U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–576 PDF 2006

THE PIC AND POPS CONVENTIONS AND

THE LRTAP POPS PROTOCOL ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 3849

JULY 20, 2006

Serial No. 109–35

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture

www.agriculture.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman

RICHARD W. POMBO, California,

Vice Chairman

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

MIKE PENCE, Indiana

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama

STEVE KING, Iowa

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,

Ranking Minority Member

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina

JOE BACA, California

ED CASE, Hawaii

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia

STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JIM COSTA, California

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

RICK LARSEN, Washington

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Staff Director

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel

JOHN HAUGEN, Communications Director

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

H.R. 3849, to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act to implement pesticide-related obligations of the United States under

national conventions or protocols known as the PIC Convention, the POPs

Convention, and the LRTAP POPS Protocol ...................................................... 3

Cuellar, Hon. Henry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

submitted statement ............................................................................................ 52

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 1

Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, prepared statement ................................................................................... 52

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Minnesota, opening statement ............................................................................ 51

WITNESS

Johnson, Stephen L., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ... 52

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Agricultural Retailers Association, CropLife America, the Fertilizer Institute,

joint statement ..................................................................................................... 64

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants .................................... 59
(1)

THE PIC AND POPS CONVENTIONS AND THE

LRTAP POPS PROTOCOL ACT

THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 1300

of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bob Goodlatte (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Pombo, Lucas, Moran, Johnson, Osborne, Bonner, Schwarz, Foxx, Conaway, Peterson, Holden,

Etheridge, Cuellar, Boswell, and Chandler.

Staff present: John Goldberg, Kevin Kramp, Josh Maxwell,

Callista Gingrich, clerk; Robert L. Larew, and Christy Birdsong.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

OF VIRGINIA

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. This hearing of the Committee on

Agriculture to review H.R. 3849, the PIC and POPs Conventions

and the LRTAP POPs Protocol Implementation Act, will come to

order.

Over the last several years, members of this committee have

worked with the administration in a bipartisan effort to develop

legislation necessary to implement three very important treaties

related to pesticides and hazardous chemical substances.

The unnecessarily long names of these treaties, the Stockholm

Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the Convention on Long-Range

Transboundary Air Pollution, and the Rotterdam Convention on

the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous

Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade make it easy to

see why we simply refer to them as PICs and POPs.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the leadership of

Representative Frank Lucas, chairman of the Subcommittee on

Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research, along with

the subcommittee’s ranking member, Representative Tim Holden,

for their efforts in developing this legislation. I would also like to

acknowledge the support of the full committee ranking member,

Representative Peterson, who, along with me, is a co-sponsor of the

bill.

As many of you know, the negotiations that culminated in each

of these three agreements have a long and laborious history that

I am more than happy to allow our witness to summarize. Suffice
2

it to say that these negotiations spanned several administrations

and have enjoyed support from both political parties.

While many of us can point to one or more international agreements that have had less than positive results, I think we can all

agree that the interests of the United States were well represented

regarding the treaties that we are discussing today.

Unfortunately, if we delay ratification further in the United

States, much of the hard work could potentially be undone. Currently, the conference of the parties is meeting to discuss new pesticides to be added to the treaty annex, compliance guidelines, financial mechanisms and other administrative issues. Only countries that have ratified the treaty can participate in these discussions.

The longer we wait to ratify the treaty of which passage of this

bill is a necessary pre-cursor, the less control we have over decisions which could have potentially negative consequences for America’s farmers and ranchers. This is why it is so important that this

committee pass H.R. 3849 and insure that our country’s interests

are represented in the conference of the parties.

I should add that throughout the time we have spent developing

this legislation, we have had numerous meetings with interested

parties to seek their input. Our approach with this legislation has

been to make only those modifications to the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, that absolutely necessary

for the United States to comply with these treaties; no more and

no less. While some groups have expressed a desire to use this legislation as a means to address long-standing unrelated concerns

with FIFRA, most groups we have met with have endorsed the purpose-driven and focused approach we have taken.

Along these lines, I have received a letter from Crop Life America and cosigned by the leaders of the Fertilizer Institute, Agricultural Retailers Association, National Corn Growers Association and

the National Cotton Council, endorsing this legislation and urging

its immediate passage. Copies of this letter are included in each

Member’s packet and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the

letter be included in the record of this hearing, as well as a copy

of the bill now under consideration.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

[A copy of H.R. 3849 follows, additional material appears at the

conclusion of the hearing.]
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

The CHAIRMAN. Today we are pleased to have Steve Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, with us to

provide background on PICs and POPs, explain the United States’

obligations and offer the administration’s views on the legislation.

As many of you know, Steve is no stranger to this committee, having served in the Office of Pesticide Programs at EPA for more

than 25 years; a good amount of that time, sitting at this witness

table discussing issues critical to farmers across the country.

Before recognizing the Administrator, however, I would first like

to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, for any remarks he

would like to make.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to join you

in thanking Mr. Lucas and Mr. Holden for their work and your

leadership, as well. I have a statement a little shorter than yours

that basically says the same thing, so I will just associate myself

with your remarks in the interest of time and I will just use my

time to make one pitch to the administrator.

I have been doing a lot of work on ethanol for the last few

months and one of the car companies tell me that one of our problems with getting these flex fuel cars in the United States is that

we have got to go through some bureaucracy in the EPA that they

think is kind of unnecessary, and that in Brazil they are making

99 percent of their cars flex fuel and one of the reasons we are not

doing more is because of this process that has to be done on every

engine, which I think is over the top. So if you would look at that

at some point or if we could visit about that at some point.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to. We are very, very supportive

of both, of flex fuel vehicles, as well as ethanol production and certainly, as you move to E–85 in the ethanol, 85 percent ethanol,

there are significant environmental benefits, so it is——

Mr. PETERSON. Right. But they tell me that for energy security

the engine, every single engine, which seems to be like more than

necessary, so whatever you can do, we would appreciate it.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to look into it and talk to you.

Thank you.

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. It is now my pleasure to recognize the author of

the legislation, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and just simply let me

note that until we take action on these agreements, the United

States will continue to sit on the sideline while very important scientific decisions and discussions are taking place. We need to be a

part of that process. And with that, add my written statement to

the record and yield back, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman

Any other statements for the record will be accepted at this time.

[The prepared statements follow:]
52

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

In September of last year, I joined with Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member

Peterson, and Mr. Holden, the ranking member of my subcommittee, in introducing

H.R. 3849, the PIC and POPs Conventions and the LRTAP POPs Protocol Implementation Act.

We introduced this bipartisan legislation to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) so that the United States could fulfill its obligations to ratify the POPs, PICs, and LRTAP agreements. It is imperative that the

Congress continue to take steps to implement these treaties so that the United

States is no longer on the outside looking in during the important discussions of the

convention that will ultimately lead to decisions that may affect us here at home.

That being said, I can understand why some people may be concerned about

amending legislation that deals with the regulation of pesticides. But let me be very

clear: this legislation does no more or less than is required to adjust current policy

so that the United States will be in compliance with these treaties.

The United States has contributed much to the negotiation of the treaties and

continues to provide millions of dollars in funding for technical assistance. However,

until Congress takes action to ratify these agreements, the United States will continue to sit on the sideline while important scientific discussions take place. These

are very fair and necessary environmental treaties that offer our citizens protection

from toxic substances, while offering the United States the flexibility to continue

current policies and determine what practices best meet our own domestic needs.

I look forward to the future passage of this legislation and I thank Chairman

Goodlatte for his leadership on this issue by holding today’s hearing.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY CUELLAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

• Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Peterson, thank you for your decision to

hold this hearing on this important legislation.

• It is important because, absent implementing legislation, the Stockholm Convention, the Aarhaus Protocol and the Rotterdam Convention cannot be ratified; the

opportunities provided by these agreements left unfulfilled.

• It is important because, absent passage of implementing legislation, the United

States must sit on the sidelines of important environmental discussions regarding

persistent organic pollutants.

• It is important because, absent passage of implementing regulation, the United

States will continue to find its leadership in regulatory decision making diminished.

• I welcome Administrator Johnson to the committee and look forward to his testimony.

• Thank you again, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now turn to our witness, the Honorable

Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. accompanied by Ms. Susan Hazen, Principal Deputy

Assistant Administrator of the Office of Pesticide Programs and

Toxic Substances, also with the EPA. And we are pleased to welcome both of you. Administrator Johnson.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY

SUSAN HAZEN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity and the invitation to appear before you to discuss these three important international environmental agreements; the Stockholm POPs Convention, the Rotterdam PIC Convention and the LRTAP POPs Protocol. Becoming a party to these agreements is a priority for the

Bush administration and I am here today to support H.R. 3849, as
53

introduced, and encourage its expeditious passage. I would also like

to ask that my written statement be entered into the record.

Each of these agreements contributes to a healthier global environment. The Stockholm Convention and the LRTAP POPs Protocol takes steps to address the production, use and release of substances that persist in the environment for long periods of time and

bio-cumulate in the food chain. The reduction or elimination of

POP sources called for in these agreements will reduce exposures

that affect human health and the environment. The Rotterdam

Convention promotes information exchange and informed riskbased decision making in the global movement of hazardous chemicals and pesticides, empowering governments to make their own

domestic science and risk-based decisions in an informed manner.

While the United States was a key player in the negotiation of

the POPs, PIC and LRTAP agreements, without party status, our

participation is currently limited at every level. Decisions being

made about the substances under these agreements have a significant impact on global production and use, as well as how and when

they are traded. But without party status, the United States no

longer plays a leadership role and our ability to influence decisions

is steadily decreasing. The United States must have a real and

equal voice at the table. We must ensure that available scientific

information is carefully reviewed and considered, and the decisions

are made in accordance with the terms of the respective agreements.

All three of these agreements are in force and the addition of

new substances is being considered. The Bush administration supports full U.S. engagement in the processes provided for by these

agreements, taking into consideration both our domestic and our

international priorities. To do so, the administration has committed

to working closely with all members of this committee to enact this

legislation to retain our position as the international leader in

chemical environmental safety.

The administration has carefully reviewed H.R. 3849 and believes it provides the legal authority to implement effectively all of

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act related obligations of these international agreements. The bill also provides a

regulatory standard and approach generally consistent with the

U.S. Government’s method of evaluating pesticides and possible

risk management actions.

Finally, it is consistent with the approach taken by a legislation

passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last

week to allow the United States to comply with the obligations of

these agreements addressed by the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The administration fully supports H.R. 3849, as introduced. We believe the bill moves us forward domestically and reaffirms the commitments we made internationally to protect human health and

the environment.

For example, the bill prohibits any production or use of the substances listed in the Stockholm Convention or in the LRTAP POPs

Protocol that are inconsistent with the agreements. The bill also

implements the Rotterdam Convention obligations relating to export controls and labeling. Most importantly, the legislation enables the United States to join future convention amendments.
54

As a consequence of our non-party status, we are limited to being

observers. For instance, in the Stockholm Convention, despite our

scientific expertise, we are on the outside looking in as the expert

committee reviews substances nominated for addition to the treaty.

This is an influential activity, but because we lack ratification status, we were not able to pursue a seat on the significant committee

for its first term when crucial precedent-setting decisions are made.

Our observer status, however, could be changed by congressional

action. If we were to become a party to the POPs agreement in the

near-term, I am convinced that the nomination of a U.S. expert to

this committee for the next term would be strongly welcomed by

our colleagues in other countries. President Bush recognized the

importance of full participation in the international chemical arena

when he announced in the Rose Garden that we would sign the

Stockholm Convention.

I believe the provisions of this bill would allow the United States

to take back its leadership role through effective participation and

implementation of and in full compliance with the obligations of

these agreements. Our absence from these treaties diminishes the

voice of some of the best science and policy experts in the world,

as well as our approach to chemical and pesticide management.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for your leadership on this issue and I would be pleases to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. thank you, Administrator Johnson. I do have

some questions and my first is while no farm groups, to my knowledge, have expressed any concerns with this legislation or these

specific treaties, several have reservations about U.S. involvement

in environmental treaties, generally. If we can just look at the

Montreal Protocol as an example of why our producers feel that

they are not always treated fairly in these international forums.

Regarding the POPs treaty, what, if any, provisions of the treaty

prevent the U.S. from being compelled to take an action that puts

our producers at a disadvantage?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I

think, first of all, it is important why do we need to be a party to

this treaty? It is because we need to make sure that our domestic

interests are protected. And there are a number of procedures that

is embodied in the legislation, in your legislation and also in the

treaty language, that help us to make sure that it is our domestic

interests that are protected, and one of those is what is referred

to as the opt-in or opt-out provision of the treaty, and it is something that the United States worked very hard to be embodied in

the treaty.

The opt-in provision, in essence, says as the international process

takes its course, then, we, the United States, will decide, based

upon our own domestic process; in other words, we will run our

own domestic process and then make a decision as to whether we

want to opt-in to the international decision. And so we think that

there is an extraordinary amount of protection for our domestic interests. We want to make sure our domestic interests and our sovereignty is protected and this legislation provides that.
55

The CHAIRMAN. And what is the deadline for the U.S. to ratify

the POPs treaty to ensure that we can participate in the negotiations regarding the current list of proposed chemicals be added?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, my strong recommendation would be as soon

as possible. There are actually seven meetings that will be coming

up over the coming months; three that I would like to highlight.

LRTAP Executive Body is scheduled to meet in December of this

year and they are considering five new persistent organic pollutants. The PIC, the Prior Inform Consent Committee, or Conference

of Parties, COP, is scheduled for fall of 2006. They are focusing on

asbestos. The POPs Conference of the Parties is scheduled for

spring of 2007, where a number of substances, including pesticides

and nomination of new experts are going to be considered. And

there are these other parts of seven meetings that are coming up,

so I urge, as soon as possible. Obviously, the sooner we do ratify

it, then the sooner that we can begin planting the necessary seeds

to demonstrate our desire and need for involvement on expert committees, as well as on the Conference of the Parties.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you aware of any concerns among farm

groups regarding any of the pesticides that are currently proposed

to be listed under the POPs treaty?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not. In fact, the current POPs treaty, the pesticides that are listed are currently banned in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Questions have recently raised as to whether or

not the production use or distribution of methyl bromide would be

affected by the POPs treaty or this legislation and I wonder if you

could clarify that issue?

Mr. JOHNSON. Methyl bromide is not one of the pesticides that

is either on the current list or in the proposed list of POPs that

are being considered in the international community.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What pesticides, specifically, can we expect to be identified as a new POPs; do you have

a list?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, I do. There are two pesticides that are

being considered as new POPs. Both of these are listed in the

LRTAP or the Long-Range Transport piece of treaty. The two pesticides are lindane, Mexico proposed lindane; and chlordecone,

which is also known in the United States, as kepone. Those are the

two pesticides that are currently proposed as new POPs.

Mr. PETERSON. And they are already banned in the U.S.?

Mr. JOHNSON. Kepone has been out of production since 1976 in

the United States. Lindane is currently used for two uses in the

United States; one is head lice treatment, the other is sea treatment. Both of those uses are allowed under the current LRTAP

treaty.

Mr. PETERSON. So it wouldn’t really change any practices in the

U.S., then?

Mr. JOHNSON. At this point, I would not expect, again, lindane;

I don’t know how the science review will go in the international

forum. Again, that is another reason why we would want to make

sure that we are participants and actually at the table.
56

Mr. PETERSON. If a chemical or pesticide is added to these conventions, are we or any other country that is a party to this automatically bound by the decision?

Mr. JOHNSON. No, we are not.

Mr. PETERSON. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from

Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is recognized.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, how long

have we, in effect, been in an observer kind of a status at these

meetings?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let us see. I guess since 2004.

Mr. LUCAS. And clearly, we have been able to interact to provide

guidance, but being an observer is not like being a participant.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.

Mr. LUCAS. Describe for us the difference, literally, that would

bring.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, what has happened is, being a non-party

really has impacted our participation and it really does relegates

our role to a non-party observer. We do not participate in the decision making process; we don’t physically have a seat in the Conference of the Parties. The parties are not required to solicit or accept our opinions or even to address our opinions and we can’t even

be selected as a member of the committees, these expert groups or

working groups, so we are, effectively, shut out and the world acknowledges that as a nation, the United States are among the leaders in the scientific community and policy communities dealing

with these important pesticide tools.

Mr. LUCAS. So it is a dramatic detrimental affect, not only on the

consumers of these chemicals, but also the potential developers,

also?

Mr. JOHNSON. Absolutely.

Mr. LUCAS. Very detrimental. Sounds like it is something that is

much overdue that absolutely we must do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Holden.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, I just

have one question. Assuming H.R. 3849 becomes law, would Congress still have to amend FIFRA in order to comply with the conventions every time a new POPs pesticide is added?

Mr. JOHNSON. Right now we would, in discussions with the Senate, we are working very closely with Senate Foreign Relations

Committee as to whether, in fact, a vote would or would not be required on each new pesticide, so that is still an item for discussion.

But with regard to FIFRA and the pesticides law, this legislation

implements fully and no other changes would be necessary to

FIFRA for us to comply with these treaties.

Mr. HOLDEN. Not necessary?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.

Etheridge, is recognized.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just have one

question, Mr. Johnson. Let me thank you for being here and I do

think it is critical, as you have indicated, the United States have
57

a voice in these discussions and I think we ought to move this legislation quickly because it is important, as has been indicated. My

question is that, and I don’t know that we have covered it yet, you

might have and if you did, I missed it and I apologize, but are

there any pesticides or herbicides that might be currently considered as being identified as a persistent organic pollutant or that

might be a candidate for being taken off the market here in the

United States as a result of this?

Mr. JOHNSON. At this point in time, no. Again, the POPs and PIC

and LRTAP processes have really just begun, really beginning in

2004, and that the pesticides are being considered as new Stockholm Convention POPs are lindane and kepone or chlordecone, as

it is chemically known. There are some pesticides that are being

considered as new PICs, a Prior Informed Consent piece of the

treaty, and those pesticides are tributyltin and endosulfin, and

tributyltin, right now in the United States, there is a voluntary

phase-out so that pesticide will be voluntarily phased out; and

endosulfin is already severely restricted in the United States.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Let me just follow that up and if you would just

share with us, what kind of timeline that we would have for public

comment when a chemical is being reviewed for possible—if you

could just share that with us, that would be helpful.

Mr. JOHNSON. As part of the Stockholm POPs, referred to as addition process, there are a number of steps in the international

process that this legislation helps to ensure that we have a full

public notice and comment process, beginning at the early days

when the International Committee does its screening process; within 45 days of the decision, EPA will publish in the Federal Register

a notice that will allow for a 60-day public comment period and

within 240 days publish a report containing the production use and

risk benefit information. Then if it is decided, based upon that, that

the international community proceeds with a full risk assessment,

then, and global action is warranted, then again, as part of the legislation, we certainly support another 45, or another notice and

comment, allowing for a 60-day comment period, again, within 240

days publishing a report containing cost benefit information.

Then once the risks are evaluated and that if there is a recommendation that is made to the international community, again,

there is a notice that we publish in the Federal Register and notice

on the recommendation and providing the public an opportunity for

comment, and then after all of that, if we decided, as a government, that we wanted to pursue this, then we would go through

our routine cancellation procedures, which are quite rigorous, with

a lot of public comment and opportunity for hearings and then

after that, then we, the United States, would ultimately then make

our decision as to whether we wanted to opt in to the agreement

or not.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. I think that was great to get that

on the record, at least, that the public has adequate time for public.

Mr. JOHNSON. Be happy to. Thank you.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield

back.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Any other members seek

recognition to ask questions of the witness? If not, Administrator
58

Johnson, you are a very efficient witness. You seem to have made

your points well and I think this legislation has been carefully vetted and examined by a number of people who are interested in the

issue, so we look forward to working with you as we move it forward and thank you for your coming here today and allowing us

to have one of the shortest hearings on record.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Peterson, again, thank you for

your leadership and I look forward to working with you as this

moves forward. Thanks so much.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you. Without objection, the record of today’s hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive additional

material and supplementary written responses from witnesses to

any question posed by a member of the panel. This hearing of the

Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
59
60
61
62
63
64