this would be automatic. We feel that if the company feels strongly that this information should be kept confidential, then they should make specific request to the Environmental Protection Agency when they submit their registration. There are two points here, one dealing with the ability of other manufacturers to manufacture the same product and the right of an initial manufacturer to protect the information that he has developed. It is not going to be an easy question to answer. We think that this might be a suggestion at least that rather than this be mandatory, make it at the request of the manufacturer. The committee print recommendation No. 7, which reflects the specific period of time for the NAS committee report to be submitted, we feel very strongly that if 60 days is not felt to be time enough, then there should be another specific time period mentioned in the law and not the term that is proposed; "within an agreed period of time." We feel that section 7 regarding the registration of establishments should clearly state which types of establishments are involved. Everyone from the initial manufacturer down to the last packager. I do understand from personnel in EPA that this is their feeling in regard to this law. We also recommend that section 11 (a) be clarified in regard to recordkeeping. At the present time this section states that a private applicator need not keep records or file any reports or documents. We feel very strongly that the bill falls one step short of desired results if this particular class or group of applicators is not required to keep any records. Senator ALLEN. Even an individual farmer? Mr. FROMMER. Yes. We also question the impact of this particular section on the New York law that does require any registered applicator to keep records. If recordkeeping is not required on the Federal level, we are not too sure what the impact would have on our legislation. Senator ALLEN. What about your whole setup of pesticide control, what would be the effect of the Federal preemption in the field? Would your department be relieved of many of its duties or what would be your feeling on that? Mr. FROMMER. We feel that the Federal law will strengthen our position as far as pesticide regulation is concerned, especially section 24(a) as amended in the House prior to the bill being passed. Senator ALLEN. Do you feel that you would have authority to ban a pesticide that had been registered with the EPA? Mr. FROMMER. Yes; very definitely. We feel that under the provision of the existing bill as it stands before us right now, we would have the authority to be more stringent in regard to the use of a particular product presently allowed or even allowed in the future by the EPA. Senator ALLEN. What about the reverse of that then? Mr. FROMMER. I can think of no reason why we would want to be less restrictive than the EPA would be. I would think the only case in point, which is one that I was coming to, is in regard to State labeling. We feel very strongly that the States should be allowed to register products for specific local needs and I think this reference very directly refers to the question Senator Aiken asked you. We had the same problem since New York and Vermont share jointly the production of this crop in the Champlain Valley. It was as much a problem to us as the State of Vermont. I think this bears very directly on our proposal that the amendment that is now on the committee print is very favorable and we do favor this amendment as it stands right now. We do feel very strongly that we should be allowed some leeway in registering products at the State level for local problems. Senator ALLEN. Well, now that is permitted by the bill. It is in the present wording of the committee print and we favor that quite strongly. Mr. FROMMER. One amendment to the bill that we would recommend very strongly regards the indemnification of manufacturers whose products are suspended. To our knowledge this has not been done in the past. We feel very strongly that this is a dangerous precedent that would be set if this was allowed and we feel that it would create: No. 1, an undue burden on the taxpayers of the State of New York; and No. 2, create a burden on EPA because they would be the ones to pay the actual indemnity; we also feel this would enter into their decision regarding recall of a particular product. We very strongly recommend that section 23 (a) (2) be amended to clearly indicate that assistance to State agencies be in the form of grants and aid. The assistance as outlined by Mr. Dominick's statement this morning fell that much short of assistance to be provided by the EPA. We feel that training and certification is very much needed and very worthwhile. It is something that we are very anxious to begin in New York but it is going to put a financial strain on an already strained budget. The only question as to whether or not we could implement the type of program we feel is really necessary, is funding. We feel this is very important in this particular program. Senator ALLEN. Do you have any idea what it would take to fund the operations in the State of New York? Mr. FROMMER. I think that depends on how far down the line we go on certification. Would we go to the supervisory level or do we go all of the way down the line to the man at the bottom. The more people we approve in the certification program, the more expensive it would be and I imagine it would run anywhere from a quarter to a half a million dollars. Senator ALLEN. What is your present budget? Senator ALLEN. Well, that is surprisingly low. Mr. FROMMER. It is surprisingly low and a lot lower than we had hoped it would be at this time in the development in the Department of Environmental Conservation. It is only about a year and a half old and we had hoped our program would be larger than right now but it is a budget crisis that all State departments in New York are faced with now. Senator ALLEN. You hope it gets bigger; is that right? Mr. FROMMER. We are keeping our fingers crossed, Senator. Senator ALLEN. That seems to be a common attribute of agencies, both Federal and State. Mr. FROMMER. I am afraid so. We very strongly favor the provision of section 24(b) which provides for uniform labeling. We have endorsed uniform labeling and we intend to continue to endorse uniform labeling. We feel very strongly that if we are allowed to continue the restrictions on our products, the same as we have in the past, along with uniform labeling, that there is no problem with uniform labeling. It makes it a lot easier for the manufacturer to put on one label rather than 50 labels, plus possibly a label for each of the territories. As I mentioned previously, we very strongly favor the House amendment that modified section 24(a). We also very strongly favor the committee recommendation which would amend section 24 (c). providing that States may register pesticides to meet specific local needs. My last comment, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the terminology that is used throughout the bill. I would like to read this directly from my prepared notes, if I may. We found that there is a very distinct misunderstanding on the part of the general public in regard to the definition of the terms "cancellation" and "suspension." I would like to quote from a letter that we received from Dr. James E. Dewey of Cornell University: The term cancellation "as used most of the time in our present laws and as proposed in this bill is greatly misleading to the public. Its use has led to much of the lack of credibility and faith of the public in this law and in the agencies responsible for carrying out the law. It is incredible that we continue to use such terminlogy. In the eyes of the public, cancellation means to end, delete, remove and to do so very quickly. In the law, it generally means to review and re-evaluate, a process that can take a considerable time. This part of a procedure should be named something other than 'cancellation.'" In this statement, we wholeheartedly concur. We recommend that a third term be used to define the review procedure and that the term "cancellation" be used to define the action taken after the review procedure has been completed. If the term "suspension" is retained. we would recommend that it be used only in those instances where products are officially recalled. Senator, that is all that I have, I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. (Mr. Frommer's prepared statement is as follows:) My name is Charles H. Frommer. I am the Director of the Bureau of Pesticide Control in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Commissioner Henry L. Diamond has asked me to present this testimony today on his behalf. Since January of last year, we have been administering what is regarded to be the most stringent pesticide control law in the country. This year's experience has taught us that such a law can and does work and does so without severely hindering agriculture, the pest control industry or any other pesticide user. My purpose here today is twofold. First, to commend certain portions of the proposed bill and secondly, to outline sections in the bill that we feel should be clarified or amended. In the Senate Committee Print of H.R. 10729, we question proposed amendment number 9 which amends Section 2(e) stating that, "a certified applicator need not be physically present when the pesticide is applied, if it is applied by competent persons acting under his instruction and control." We would support this proposed amendment if it is made very clear in the wording of the amendment that the certified applicator is putting his certification “on the line" in the event anything went wrong with the application. In the Committee Print, proposed amendment number 4, which would amend Section 3 in regard to packaging, should be most clear in requiring separate and identifiable packaging and labeling for products classified for general use as opposed to products classified for restricted use. It is our opinion that separate classifications on the same label will lead to major difficulties in enforcement. It could also promote misuse on the part of persons purchasing the product for general use if the restricted uses are also listed on the label. We suggest that Section 3(c) (1) (d) be amended or reworded to state that nformation regarding testing and the test results be allowed in support of other pplications for registration except in those cases where the initial applicant equests the information not be released. We feel that the Environmental Proection Agency should not be the administrator of an extension of the patent law. We also feel, however, that manufacturers should be allowed the right of roprietary information so as not to hinder the development of new products or new uses of old products. In this same Committee Print we would recommend that the proposed amendnent number 7 to Section 6(d) reflect a specific period of time. If it is felt that 50 days is not an adequate time period then a more adequate period should be substituted but it should be in the terms of days not the nebulous term "withn an agreed time." We feel that Section 7 regarding the registration of establishments should very clearly state the types of establishments involved. We feel that any establishnent which handles a pesticide from manufacturing through the final packaging should be required to register with the administrator. This would, of course, inlude formulators. We ask that Section 11 (a) be clarified in regard to record keeping. The present wording indicates that private pesticide applicators would not be required to maintain any records or file any reports or other documents. We feel very strongly that certified pesticide applicators be they public or private must keep records. If private applicators must be certified before using one or more of the restricted pesticides and then are not required to keep records regarding the use of these pesticides, the bill falls one step short of the desired results. We, in New York, require that all custom applicators of pesticides keep records for a period of three years. If this section is approved in its present form, what impact will it have on state requirements that private applicators keep necessary records and documents? If it prevents us from requiring the necessary reports, then we would suggest an amendment to this section. We suggest amendment provisions of the bill providing indemnification to manufacturers whose products are suspended. To our knowledge, indemnification is not provided in cases of recall by other agencies or recall to alleviate hazardous conditions such as found in the automotive industry. We feel that this would create an unwarranted burden on the taxpayers of the State of New York and could also influence action taken by the Environmental Protection Agency by placing undue financial pressure on EPA who would be required to pay the indemnity. We very strongly recommend that Section 23(a)(2) be amended to clearly indicate that assistance to State agencies be in the form of grants-in-aid. The training and certification of applicators of pesticides can be most effectively and efficiently handled at the State level. The funding of such a program could be the only roadblock to an otherwise excellent program. Grants-in-aid to States would assure that the training and certification of applicators would be carried out to the best of the State's ability. We favor the provisions of Section 24 (b) which provides for uniform labelling so long as this does not prevent the State of New York from imposing additional restrictions on the use of a particular material which are not imposed at the federal level. At the present time, we do not require a manufacturer to label his product specifically for sale in New York State, provided the sale of the product is in compliance with the provisions of our restricted pesticides law. For instance although a container of chlordane bears a federally approved label, it can be sold and used only under permit and for the specific and more restricted uses allowed by New York State's regulations. If this is the interpretation of Section 24 (b) then we support this provision as it is currently written. As you probably realize, we very strongly favored the House on the amendment that modified Section 24 (a) dealing with authority of states in the areas of restrictions and permits. We also very strongly favor the committee recommendation number 10 which would amend Section 24 (c) providing that states may register pesticides to meet specific local needs. My last comment has to do with terminology used throughout the proposed bill. We have found that there is a very distinct misunderstanding on the part of the general public in regard to the definition of the terms "cancellation" and "suspension". I would like to quote from a letter that we received from Dr. James E. Dewey of Cornell University. "The term cancellation as used most of the time in our present laws and as proposed in this bill is grossly misleading to the public. Its use has led to much of the lack of credibility and faith of the 76-194-72-11 public in this law and in the agencies responsible for carrying out the law. It is incredible that we continue to use such terminology. In the eyes of the public, cancellation means to end, delete, remove and to do so very quickly. In the law, it generally means to review and re-evaluate, a process that can take a considerable time. This part of a procedure should be named something other than "cancellation". In this statement, we wholeheartedly concur. We recommend that a third term be used to define the review procedure and that the term "cancellation" be used to define the action taken after the review procedure has been completed. If the term "suspension" is retained, we would recommend that it be used only in those instances where products are officially recalled. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity that you have afforded us of making this statement. Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much. I may say you have shed considerable light on the State-Federal relationship under this bill, not only as it is, or would be, but as it might be. I say, too, that you have made an important contribution to the deliberations of this committee. We appreciate your coming in. Mr. FROMMER. Thank you, sir. Senator ALLEN. Mr. Butler? William A. Butler. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. BUTLER, WASHINGTON COUNSEL, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is William A. Butler. I am a Washington counsel of the environmental defense fund-EDF. EDF is a nonprofit, public benefit corporation which may be described as a legal action arm of members of the scientific community who are concerned with environmental degradation. I have attached to my statement a portion of EDF's bylaws, which sets forth the organization's scientific and legal purposes and objectives (app. A). I wish to thank you for holding these hearings and for inviting an EDF representative here today to testify on the bill entitled "A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act." In these hearings, as welll as through spearheading recent passage of S. 1794 to further research for integrated pest control methods a bill EDF supported-this committee has shown admirable awareness of the complicated problems raised by economic poisons in today's society. The scientists associated with EDF have been interested in the impact of pesticides on the environment, human health, and upon the effectiveness and economics of agricultural production for many years. For example, after carefully evaluating such impacts for the pesticide DDT, EDF, along with several other environmental organizations. petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture to suspend immediately and, ultimately, to cancel DDT registrations under the present version of the FIFRA, and further petitioned the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish a zero or minimum tolerance for DDT in the American food supply. Since these petitions were filed. EPA has taken over regulation of pesticides from USDA and HEW. As a result of the court of appeals decision in Environmental Defense Fund v. Ruckelshaus, 439 F. 2d 584 (C.A.D.C. 1971), proceedings have been initiated by EPA to cancel all uses of DDT. In these marathon cancellation proceedings, I have represented the environmental defense fund, the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and the Western |