The report of the House Committee on Agriculture, No. 92-511, discussed the interpretation of "inconsistent," recommending that it be applied in a commonsense manner (p. 16, item 11). The illustration used, however, dealth with concentration of pesticide rather than species of pest to be controlled.

We again ask your consideration of this question. A preliminary check has shown that we have no effective pesticide registered for the pest problems I have given you a list of. I have given you a list of nine pesticide problems here for which I know of no pesticide that is registered for control of these problems.

Undoubtedly there are many more. We cannot expect a manufacturer to go to the expense of registering a product for the control of minor and occasional pests such as these. But these pests can be controlled by pesticides that have been registered for control of other pests in comparable locations or environments. It would be helpful in the cause of permitting us to be a law-abiding industry if it were recognized that such a use of a pesticide would not be "inconsistent" with its labeling. If we can help in any way in formulating such clarification we would want to do so.

We appreciate the privilege of presenting our views on the proposed legislation. We feel that it deserves the support of our members. Please be assured of our willingness to help in any way to make this legislation of pesticides and their use a constructive effort in the interest of the people whom our industry serves.

Senator ALLEN. We appreciate your coming before this committee again and relating your views. I feel that it is the intent of the bill that not every single worker that you have on a work force in pest eradication in and about the home would have to be certified applicators. I feel like that ought to be made clear. And I recall that at your last appearance before the committee you made the point that there are many more uses of pesticides than the agricultural uses. Your industry, of course, does contract for a great deal of the use of pesticides but I believe, actually, the agricultural use of such chemicals is only about 50 percent of the overall use of chemicals and possibly 95 percent of the talk is in regard to agricultural use.

I am interested in this list of insects which may be escaping extermination because there is no pesticide that has a label saying that you can attack these various insects. Is that the way you understand the law, if there is not a label saying that you can attack honey bees nesting in a house, you can legally exterminate them with something saying you could use it on termites?

Dr. HEAL. At the present time we are working under FIFRA and FIFRA does not dictate how we use pesticides and this leaves it in the hands of the individual operator to use his own good judgment. Senator ALLEN. But you feel that under the upcoming bill if there is not a label saying you can use this on insect "A" you can't use insect "B" label on insect "A"; is that right?

Dr. HEAL. We want to avoid any such interpretation.

Senator ALLEN. About all you can do with these honey bees is to either hit them with a shovel or a fly swatter or something?

Dr. HEAL. That is a dangerous occupation.

Senator ALLEN. And also book lice in a home are escaping extermination under this bill?

Dr. HEAL. Well, they might if a stringent interpretation of that were applied.

Senator ALLEN. We certainly will not want that. There is also the strawberry root weevil which invades homes. They are also exempt from the operation of this bill?

Dr. HEAL. They would be if we got a stringent interpretation of it. Senator ALLEN. I do not believe it is going to be construed quite that strictly but we do appreciate your calling this to the committee's attention.

Thank you very much.

(Dr. Heal's prepared statement is as follows:)

I am Dr. Ralph E. Heal, Executive Secretary of the National Pest Control Association, the only national trade association of the structural pest control or exterminating industry. Our offices are at 250 West Jersey Street, Elizabeth, New Jersey, 07207.

At the hearings before this Subcommittee on S. 745 last year our Association made representations in support of several changes or considerations that we felt should be incorporated in the bill. We find that the major points on which we made representation at that time have been met by the provisions of H.R. 10729 as it has been proposed in the Committee Print prepared by your staff.

Several of these points were of indirect, but nevertheless significant concern to our industry, because it is important that the regulation of pesticides should avoid unnecessary restriction out of balance with the needs of our people. We feel that it is essential that our manufacturers retain sufficient incentive to permit them to justify the continued research that is the only realistic source of new pesticides which can offer advantages of effectiveness and safety over those on which we now must rely. Thus, in the interest of our public, the customers that our industry serves, we endorse those provisions of H.R. 10729 which protect the rights of our manufacturers and distributors to orderly, objective and scientific review of cancellation or suspension orders. We also endorse those provisions that grant protection for trade secrets and provide for confidentiality of records as prescribed in the Committee Print.

The requirements of the bill which most directly affect our industry are those providing that certain pesticides be registered for restricted use and that these pesticides be applied only by or under the direct supervision of certified applicator. This is not a new concept for our industry, as for years we have had pesticides registered for use by professional pest control operators only. Our industry can have no legitimate objection to the principle that pesticides which present a significant hazard through the potential of misuse should be applied only by responsible people. We have been concerned, however, about the possibility that "direct supervision" could be interpreted as requiring the physical presence of a certified applicator wherever a restricted use pesticide is applied. Of course we cannot evaluate the impact of such an interpretation until we know by what standard the use of pesticides may be restricted. If restricted use is broadly applied the above interpretation imposes costly and unmeaningful requirements on our industry. It could multiply the regulatory detail and make any meaningful enforcement extremely costly.

An interpretation requiring physical presence for supervision would not be in keeping with the realities of the agricultural use of pesticides, and indeed the definition of the Private Applicator in the bill indicates that a supervision of responsible control rather than physical presence is intended. The validity of this concept is given further support from a survey which I conducted among the Pesticide Coordinators of the various states. Twenty-seven of thirty-one coordinators replying to my inquiry indicated their opinion that farm labor, even that of a level that it receives only intermittent supervision, could not be examined and licensed practically and advantageously as approved pesticide applicators.

In the structural pest control industry we have a parallel situation. Much of our business is of a routine maintenance nature. Many of our servicemen are trained skilled labor. They are taught procedures of inspection and treatment for a limited number of pests against which they use pesticides prescribed by their supervisors at concentrations prescribed by their supervisors, and in ways that their supervisors have instructed them. The serviceman's route is estab

lished at his office and he may work successively on several different premises every day. These servicemen are held responsible by their supervisors and employers. Indeed it would not be meaningful to attempt to hold this class of employee responsible under a law. The responsibility rests rightfully and for all effective application with the supervisor and employer. To require meaningful State certification for the individuals of our labor force would be costly to our industry and to the State regulatory agencies. Thus it would be costly to the public without a return that would justify this cost.

Our industry is prepared to provide assurance to the public concerning our use of pesticides through a certification of those responsible for the decisions on their selection and use, and responsible for the supervision of our work force. This can be done within our present operational structure without imposing significant additional costs on the public. The amendment proposed by your Committee staff to section 2(e), Suggestion 9 of the Committee Print, would make it clear that it is at this level that certification is intended. This amendment gives sound guidance to meaningful certification in our industry and we recommend it to you for favorable consideration.

At the hearings on S. 745 last year, our Association asked for an amendment that would permit enough flexibility in interpretation of label instructions to permit our industry to control certain minor pests legally under circumstances where no pesticide had been registered for the control of that pest. H.R. 10729 provides wording that could be interpreted as giving this flexibility when it says "Section 12(a)(2)(G) It shall be unlawful for any person to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." The Report of the Housing Committee on Agriculture, No. 92-511, discussed the interpretation of "inconsistent," recommending that it be applied in a common sense manner (page 16, item 11). The illustration used, however, dealt with concentration of pesticide rather than species of pest to be controlled.

We again ask your consideration of this question. A preliminary check has shown that we have no effective pesticide registered for the following pest problems:

Honey bees nesting in a house.

Book lice in a home.

Strawberry root weevil invading a home.

Springtails in an office.

Box elder bug invading a house.

Carpenter bees in the siding of a house.

Bamboo borer in furniture.

Sungus beetles in a home.

Em leaf beetles invading a home.

Wax moths from abandoned honey comb in a wall.

The blood sucking cone nose bug.

Undoubtedly there are many more. We cannot expect a manufacturer to go to the expense of registering a product for the control of minor and occasional pests such as these. But these pests can be controlled by pesticides that have Leen registered for control of other pests in comparable locations or environments. It would be helpful in the cause of permitting us to be a law-abiding industry if it were recognized that such a use of a pesticide would not be "inconsistent" with its labelling. If we can help in any way in formulating such a clarification we would want to do so.

We appreciate the privilege of presenting our views on the proposed legislation. We feel that it deserves the support of our members. Please be assured of our willingness to help in any way to make this legislation of pesticides and their use a constructive effort in the interest of the people whom our industry serves. Senator ALLEN. Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Spradling.

STATEMENT OF L. C. CARPENTER, VICE PRESIDENT, AND STUART SPRADLING, VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH, MISSOURI FARMERS ASSOCIATION, COLUMBIA, MO.

Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to appear again today and our testimony will be short. For the sake of brevity, we have dealt largely in specifics as it relates to the bill. Senator ALLEN. We appreciate that very much.

Mr. CARPENTER. And we will address ourselves generally to support of the bill with this understanding, that we point out to you that any undue restriction on the registration and use of agricultural pesticides will undoubtedly be reflected in increased farm production costs which I am sure you are cognizant of.

I will skip the rest of it and go down to the specifics and if it will be recorded in the record, we will go into the specifics as it relates to the bill.

It is a privilege to have Mr. Spradling with me, who is director of our research and who is much better information on the specific subjects. I will read them in layman's terms and if there is any question, I am sure he will answer them.

We suggest in the definition of the ingredients statement contained on page 10 that option (i) under point 2 should be deleted. Very simply, if a product is suspected of poisoning, we feel it is essential that a physician or veterinarian be able to determine immediately, from a label, the name and the percentage of each active ingredient in the product in order to properly prescribe treatment. This should apply to products in both general and restricted classifications. I believe that has been mentioned before.

No. 2, a provision on page 19, line 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 publically 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, 25, and 35, will require modest rewording.

No. 3, on page 20, lines 6 and 7, we suggest the reference to time for review of data say "within 6 months" rather than as expediciously as possible," in line 12, let the word "promptly" be replaced by "within 60 days."

Mr. Spradling advised me some problems have arisen in the past and there is a need to stipulate time limits rather than leaving them vague and open to administrative interpretation.

No. 4, the provision on page 23, lines 1 through 10, gives the administration broad powers.

Mr. Chairman, I realize this is a problem but certain compounds: Aldrin, DDT, 2,4,5,-T, 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 on the environment. We would hope that this committee with the help of 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. If you don't do that, at least the committee can give the legislative intent on this matter so that we would have directions to go by, we would feel more comfortable.

Senator ALLEN. I think that is a good suggestion.

Mr. CARPENTER. No. 5, further on page 23, line 14, we suggest that the bill clarify the limits of dermal and inhalation toxicity. Methods for assigning numerical values for toxicity are well known and establishing them as a part of this law would place this determination on a scientifically defensible and more stable basis.

Again, on page 30, line 2, we recommend that the word "expeditiously" be replaced by "within 90 days." Agriculture, as you know, is a seasonal business, and advanced planning is essential to a profitable operation.

Also, on page 30, lines 18 through 20 infer that, even though judicial review is under way, the proposed suspension order shall be in force. We realize this sentence does not specifically say that, but the inference is there. Surely, in such instances, the Administrator should not be limited in his determination as to whether it is wise to stay or continue the suspension order. We believe it preferable that this sentence be deleted.

We strongly support provisions on page 31 which permit and encourage use of the National Academy of Science.

Provisions on page 35, beginning with line 20, permit the taking of samples. Even if this resulted only in a portion of the contents of a package being taken, the result is a broken container and an unmarketable product. We believe it only fair to provide within this section for payment to cover the loss to the owner of the product sampled.

Indemnity payments are provided for on page 50, lines 1 and 2, for losses by reason of suspension or cancellation of the registration. We believe just compensation should also be provided where loss is incurred due to change in classification.

We are puzzled by the specific instruction given on page 55, line 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.

We are pleased to note the addition on page 58 permitting States to register pesticides for specific local needs under certain conditions. Mr. Chairman, we have made these suggestions believing they are constructive changes and helpful to the most effective administration of this proposed legislation. Farmers are aware of their responsibility for using pesticides safely. They are doing their best to produce an abundance of high quality food. They are concerned about the wildlife on their land, the safety of the food they produce and their own health. They are conservationists at heart, ecologists by profession, and environmentalists by practice.

Senator ALLEN. Mr. Spradling, would you like to add your comments to what Mr. Carpenter has to say?

Mr. SPRADLING. Well, I am kind of coauthor of this testimony so I can only agree with Mr. Carpenter's comments.

76-194-72-pt. 2-20