, it is desirable to specify that both are within the scope of this provision. 8. In the definition of "Misbranded", Sec. 2(q) (2), add new section (E); on page 13, between lines 23 and 24 insert: "(E) if when used as directed or in accordance with common practice it shall be injurious to man, including the person applying such pesticide, or to the environment, except pests as designated

by the Administrator. In determining whether a pesticide is injurious the Administrator shall consider both the short-term and long-term effects on man, and the environment, including its persistence, degradation, and potential for movement and accumulation in the environment. In the case of a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant, used in accordance with the label claims and recommendations, physical or physiological effects on plants or parts thereof shall not be deemed to be injury, when such effects are the purpose for which the plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant was applied."

This section was in the original Administration bill, S. 745, and similar language is in the current law (FIFRA). Restoration of this highly important section is necessary in order to enable the Administrator to act if it is necessary to protect health and the environment through misuse of a pesticide, or when it proves that precautionary labeling is not effective, or when the cumulative effects of a pesticide's use present a danger, etc.

9. In the definition of "Producer and Produce", Sec. 2(w), on page 15, line 5 immediately following "propagates," insert "formulates,". The bill should make it absolutely clear that formulators are covered by its provisions.

10. In the definition of "Protect Health and the Environment", Sec. 2(x), on page 15, line 11 immediately following "man" insert "his health or safety" and strike lines 13 and 14 and insert in lieu thereof: "the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the pesticide, including the availability of alternative means of pest control." (See justification below, number 11.)

11. In the definition of "Substantial Adverse Effects on the Environment", Sec. 2(bb), on page 16, line 1 immediately following "injury" insert "or risk of”, and strike lines 3 and 4 and insert in lieu thereof: "the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of the pesticide, including the availability of alternative means of pest control." This is a key definition by which the safety of a pesticide is in effect judged by the Administrator. The bill's definition specifically mentions the economic benefit factor, which we believe to be inappropriate in a definition regarding health unless it is at least balanced by social and environmental costs and benefits as well. The bill's definition seems to imply that in judging whether or not a pesticide is hazardous, the Administrator should consider its benefits. We believe that the product's hazardousness should be determined on the basis of scientific fact first; after this is done, the Administrator should then decide whether the benefits of the product are great enough to justify its use, despite any risks. Protection of health and the environment should not be subservient to economic gain.

12. On page 16, between lines 6 and 7 insert a new subsection, Sec. 2(dd): "(dd) Unreasonable Adverse Effects on the Environment-The term "unreasonable averse effects on the environment" means an injury, or risk of injury, to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of the pesticide, including the availability of alternative means of pest control."

The new definition is to be used as the criterion for registration.

13. Under the section which requires that pesticides be registered, Sec. 3(a), on page 16, line 9 immediately following "may" insert "use or". If this bill is supposed to actually control use, then "use" should be included in this provision. Without this important proscription it is conceivable that one could use an unregistered pesticide. While this loophole may not be valuable for the majority of small farmers who must obtain their pesticides from retail outlets, it would be important for large, integrated farming corporations which manufacture their own pesticides.

14. Under the section which describes the procedure for registration, Sec. 3(c) (1) (D), page 17, line 10 strike "if requested by the Administrator,". Submission of test data should be mandatory in order to ensure compliance with the law.

15. Also in Section 3 (c) (1) (D), on page 17, strike the remainder of line 12 immediately following "based" and all of lines 13 to 16; insert in lieu thereof: including a showing of all precautions taken to protect the health and welfare of all persons participating in such tests, or a showing of compliance with regulations made by the Administrator to protect the health and welfare of such persons ;".

The language deleted has been referred to as the "feather bedding amendment,” because it could amount to giving many manufacturers life-long patents on products. Such a restraint on competition will result in higher prices that farmers must pay for pesticides which are produced monopolistically. The restriction would also greatly increase administrative costs.

The new language regarding protection of the health of persons involved in the tests of chemicals should be self-explanatory. This additional language is needed to give the government authority to require such protection.

16. Under statement required for registration of pesticides, Sec. 3(c) (1) (F), on page 17, line 20 strike "or for both". We seriously doubt that a system of dual classification would be enforceable. If it is possible to register a product for both categories, this defeats the whole purpose of having a restricted category. Even with distinctive packaging, the potential for genuine confusion and intentional evasion of regulations on the part of the consumer is high. If a product is restricted for some uses, that indicates that it is hazardous in at least some respects, and it should be used/handled with care.

17. Under "Data in Support of Registration", Sec. 3(c) (2), on page 18, lines 4 to 9, strike all of the remainder of line 4 immediately following "information,” and all of lines 5 through 9. A new data section is being added on page 36.

18. Under "Approval of Registration", Sec. 3(c) (5), on page 19, line 2 immediately following "that" insert "the applicant for registration has demonstrated". This language will make it clear that the burden of proof is on the applicant (the manufacturer). Although the House Committee report says that the burden of proof is on the manufacturer, the bill's language is less clear and should be made more precise.

19. Page 19, line 11. Substitute "unreasonable" for substantial. Thus the "unreasonable" definition will be used in deciding questions of registration.

20. Page 19, lines 12-13 deleted. Essentiality should remain a criterion in determining whether or not to register a pecticide. Chemicals should be used if they are essential to man's well-being, not just because a manufacturer wants to sell them.

21. Under "Denial of Registration", Sec. 3(c) (6), on page 20, line 2 immediately following "registration" insert "or the public" to ensure the public's right to administrative and judicial review.

22. Regarding "Classification for General Use, Restricted Use, or Both", Sec. 3 (d) (1), refer above to point 16. If the Committee is convinced that a dual classification system is necessary and workable, an explanation of the reasons should be provided in the report.

23. Under classification of pesticides, Sec. 3(d) (1) (B), on page 20, strike all of the remaining of line 21 immediately following "pesticide" and all of lines 22, 23, and up to "will" on line 24, and insert in lieu thereof "or one or more of the uses of such pesticide, due to the nature of the pesticide or the effectiveness of precautionary labeling,". In determining how to classify the pesticide, the Administrator must obviously take into account the nature of a product, not just what its label says. This language is suggested to clarify this. Under the language in the bill, conceivably merely changing the label could make a pesticide safe enough for "general use", even though it should be restricted.

24. Under classification of pesticides, Sec. 3(d) (1) (C), on page 21 strike the remainder of line 4 immediately following "pesticide” and all of lines 5, 6, 7 and up to "substantial" on line 8, and insert in lieu thereof "or one or more of the uses of such pesticide, notwithstanding any precautionary labeling which may be required, may cause". Refer to point 23.

25. In Sec. 3(d) (1) (C), on page 21, line 9 immediately following “applicator" 26. and on line 18 strike "other persons" and in lieu thereof insert (in both places): "or to farmworkers, farmers, and others coming into contact with pesticide residues in the air, on crops, or on other foliage in, the course of their employment or otherwise". The additional language is needed to ensure that hazards to farmers, farmworkers, and others who are in and around an area where pesticides are being used are taken into consideration when classifying a product. Here the use of the term applicator could be construed to mean only the "certified applicator" as narrowly defined in the bill, rather than including persons working under his supervision, etc.

27. Under classification of pesticides, Sec. 3(d) (1) (C), add a new section on page 22, between lines 7 and 8 insert:

66

(iii) If the Administrator determines that a pesticide, even when applied by or under the direct supervision of a certified pesticide applicator and in compliance with other restrictions the Administrator has imposed, nevertheless may cause substantial adverse effect on health and/or the environment because of its frequency or pattern of use, he may promulgate further restrictions including requirement for a use permit.

"Pesticides designated for use by permit only shall be used or made available for use by written permission of a duly authorized authority for the amount and type of article pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Administrator. "Before establishing use permit regulations, the Administrator must first undertake a study jointly with the Secretary of Agriculture, and in consultation with other appropriate agencies and with farm, chemical and other citizen groups to determine the most equitable and expeditious methods of establishing such use permit regulations."

The House Committee removed the proposed third category, the permit system, from the bill. However, in the Committee Report, page 15, in discussing the restrictions which the Administrator may impose, the Report says, "In other cases, general or seasonal licenses, permits or other similar forms of approval may be required." We feel strongly that it should be completely clear that the Administrator does have specific authority to use a permit system when necessary, as per the suggested language. In addition, we suggest that a study of existing State permit systems be undertaken to determine their effectiveness and method of operation.

on

28. Under Sec. 3(f) (1), "Effect of Change of Labeling or formulation", page 22, line 25 immediately following "labeling" delete "or formulation", and on page 23, line 3 following "Act." insert "If the formulation for a pesticide is changed, the registrant must apply for a new registration." Changing the label is quite a different matter from changing the actual contents of a product. The suggested language therefore requires that if the formulation is changed, the product should be re-registered. Tests that were made on one formula could easily be inapplicable to a different formula.

29. Delete Sec. 3(f) (3), page 23, lines 7 through 11, and substitute in lieu thereof: “(3) CONSULTATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.-In connection with consideration of any application for registration or any action of suspension or cancellation of any registration under this section, the Administrator shall consult with other federal agencies who have significant responsibility and expertise regarding human health and environmental quality, the Administrator shall prepare, in conjunction with the Council on Environmental Quality, a list of federal agencies who will be consulted." This new language is added to require the Administrator to consult with Federal agencies which have expertise in the relevant field.

30. In Sec. 4(a) (1), certification procedure for applicators, page 23, line 22, immediately following "certification" insert "and must have sufficient professional responsibility to undertake such measures as may be appropriate under the circumstances or as the Administrator may by regulation require, to avoid any hazard to the public and to protect the health and welfare of farmworkers and others who may come into contact with the pesticide residues in the air, on crops, or on other foilage in the course of their employment or otherwise." New language is added to give the Administrator specific authority to promulgate necessary regulations to protect persons who work with or around pesticides and the public.

31. Under State certification of applicators, Sec. 4(a)(2) (D), on page 24, line 13 immediately following "make" insert "at least once per year". It is preferable for State agencies to report on a regular basis. In that way, they will be able to plan ahead better and the necessary information will be kept up to date.

32. Add a new section under State certification of applicators, Sec. 4(a) (2), on page 24, between lines 20 and 21 insert "(F) All information shall be available to the public." This information should obviously be available to the public, since the States will be doing the lion's share of the actual carrying out of this legislation.

33. In Sec. 4(b). "State Plans, on page 25, line 2 following "State." insert “The Administrator shall review the State certification and compliance procedures periodically; the Administrator may withdraw certification if a State's procedures are inadequate; and the Administrator shall assume the responsibility to conduct a proper certification program until the State is able to comply with the Administrator's requirements." New language is added to provide a procedure for withdrawal of certification if a State fails to carry out its duties properly. 34. Delete Sec. 5(d), under "Experimental Use Permits", on page 25, lines 22-24 and on page 26, lines 1-6, and substitute in lieu thereof:

"(d) STUDIES.-When any experimental use permit is issued for a pesticide containing any chemical or combination of chemicals which has not been included in any previously registered pesticide, the Administrator shall specify that