59–010 

Calendar No. 284 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 114–160 

SENSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2015 

OCTOBER 29, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. INHOFE, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[to accompany S. 1500] 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 1500) to clarify Congressional intent regarding 

the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

FIFRA 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

governs the registration, sale, and use of pesticide products within 

the United States. 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. 

Section 2(u) of FIFRA defines pesticides broadly as any substance used to kill, repel or control pests, to regulate plants, or to 

stabilize nitrogen. EPA is directed to restrict the use of pesticides 

as necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on people and 

the environment and regulate the sale and use of pesticides in the 

United States through registration and labeling. 

Originally enacted in 1947, Congress substantially amended 

FIFRA in 1972. The legislative history of the 1972 amendments 

makes it clear that Congress intended FIFRA to be the tool for 

EPA to protect the human health and environment, including 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
2 

interstate and navigable waters, from adverse effects of pesticide 

use: 

The Congress hereby finds that pesticides are valuable to 

our Nation’s agricultural production and to the protection 

of man and the environment from insects, rodents, weeds, 

and other forms of life which may be pests; but it is essential to the public health and welfare that they be regulated 

closely to prevent adverse effects on human life and the 

environment, including pollution of interstate and navigable waters; . . . and that regulation by the Administrator and cooperation by the States and other jurisdictions as contemplated by the Act are appropriate to prevent and eliminate the burdens upon interstate and foreign commerce, to effectively regulate such commerce, and 

to protect the public health and welfare and the environment. (Emphasis added). H.R. Rep. No. 92–511, 92d Cong., 

2d Sess., 13–14 (1971). 

At a February 16, 2011, joint hearing held by Subcommittee on 

Nutrition and Horticulture of the House Agriculture Committee 

and the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the 

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Dr. Steven 

Bradbury, Director of the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, testified that FIFRA fully protects water resources: 

The regulatory restrictions imposed by EPA under FIFRA 

directly control the amount of pesticide available for transport to surface waters, either by reducing the absolute 

amount of pesticide applied, or by changing application 

conditions to make transport of applied pesticide less likely. In sum, EPA uses its full regulatory authority under 

FIFRA to ensure that pesticides do not cause unreasonable 

adverse effects on human health or the environment, including our nation’s water resources. 

Clean Water Act 

Section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean 

Water Act or CWA) prohibits the discharge of a pollutant into navigable waters from a point source without a permit. 33 U.S.C. 

1311(a). Consistent with the legislative history of FIFRA, for over 

30 years, the EPA did not interpret this section to require a discharge permit for pesticide use when the pesticide is used in a 

manner consistent with its FIFRA label. However, in 2001, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Headwaters, 

Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District that the application of herbicides 

to control aquatic weeds that were choking an irrigation canal violated the CWA under the circumstances before the court (which involved a spill, not FIFRA-compliant use). 243 F.3rd 526 (9th Cir. 

2001). In 2002, the Ninth Circuit held that aerial pesticide spraying by the Forest Service to control a predicted outbreak of the 

Douglas Fir Tussock Moth was regulated by the CWA. The court 

reached this conclusion even though the spraying complied with 

FIFRA because the court did not address the question of whether 

the pesticides were pollutants and instead erroneously assumed 

that the parties agreed they were pollutants. League of Wilderness 

Defenders v. Forsgren, 309 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2002). 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
3 

In response to the regulatory uncertainty created by these decisions, in 2006 EPA promulgated a rule to codify its long-held position that FIFRA-compliant pesticide use is not the discharge of a 

pollutant. 71 Fed. Reg. 68,483 (Nov. 27, 2006). Like EPA’s longstanding policy, this rule relied on compliance with FIFRA to protect the human health and the environment and determined that 

properly used pesticides are products, not wastes. Various environmental groups sued to overturn this rule. 

In January 2009, in National Cotton Council v. EPA, 553 F.3d 

927 (6th Cir. 2009), the Sixth Circuit vacated EPA’s 2006 rule holding that the CWA definition of ‘‘discharge of a pollutant’’ could include the use of pesticides if any residue remains after use, even 

though the pesticide is a product and not a waste at the time of 

discharge. This novel decision is not consistent with decisions in 

the D.C. Circuit that hold that the CWA does not regulate sources 

of pollutants. See NRDC v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 169 et seq. (D.C. 

Cir. 1988); American Iron and Steel Inst. v. EPA, 155 F.3d 979, 996 

(D.C. Cir. 1997). 

Unfortunately, EPA chose not to appeal or seek a rehearing of 

this decision, despite requests to do so by Tom Vilsack, Secretary 

of Agriculture, and by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 

Senate Agriculture Committee, Tom Harkin and Saxby Chambliss. 

Secretary Vilsack’s March 6, 2009 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa 

Jackson noted: 

The court’s adverse decision will have profound implications for American farmers. The panel’s ruling effectively 

broadens the potential application of the CWA to reach agricultural activities that the EPA has never regulated 

under the provisions of the CWA. By broadening the Act’s 

reach, the court burdens American agriculture with a 

newly minted NPDES permit requirement for the application of all FIFRA-compliant biological pesticides whenever 

those pesticides might find their way into waters of the 

United States, and for all FIFRA-compliant chemical pesticides whenever the residues of those pesticides find their 

way into the waters of the United States. 

Senator Harkin’s and Senator Chambliss’ April 3, 2009 letter 

echoed this concern. 

Industry groups sought a rehearing and Supreme Court review 

of the National Cotton Council decision, but without EPA’s support, 

those requests were denied. As a result, farmers, foresters, mosquito control districts, and other landowners were required to obtain CWA permits to continue to use pesticides to protect our food 

supply from pests and to control vectors for diseases like West Nile 

Virus. EPA estimates that there are 365,000 pesticide applicators 

that now need permits. 76 Fed. Reg. 58,806–07 (Sept. 22, 2011). 

To address this issue, on October 31, 2011 EPA issued a pesticide 

general permit, which is applicable in states where EPA is the permitting authority (Idaho, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and D.C.), as well as in U.S. territories, some parts of Indian 

Country and some federal facilities. Using EPA’s permit as a 

model, states also have issued pesticide general permits. These permits do not change how pesticides are applied. EPA and states continue to rely on FIFRA requirements to protect human health and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
4 

the environment. Instead, these permits add paperwork burdens. 

Further, record-keeping and reporting burdens create legal 

vulnerabilities associated with paperwork violations. 

The duplicative and unnecessary regulation caused by the National Cotton Council decision has real world consequences. In an 

August 4, 2015, letter to the Environment and Public Works Committee, the American Mosquito Control Association said: 

Currently, mosquito control programs are vulnerable to 

lawsuits where fines may be up to $35,000 per day for activities that do not involve harm to the environment, as is 

the standard under FIFRA, but rather simple paperwork 

violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In order to attempt to comply with this potential liability, these government agencies must divert scarce resources to CWA monitoring. In some cases, some smaller applicators have simply chosen not to engage in vector control activities. 

As a result, ‘‘the regulatory burdens are potentially depriving the 

general public of the economic and health benefits of mosquito control.’’ 

An August 4, 2015, letter to the Committee from nearly one hundred agricultural companies and organizations echoes this concern: 

Compliance with the NPDES water permit also imposes 

duplicative resource burdens on thousands of small business and farms, as well as the municipal, county, state and 

federal agencies responsible for protecting natural resources and public health. Further, and most menacing, 

the permit exposes all pesticide users—regardless of permit eligibility—to the liability of CWA-based citizen law 

suits. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION

The objective of S.1500 is to eliminate duplicative and unnecessary CWA regulation of pesticide applications that are already regulated at the federal level under FIFRA. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE: the ‘‘Sensible Environmental Protection Act of 

2015.’’ 

SEC. 2. USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES; DISCHARGES OF PESTICIDES; REPORT. 

(a) USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES.—Subsection (a) amends section 3(f) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136a(f)) by adding at the end a new 

paragraph (5). Paragraph (5) prohibits EPA or a state from requiring a CWA permit for a discharge from a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide registered under FIFRA, or the residue 

of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such pesticide, 

except as provided in section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (CWA). 

(b) DISCHARGE OF PESTICIDES.—Subsection (b) amends section 

402 of the CWA to add new subsection (s). Subsection (s) creates 

a CWA permit exemption for the discharge from a point source into 

navigable waters of a pesticide registered under FIFRA, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such pesticide, except in certain circumstances. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
5 

The circumstances where pesticide use requires a CWA permit 

are (1) discharges resulting from the use of pesticides in violation 

of FIFRA, (2) CWA regulated storm water discharges, (3) discharges of manufacturing or industrial effluent, (4) discharges of 

treatment works effluent, and (5) discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. 

(c) REPORT.—Subsection (c) requires EPA (in consultation with 

the Secretary of Agriculture) to submit a report within 1 year to 

the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senate 

Committee on Agriculture as well as the House Committee on Agriculture and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, with analyses and recommendations. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

• In the 111th Congress, H.R. 1749 and S. 1269 were introduced 

to clarify that CWA permits are not required for the use of pesticides regulated under FIFRA. Related bills included S. 3735, H.R. 

6087, and H.R. 6273. • In the 112th Congress, the House passed H.R. 872, intended 

to address this issue. Related bills included S. 3605 and S. 718. • In the 113th Congress, H.R. 935 passed the House by a vote 

of 267–161. Similar language was included in the House-passed 

farm bill. However, the enacted farm bill did not include the House 

provision regulation of addressing pesticide use. Related bills included S. 175 and S. 802. • On August 5, 2015 the Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works held a business meeting to consider S. 1500 (along 

with a number of other measures). S. 1500 was ordered to be reported (without amendment) favorably to the full Senate. 

HEARINGS

No committee hearings were held on S. 1500. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

This bill was ordered favorably reported by voice vote. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the committee finds that S. 1500 does not create any additional regulatory burdens. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4), the committee notes that the Congressional Budget Office found that ‘‘S. 1500 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the UMRA and 

would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.’’ 

COST OF LEGISLATION

Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the reported bill, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in the report. That statement follows: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
6 

AUGUST 20, 2015. 

Hon. JIM INHOFE, 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1500, the Sensible Environmental Protection Act of 2015. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Marin Burnett. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1500—Sensible Environmental Protection Act of 2015 

S. 1500 would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and states authorized to issue permits under the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from requiring a 

permit for some discharges of pesticides. Specifically, public and 

private entities would no longer need to obtain an NPDES permit 

for certain discharges of pesticides if their use is authorized under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or in cases 

where the discharge is regulated as a stormwater, municipal, or industrial discharge under the Clean Water Act. The bill also would 

require EPA to submit a report to the Congress on the status of 

water quality protection and improvement. 

Based on information from EPA about the cost of preparing the 

report, CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would not 

have a significant cost. Any administrative savings to EPA that 

might result from issuing fewer permits would be negligible because EPA has delegated the authority to issue most NPDES permits to states. 

Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to S. 1500 because enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

S. 1500 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

On March 25, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

897, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Agriculture on March 19, 2015. 

S. 1500 and H.R. 897 are similar; and the estimated budgetary effects are the same. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Marin Burnett. This 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
(7) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

Passing laws that protect the lives and livelihoods of the American people is one of the most important activities that Congress 

undertakes. The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a law that prevents the 

uncontrolled pollution of the streams, rivers, and lakes where our 

children swim and that provide drinking water to millions of Americans. S. 1500 rolls back protection of our waters from pesticide pollution by eliminating Clean Water Act coverage and relying solely 

on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

to regulate the use of pesticides. 

Both the CWA and FIFRA are necessary to provide important 

protections for the nation’s waters and are not duplicative. FIFRA 

focuses primarily on labeling pesticides while the CWA requires 

water quality monitoring, reporting on pesticide use, and implementation of best practices to minimize pesticide pollution of our 

rivers, lakes, and streams. 

The EPA has determined that over 1,800 waterbodies, such as 

streams and lakes, are damaged because of pesticide use. Due to 

limited monitoring, the actual number of polluted waterbodies may 

be higher. In addition, the 2006 National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program of the USGS found at least one pesticide 

detected in water from all streams tested throughout the country. 

Pesticide compounds were detected throughout most of the year in 

streams located in agriculture (97 percent of samples), urban (97 

percent of samples), and mixed land-use (94 percent of samples) 

watersheds. USGS also found samples containing banned pesticides 

such as DDT in sediments and fish tissue. Finding these residual 

pesticides still present in so many watersheds indicates the longterm impact these pesticides have in the natural environment. 

Pesticide contamination of rivers and streams has also been confirmed by state water pollution control agencies. According to 

EPA’s National Summary of State Information, States report that 

approximately 16,819 miles of rivers and streams, 1,766 square 

miles of bays and estuaries, and 260,342 acres of lakes are currently impaired or threatened by pesticides—meaning that the particular waterbody fails to meet (or is threatened for) a particular 

use, such as a source of drinking water, fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

propagation, or recreation. EPA has also indicated that the number 

of State waterbodies currently impaired by pesticides may not reflect the actual number of impaired waters because states do not 

test or regularly monitor for a significant number of common pesticides. 

The potential for human exposure to pesticides through drinking 

water or other contact with water is an area of significant concern. 

Depending on the type of pesticide, an array of health implications 

can arise including: skin and eye irritation, nervous system impacts, impacts on adolescent development of children, hormone or 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
8 

endocrine disruption, or cancer. As noted above, the presence of 

pesticides in so many of the nation’s waters increases the likelihood 

of physical contact or consumption of contaminated waters. There 

are many instances where the pesticide levels exceeded human 

health benchmark. 

On October 31, 2011, the EPA issued the Pesticide General Permit (PGP) under the CWA. The permit recognizes the important 

role of the CWA in restoring and maintaining the integrity of local 

water quality and the role FIFRA plays in uniformly labeling pesticides and indicating approved uses and restrictions. The fact that 

pesticide application has generally been governed by FIFRA for 

decades and yet so many of the nation’s waters have detectable levels of pesticides indicates that FIFRA alone does not adequately 

protect water bodies from pesticide pollution. The CWA provides 

critical tools for protecting water quality. 

The PGP establishes a streamlined application and approval 

process for individuals that intend to apply pesticides into Waters 

of the United States. Below is a summary of the streamlined features of the PGP that ensure a basic level of water quality protection: • Pesticide applicators must develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan that describes how the pesticide will be used, pesticide use monitoring plans, record keeping and reporting requirements. • Operators that discharge pesticides over large areas must analyze efficient and effective ways to minimize pesticide discharges 

and evaluate pest management options, including alternatives to 

pesticides, considering cost effectiveness, water quality impacts and 

other factors. • EPA’s permit generally requires certain activities to be conducted either annually or prior to each application (such as assessing the levels of pesticides necessary to control the target pest) to 

ensure an appropriate amount of pesticide is applied. • Operators must submit annual pesticide reports. These reports 

can be used to design future water quality sampling efforts to ensure water quality is maintained. 

These are not burdensome requirements. They simply ensure responsible pesticide use that protects water quality. In addition, the 

PGP includes emergency procedures to allow for spraying of pesticides to address a pest emergency that could affect public health. 

In such emergencies, pesticide applicators do not have to receive 

approval before applying a pesticide. 

One final concern with S. 1500 involves the failure to follow regular Committee procedure. A bill with far reaching impacts related 

to protection of human health and safety should have followed regular order and procedure and received an appropriate legislative 

hearing. Legislative hearings are an important part of the legislative process—allowing for public discourse about the pros and cons 

of proposed legislation and potential improvements to the legislation. Unfortunately, S.1500 did not undergo this important public 

review under regular order and instead was immediately brought 

up for a Committee vote. This is completely inappropriate for a bill 

with such significant public health consequences and strong opposition on the Committee. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
9 

For the substantive concerns with the legislation, and the procedural failures, we oppose S. 1500. 

BARBARA BOXER. BENJAMIN CARDIN. BERNARD SANDERS. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE. JEFF MERKLEY. KRISTEN GILLIBRAND. CORY BOOKER. EDWARD MARKEY. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
10 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 

of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as reported 

are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in øblack brackets¿, new matter is printed in italic, existing 

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman: 

* * * * * * * 

FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE 

ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 1. ø7 U.S.C. prec. 121¿ SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.— 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3. ø7 U.S.C. 136a¿ REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES. 

(a) REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION.—Except as provided by this 

Act, no person in any State may distribute or sell to any person 

any pesticide that is not registered under this Act. To the extent 

necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the Administrator may by regulation limit the distribution, 

sale, or use in any State of any pesticide that is not registered 

under this Act and that is not the subject of an experimental use 

permit under section 5 or an emergency exemption under section 

18. 

(b) EXEMPTIONS.—A pesticide which is not registered with the 

Administrator may be transferred if— 

(1) the transfer is from one registered establishment to another registered establishment operated by the same producer 

solely for packaging at the second establishment or for use as 

a constituent part of another pesticide produced at the second 

establishment; or 

(2) the transfer is pursuant to and in accordance with the requirements of an experimental use permit. 

(c) PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION.— 

* * * * * * * 

(f) MISCELLANEOUS.— 

(1) EFFECT OF CHANGE OF LABELING OR FORMULATION.—If 

the labeling or formulation for a pesticide is changed, the registration shall be amended to reflect such change if the Administrator determines that the change will not violate any provision of this Act. 

(2) REGISTRATION NOT A DEFENSE.—In no event shall registration of an article be construed as a defense for the commission of any offense under this Act. As long as no cancellation proceedings are in effect registration of a pesticide shall 

be prima facie evidence that the pesticide, its labeling and 

packaging comply with the registration provisions of the Act. 

(3) AUTHORITY TO CONSULT OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.—In 

connection with consideration of any registration or application 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
11 

for registration under this section, the Administrator may consult with any other Federal agency. 

(4) MIXTURES OF NITROGEN STABILIZERS AND FERTILIZER

PRODUCTS.—Any mixture or other combination of— 

(A) 1 or more nitrogen stabilizers registered under this 

Act; and 

(B) 1 or more fertilizer products, 

shall not be subject to the provisions of this section or sections 

4, 5, 7, 15, and 17(a)(2) if the mixture or other combination is 

accompanied by the labeling required under this Act for the nitrogen stabilizer contained in the mixture or other combination, the mixture or combination is mixed or combined in accordance with such labeling, and the mixture or combination 

does not contain any active ingredient other than the nitrogen 

stabilizer. 

(5) USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES.—Except as provided in 

section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 

U.S.C. 1342), the Administrator or a State shall not require a 

permit under that Act for a discharge from a point source into 

navigable waters of— 

(A) a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use 

under this Act; or 

(B) the residue of the pesticide, resulting from the application of the pesticide. 

* * * * * * * 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 101. (a) The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain 

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s 

waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, 

consistent with the provisions of this Act— 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 402. (a)(1) Except as provided in sections 318 and 404 of 

this Act, the Administrator may, after opportunity for public hearing, issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section 301(a), upon condition 

that such discharge will meet either (A) all applicable requirements 

under sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403 of this Act, or (B) 

prior to the taking of necessary implementing actions relating to all 

such requirements, such conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. 

* * * * * * * 

(r) DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF RECREATIONAL VESSELS.—No permit shall be required under this Act 

by the Administrator (or a State, in the case of a permit program 

approved under subsection (b)) for the discharge of any graywater, 

bilge water, cooling water, weather deck runoff, oil water separator 

effluent, or effluent from properly functioning marine engines, or 

any other discharge that is incidental to the normal operation of 

a vessel, if the discharge is from a recreational vessel. 

(s) DISCHARGES OF PESTICIDES.— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
12 

(1) NO PERMIT REQUIREMENT.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the Administrator 

or a State under this Act for a discharge from a point source 

into navigable waters of— 

(A) a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use 

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.); or 

(B) the residue of the pesticide, resulting from the application of the pesticide. 

(2) EXCEPTIONS.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the following discharges of a pesticide or pesticide residue: 

(A) A discharge resulting from the application of a pesticide in violation of a provision of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) relevant to protecting water quality if— 

(i) the discharge would not have occurred without 

the violation; or 

(ii) the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue in the 

discharge is greater than would have occurred without 

the violation. 

(B) Stormwater discharges subject to regulation under 

subsection (p). 

(C) The following discharges subject to regulation under 

this section: 

(i) Manufacturing or industrial effluent. 

(ii) Treatment works effluent. 

(iii) Discharges incidental to the normal operation of 

a vessel, including a discharge resulting from 

ballasting operations or vessel biofouling prevention. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN