U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–499 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–171 

PESTICIDE REGISTRATION UNDER THE 

FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, 

AND RODENTICIDE ACT: 

PROVIDING STAKEHOLDERS WITH 

CERTAINTY THROUGH THE PESTICIDE 

REGISTRATION IMPROVEMENT ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 11, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/ 
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

JAMES A. GLUECK, JR., MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

ANNE C. HAZLETT, MAJORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, CHIEF CLERK

JOSEPH A. SHULTZ, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

(II) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Pesticide Registration Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act: Providing Stakeholders With Certainty Through the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act .................................................................. 1 

Thursday, May 11, 2017 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ................................................. 2 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ..................... 3 

Panel I 

Keigwin, Richard P. Jr., Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC ........................................ 5 

Kunickis, Sheryl, Director, Office of Pest Management Policy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ................................................................ 7 

Panel II 

Murden, Dale, Past Chair, National Sorghum Producers; Past Chair, Texas 

Sorghum Producers; President, Texas Citrus Mutual, Mission, TX ................ 25 

Black, Hon. Gary W., Commissioner, Georgia Department of Agriculture, 

Atlanta, GA ........................................................................................................... 27 

Vroom, Jay, President and Chief Executive Officer, Croplife America, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 28 

Ruiz, Virginia E., Director of Occupational and Environmental Health, Farmworker Justice, Washington, DC ........................................................................ 30 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Black, Hon. Gary W. ........................................................................................ 42 

Keigwin, Richard P. Jr. .................................................................................... 49 

Kunickis, Sheryl ............................................................................................... 60 

Murden, Dale .................................................................................................... 63 

Ruiz, Virginia E. ............................................................................................... 69 

Vroom, Jay ........................................................................................................ 73 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Roberts, Hon. Pat: 

Various organizations, letter of support for the Pesticide Registration 

Enhancement Act .......................................................................................... 78 

California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association, letter of 

Support for the Pesticide Registration Enhancement Act ......................... 80 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Black, Hon. Gary: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 84 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 87 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 88 
Page

IV 

Keigwin, Richard P. Jr.: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 93 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 98 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 103 

Kunickis, Sheryl: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 105 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 106 

Murden, Dale: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 107 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 109 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 110 

Ruiz, Virginia: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 112 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 113 

Vroom, Jay: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 115 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 117 
(1) 

PESTICIDE REGISTRATION UNDER THE 

FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, 

AND RODENTICIDE ACT: 

PROVIDING STAKEHOLDERS WITH 

CERTAINTY THROUGH THE PESTICIDE 

REGISTRATION IMPROVEMENT ACT 

Thursday, May 11, 2017 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in room 

328A, Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Roberts, Boozman, Ernst, Grassley, Thune, 

Daines, Perdue, Stabenow, Brown, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Donnelly, 

Heitkamp, Casey, and Van Hollen. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Good morning. I call this meeting of the 

Senate Committee on Agriculture to order. 

We are going to go out of order here just for a moment, and I 

recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and first of all, I want to thank you for coming to Michigan this 

past weekend. You were a big hit, so do not come to Michigan and 

run for office for the Senate. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. But, in all seriousness, it was a wonderful 

opportunity to have both you and your staff to Michigan, to hear 

from our growers, consumers, conservation partners, and local food 

groups. 

One of our witnesses who owns the Hopyards of Kent, which is 

one of the fastest growing agriculture sectors in Michigan, wanted 

to give you this product of her business as a thank you. It is a 

Michigan Pale Ale from Hopyards of Kent. Please enjoy it—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. —not during the hearing, but you can enjoy 

it afterwards. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. We are, in all seriousness, very appreciative. 

It was a great opportunity for us to, once again, as we did in Kansas, talk about working together to write a Farm Bill. Which is 

what we do here on the Agriculture Committee, so thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, thank you. We had in excess of 250 

people in a place to hold a hearing that held about 200. 

Senator STABENOW. That is right. 
2 

Chairman ROBERTS. We heard from one specialty crop after another specialty crop group—— 

Senator STABENOW. That is right. 

Chairman ROBERTS. —including this young lady who and thank 

you for this gift. 

Maybe we should open it up and—I usually have a glass of ethanol with Senator Grassley every morning. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. It warms me right up. 

Senator STABENOW. Now we understand. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Maybe this would sort of calm it down after 

that, but thank you for this very much. Thank you for the hearing, 

and thank you for all the work that you and your staff did to make 

it a very good hearing. 

I am going to do this. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Note the Chairman was able to do this. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. Good. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thanks to Pam Bouma Miller, who was the 

person who gave the testimony for the hops industry, and who obviously depends on pesticides. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman ROBERTS. Twenty-four years ago, a Congressman 

wrote, ‘‘One of the critical tools used by producers to enhance their 

ability to produce the world’s most abundant, most affordable food 

supply is pesticides.’’ The author of those words in 1993 was yours 

truly, proudly representing the First District of Kansas, the Big 

First. 

In that same article, I discussed reforms at that time to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or what we call 

‘‘FIFRA’’, needed at the time to improve, among other things, reregistration of chemistries. 

Today, the Committee will cover the same issues critically important to agriculture with regard to providing farmers and, as a consequence, our nation’s consumers with the necessary crop protection tools to prevent, manage, and eradicate devastating pest and 

plant diseases that threaten our food supply. 

In my travels throughout Kansas talking to producers, even most 

recently at the field hearing that our Committee held in Michigan, 

a consistent message shared with our Committee is that farmers 

and ranchers in rural America want regulatory certainty. 

The hearing today will touch on that theme as well as cover a 

variety of issues, including the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act and pesticide registration processes. 

The Committee will hear from two panels of witnesses consisting 

of government officials from the EPA and the Department of Agriculture as well as a panel of stakeholders to discuss these issues, 

what works well, and what challenges remain. 

The EPA has the primary responsibility for regulating the sale, 

use, and distribution of pesticides. The EPA carries out this respon-
3 

sibility through FIFRA, a licensing statute which requires the EPA 

to review and register the use of pesticide products. 

Today’s hearing is a reminder of this Committee’s responsibility 

and my personal commitment, along with the Ranking Member, to 

conduct business through regular order and in a transparent manner. 

Relating to FIFRA, this Committee has legislative work ahead of 

us with the reauthorization of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, or PRIA. PRIA, while technical in nature, is critically important with assisting both the EPA in carrying out administrative 

functions and industry that relies upon timely pesticide registration decisions to get products on the market and in the hands of 

farmers. 

PRIA expires at the end of this fiscal year, and with that deadline in mind, it is my hope that today’s hearing will lay the groundwork for our Committee action on advancing PRIA this work period. There is widespread support for PRIA among the registrant 

community, which includes agriculture and non-agriculture use, 

labor, and environmental advocates. Illustrating this, is a letter 

from the PRIA Coalition addressed to our Committee expressing 

support for the legislation and urging swift action. 

I ask unanimous consent for this letter to be included into the 

record. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

[The following information can be found on page 78 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We know that many rely heavily on timely 

and predictable registration decisions. It is important that we get 

PRIA across the finish line, not only to provide certainty to the industry, but to provide new products to growers for crop protection 

and to consumers to protect public health. 

As I have said before, U.S. farmers and ranchers will need to 

feed a growing population all around the globe. In order to meet 

that demand, it will be extremely important to provide certainty 

and eliminate any regulatory barriers that might challenge farmers 

from meeting this goal. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and with that, I 

recognize Stabenow for her remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Well, good morning, and thank you very 

much Mr. Chairman for holding this very important hearing. 

Our Committee has a long history of working in a bipartisan 

manner to reauthorize the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, 

which many of us know as PRIA. 

Most recently, our Committee took action in 2012 when I served 

as Chair, and today’s hearing is a critical step in this process and 

an opportunity to listen to expert stakeholders and the EPA. 

Today, we will hear about the importance of PRIA from the perspective of farmers, farmer workers, and consumers. 

Agriculture is a risky business. We know that. Our producers 

know there are few certainties, if any, that they can rely on in the 

field. From unexpected natural disasters intensified by climate 

change, to low commodity prices, unpredictable events are a harsh 
4 

reality that directly affect farmers’ bottom lines and ultimately 

American jobs. 

That said, for nearly 15 years, PRIA has served as a valuable 

tool for stakeholders, the EPA, and farmworkers, providing certainty, which is needed to fight pest and weed infestation. 

Pesticide registration fees also support important education and 

training programs that keep our farmworkers and their families 

safe. 

PRIA also plays an important role off the farm. Products as common as household cleaners and disinfectants to lifesaving treatments that combat Ebola and the Zika virus and avian flu all rely 

on regulatory certainty and science based decisions provided by 

PRIA. 

PRIA also provides the financial and staffing stability that the 

EPA requires to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities, including both 

new registrations and the re-registration of pesticide products. 

More important than getting products in the hands of consumers 

is ensuring these products are safe for both human health and the 

environment. In my opinion, any risk, however small, of an unsafe 

product entering the commercial market is avoidable if we make 

decisions that are rooted in science. 

In fulfilling its regulatory responsibility, the EPA must stay true 

to sound science and take every precaution to protect our nation’s 

citizens, most importantly, our children. 

I have seen firsthand the devastating effects of excessive lead in 

Flint’s drinking water, and I believe there can be no tolerance for 

exposures to products that have devastating developmental effects 

on children. 

I have always been committed to supporting and advocating for 

smart Federal regulations that are based on the principles of sound 

science. Whether it is certainty of man-made climate change or the 

safety of biotechnology, we must look first and foremost to science 

to drive our laws and regulations. 

That is why it is extremely unfortunate it appears that scientific 

inquiry is being jeopardized now at the EPA. Late last week, in a 

very concerning and abrupt move, the agency dismissed several 

members of its Board of Scientific Counselors. This is a highly unusual move that has raised strong concerns. Former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Whitman warned that it could send an 

alarming message to scientists that they must have industry ties 

to be taken seriously. 

In order for the EPA to meet its mission and its statutory responsibilities in programs like PRIA and others, the agency’s decisions must be based on sound, peer-reviewed science. Hastily dismissing numerous scientists from the agency’s technical advisory 

boards sends the wrong message to the public and to all of us 

about the EPA’s integrity and the safety of the products they approve. 

I urge the agency to reverse their decision and allow these scientists to serve terms in line with historic norms under both Republican and Democratic Administrations. 

Mr. Chairman, science underpins everything we are talking 

about here today. I am pleased to partner with you last year on a 

science-based biotechnology bill, and I look forward to a Farm Bill 
5 

process that also recognizes the importance of good data and sound 

science. 

I am sure we will learn more about these matters today, and I 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses and the Committee’s effort to reauthorize the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act in 

the near future. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the Senator. 

I want to welcome our first panel of witnesses before the Committee this morning, certainly both having the experience and the 

tenure so that they could wave the banner of sound science and can 

be recognized anywhere. 

Our first panelist is Mr. Rick Keigwin. Rick currently serves as 

the Acting Director for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Office of Pesticide Programs. He brings to the Committee 20 years 

of experience with regards to his testimony. Mr. Keigwin has 

served in a variety of leadership capacities at the agency, including 

in the Pesticide Reevaluation Division, the Biological Economic 

Analysis Division, and the Registration Division. I do not know of 

any division that you have not served on, sir. We welcome you, and 

we look forward to your testimony. 

Our second witness joining Rick is Dr. Sheryl Kunickis, who joins 

us today from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Pest 

Management Policy, where she has served as Director since 2010. 

In this capacity, she coordinates the Department’s role in pesticide 

regulatory processes and related interagency affairs, primarily with 

the Environmental Protection Agency. She also integrates the Department’s programs and strategic planning related to pest management. 

We welcome both of our witnesses, and we look forward to your 

testimony. 

Rick, why don’t you proceed. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. KEIGWIN JR., ACTING DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. KEIGWIN. Thank you, Chairman Roberts. Good morning. It 

is very nice to be here. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee, my name is Rick Keigwin, 

and I currently serve as the acting director of the Office of Pesticide Programs at EPA. 

Safe pesticide use makes an enormous contribution to our society, particularly in the production of U.S. food and fiber. Innovation in pesticide use has greatly increased U.S. agricultural productivity and contributed to a predictable food supply and stable food 

prices. 

There are now more than 17,000 registered pesticide products 

containing more than 1,200 active ingredients, with uses ranging 

from insect repellents, household cleaners, lawn and garden chemicals, hospital disinfectants, biotechnology products, and a wide 

range of agricultural chemicals used to provide an abundant food 

supply. 

Working with stakeholders, EPA has developed a highly regarded program for evaluating pesticide safety and making regu-
6 

latory decisions. Our approach to decision-making is based on a 

model of transparency. Using this approach, the agency makes decisions consistent with the information that is peer-reviewed and 

protective of human health and the environment. 

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or 

FIFRA, EPA ensures that when used properly, pesticides provide 

significant benefits to society, such as controlling disease-causing 

organisms, protecting the environment from invasive species, and 

fostering an affordable, safe, and abundant food supply. FIFRA’s 

safety standard requires EPA to weigh these benefits against harm 

to human health and the environment that might result from using 

the pesticide. 

In addition, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 

EPA sets tolerances or maximum residue limits for pesticides used 

on food and animal feed. The EPA may establish a tolerance for a 

pesticide in food or feed only if we find that there is a reasonable 

certainty of no harm from exposure, from consumption of the food 

treated with that pesticide, and from other non-occupational 

sources. 

The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, or PRIA, as you 

mentioned, was first signed into law in 2004, and we are now talking about PRIA 4, the third reauthorization of PRIA. 

PRIA is a successful example of user fees paid by the private sector supporting vital regulatory programs. EPA’s pesticide activities 

are funded by a combination of appropriations and user fees, with 

one-time registration service fees accompanying registration applications and annual maintenance fees supporting continued registration of pesticide products. 

Under PRIA, entities seeking EPA’s approval to sell or distribute 

pesticide products, in most cases, pay a fee to process their applications. The amount of the fee depends on the type of application, the 

complexity of the application, and the type of entity. So, for example, a small business pays reduced fees, and government and government-sponsored organizations are exempt from paying the PRIA 

fees. 

PRIA was developed by a coalition of pesticide stakeholders representing seven different trade groups within the pesticide industry 

and public interest groups representing both the farmworker and 

environmental communities. The result of this collaboration is that 

there are elements in PRIA that are important to all of the represented stakeholders in the coalition, and EPA for the past many 

years has served in an advisory capacity to this coalition and has 

welcomed the opportunity to provide technical assistance to them. 

Before PRIA, EPA could not process all of the applications we received in a timely manner. Backlogs developed, and applicants 

could not predict when the agency could make a decision. With the 

additional resources provided by PRIA, the agency can now process 

new applications in a timelier manner. As part of our efforts to continue to improve the registration process, EPA has integrated efficiencies throughout our review process, enabling the agency to successfully meet the requirements of PRIA. Since PRIA became law, 

the agency has seen an increase in the approval of pesticides for 

us in growing specialty groups, helping farmers meet their pest 

control needs. 
7 

Further, some of these fees support improved pesticide safety 

education that helps protect our farmworkers and farmworker families. 

In conclusion, the EPA has a history of working in strong collaboration with the grower community to address potential pesticide 

risks, while providing growers with the necessary tools to meet 

their pest management needs. Through meetings with growers and 

agricultural stakeholders, we gain a better understanding of how 

farmers use these tools to grow their crops. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be happy 

to answer any of your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keigwin can be found on page 

49 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you for your statement and more 

especially for being on time. 

Dr. Kunickis, please. 

STATEMENT OF SHERYL KUNICKIS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, 

and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

provide testimony on the importance of pesticides in providing 

America’s safe, abundant, and affordable food supply. I am Dr. 

Sheryl Kunickis, director of USDA’s Office of Pest Management 

Policy, or OPMP. I have worked on behalf of the public for almost 

29 years. I have served as the associate deputy director for Ag, 

Lands, and Wildlife at the White House Council for Environmental 

Quality and served as the acting director in the Office of the Chief 

Scientist at USDA. I earned a Ph.D. in soil science from North 

Carolina State and an M.S. and B.S. in agronomy from BYU. 

OPMP harnesses the USDA’s expertise to inform regulatory actions under FIFRA, as well as pesticide-related provisions of other 

statutes, and coordinates agricultural biotech issues for USDA. We 

strive to ensure fully informed decision-making in a number of 

ways: by clarifying the benefits and costs of Federal actions on U.S. 

agriculture, by providing the best data on agricultural production 

and pesticide use, by effectively communicating the concerns of our 

stakeholders in all sectors of the agricultural industry, and by encouraging the use of quality science for issues related to pesticides 

and pest management. To this end, I lead a highly regarded interdisciplinary technical staff with broad expertise. 

America’s abundant, affordable, high-quality, and safe food supply is exceptional and the envy of the world, despite the uncertainties of weather, consumer markets, labor availability, pests and 

diseases, and production costs. Pesticides are a critical component 

of all farming systems. Whether it is use of organic materials such 

as spinosad insecticide in organic cranberry production to manage 

fireworms or plant-incorporated genetically engineered Bt insecticide in controlling rootworms across millions of acres of corn production, pesticides are essential tools for farmers in managing 

pests. 

We need certainty, when possible. USDA welcomed EPA’s proposed classification of glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, as 
8 

not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. USDA publicly commented 

in support of EPA’s conclusion, which is in line with other major 

risk-based assessments conducted by regulatory bodies across the 

world. Glyphosate is important to agriculture because of its excellent crop safety in GE crops, the broad range of weeds it controls, 

its flexibility, and its economy of use. 

Agriculture depends on a strong, scientifically-based EPA to 

evaluate pesticides. USDA supports PRIA, as it will provide the 

certainty needed for registrants to get innovative technologies to 

market and for growers to know what tools they have available to 

address the next pest challenge, and, of course, the educational 

component is essential. 

Now let us discuss the role of the Endangered Species Act in the 

registration of pesticides. Since 2013, EPA and the Services have 

been working on a nationwide ESA consultation for chlorpyrifos, 

diazinon, and malathion. Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum insecticide. Diazinon is impregnated in cattle ear tags to control flies, and 

malathion is part of the toolbox used to combat mosquitoes, maintain the cotton boll weevil program, and manage spotted wing 

drosophila, an extremely destructive, invasive insect in fruit production. 

The services analyze effects of pesticides based on the maximum 

allowable use instead of actual use. We have concerns about the 

impacts of potential mitigation actions on U.S. agriculture. FIFRA, 

the law that directly regulates the registration of pesticides, already requires EPA to prevent any unreasonable risk to man or the 

environment, a standard which could include endangered species. 

This dual regulation challenges EPA meeting its statutory obligations to regularly review pesticide registrations. The current workload is not sustainable. Regulatory certainty is needed to ensure 

the continued safe use of pesticides, while offering necessary protections to endangered species and their habitat. 

In closing, let me reiterate that our food supply is one of the 

safest anywhere in the world. The USDA Pesticide Data Program 

annually tests a variety of domestic and imported foods. In 2015, 

more than 99 percent of the samples tested had pesticide residues 

below the tolerance level established by EPA. These legal limits are 

established by our colleagues at EPA and are but one example of 

the immensely important work that EPA does to register safe and 

effective pesticides that are essential to both conventional and organic agricultural systems. 

Thank you very much, and I will look forward to addressing any 

of your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kunickis can be found on page 

60 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you so much. 

Senator Stabenow, we have two witnesses that were very succinct and on time. I think that is—I am not sure if that is a record, 

but at any rate—— 

Senator STABENOW. It may be. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you very much. 

Mr. Keigwin, in the context of PRIA, often times the conversation 

focuses only on the benefits for the registrants. Would you elabo-
9 

rate, please, on the other types of benefits that PRIA provides? I 

am going to mention certainty and obviously worker protection. 

Mr. KEIGWIN. Thank you, Senator. 

So certainty for growers, I think, is very important. Knowing 

that tools that are in the pipeline will become available by a date 

certain, I think it is critically important to help growers meet their 

pest management needs. EPA has been very successful as part of 

implementing PRIA that nearly 98 percent of the time or even 

more frequently, we are meeting the statutory due dates for completing our registration decisions, and that is something that we 

are very proud of. 

PRIA also extends funding for pesticide safety education programs, which is also very critical to ensure that the people that 

help us grow our food remain safe and that their families remain 

safe, and the funds from PRIA help to support programs either at 

land-grant universities or in other organizations to ensure that 

they have the protections that they need. 

One of the new things with PRIA 4 that I would like to highlight 

is that it sparks innovation for the development of lower-risk pesticides. One of the provisions of PRIA establishes higher fees and 

longer review times for those products that do not get classified as 

a reduced-risk or lower-risk pesticide, so the result being that 

something that does have the merits of being a lower-risk pesticide 

can be advanced to the market more quickly. 

So those would be three that I would highlight for you today. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that very much. 

Doctor, as the Department of Agriculture—well, number one, you 

went from North Carolina State to BYU. That is a long ways. 

Ms. KUNICKIS. I went in the other direction. I started out at BYU 

and ended at North Carolina State. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I see. You just reversed. So instead of going 

West, young lady, you went East. 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. All right. Is BYU, the—are they still the 

Cougars? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Then you went from the Cougars to a Wolfpack? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Kansas State played BYU in a Bowl that I 

attended. Our cornerback tripped on the last—one of the last plays 

of the game, and your quarterback threw for a touchdown. Otherwise, the Wildcats would have defeated the Cougars. We are into 

four-legged hairy animals. I think we are going to quit right there. 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Okay. 

Chairman ROBERTS. As the Department of Agriculture works to 

facilitate U.S. agriculture exports, it is absolutely critical to maintain the free flow of trade. Trade has become a big issue, not only 

in general, but more especially with this Administration. We have 

a very key vote coming up with regards to Robert Lighthizer to get 

trade moving again, make trade great again. 

APHIS works hard to keep open markets by ensuring U.S. ag 

products are free from pests. Without access to appropriate products to manage pests, my question is, is the U.S. at risk of trade 
10 

restrictions on our exports? Could you please talk about the threat 

of losing existing markets if pests are discovered in our exported 

animal products and the role that pesticides play in keeping our 

agriculture trade open and consistent? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Yes. Thank you, and that is a great, very important question. We are absolutely delighted to have Dr. Perdue—or 

now Secretary Perdue at the head of USDA. It has been delightful 

to have him in office for the last, I guess, almost three weeks. 

Secretary Perdue has talked already about the importance of expanding trade. He is committed to doing that, and we have no 

doubt that he will follow up on his commitment. 

Secretary Perdue is the chief salesperson, and when he meets 

with folks, I expect that he will honor his commitments with them 

to provide a safe and abundant food supply to those folks that are 

our trading partners. 

As you said, the risk there is if we cannot, if we have pests that 

are in our commodities and in our food supply, without pests we 

would not—I mean without pesticides, we would not have the fumigants needed to—we would not be able to ensure the safety of the 

food that goes overseas. We would not be able to ensure that our 

food is pest-free. 

Pesticides are absolutely essential to those who are growing the 

food, for those that are shipping the food, and for those that are 

eating the food. So I have no doubt that Secretary Perdue will follow up on his promise, and that the United States agriculture will 

be able to trade with a healthy food supply as long as we have pesticides. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate your response very much. 

Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

both of our witnesses. 

Mr. Keigwin, I first want to thank you personally for your engagement with Michigan State University and our Michigan hop 

growers that created the gift that we just gave to the Chairman to 

facilitate Section 18 exemptions under FIFRA. 

Most recently, I have heard from Michigan sugar beet growers 

about emergency use needs under Section 18 as well. What steps 

can be taken by growers, states, manufacturers, and the EPA to 

make the Section 18 process more efficient, so that growers facing 

unexpected risk can get needed crop protection tools in a timely 

fashion? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. Thank you, Senator, and I have had the great fortune of meeting with Michigan growers on a number of occasions. 

Your growers sponsor an annual tour to help educate EPA employees about Michigan agriculture and what farmers do to help grow 

our crops, so thank you for that. 

In terms of Section 18s, we have a pretty solid record of completing our decision-making for most Section 18 or emergency exemptions in less than 50 days, but there are times—and I think 

this situation with the sugar beet one, growers, that came to your 

attention highlights the need for early engagement between EPA 

and the Michigan Department of Agriculture and the grower community and the land-grant universities. 
11 

Knowing early on what tools a grower might need to address the 

emerging pest situation, it is hard when at the end of the process 

or right when they need to apply the product for EPA to say, ‘‘Wait. 

Hold on. We might have a problem.’’ So one process efficiency 

would probably be for us to have earlier engagement, maybe even 

before the state submits their Section 18 request to see if there 

might be any issues with that particular chemical, and to the extent to which there are, we could work collaboratively with cooperative extension and with the state to maybe find some alternatives 

that we could move through the process more quickly to address 

the emerging pest management need. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Kunickis, when developing new integrated pest management 

strategies with growers, does the USDA staff recommend Farm Bill 

conservation programs to farmers as a tool to combat weed resistance, and secondly, do you have recommendations for how the conservation programs can be improved to help address weed resistance as well as the continued decline in the pollinator populations? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Thank you for your question. 

Yes. We do engage with our conservation program folks, both 

NRCS and the Farm Services Agency staff. IPM is a critical component of those. NRCS has a conservation practice related to IPM. 

Weed resistance is front and—in front of our—is one of the highpriority issues for our office. We have met with the agency folks to 

make sure they are fully aware of the issue of weed resistance. As 

we all know, resistance, weed resistance is not just about pigweed 

in Georgia. It is about having weed resistance all across the entire 

United States, and it is not just about pigweed. It is in all species. 

So we work really hard to work with the conservation agencies and 

helped to educate their staff about the issue of weed resistance. 

IPM, we coordinate across the Department and with other Departments on Integrated Pest Management. We work with the IPM 

centers that are funded by the National Institute for Food and Agriculture. We meet regularly with them. They help us develop the 

pest management strategic plans. We engage with growers on 

those to make sure that those are accurate and up to date. 

Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, and we look forward to hearing more comments from you as we move forward on 

the Farm Bill with suggestions or recommendations that you would 

have on conservation programs. 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Keigwin, can you talk about the role of the EPA’s Board of 

Scientific Counselors in reviewing the safety of crop protection materials? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. For pesticide products and pesticide science, our 

studies and our methodologies for how we conduct our reviews 

have not been reviewed by the panel that you referred to. In fact, 

under FIFRA, there is a separate congressionally chartered peer review body called the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, and so our 

work is peer-reviewed separately, not through the BOSC, but 

through the FIFRA SAP. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
12 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our witnesses for being here today. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Keigwin, in your testimony, you highlighted the fact that 

your agency has met the time frame for approval 98 percent of the 

time on the more than 20,000 decisions since PRIA was enacted in 

2004, and I think that is a pretty tremendous track record. I know 

there had been some extensions of timelines beyond the target of 

730 days but still a very good percentage, so thank you for that. 

But what I would like to know is what you believe can be done 

to remove duplicative regulations, free up some of those funds, or 

take other actions to further improve the time for getting new 

products on the market, so we can make our farmers and growers 

even more productive. 

Mr. KEIGWIN. Thank you, Senator. 

When Administrator Pruitt joined the agency, one of the things 

that he launched straight away was his Back-to-Basics Agenda, 

which is an initiative to help focus EPA’s efforts on returning to 

our core mission of protecting human health and the environment. 

As part of that effort, we have been beginning to reach out to 

stakeholders across the spectrum to identify areas of regulation 

that either may be duplicative, could be streamlined or modified, 

while still protecting public health and the environment. 

In fact, last week, the Pesticide Program hosted a public meeting 

of a wide variety of stakeholders. Several hundred people participated in that meeting to help provide some insight to us on where 

we might look next in terms of streamlining, gain some additional 

efficiencies in our program, and among those were opportunities to 

look at some MOUs with other agencies where there might be opportunities to share our work and share our load or rely upon the 

work of another agency. So those are among the things that we are 

beginning to explore now. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. In your opinion, does that seem to be 

a positive start? Is it being received well by your agency and other 

agencies? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. It has, and, in fact, we have had some MOUs in 

place with other agencies. So this would not be a new territory to 

explore, but we can build upon some of our existing relationships 

and probably go further. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Keigwin. 

Dr. Kunickis, you noted in your testimony that agriculture depends on a strong scientifically based EPA to evaluate pesticides, 

and what can you do in your role to encourage that and ensure 

that politics—of course, politics, in the news all the time—that politics do not get in the way of sound science when it comes to reviewing pesticides? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Thank you. I appreciate that question. Science is 

the foundation of everything that we do at USDA, and I expect that 

is the same for EPA. 

For us, we look at what any kind of rules or proposed rules or 

risk assessments that EPA does, and we look at it through the 

view of our agricultural sectors to see if it is—how it would work. 

Then we also look at models, the inputs, to see if they are valid, 

and if they are reflective of agriculture. But we also look at the 
13 

science that is underlying the work that EPA has done. We provide 

them information that we are aware of from the agricultural community and others, and then we have nice discussions with EPA 

about how we can work together to either improve or make 

changes or maybe better understand why they are doing what they 

are doing. 

But we do look through it through scientific eyes. My entire staff 

is very—they are experts in their disciplines, and we ensure that 

each one of them is fully aware of what EPA is doing and that we 

can speak on behalf of ag to ensure that they are scientifically 

based decisions. 

Senator ERNST. Well, I appreciate that, and we had the pleasure 

of hosting Secretary Perdue last Friday in Iowa, and it was wonderful to see the interaction that he had with our farmers and 

growers. He did mention several times that we want to make sure 

that things are scientifically based, any decisions that are made, 

and the fact that he encouraged collaboration amongst the agencies. So it was really great to see that. 

Thank you both for being here today. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you to both of you, and we are glad we are continuing to 

work together on this very important bill and this program. 

One of the missions of USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy 

is to promote the development of new pest management approaches 

that meet the needs of our evolving agriculture industry. 

Mr. Keigwin, would EPA be able to examine the numerous pesticide products intended for sale in the U.S. without the resources 

that PRIA provides? It is called an easy question. 

Mr. KEIGWIN. Thank you, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KEIGWIN. We certainly want to be able to do them on the 

time frames that we do the—the supplemental resources that PRIA 

provides certainly help us achieve the timelines that I was talking 

about earlier in my testimony. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. To get on to that timelines, I have 

heard from Minnesota businesses about the importance of having 

a more predictable timeline during the registration review process. 

What work have you done to make the regulatory approval process 

more predictable for industries and producers and the public? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. So an important component of the registration review process is transparency and public engagement, and so we do 

have multiple opportunities throughout the review process for them 

to engage, for them to come forward to us with information, so that 

we are using real-world information in making our decisions, so 

that we are making the most informed decisions that we can. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. 

Dr. Kunickis, your name is almost as hard as mine. Kunickis. 

What have you heard from farmers about the need for a timely review, and how does your team at USDA work with EPA? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. We hear a lot from farmers, and actually, we 

reach out to a lot of the grower groups, folks that we know across 

the country, to talk to them about their needs. 
14 

We work very closely with EPA. We have a great working relationship. I keep in contact regularly with Rick right now on a regular basis. I always ask about what is the status of this pesticide 

that is in registration review, are there any concerns, are there any 

data that you need from USDA that we can provide to help inform 

some of the decisions that you are going to make, and we are very 

interested in if there is any mitigation measures that may be needed so that we can look and see if they are realistic for our growers. 

This afternoon, my staff and I will be at EPA. We have our regular monthly meeting where we have a number of items on an 

agenda to discuss. So we work really well together, and we continue to look forward to working together. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. How do you think the USDA’s role in the 

pesticide approval process would be affected by the resource and 

staffing cuts that are suggested in that proposed 31 percent budget 

cut in the budget? I know that our new Agriculture Secretary—I 

asked him this question, not with regard to pesticides, but just 

with regard to the general ag issues, and he did say that he hoped 

the Senate would fix it. I like that answer. 

But how do you think—how do you think the USDA’s role would 

be affected by the resource—the proposed resource and staffing 

cuts? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Well, certainly, any cuts that would come, we 

would have to—honestly, we would just have to figure out the best 

way to go forward. 

Our office has been—we are very well trained, interdisciplinary, 

and are able to work together on different issues, even though it 

may cross many disciplines. 

If the cuts come, it will make it a little more challenging. I would 

like to hire, and if we cannot, we do work with other staff across 

USDA to fill where we have gaps. So we will adjust. We always 

have. It has happened to us in the past, and if it happens again, 

we will adjust. Certainly, we hope that will not happen, but we are 

willing to do what we can on behalf of our growers. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Keigwin, in your testimony, you mention that the reauthorization bill passed by the House would increase the types of registration actions covered under PRIA to 212 

categories, up from 189 categories in the last reauthorization. 

Would the fee increase from $27.8 million to $31 million per year 

cover the additional 23 categories proposed for registration, and do 

you see the demand outpacing the additional increases for maintenance fees? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. So thank you, Senator. The maintenance fees actually primarily go to fund the reevaluation program. The additional 

categories will have their own new PRIA fees associated with them, 

so they will diverge in those two different directions. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. I see. But the question was, Do you 

think that fee increase—the initial question—would cover the additional 23 categories? So you think it would? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. So the fee increase is on the maintenance fee side, 

primarily, so that is for the reevaluation program. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. 

Mr. KEIGWIN. The 23 new categories will have their own PRIA 

fees, and then there are fees—there is an increase in some of the 
15 

fee categories for the new registration side. So the 23 categories are 

new registration categories. The fee increase, I think that—I believe you are referring to happens to deal with the maintenance fee 

side to fund the reevaluation program. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So you think it is all—— 

Mr. KEIGWIN. I think it will certainly help us get the work done. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So it is all going to be paid for? It will not— 

okay. All right. 

Mr. KEIGWIN. Coupled with appropriated dollars. We cannot fully 

fund the—we cannot fully do the work—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But if you get the 30 percent decrease in 

the proposed budget that you are supposed to at EPA, would you 

be able to do all your work? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. You know, as Sheryl said, we would have to figure 

out how to do things and look for additional efficiencies. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Perdue. 

Senator PERDUE. I yield, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We have a Perdue that is not talking. That 

is very unusual. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. He is trying to be nice to the other members. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I see. It is with great respect that I now ask 

Senator Van Hollen for his questions. 

Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Perdue. 

I just want to echo what Senator Ernst said, which is that we 

all want to make sure that we have a pesticide regulation regime 

that is scientifically based, and we all know that sometimes the 

conclusions are different from USDA versus EPA. I do want to ask 

you about that because, as we all know, recently there was a headline in the Washington Post that says EPA chief, the new EPA 

chief rejecting agency’s own analysis, declines to ban pesticide despite health concerns. 

Dr. Keigwin, you are quoted in this story as supporting the decision, but, Mr. Keigwin, could you talk a little bit about this EPA 

recommendation to regulate, ban chlorpyrifos because, there have 

been serious health concerns raised about it, including the impact 

on newborns, neurological impacts, and clearly, the EPA, when it 

issued its report last December seemed to be on the way of suggesting that we need to ban this to protect human health. We need 

to make sure we protect crops from pests, so that we have a vibrant agriculture community. We also need to protect human 

health, and the way EPA drew that line, at least back in December, was that banning this was necessary or moving in that direction to protect human health. Can you comment on that? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. Sure. Thank you, Senator. 

So we have been studying chlorpyrifos for quite some time and 

took regulatory action to mitigate some of the exposures to 

chlorpyrifos back in the last decade when we removed it from uses 

around the—most uses around the home, and about four or 

five—— 

Senator Van Hollen. The indoor, the indoor use. 
16 

Mr. KEIGWIN. The indoor uses, like the termiticide type of uses. 

We also worked very successfully with the registrants about four 

or five years ago to put in place some buffers to protect residential 

areas around agricultural fields to deal with some spray drift 

issues. 

I think what you are referring to, Senator, is a rulemaking that 

we were in the midst of that we began in 2015 when we proposed 

to revoke the tolerances for chlorpyrifos, because the science that 

we had at the time suggested that we potentially could not make 

the required safety finding under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act. 

We continue to do our work, and we took a revised assessment 

to our FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel in the spring of 2016. They 

recommended some improvements to that risk assessment, and so 

in November of 2016, we issued a revised draft risk assessment for 

public comment, and that public comment period closed in mid-January. 

We received almost 50,000 comments on that draft risk assessment, and a number of those comments raised some questions 

about how EPA had done the science, had concerns about how we 

had derived the regulatory endpoint from an epidemiology study, 

and strongly urged the agency to have that risk assessment further 

peer-reviewed before we completed regulatory action. 

The decision that the Administrator made at the end of March 

was—while related to the rulemaking, was in response to a petition 

from the Pesticide Action Network of North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council. That action is now in litigation, so 

I have got to be very circumspect about what I say because it is 

an active litigation. But, in the meantime, we are continuing to review the science surrounding chlorpyrifos, taking into account the 

comments that we received during the public comment period. 

Senator Van Hollen. So the review is ongoing now—— 

Mr. KEIGWIN. The review—— 

Senator Van Hollen. —and has not been stopped? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. The review has not been stopped. It is ongoing as 

part of the re-registration process. 

Senator Van Hollen. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope we 

will all adhere to the advice from our colleague, which is this be 

done based on the science and not the politics. I hope we can all 

agree with that proposition. We need to, obviously, prevent pests 

from chewing up our crops, but we also need to protect human 

health. So I look forward to continuing this conversation with you. 

Just if I could ask, Mr. Chairman, have any of our—where are 

European partners in—are any of them in process of looking at 

banning this? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. A number of other countries have reevaluations 

under way. Australia, as an example, just within the last couple of 

weeks, released a risk assessment for chlorpyrifos. Their risk assessment is different from ours, and so we are looking at the 

science that the Australian government considered and seeing what 

parts of that would be appropriate for us to use here. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the Senator. 

Senator Perdue. 

Senator PERDUE. I yield again, Mr. Chairman. 
17 

Chairman ROBERTS. Gracious. 

Senator Heitkamp, would you like to proceed at this point? 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, I would love to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the gracious offer. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, thank you for coming. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I have just a quick question about wheat for 

the Doctor. We are hearing more and more about pesticide residues 

in wheat and lots of questions about the use of crop protection tools 

on the crop itself. Much of the information as cited as the basis for 

criticism of wheat production traces back to misrepresentation of 

USDA’s NASS data. Often the worst case is assumed, and every 

acre of crop is treated. 

When USDA surveys growers about the use of crop protection 

tools, are you seeking to track overall use and trends, or are you 

gathering more in-depth information about management practices 

associated with crop protection tools, such as no till or reduced tillage and crop rotations? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Thank you for the question. 

I want to just say that our colleagues at the National Ag Statistics Service do terrific work, and the survey that they do, the ag 

survey, is extremely, extremely important, the data that they provide. 

I do not work for NASS, and why they ask the questions that 

they do and the reasoning behind them, I am not actually sure. I 

am glad to get the answers for you, but I assure you that the information that they use is information that we use in how we support 

some of the information that we provide in support of what EPA 

does. 

I am glad to get the information from NASS, and they can better 

explain on how they come up with the questions and how they use 

the data. 

Senator HEITKAMP. The other question that I have is, What role 

does USDA play in the endangered species consultation process 

during the registration review, and do you think you have sufficient data and real-world scenarios and management practices that 

reflect the use of products in the field? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. USDA does not have a formal role in ESA consultation. Consultation occurs between EPA and the services, 

meaning Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. We are a side partner, I will say. We can provide 

data, any information on crop production, any crop production practices, how pesticides are used. We are always available to provide 

that information, but we do not have a role, a formal role in consultation. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Do you think you should have a formal role 

in consultation? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. I think it would be extremely helpful, extremely 

helpful to have a voice at the table on behalf of our agricultural 

producers. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I do too. 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yeah. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 
18 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator. I can anticipate a 

Heitkamp amendment to our reauthorization process. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Who me? 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Daines, I am going to recognize you, 

and that Senator Perdue has yielded twice. 

Do you want to go for a third time? That is the record, by the 

way. 

Senator PERDUE. I like records. I will yield again, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Well, I am grateful for Senator Perdue. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and I 

want to thank you for coming before this Committee and providing 

your perspective and expertise on this critical issue. I represent the 

State of Montana. Our number one industry is agriculture. This is 

a big deal for us, and certainly, providing regulatory certainty is 

an essential role of government. 

Our farmers and ranchers and businesses back home, if they 

complain about anything else—I mean, it is taxes, regulations, but 

it is the uncertainty of this city, what it produces in the field here 

for our ag industry. Reauthorizing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act will be an important step towards reducing some of 

that uncertainty that exists today. 

Pesticides play a vital role for farmers in keeping our pest populations down, improving our yields, certainly reducing the impact 

of diseases. In fact, in Montana, there is over 6,000 private pesticides applicators, and ensuring they and our producers have access to a safe and effective pesticides in a timely manner is simply 

imperative. 

Dr. Kunickis, one thing I hear frequently from farmers and 

ranchers in Montana is the burden of duplicative or unduly burdensome regulations. In your testimony, you state that the EPA is 

required to review the impact of pesticides under the Endangered 

Species Act, despite the EPA already being required to review the 

pesticides to avoid, and I quote, ‘‘any unreasonable risk to man or 

the environment,’’ end quote, under FIFRA. Would you view this as 

an example of a duplicative regulation? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Yes, sir, I would. 

Senator DAINES. Mr. Keigwin, on a similar note, does using ESA 

to regulate pesticides pose any challenges for your office and the 

EPA more broadly? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. ESA consultations and the assessment processes 

are new for us. We have been working with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to develop sound 

scientific procedures for how to evaluate the effects of pesticides on 

endangered and threatened species, and with the assistance of the 

National Academy of Sciences, they did give us some advice a few 

years ago about how to do that. But it is a much more complex 

evaluation process than what we have traditionally done for pesticides under FIFRA. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

Dr. Kunickis, I do not have a lot of claim to fame, other than I 

am the husband of Cindy Daines, but I am the only chemical engi-
19 

neer on the Hill amongst 535 members. That is what my training 

was in. I do understand the importance of utilizing sound science 

in our decision-making processes, and as you well know, there was 

an extended and vigorous debate surrounding the mandatory labeling of biotechnology last year. 

I got to thank Chairman Roberts and his leadership. We were 

successfully able to prevent what I believe was a discriminatory 

and harmful law from impacting our farmers across Montana and 

across the country. 

As you know, the Office of Pest Management Policy plays an important role in developing and implementing biotech policy at 

USDA in collaborating with EPA. As you work to develop and implement rules related to biotech disclosure in advance of next year’s 

deadline, will you commit to ensuring that USDA’s priority will be 

to make determinations based on sound science? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Absolutely. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you for that. I have found in this town 

that political science sometimes becomes the primary message, and 

I want to always come back to the sound science and the facts. 

USDA has to be focused on the safety of the food and products with 

its jurisdiction, not on marketing and mandatory labeling efforts 

that have no bearing on food safety or plant pest risk. 

Mr. Keigwin, what would be the implications the average farmer 

or producer in Montana if PRIA were not reauthorized? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. One of the advantages of PRIA is that it does give 

growers some certainty about the availability of when new products 

will become tools for them. 

In the absence of PRIA, if you go back to what the regulatory atmosphere was like prior to PRIA—I will give an example that a 

grower shared with me just yesterday. A new active ingredient before PRIA took about six years for EPA to complete the review for. 

Now it takes about two years, so the review process has been 

shaved rather significantly, while still ensuring that registration is 

protective of human health and the environment. 

Senator DAINES. Mr. Keigwin, last question. As you know, there 

were instances in the past Administration where concerns were 

raised regarding the consultation of communication between EPA 

and USDA. What steps does your office take to consult with the Office of Pest Management or other agencies within USDA? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. So Sheryl and I talk regularly. This is not just the 

first time today that we will be talking. We have a meeting this 

afternoon. We get together at least on a monthly basis. 

Senator DAINES. So do you even need two offices? Is that what 

you are saying? You could—— 

Mr. KEIGWIN. I am not saying that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KEIGWIN. But our staffs are well integrated. She has some 

former staff of mine. 

I would like to get some of them back, Sheryl. 

But it is a very good working relationship, and while we do not 

always agree, we find a way to work through the issue in a collaborative manner. 

Senator DAINES. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Gillibrand. 
20 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

to both of you for your service. 

Dr. Kunickis, in your testimony, you stated that it is extremely 

important to the USDA that agriculture not be defined by those 

who are less than well informed about agriculture. I have to assume that you mean the 98 percent of Americans who are not actively engaged in farming. 

So my question is, Is the voice of the American consumer not of 

interest to the USDA, and should the USDA ignore the concerns 

of shoppers because they are not experts on pesticide chemistry? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Actually, in my testimony, I was actually referring to some of the press who just repeat information that they 

hear from the Internet. Actually, a lot of what is said is not reported correctly, and that is what I was referring in my written 

testimony. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. USDA objected to the legal and economic 

risk posed to farmers by EPA’s proposed rule setting lower limits 

for some pesticides used on corn and some fruits. What is USDA 

doing to ensure that moms and dads who pack fruit in their kids’ 

lunches are not less important than a chemical manufacturer? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Oh, let there be no doubt that at USDA, the safety of America’s food supply is number one and number one for our 

children and for all people that eat our food, eat food that is produced for consumption. It is not an issue at all. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Keigwin, in your testimony, you mentioned Administrator 

Pruitt’s Back-to-Basics Agenda and how he is committed to returning common sense as well as transparent and peer-reviewed science 

to pesticide registration process. You have been in EPA leadership 

for more than 20 years. During that time, have EPA scientists ever 

done anything less than their very best to conduct rigorous analysis of the risks posed by pesticides to farmers and consumers? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. Our scientists are among the most highly regarded 

scientists on pesticide regulation, and they do routinely seek peer 

review of their work. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Do you believe that Administrator Pruitt’s 

recent dismissal of as many as half the scientists of the Board of 

Science Counselors in favor of industry representatives was done to 

improve science? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. Senator, I cannot respond to that in that the work 

that my office does is peer-reviewed by a different panel, the 

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, which is a congressionally chartered peer review committee, and there has not been any change 

to the scientific makeup of that committee. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. You mentioned in your testimony that Pesticide Registration Improvement Act fees cover about 20 to 40 percent of EPA’s total review cost. The President’s budget would cut 

EPA funding by 31 percent and eliminate pesticide safety programs. With such deep cuts, would there be any way that EPA 

could conduct accurate and timely reviews of submissions? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. So I have not seen what the President will ultimately propose. Obviously, a reduction in our congressional appropriations would have an impact on the program. 
21 

Senator GILLIBRAND. How high would PRIA fees need to be if 

these cuts happened? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. So PRIA fees right now cover about 30 to 35 percent of the program costs. So a reduction would—potentially would 

necessitate, if that were an issue on the table, for a higher fee. 

There are also opportunities for us to look at further efficiencies in 

our process so that we could absorb some of the resources. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. How would you—how would proposed budget cuts affect research and integrated pest management? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. So EPA does not conduct research on integrated 

pest management. That is something that we rely upon our partners at USDA to do. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for holding this hearing. It really is very, very important. 

I do not have any doubt that you all work together well, and that 

is a good thing. You mentioned that sometimes you do not agree. 

Who has got final authority, or do you just kind of not do anything 

when you run into—— 

Mr. KEIGWIN. In the ideal world, we find ways to reach agreement, and we do that many, many times. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But we do not live in an idea world. 

Mr. KEIGWIN. But I think the relationship that the Office of Pesticide Programs and the Office of Pesticide Management Policy has 

been such that we successfully work through our areas of disagreement, and I think it is very rare when there is true disagreement. 

Sometimes it is just a nuance or a different way of looking at an 

issue, and I think I am very proud of the fact that we have been 

able to work well together to put in place the necessary protections 

for pesticides where they are needed and ensure that growers have 

the tools that they need to produce their crops. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No, and that is—again, that is appreciated. 

Dr. Kunickis, when I am home, traveling about Arkansas, like 

most of our states, it is such a heavily agricultural state. It does 

not really matter what state it is. It is remarkable, the percentage 

of GDP that our states have. 

But I really feel very strongly that the answers to our problems 

really do need to come from the ground up. Can you talk a little 

bit about how you include the rank-and-file farmer? Do they have 

a seat at the table? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Regarding pest management? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Yes, sir. We regularly—as we go through—as EPA 

puts out risk assessments, we review them, and then we look and 

reach out to growers all across the country, depending on what the 

pesticide in review is, and we ask questions about how are you 

using it, what specifically is the most important in the cycle of pest 

management, which—what is the timing, what is the—how many 

applications, which are the most important applications. We reach 

out from probably all 50 states, looking at all different crops. We 

know that apple production in one state is very different than 

apple production in another, so we reach out to growers, to grower 
22 

groups, and to as many people as we can to get the most correct 

apples—I mean—apples—answers. 

We also make it very clear that a one-size-fits-all approach does 

not work for U.S. agriculture, and that we need to be very site specific on getting answers for how our growers do their agricultural 

production. 

Senator BOOZMAN. We talk a lot about the dangers of pesticides, 

which is very, very appropriate, and we—certainly, we are all very 

concerned about that and want to make sure that things are—can 

you talk a little bit about some of the benefits, though, that as a 

result of being able to use pesticides in a safe way, scientifically 

safe, doing it right, some of the benefits that have occurred in the 

nation as a result of making such so we continue to have the 

safest, cheapest food supply and feeding much of the world? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Oh, yes. Pesticides have made us—have given us 

the ability to produce food in abundance with some of the newer 

tools. The genetically engineered crops, we are able to increase 

yields. We have got benefits. We have a pest-free food supply. 

If you have ever looked at a piece of fruit that has got a pathogen 

on it, it is not very attractive, so fungicides are extremely important for addressing pathogen issues. 

We all know the story of opening an apple and finding a worm. 

Most of the things that we eat do not have worms in it. 

I had the great opportunity also to be in Michigan on one of the 

tours, and it was just so incredibly important to look at how they 

produce cherries and talk about the zero tolerance for worms. 

Frankly, I have never even thought about looking for worms, and 

yet I realize that is because we have such a high standard and because of the pest protection tools that—or the crop protection tools 

that are used safely by our growers all across the United States. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I think that now concludes—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. Shout-out for the cherries. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes, a great shout-out. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Great. 

Oh, I am sorry. Senator Thune is here. Coop, how did I forget 

you? It is almost high noon, Coop. 

Senator THUNE. That means it is my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. Thanks for having this hearing, and I appreciate the attention 

to this subject. It is an important one. 

If I could ask both of you sort of whether you believe the approval process under PRIA is staying current with biotechnology 

research and the development of some of the new products? 

Ms. KUNICKIS. Yeah. That is a great question, and it is a very, 

very important question. Bottom line is technology usually moves 

faster than regulation. PRIA at least gives us some certainty as to 

when some of the products can get on the market, and so for those 

that are producing the newer technologies, it helps the regulatory 

folks to understand when we can get those on—when we need to 

complete our work to get those on the market. 

But, certainly, we recognize that technology moves a little faster 

than the regulatory process. 

Senator THUNE. Right. 

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Keigwin? 
23 

Mr. KEIGWIN. Senator Thune, I think the other thing that I 

would add to what Sheryl just mentioned is that over the past couple of years, USDA, EPA, working with our colleagues at the Food 

and Drug Administration, have been going through a systematic 

process of updating the system that we use to regulate products 

and biotechnology. 

To specifically address the point that you were making about 

new products coming through the pipeline, the three agencies 

worked together and commissioned a review by the National Academy of Sciences to give us some insight on what new tools were 

coming down the pike, so that, in fact, we could be better prepared 

to make regulatory decisions to enable those products to come onto 

the market as quickly as they can. 

Senator THUNE. Yeah. I agree. I mean, you cannot keep up with 

sometimes what is happening out there, but we have to do the best 

we can, and there are lots of wonderful things that are happening 

in technology that will make us more efficient and more productive. 

So I represent South Dakota, and we are one of the top honeyproducing states in the nation, and so I wonder if you could tell me 

if any progress is being made to combat the Varroa mite, which is 

something that contributes to what we call CCD or Colony Collapse 

Disorder, something that has really affected the bee population in 

this country and, as a consequence of that, honey production. Do 

you have anything on that? 

Mr. KEIGWIN. So one of the things that EPA has done is that 

when a new tool is even in the discovery process to control Varroa 

mite, we will accelerate the registration of that product through the 

process as quickly as possible. 

We had an example from just a couple of years ago that there 

was a tool that was available to Canadian beekeepers that was not 

available to U.S. beekeepers. Because of the scientific relationships 

that we have developed with our colleagues in Canada, we were 

able to make use of their reviews. This was a new active ingredient 

for us, and we were able to complete the registration process for 

that product in four months because of our ability to rely upon the 

science that our colleagues in Canada had already undertaken. 

Senator THUNE. Well, it is a huge problem. CCD has just destroyed beehives all across the country, and the losses that our bee 

producers are incurring continue to mount and to pile up. So much 

of this is just doing this research and trying to find solutions. So 

I hope you will keep up, keep up with that, and the folks out there 

who are involved in the industry will keep up with it as well. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Did you ever get Grace back on her buckboard? You do not have to answer that. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I want to thank the first panel very much. 

You have given us excellent testimony, and thank you for the work 

you do. Appreciate it. 

I would now like to welcome our second panel of witnesses before 

the Committee. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I would like to welcome our second panel of 

witnesses before the Committee. 
24 

Mr. Dale Murden, who joins us today from Harlingen, Texas, 

where he and his family currently grow sorghum, cotton, and citrus. Mr. Murden has served in a variety of capacities throughout 

his agricultural career, including as the past president of the National Sorghum Producers, the past chairman of the Texas Sorghum Association, and the current president of Texas Citrus Mutual. That is the grower organization for the Texas citrus industry. 

Mr. Murden also spent the last 25 years as president and CEO of 

Rio Farms, a 30,000-acre private research foundation farm that 

grew sorghum, cotton, sugarcane, citrus, soybeans, corn, grapes, 

and vegetables. No wheat. 

Our second panelist is Mr. Gary Black, and I now turn to Senator Perdue to introduce our next witness. 

Senator PERDUE. At the risk of losing my opportunity to establish my all-time record of yielding, I would like to introduce our 

next speaker, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

I am proud to introduce Georgia’s Commissioner of Agriculture, 

Gary Black. Gary is a personal friend of mine, has been for years. 

He is a dedicated partner and advocate for our farmers in Georgia. 

Throughout a 35-year career in agriculture, he is a farmer. 

He has been very focused on Federal policies and working at the 

state level and working on the impacts, food safety, science-based 

environmental stewardship, and agricultural marketing. 

Agriculture in our state is the largest economy, and we take it 

very seriously, that Gary Black is our number one marketing officer for that industry. He has consistently supported us to where we 

are the number one state in the country for peanuts, broilers, pecans, and blueberries. 

Commissioner Black’s perspective on pesticide registration is especially important since states are partners with the Federal Government in this process. Over the last two decades, the ag seed and 

chemical industry has been substantial and seen a substantial increase in the cost and time of getting new technologies from discovery and development to farmers in the field. A large portion of 

these increased costs is from the increasingly complex and onerous 

federal regulatory environment. It is important that EPA and 

USDA work with their state partners like Commissioner Black to 

ensure the process of getting pesticides to market is done in a timely manner while still ensuring their safety. 

Thank you, Gary, for being here with us today. Your insight is 

important to Georgia and our country, and I look forward to your 

testimony. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Our third panelist is Mr. Jay Vroom, no 

stranger to the Committee. Mr. Vroom is the president and chief 

executive officer of CropLife America, the largest national trade organization representing agricultural pesticide manufacturers and 

distributors, a position he has held since 1989. 

In addition to his current position, Mr. Vroom remains active on 

several boards and organizations, including the Agricultural Retailers Association, the National Wheat Foundation, and the Coalition 

for Advancement of Precision Agriculture, just to name a few. 

Raised on a grain and livestock farm in north central Illinois, 

Mr. Vroom remains active in his family farming operation. 

I now turn to Senator Stabenow to introduce our final witness. 
25 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to all of our witnesses. I would like to introduce Ms. Virginia 

Ruiz, who currently serves as the director of Occupational and Environmental Health for Farmworker Justice. Farmworker Justice is 

a nonprofit organization that works with migrant and seasonal 

workers to improve their lives and working conditions, immigration 

status, health, occupational safety, and access to justice. 

Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I do have to apologize in advance that I have to leave at this point in time. I have other colleagues that are coming, and I greatly regret that. I have been 

looking forward to hearing your testimony, but, unfortunately, I 

will have to step out to another meeting. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Dale Murden. Mr. Murden, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DALE MURDEN, PAST CHAIR, NATIONAL SORGHUM PRODUCERS; PAST CHAIR, TEXAS SORGHUM PRODUCERS; AND PRESIDENT, TEXAS CITRUS MUTUAL, MISSION, TX 

Mr. MURDEN. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member 

Stabenow, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to 

testify today. 

On behalf of the more than 700 commercial citrus growers in 

Texas and the nearly 50,000 sorghum producers nationally, I want 

to express our appreciation for convening this hearing. 

My name is Dale Murden. I am current president of Texas Citrus 

Mutual, past chairman of National Sorghum Producers, and a past 

state director of the Texas Farm Bureau, but more importantly, a 

lifelong farmer. 

Mr. Chairman, I did grow wheat once, but unfortunately, I had 

to bale it for the horses. 

Citrus and sorghum growers face a broad range of challenges, 

many of which are unique to their crop. However, my testimony 

today will focus on issues and concerns that they share, the viability of both crops are threatened by new and invasive pests and the 

importance of access to crop protection tools to combat these pests. 

For citrus, it is the threat of HLB, or citrus greening, which is 

vectored by the Asian citrus psyllid. There is no known cure for 

this disease, and Texas growers have witnessed the experience of 

our friends in Florida, where 100 percent of production acres are 

now infected, and production has been cut by more than half. The 

first confirmation of HLB in Texas was in 2012, and we now have 

more than 100 groves confirmed infected. 

For sorghum, the sugarcane aphid, first confirmed in the United 

States in 2014, has spread throughout the producing regions in the 

United States, impacting over 70 percent of the acres planted. Although expensive, without the necessary pest management products, sorghum growers would see an 80 to 100 percent yield loss. 

These are just two examples of significant pest threats, but every 

crop faces pest and pathogen challenges. Farmers look to researchers, crop protection industries, and regulators to investigate, develop, and approve tools that are safe and effective. 
26 

We need EPA to be sufficiently staffed with smart, qualified, and 

dedicated people who can evaluate products in a timely manner. 

The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act helps to foster and 

create a pathway for new and effective products to come to the 

market. 

Smaller acreage crops, like sorghum and specialty crops like citrus, are rarely the primary targets of new registrations. However, 

PRIA provides a level of certainty and accountability to the registrants, giving them the confidence to invest the resources to gain 

approvals for crops like the ones I grow. 

I wish to express my strong support for the swift passage of 

PRIA. Farmers need the certainty that new and innovative pest 

management products and the re-registration of existing products 

that meet the necessary benefits to risk thresholds continue to 

flow, and PRIA plays a vital role in providing certainty. 

I do want to share my perspective on a number of factors in recent years that have undermined regulatory certainty for the grower community. We have seen EPA publish press releases associated 

with preliminary risk assessments without the related benefits assessments, which then paints a negative picture of these pesticide 

use patterns and undermines public trust in these products. There 

have been instances where EPA short-circuited the risk assessment 

process and instead based decisions on the identification of hazards 

only. 

These are significant departures from what is expected under 

FIFRA and have prevented some crops, including sorghum and citrus, from receiving access to vital tools. 

FIFRA is the primary underlying statute for pesticide registration and requires that EPA study and evaluate pesticide products 

for potential impacts to the environment, non-target organisms, 

and human health, yet it seems that every time a new product is 

approved or re-registered, the decision is challenged. This issue is 

causing significant uncertainty for growers, and I have to believe 

that our system can do better. I would encourage Congress to find 

a way to address this issue. 

I appreciate that we have a regulatory system at EPA that is 

largely transparent and encourages stakeholder engagement in the 

product review process. However, the notice and comments period 

often require responses that are so technical in nature that only 

toxicologists and risk modelers are suited to do so. While theoretical models are undoubtedly important, they should not replace 

the need for real-world data and the results of field studies. I believe that greater interaction with these stakeholders that actually 

use the crop protection tools they are assessing, EPA would be able 

to include stronger and more realistic scenarios in the risk assessments. 

Thanks again, Chairman Roberts, for holding this important 

hearing and the invitation to participate. We appreciate all of the 

work this Committee does on behalf of the American farmer. Once 

again, I urge the Committee and the Senate to take the necessary 

actions for the swift approval of H.R. 1029, PRIA 4. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murden can be found on page 63 

in the appendix.] 
27 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you, Mr. Murden, and thank you 

for that perspective with regards to what we are about affects the 

producer directly. 

We now have the head of the Georgia Department of Agriculture, 

and we would like for you to proceed, Commissioner Black. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GARY BLACK, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ATLANTA, GA 

Mr. BLACK. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is 

a pleasure to be here today. I may be the one in the room that is 

most relieved that the Senator from Georgia did not yield for the 

fourth time. I thank you, Senator Perdue, for you kind introduction 

and dear friendship, and thank you for your service to our state 

and our nation. 

Mr. Chairman, I am Gary Black. I am Commissioner of Agriculture for the State of Georgia. I have been in that role for six and 

a half years. It is an elected position in Georgia. 

Today, I come to you—we have submitted some very detailed 

written testimony today, but when I have meetings with constituents, I like people to just come visit with me. So for my four minutes and 20 seconds, Mr. Chairman, and the balance of this time, 

I would like to visit with you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, please proceed with your—— 

Mr. BLACK. I am today representing our directors and secretaries 

and commissioners who are on the ground every day. We work together with farmers, and we are the co-regulators with some of our 

Federal agencies. Certainly, EPA is one of those partners. 

We have some overarching things, Mr. Chairman. It is critical for 

Federal and State agencies to deliver a predictable, transparent, 

and science-based regulatory framework to protect human health 

and the environment, while allowing the agricultural community to 

produce their products. That is a tenet I think we can all agree 

with. 

State departments of agriculture are regulatory partners with 

EPA, USDA, FDA, and the many other Federal agencies. In 43 

states and Puerto Rico, the state department of ag is the FIFRA 

lead agency. 

We have been discussing a topic called Cooperative Federalism. 

It is kind of an in-depth thing that you maybe will be hearing 

NASDA talk quite a bit about in the future. Where I come from, 

boil it down this way, I think we ought to work together better. I 

think we ought to be able to work with Federal agencies, and I 

think the states ought to be included in a more meaningful way. 

Maybe we can give just a little more detail in just a moment on 

that. 

PRIA is an essential vehicle to provide the infrastructure resources for EPA, and states rely upon this to execute our statutory 

mandate in registering, enforcing, and regulating pesticides. We 

strongly support H.R. 1029 and look forward to its passage certainly in a very bipartisan way. 

We want to help our Federal partners develop a regulatory 

framework that provides the necessary protections and minimizes 
28 

the economic impact and regulatory burdens to our producers. That 

is an overarching key theme. 

We need a well-resourced and fully staffed Office of Pesticide 

Programs to deliver a scientifically sound, efficient, and timely review of crop protection products, and I would also add to that, the 

Office of Pest Management Policy, or the programs down at USDA 

as well. It is important to have that as a priority, and I believe Secretary Perdue is going to really put some energy behind that 

through his leadership. 

Mr. Chairman, I asked my division director for plant industry, 

who deals locally with EPA—I asked him, ‘‘If you had a magic 

wand and you were me, what would you say today?’’ He really is 

a big champion of our theme at our department regarding how we 

interact as regulators with the regulated community, and it is just 

a simple three-step process. 

First, we should exist to help people get in business. We have 

regulatory frameworks. We want the economy to thrive. We want 

people to be employed. We want people to have jobs. As a regulator, I think we can do that. We ought to be helpful. 

Secondly, we should help people stay in business. We should educate as we regulate, and that is a theme that we have adopted at 

our department. We can show that it works. He said, ‘‘I would like 

to see that with our Federal partners at EPA and many other 

agencies as well.’’ 

Now, we sometimes get blamed for the third leg of that stool, and 

that is putting people out of business. But we do have laws, and 

people must follow laws. As a regulator, you can be assured that 

this is not a soft approach to regulation because I sign administrative orders every week, but we ought to come alongside our agricultural businesses and our farmers and make sure that we are 

friends along that process. 

Certainly, we are pleased to be here today, Mr. Chairman, and 

I thank you for your service, and I am thankful we have an opportunity to cooperate. We just want to make sure that the states are 

at the table as we move forward. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black can be found on page 42 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Commissioner. Thank you 

for being on time, and we have noted with interest the Black threestep program that we will be considering. I think the Committee— 

I think all of us would agree with your premise, and we thank you 

for your testimony. 

Jay, welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF JAY VROOM, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CROPLIFE AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. VROOM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. It is indeed an honor for me as president of CropLife America, representative of our 110 member companies, to be back in 

front of the Committee and specifically to talk about PRIA today. 

In short, a lot has already been said, not everything, but a lot 

has already been said. The simple conclusion here is that PRIA is 

the easy button for this Committee, but we also ask you in our 

written testimony and otherwise for this Committee to also work 
29 

with the Appropriations Committee to ensure that the PRIA appropriations targets—for the appropriated dollars get back up to 

where the law has asked for the taxpayers to partner with us as 

industry fee payers to help ensure that the resources are there for 

EPA to do this important job that all the witnesses and the members of the Committee have been talking about this morning. 

We could go on and on some more about all the facts and figures, 

about all the great abundance of American agriculture. That is a 

given. The people watching on television and your constituents and 

all the constituents of the United States Senate really care about 

one thing, and that is a simple number. I have got the world population clock here on my iPhone. It says there are over 7.5 billion 

of us on this planet. 

I can remember 20 years ago, Mr. Chairman, when you helped 

pass the Food Quality Protection Act. That number was below 6 

billion. This population is growing rapidly, and we as citizens of 

this planet depend on innovation to continue to feed us and to protect us from disease, and that is what PRIA really is all about, is 

providing the government structure and regulatory scheme so that 

companies can innovate, and that those kinds of important resulting products can be evaluated by our regulators at EPA and with 

the support and guidance of USDA and that those products can be 

used by farmers to produce safe and abundant food for us in America, so we can export more food, wheat from Kansas and all kinds 

of important things from Minnesota and Georgia and elsewhere, 

and that we have a sound economy, and that we can continue to 

grow as an economy and be world leaders. 

I just got back from Europe last week. I have been in the developing world over the last few years as well. I can tell you that the 

entire world depends on us, the United States of America, for innovation, and PRIA is one of the foundations that this Congress and 

this Committee can advance, hit that Easy button, to ensure that 

innovation green light is still there for farmers, for industry, for 

food consumers to continue to depend on, because, frankly, Europe 

has retreated from innovation. They are relying on us. Certainly, 

Africa, Asia, everywhere else in the world, whether they want to 

admit it or not, are relying on what you do in this Congress and 

this Committee to help lead. 

So that 7.5 billion number is growing. Over 50 million babies 

have been born this calendar year, and I want to introduce to you 

Max, on my other iPhone. We will celebrate his first birthday—he 

is my first grandson—back on the farm in Illinois on Saturday, and 

I am here because of Max and those other 50 million babies that 

have been born this year that really depend on that innovation 

miracle that America is providing to the whole world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vroom can be found on page 73 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We congratulate you on your grandchild, 

and we wish the best for Max and everybody else that is coming 

aboard this planet. Thank you for proving time and time again that 

the Malthusian theory is not correct. 

Ms. Ruiz, we are now in the midst of a 15-minute vote 
30 

on the floor of the United States Senate, and we are hopefully 

going to be able to come back and hear your testimony and have 

a Trade Representative confirmed by the 

United States Senate, an extremely important vote. 

So I am going to state that the Committee stands adjourned, subject to call of the Chair, and I plan to be back within about seven 

minutes. I hope that will fit your schedule because we certainly 

want to hear your testimony. 

Ms. RUIZ. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. The Committee stands adjourned subject to 

call of the Chair. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. The Committee will come to order. 

Ms. Ruiz, you are recognized for your statement. Thank you very 

much for coming. 

STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA RUIZ, DIRECTOR OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, FARMWORKER JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. RUIZ. Thank you, Chairman Roberts and other members of 

the Agriculture Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

present my testimony this morning. 

My name is Virginia Ruiz, and I am the director of Occupational 

and Environmental Health at Farmworker Justice. Farmworker 

Justice is a national advocacy organization that supports farmworkers in the U.S. to improve their living and working conditions, 

health, occupational safety, and access to justice. Farmworker Justice has been a member of the PRIA Coalition, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council and pesticide industry representatives since the initial passage of the 2003 Pesticide Registration 

Improvement Act, and we support its reauthorization in the form 

of the Pesticide Registration Enhancement Act. 

Under PRIA, money set aside from pesticide registration fees 

supports worker protection activities. For more than 10 years, the 

PRIA set-asides have funded important programs at EPA, including pesticide safety training for farmworkers and pesticide handlers, the development of worker and employer training materials 

on pesticide safety and implementation of the Worker Protection 

Standard and the Certified Pesticide Applicator rule, also education 

and training for medical providers to diagnose and treat pesticide 

poisonings, and support for State public health agencies to maintain pesticide injury surveillance programs. 

Farmworkers, and especially those who mix and apply pesticides, 

face substantial risk of becoming poisoned by pesticides because 

they work with them at their greatest concentrations and 

strengths. Farmworkers and their families come into contact with 

pesticides on a daily basis. The pesticide residues that remain on 

their work clothes and skin when they return home from work can 

also expose members of their families and cause injury. 

Pesticide exposure causes farmworkers to suffer more chemicalrelated injuries and illnesses than any other workforce in the nation. U.S. EPA estimates that up to 3,000 farmworkers suffer acute 

pesticide poisoning every year through occupational exposures, 

with symptoms that include irritated eyes, rashes, nausea, dizzi-
31 

ness, headaches, and shortness of breath. These estimates do not 

include those who suffer long-term effects of exposure, such as cancer, Parkinson’s disease, asthma, birth defects, and neurological 

harms, including developmental delays and learning disabilities. 

EPA has found that some of the greatest risks from the 

organophosphate chemicals, such as chlorpyrifos, are to agricultural communities and workers. 

Many of these acute poisonings are preventable through basic 

workplace protections and worker safety education, such as those 

required by the EPA’s Worker Protection Standard, or the WPS. 

The WPS applies to hired workers and pesticide handlers involved 

in the production of agricultural crops. In November of 2015, after 

more than a decade of stakeholder meetings, study, and consideration, EPA finalized revisions to the WPS that provide critical improvements designed to reduce the risk of illness or injury resulting from workers’ occupational exposures to pesticides. 

Also, in January of this year, after more than 40 years, EPA updated its regulations concerning the certification of and training requirements for individuals who apply restricted use pesticides, 

which are some of the more dangerous pesticides available on the 

market. 

The updated Worker Protection Standard and Certified Pesticide 

Applicator rule provide long overdue protections for farmworkers, 

their families, and rural communities across the U.S. from exposure to pesticides. These regulations call for basic preventive measures that will save millions of dollars in medical costs and lost productivity due to illness. 

These common-sense measures include annual basic safety training, posting of application and safety information, meaningful hazard communication, functioning personal protective equipment, 

adequate supervision of non-certified pesticide applicators, and the 

prohibition of children from handling pesticides. 

PRIA funding is necessary to help EPA meaningfully and effectively implement these important safety standards, but these worker protection activities are meaningless if the Worker Protection 

Standard and the Certified Pesticide Applicator rule are weakened 

and rolled back. 

PRIA set-asides help to provide employer compliance assistance 

and worker safety training. However, these funds must complement and not replace EPA funding for other important pesticide 

safety, worker protection, and environmental justice programs. Stable funding for the agency as a whole is vital to provide occupational and environmental education for workers, their families and 

rural communities, and to prevent adverse effects from pesticide 

exposure. 

Farmworker Justice requests that this Committee reauthorize 

PRIA as quickly as possible and without any changes or amendments to existing language. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this important issue, and I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ruiz can be found on page 69 in 

the appendix.] 
32 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you very much for your very timely 

comments, and when you state that PRIA should be moved as 

quickly as possible and without any changes or amendments to existing language—I am reading your statement—I can assure you 

we are going to try to do just that. Thank you for your leadership 

on behalf of all of our farmworkers. 

Mr. Murden, you highlight in your testimony the many challenges that sorghum producers and citrus growers face—I think 

you went a little farther than my question here—from threats like 

sugarcane aphid and citrus greening. Crop protection tools like pesticides and insecticides are certainly valuable tools with regards to 

dealing with these types of threats, and as you mentioned in your 

remarks, there are many challenges surrounding the use of these 

effective tools beyond just the administrative challenges related to 

FIFRA and agencies like the EPA and the USDA. 

What are the regulatory challenges that create uncertainty for 

farmers? Can you give me a rating? We have the good Commissioner and his three-point plan, but pretty tough to list these challenges by their problems. But give it a shot. 

Mr. MURDEN. Well, I think for us, one that comes to mind right 

now is we had labeled use pesticides that were taken away. We do 

not really understand why, and the frustration we are getting of 

Section 18 back has been very cumbersome and slow, and we are 

trying to work through those issues right now, some products that 

were safe and did work and were economical for us. It just did not 

make a whole lot of sense why we lost them in the first place, and 

getting them back has been a challenge. 

Chairman ROBERTS. You also mentioned the problem of all the 

paperwork or the work that goes into responses that are called for. 

Give me a couple examples, if you could. 

Mr. MURDEN. Well, in some of those responses, I mentioned toxicologists and things like that. I am just a farmer, and some of the 

questions they ask you to respond to are just out of my league, and 

you have to count on your science friends to kind of help you out 

some. 

You know, I think those folks need to get out of that cubicle more 

and to my turnrow a little bit more often, and they might appreciate what is going on a little better. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Vroom, in your testimony, you mentioned that prior to the 

implementation of the first PRIA, there was little certainty for registration packages at EPA. Can you elaborate on how PRIA has 

continually improved the regulatory certainty for the registrants? 

Mr. VROOM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Absolutely. So we described in our written testimony how the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act in ’96 really put a huge bind on EPA’s processes, 

and the biggest casualty of that additional work was a slowdown 

and a virtual halt for new product approvals, because of the burden 

of reevaluating under the new standards of FQPA. It took us a full 

eight years after FQPA to 2004 to get PRIA put in place. 

So wait times went above four, five, even six years for new active 

ingredients, and even at that time, sunk cost investment in the 

new active ingredient for manufacturer was probably in excess of 

$150 million. Today, it is approaching $300 million. 
33 

Within a couple of years of PRIA being enacted and having the 

effect of additional resources for EPA and the clarity of priorities 

of timelines, that four-year-and-more wait time dropped to about 

two years. Now it has creeped back to about three for a variety of 

reasons, part of which is the missed targets of appropriated dollar 

support, and that is why we think, again, getting the appropriators 

at the table and helping come up with a compromise approach, just 

like the compromise that is represented by the coalition that Virginia referred to that we are both a part of—Farmworker Justice 

and the pesticide industry—makes sense to get to some compromise here on the Hill with appropriators and authorizers. 

But thank you for the question. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Commissioner Black, in your testimony, you 

described the unique role the states have under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA. It is a unique and 

effective regulatory enforcement environment. However, I am concerned that other Federal statutes not meant to impact the states’ 

responsibilities regarding FIFRA registration may be burdensome. 

What type of interaction have you seen between your state enforcement responsibilities and other Federal statutes? I am talking 

about the Endangered Species Act. Would you support the modernization of this act? The answer to that is yes, but please proceed. 

Mr. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, yes, sir, we would support that, absolutely, and it has been a topic of discussion for a long time. I know 

you are passionate about it. 

One of our—maybe the best example in the State of Georgia is 

a success that winds up as a challenge. We have extensive holdings 

in cotton. We have had a big problem with pigweed, with Palmer 

amaranth. We began working on the new technology with industry 

and with our Federal partners. EPA was involved early in a successful way trying to help solve the problem in Georgia. We have 

invited them out of the cubicles, and we have had them experience 

first hand, the program with pigweed in Georgia and why we needed Dicamba and 2,4–D technology within our seed technology. 

That worked pretty well, but now we have regulatory decisions 

regarding application methods that are not rooted in science. Tank 

mixes of 2, 4-D and Dicamba with this soybean and cotton technology are not allowed. Mr. Chairman, my experts tell me that 

there is no scientific basis for this decision> The answer they have 

gotten is just are simply scared. The EPA is scared of being sued 

because of the Endangered Species Act. 

I am not sure that is exactly—getting back to our sound science, 

we would love to stick to science, but the tank mix issue with respect to Dicamba and 2,4–D is a problem that we are experiencing 

right now. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that. 

Ms. Ruiz, I do not have a question for you, other than the fact 

to repeat my comments to you that the Committee is going to work 

as quickly as possible and without any changes or amendments to 

existing language, and I am reading to you, your statement, so 

thank you. I appreciate that. 
34 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you to all of you for being here and your good work that you 

do all the time. 

I was specifically asking in the previous witnesses here about the 

timetable, and I know that PRIA has a proven track record of providing a stable funding source. Minnesota industries like Ecolab 

have been at the forefront of developing innovative products, and 

the predictability—this is what we want, right—as well as safety, 

that PRIA provides, allows products like these to reach the marketplace in a consistent way. 

So what lessons can we take from the PRIA Coalition on bringing 

coalitions together to address some of the inefficiencies that we can 

have? I would love to take some of this success that we have in 

having a bill that everyone agrees on and having a way of doing 

things into some other areas. 

Anyone can answer this. 

Mr. VROOM. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. So, on behalf of 

CropLife and others, hopefully on behalf of the coalition, we do 

think that EPA has learned a lot about doing its business more efficiently and effectively . 

Since the—what now?—13-plus years that PRIA has been there 

as an added resource, but also with regard to the policy guidance 

that is there in the law about timeline and targets to make decisions, whether they are yes or no, they are targets. Mr. Keigwin 

got the question earlier on behalf of EPA from some of you—I think 

Senator Ernst—about the 730-day target timeline for making decisions on new active ingredients, and the statistic that was quoted 

from EPA is that they meet all of these deadlines in PRIA 98 percent of the time. There is an asterisk on that. 

So percentages can be tricky, and in our testimony, we noted 

that a study that we did from 2012 through 2014, which was a fairly representative period out of the 13 years, that 730-day target 

was vastly missed by 50 to 100 percent in some of those years. 

So they ask for a renegotiation of the deadline and then count 

that as a met deadline when they meet the renegotiated timeline. 

An example that came up at a conference that we sponsored with 

EPA a couple of weeks back, the head of the registration and the 

head of the re-registration divisions openly admit that their computer systems still do not talk to each other, and so there is a lot 

of duplicated work that has to occur to translate one computer’s 

messaging to the other one. They are doing a lot of the same work. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. 

Mr. VROOM. So there is still more progress that can be made in 

those kinds of areas. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Murden, in your testimony, smaller 

acreage and other specialty crops, you noted are sometimes disadvantaged in the development of new products or registrations. In 

Minnesota, that means things like sweet corn and apples and barley. Can you explain how having regulatory certainty and accountability helps some of the smaller crops, like the ones you grow? 

Mr. MURDEN. Yes, ma’am. It boggles my mind how much it takes 

to bring a chemical to register. I mean, some of the money you are 

talking about, 250- to $280 million, is, quite frankly, more than 

some of these industries are as a total. So we need the level play-
35 

ing field and need all the help we can get. I am not any less important than the corn growers. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Really? No. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Except in Iowa. But I am just kidding. It’s a joke. 

Okay. So thank you for that. We actually are number one for 

sweet corn, and that is why I brought that up. It is different. 

Commissioner Black, I authored legislation that was included in 

the 2014 Farm Bill that created an Ag Science Committee at EPA 

to provide advice to the Science Advisory Board. Efforts to increase 

this communication between the agencies, as I just noted in the 

first question, are important. Do you think the USDA outreach to 

EPA has been helpful, and what do you see as ways to improve it? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, ma’am. I believe anytime that we can come together across agency lines to help farm families and help this business, that is what we should do because it should be about service. 

It should be about finding solutions. We believe state departments 

of agriculture have a role to play because we are implementing federal laws and regulations We are the ones on the ground every day 

working with farmers, working with businesses and real people in 

real ways. 

I absolutely believe in the supremacy of Federal law. We have requirements under law. We have things that we have to enforce. I 

do not think Federal Government, though, has a monopoly on talent, skill, and experience, and there is quite a bit of that at the 

state level. We would actually like to be a part of how to improve 

the skill sets within the Federal Government, so that when we 

have people who have responsibilities in agriculture, that they actually have a background to provide the service. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yeah. 

Mr. BLACK. I think that makes a lot of sense. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yeah. 

Mr. BLACK. When my Plant Industry Division director sits at a 

meeting and an EPA person from our region leans over and asks 

him ‘‘Do we grow many peanuts in Georgia?’’. I think that is a 

problem, not that that is a bad person, but—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No. It is just—yes, why did that—— 

Mr. BLACK. —maybe the skill is not matched up quite—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you grow many peanuts in—no, I am 

kidding. 

Okay. Thank you. I know exactly what you mean, and the Chairman has allowed me to ask one more question because I want to 

make sure Ms. Ruiz gets a question in here. 

In your testimony, you discuss the importance of the newly updated Worker Protection Standards and the certified applicator 

rule. Can you talk about the specific risk, the new protection standards and rules eliminate, and why we want to keep them in place? 

Ms. RUIZ. Thank you. Yeah. The recently updated WPS contains 

some fundamental safeguards to protect farmworkers, their children, and pesticide handlers from acute and long-term illnesses 

and injuries associated with pesticide exposure. The revised WPS 

and CPA rules significantly increase protections for children by requiring that pesticide handlers and applicators be at least 18 years 
36 

old. Children under the age of 18 often lack the maturity to safely 

handle these chemicals, and so allowing them to do so puts not 

only them, but also their coworkers at serious risk. 

The WPS also includes provisions, so-called ‘‘application exclusion zones,’’ to protect workers and bystanders from direct spray 

and airborne drift from—during the pesticide applications. 

Finally, enhanced safety training required by the WPS includes 

some practical measures for workers to avoid exposing their families to pesticide residues on their skin and clothing. 

The updated certified pesticide applicator rule, whose implementation has been twice delayed by the EPA, also includes some critically needed safeguards that have the potential to save children’s 

lives. 

One example I wanted to bring out—and this is something that 

was cited by EPA in its rulemaking—in 2010, a commercial pesticide applicator in Utah misapplied a pesticide, a restricted use 

pesticide, at a home where two young girls lived. He applied the 

wrong dose and placed it too close to the home, and tragically, 

these children became ill and died from the exposure. 

There are hundreds of acute health incidents related to restricted 

use pesticide exposure reported every year. Misapplications that result in tragic events could be avoided with strengthened certification and training requirements for these applicators. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I really appreciate it. Thank you. 

Ms. RUIZ. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. The Chair now recognizes the Senator who 

has achieved a record of gentlemanly yields that I do not think 

ever will be broken. I can assure you as long as I am in the Chair 

that he will hold that record. 

Senator Perdue. 

Senator PERDUE. I want to apologize for the Chairman’s humor 

this morning, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator PERDUE. Mr. Vroom, you have touched on it just a 

minute. I want to dial into this just a minute as a business guy. 

Taking 11 years, $280 million, to bring a product to market is not 

competitive. I get the gravity of this. I get the dangers. I understand how important it is for when you say 7.5 billion folks out 

there who need food. 

But you also say in your testimony that in that kind—the biggest 

regulatory challenge to EPA’s performance is implementing the Endangered Species Act and the harmonization with FIFRA for pesticide registration, and that we are averaging somewhere between 

950 and 1,100 days compared to the 730 target. 

Mr. VROOM. Right. 

Senator PERDUE. Specifically, what do we need to think about as 

an industry, and what can you help us with that would speed that 

up and address the 11 years and $280 million of product entry? 

Mr. VROOM. Well, Senator Perdue, thank you for that question, 

and, of course, there are endangered species in every state in the 

Union. Some states have more than others, and some states have 

more that are at the intersection or potentially or in theory at the 

intersection with farming and production agriculture than others, 

but it is everywhere. 
37 

We all want to ensure that we can protect the environment and 

that threatened and endangered species and their habitats, which 

are all very carefully described under the Endangered Species Act 

that has now been in place for 45 years. We want to respect that 

and ensure that those goals are achieved. 

But in the 16 years since some organizations have decided to use 

the courts to try to get a new interpretation of what EPA should 

do under the Endangered Species Act, we have seen no additional 

protections for endangered species. But it has added 15 to 20 percent resource consumption by EPA to respond to these paper procedural matters and to the court cases. 

We have, as an association on behalf of our members, participated in over a dozen of those Federal lawsuits. Most of them have 

been successfully managed. We have gone through discovery and 

arguments in the courts, but at the end of the day, we now see that 

those same activist organizations are litigating over brand-new 

chemistries. It used to be just old chemistries. Now it is holding up 

access to new chemistry approvals to get to the marketplace. 

So amending the Endangered Species Act is not easy for Congress. We were part of a coalition that attempted to do that 10 

years ago and failed. We think that a fresh look at that but also 

with regard to administrative improvements that could be done by 

both the Departments of Interior and Commerce, USDA, and EPA 

might be another pathway or a combination along with things that 

Congress might be able to assist with. 

So we would like to come back to you and talk more about those 

ideas because, again, it impacts more than just our industry. It is 

vital for farmers. Certainly, ranchers in the West have got lots and 

lots of issues with regard to endangered species and the ability to 

graze animals and the like, so a very important topic that needs 

a lot more time and attention. So thank you very much. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you. 

Commissioner Black, I am impressed. ‘‘Cooperative federalism.’’ 

I did not know you had five-syllable words in your vocabulary. 

Mr. BLACK. Thank you. 

Senator PERDUE. But would you expand on that a little bit and 

talk about specifics in Georgia where you may have started applying that concept? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, Senator, thank you. Again, that is a term that 

goes back to some learned folks that discussed it 200 years ago regarding what the relationship should be between the federal government and the state government. 

But let me boil it down this way to put it in my terms. It is that 

we work together. All of the those stakeholders that have a role in 

enforcing the law should work together and communicate, and we 

should have a servant’s mind about it. Our job here is really not 

to be the government, to hide in the weeds, to jump out and say 

‘‘boo,’’ but that we should not be afraid to say ‘‘yes, if’’ and guide 

it that way. 

One example that comes to mind immediately relates to Georgia 

and the nation is a product approved to control feral HOAs. I have 

a call a day asking what we are doing to solve the feral HOA problem. 
38 

Well, there is an EPA-approved product. You all have probably 

seen this. It has been in the news. Some colleagues out West approved it. We will not approve that in the State of Georgia because 

it harms wildlife, and I do not understand why they did not figure 

that out to start with. So that is an example where if cooperation 

between the states and EPA, states having a seat at the table during the approval process would be helpful. We also believe this is 

really important at FDA, the implementation of Food Safety Modernization Act. We are on the ground every day. We would like for 

more of our federal partners to be open to invitations to leaving 

Washington, and come to the ground where the work is being done. 

I promise you we will be good hosts in Georgia. 

Senator PERDUE. Could I ask Ms. Ruiz just one quick question? 

Chairman ROBERTS. Sure. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you for your forbearance. 

Ms. Ruiz, the 18-year-old rule for application—and I understand 

the seriousness or the dangers around these products. I am interested. Was there a comment period, and what comments did you 

get from family farms about the 18-year rule? I am not debating. 

I am not arguing against it, but as a person who did a lot of work 

on a farm below the age of 18, I am curious as to what impact it 

had and what kind of comments you got back from small family 

farms. 

Ms. RUIZ. For both the Worker Protection Standard and the Certified Pesticide Applicator rules, there is an exemption for family 

members—— 

Senator PERDUE. I see. 

Ms. RUIZ. —from that minimum age requirement. 

Senator PERDUE. Great. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. That will conclude our hearing today, with 

the exception of I feel compelled to inform Mr. Vroom that—and 

anybody else that cares—I talked to a farmer this morning out in 

southwest Kansas. It usually does not rain that much in southwest 

Kansas. We have had 14 inches of rain in southwest Kansas. That 

is incredible. I think the last time we have had that was 1878. I 

remember that well. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. But the whole point of that is that with 

rain, we now have the habitat for the lesser prairie chicken which 

has been listed and then not listed on the endangered species list, 

and I think with the habitat that we will have enough of lesser 

prairie chickens, that we will have the greater lesser prairie chicken. Now that gets a little bit silly if you really get down to it, but 

it is not because of all of the prohibitions to farmers and how they 

would conduct their cropping operations and everything else with 

regards to the Endangered Species Act. 

So I would hope that if any of you have any ways that we could 

take a look at that—and we will cooperate with the other Committees that have that jurisdiction to see if we can get some answers. 

We are pretty close to listing farmers on the endangered species 

list, given the rough patch that we are in. 

With that, thank you to each of our witnesses on both panels 

taking time to share your views on pesticide registrations and 
39 

issues impacting agriculture and the crop protection industries. 

The testimonies provided today will be very valuable for the Committee to hear firsthand. 

Let me say to my fellow members, we would ask that any additional questions you may have for the record be submitted to the 

Committee Clerk five business days from today or by 5 p.m. next 

Thursday, May 18th. 

The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(41) 

A P P E N D I X 

MAY 11, 2017 
42 

Testimony of 

The Honorable Gary W. Black, Commissioner of Agriculture, State of Georgia 

On behalf of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 

As submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry Public Hearing on Pesticide Registration under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act: Providing Stakeholders with Certainty through 

the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. 

May 11,2017 

328A Russell Senate Office Building 

Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and distinguished members of the 

Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify today on behalf of the National 

Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) and the Georgia 

Department of Agriculture on the pesticide registration process. I appreciate the 

opportunity to share a state agency perspective on this important topic. My 

name is Gary Black, and I proudly serve as Georgia's Commissioner of Agriculture 

and NASDA member as an ambassador, advocate, regulator, and educator. 

NASDA 

NASDA represents the comm1ss1oners, secretaries, and directors of the state 

departments of agriculture in all fifty states and four territories. State 

departments of agriculture are responsible for a wide range of programs including 

food safety, combating the introduction and spread of plant and animal diseases, 

and fostering the economic vitality of our rural communities. Environmental 

protection and conservation are also among our chief responsibilities. 

In forty-three states and Puerto Rico, the state department of agriculture is the 

state lead agency responsible for administering and enforcing the labeling, 

distribution, sale, use and disposal of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)1

. Georgia is one of those forty-three state 

agencies with FIFRA responsibilities and serves as a co-regulatory partner with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the delivery and enforcement of 

pesticide programs and activities. 

1 7 U.S. C. §136, et. seq. 
43 

Georgia Agriculture 

I am proud of the fact that Georgia has a rich history in production agriculture. 

Some would even say that it is in our name. For you see the name "Georgia", the 

feminine version of George, truly means "a farmer", or "worker of the land". In 

fact, the first crop of soybeans in North America was harvested on Skidaway 

Island in 1765. Today we are better known as world leaders in the production of 

poultry, peanuts, pecans, cotton, forest products and our famous sweet Vidalia 

onions. Our agricultural economy continues to thrive representing a $75 billion 

annual economic impact to our state's economy and serves as our largest 

industrial sector. 

The diversity of our agricultural production is equally reflected within our 

agency's Plant Industries Division. The Georgia Department of Agriculture 

routinely register approximately 15,000 pesticide products annually and issues 

license to over 30,000 certified pesticide applicators. Through our cooperative 

agreement with EPA we make every effort to provide unmatched education and 

regulatory oversight to our agricultural producers and pest management 

professionals. The regulatory burden over the last decade has put considerable 

stress on our agency, our land grant university system and partnering 

stakeholders who are charged with pesticide registration and enforcement. 

Relationship between EPA and the Agriculture Community 

It is no secret that we have experienced a number of significant challenges 

between the agriculture community and the EPA over the recent years. I want to 

start by acknowledging the tremendous efforts by newly appointed EPA 

Administrator Scott Pruitt to improve this relationship. From his meeting directly 

with several of my colleagues in NASDA; to offering public remarks at the national 

meetings of various agriculture producer organizations; and countless other 

efforts all within his first few weeks at the helm, Administrator Pruitt has 

demonstrated genuine respect and appreciation for the hard-working women and 

men who feed and clothe us. While we are still working with EPA to address 

several remaining regulatory challenges and process improvements, we see these 

efforts as a badly needed reboot of our relationship with EPA, and we applaud the 

Administrator's efforts in delivering a transparent, predictable, and science-based 

regulatory approach to protecting human health and the environment while 

allowing for the production of the world's safest, most abundant, and most 
44 

affordable food supply. The FIFRA registration process and the Registration 

Improvement Act (PRIA) are cornerstones to this essential regulatory foundation. 

Cooperative Federalism 

Among NASDA's highest priorities is the pursuit to codify and institutionalize the 

concept of cooperative federalism. That is, the recognition that governance of 

this great nation is a shared responsibility of federal and state partners. This is 

particularly true with regard to the regulation of pesticides. Through the 

administration of FIFRA, EPA undertakes extensive review of more than 125 

different health, safety and efficacy studies, and ultimately, EPA makes a decision 

to register a pesticide for distribution, sale and use if it determines that using the 

pesticide according to specifications "will not generally cause unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment." 

While some may believe this is the end of the process, it is in fact only the 

beginning. Specifically, the pesticide must also be registered in any state where it 

is to be used. In most cases, it is the responsibility of my colleagues in the state 

Departments of Agriculture to review and register these products for use in the 

state. 

Nobody will be surprised to learn that there are high costs associated with 

bringing crop protection products to the market. We are concerned that 

regulatory costs and burdens are unnecessarily exacerbated when, as we have 

witnessed in the past few years, there is not a robust level of communication, 

cooperation, and coordination between EPA and its co-regulatory partners at the 

state level. NASDA members, myself included, have been continually frustrated 

by the seeming lack of regard for our concerns and contributions to this process. 

We were particularly encouraged by Administrator Pruitt's comments during his 

confirmation hearing reaffirming the role of states through Cooperative 

Federalism, and subsequently, we have been extremely pleased with the direct 

action and outreach EPA has undertaken to execute this new directive. 

As I've suggested, many issues of concern of the state co-regulators with EPA's 

regulatory proposals can and should be addressed at the beginning of the 

process. Communication, cooperation and coordination shouldn't be a goal, they 

should be a given. We feel there are opportunities to strengthen this regulatory 

partnership between EPA and the state departments of agriculture, and we would 
45 

welcome the opportunity to explore these possibilities with the Committee going 

forward. 

FIFRA Process Integrity 

FIFRA established a unique, effective, and comprehensive regulatory structure to 

provide pesticide-related environmental and public health protection in which 

state lead agencies have primacy in the enforcement of pesticide matters. FIFRA 

created requirements for pesticide registration, labeling, and use that are the end 

result of an extensive pre-market approval process. This registration process 

requires products to meet strict safety guidelines and includes rigorous 

examination of environmental fate data and health exposure assessments. 

It is essential for state departments of agriculture and the producers we serve to 

have a robust, transparent, and scientifically-sound FIFRA registration and 

reregistration process to deliver new technologies and critical crop protection 

tools in a timely and predictable manner. In order to achieve this end, NASDA 

requests Congress ensure there is a fully funded, fully resourced, and fully staffed 

Office of Pesticide Programs to conduct the rigorous and timely scientific review 

necessary for these essential crop protection tools. 

NASDA supports the original intent of Congress that FIFRA be the primary federal 

statute under which pesticide registration and use is regulated. As regulatory 

partners with EPA, state departments of agriculture play an essential role in 

delivering, implementing, and enforcing various FIFRA-related programs. 

Pesticide registration and use should not be regulated under other federal 

statutes that were neither designed for, nor intended to be the governing 

statutes for pesticide distribution, sale and use (e.g. the Clean Water Act, the 

Endangered Species Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, etc.). Pesticide uses that have been reviewed and 

registered under FIFRA should not be subject to additional requirements 

(including costly and duplicative permit requirements) under other federal 

statutes. 

In situations where conflicting or duplicative requirements of other 

environmental statutes overlap with FIFRA, deference should be granted to the 

FIFRA registration process in a manner that is science-based, transparent, and 
46 

allows stakeholders the opportunity to comment upon and fully analyze the 

ramifications of the proposed action. EPA must recognize that state lead agencies 

are not only important stakeholders, but are also co-regulators under FIFRA and 

must, therefore, be intimately involved in this process. 

Pesticide Registration Improvement Act 

The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) is once again nearing time for 

reauthorization. The current law (PRIA 3) expires on September 30 of this year. 

PRIA provides a stable and predictable funding source for the EPA Office of 

Pesticide Programs and establishes a functional and timely process for pesticide 

and inert ingredient review so that registrants are able to efficiently plan for 

product approval and market availability. Equally important, PRIA provides 

additional resources to the states to conduct pesticide education, training, and 

worker protection activities. 

As you know, PRIA has attracted wide, bipartisan support due to its unique 

success of delivering good government through stakeholder collaboration. 

NASDA is a member of the PRIA Coalition, which includes organizations 

representing the registrant community, chemical and biotechnology industries, 

farmworker advocates, and environmental non-governmental organizations. 

NASDA supported legislation (H.R. 1029) introduced in the House by 

Representative Davis of Illinois that attracted widespread bipartisan support, and 

in fact was agreed to by unanimous voice vote in the House of Representatives on 

March 20. 

Legislation passed in the House would reauthorize existing provisions for seven 

years, as opposed to the five year extensions in previous iterations of PRIA. The 

legislation provides two increases of 5% each on registration fees over the seven 

years. The legislation also provides a $500,000 set aside for EPA to meet deadlines 

for efficacy guidelines for pesticides to combat bed bugs (which have shut down 

schools, hotels, dorms, and movie theaters), and crawling and flying insects, 

which will inform industry what efficacy tests are required. The bill increases 

maintenance fees to $31 million annually from 2017-2023 and provides increased 

funding for grant programs, promoting Good Laboratory Practices, and farm 

worker protection education. This latest iteration of PRIA also sets the 

appropriations trigger level at 2012 budget levels of $128.3 million ensuring that 

the industry fee supplements appropriations. Under FIFRA Section 33(c)(3)(B), 
47 

the EPA is authorized to use 1/17 of the amount of the Pesticide Registration 

Fund (but not less than $1 million) to enhance current scientific and regulatory 

activities related to worker protection and $500,000 in each fiscal year, 2018 

through 2023, for funding of the Pesticide Safety Education Program (PSEP). State 

agencies strongly support the allocation of these funds to support the critical 

mission related to worker protection. 

NASDA supports this legislation and asks that this Committee and the Senate to 

act swiftly to pass this important legislation and send this to the President for his 

signature. 

Support for OPMP 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of Pest Management Policy 

(OPMP) was created as part of the 1998 Agricultural Research, Extension, and 

Education Reform Act in order to provide leadership in coordinating interagency 

activities with the EPA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other 

Federal and State agencies to coordinate agricultural policies within the 

Department related to pesticides. The law further requires OPMP to consult with 

and provide services to producer groups and interested parties. 

The Congress believed creating OPMP was necessary to focus and coordinate the 

many pest management and pesticide-related activities carried out within the 

Department. From the legislative history, it is apparent Congress felt strongly this 

was a necessary step for USDA to effectively carryout its statutory responsibilities 

with respect to pesticide issues and pest management research. 

The law creating this office established that the Director of this office would work 

with EPA, State Departments of Agriculture producers, producers, and other 

appropriate groups to develop effective, efficient mechanisms for gathering data 

necessary for making regulatory decisions. To achieve the many objectives the 

law envisioned in creating this office, it was expected the office would be created 

within and staffed by an official within the Office of the Secretary. 

Congress was particularly concerned the Director of the OPMP be someone the 

Secretary had trust and confidence in to ensure that the department would be an 

effective and forceful advocate within the administration on issues within the 
48 

purview of this office. As such, the law requires the Director of the OPMP report 

directly to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. 

We ask that members of this Committee use your considerable influence to 

ensure OPMP is vested with the authority and political leverage intended by the 

statute under which it was created. OPMP is an essential resource and 

indispensable partner to state departments of agriculture in its delivery of 

expertise on pesticide regulatory programs. 

Conclusion 

State departments of agriculture play a critical role in carrying out the regulatory 

programs impacting our agricultural producers. We serve as both enforcement 

agents and ambassadors to our agricultural producers, and at a minimum, we 

have a responsibility and an obligation to fulfill the spirit and intent of the 

statutes, programs, and Executive Orders controlling and directing that regulatory 

development process. 

It is essential for our federal partners to utilize the expertise of the states and the 

producers in those states to inform, develop, and implement a scientifically 

sound, consistent, and transparent regulatory framework to ensure our producers 

are able to continue to produce the food, fiber, and fuel our country and much of 

the world depends upon. 

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to offer a solution and point out a constant 

theme all of my colleagues as Secretaries, Directors and Commissioner of state 

departments of agriculture discuss throughout the country and that is the need to 

"Educate before you Regulate." 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today, and I welcome any 

questions you may have. 
49 

TESTIMONY OF 

RICHARD P. KEIGWIN, JR. 

ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

May 11,2017 

Good morning Chainnan Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the 

committee. My name is Rick Keigwin and I serve as the Acting Director of the Office of 

Pesticide Programs in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Safe pesticide use makes an enonnous contribution to our society, particularly in the 

production of U.S. food and fiber. Innovation in pesticide use has greatly increased U.S. 

agricultural productivity and contributed to a predictable food supply and stable food prices. The 

EPA estimates that pesticides used to control various pests such as insects, weeds, and fungus 

contribute billions of dollars per year to the U.S. economy, translating into a bolstered workforce 

of American jobs. Additionally, the pesticide indust:Jy- which is impacted by the EPA's 

decision making and assistance- accounts for various aspects of the U.S. economy: a dozen 

major pesticide producers; another 100 small producers; I, 700 pesticide fonnulators and 25,000 

distributors; 23,000 commercial pest control firms; more than two million fam1s; and more than 
50 

88 million households.! There arc more than 17,000 registered pesticide products containing 

more than 1,200 active ingredients, with uses ranging from insect repellents, household cleaners, 

lawn and garden chemicals, hospital disinfectants, biotech products and a wide range of 

agricultural chemicals used to provide an abundant food supply. These factors contribute greatly 

to the EPA's challenging and complex undertaking to run an efficient and equitable regulatory 

program. 

Further, EPA Administrator Pruitt launched a "Back to Basics" agenda -- a formal plan to 

return the agency to its core mission of protecting the environment while engaging in cooperative 

federalism across a broad spectrum of interested parties. For example, as part of the 

Administration's regulatory reform effort, just last week the EPA held a public meeting to gamer 

feedback on pesticide registration issues. This meeting, one of several regulatory reform 

meetings held by EPA program offices, allowed regional, local, agricultural, and other pesticides 

stakeholders to share their views on pesticide regulatory development, reform initiatives, 

evolving public policy and program implementation issues. These meetings highlight the current 

Administrator's commitment to all Americans in returning common sense, as well as transparent 

and peer reviewed science, to the pesticide registration process. 

1 EPA Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 2008-2012 Market Estimates 
51 

I would now like to provide an overview of how the EPA regulates pesticides to protect 

human health and the environment while making tools readily available to provide a safe and 

abundant food supply. 

PESTICIDE REGULATION 

The EPA's regulates pesticides under the authorities of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); the Food 

Quality Protection Act of 1996; the Endangered Species Act (ESA); and the Pesticide 

Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA). 

The EPA has developed a highly regarded program for evaluating pesticide safety and 

making regulatory decisions. Our approach to decision making is based on a model of 

transparency. Using this approach, the agency makes decisions consistent with infi:nmation that 

is peer-reviewed and protective of human health and the environment. Credibility is at the core 

of meeting the requirements of pesticide registration and reevaluation activities. The EPA has 

incorporated many processes that have integrated inherent efficiencies into our risk assessment 

process, enabling the agency to successfully meet the requirements ofPRIA. We have done this 

in a collaborative manner with our regulatory partners and stakeholder community. 

Under FIFRA, the EPA ensures that, when used properly, pesticides provide significant 

benefits to society, such as controlling disease causing organisms, protecting the environment 
52 

from invasive species, and fostering an affordable, safe and abundant food supply. FIFRA's 

safety standard requires the EPA to weigh these types of benefits against harm to human health 

and the environment that might result from using a pesticide. 

FIFRA generally requires that before any pesticide may be sold or distributed in the 

United States, the EPA must license its sale through a process called "registration." During 

registration, the agency examines every pesticide product that is intended to be distributed or 

sold in our cow1tty.ln addition, under FFDCA, the EPA sets "tolerances" (maximum residue 

limits) for pesticides used on f()od or animal feed. The EPA may establish a tolerance or a 

tolerance exemption for a pesticide residue in food or feed only if the agency finds that there is a 

"reasonable certainty of no harm" from consumption of the pesticide treated food and from other 

non-occupational somces of exposure. 

FIFRA also requires the EPA to reexamine previously approved pesticides every 15 years 

through a program called "registration review." Any changes to the use of a pesticide identified 

through registration or registration review, as necessary for safe use, appear on product labels. 

In 2016, the EPA registered pesticides containing 20 new active ingredients, more than 

half were biopesticides or reduced-risk conventional chemicals, and approved products for 213 

new uses. In addition, we approved hundreds of registration amendments and reviewed 

thousands of notifications of other minor changes to labels. 
53 

Some of the most dramatic examples of how pesticides can provide direct benefits occur 

under section 18 of FIFRA, where the EPA may respond to "emergency exemptions" requested 

by states to authorize the temporary use of an unregistered pesticide to address an unusual pest 

outbreak. Likewise, the EPA also approves special local need exemptions for states under section 

24(c) ofFIFRA. In 2016, to address serious pest threats, EPA completed 108 section IS 

emergency decisions, including the usc of antibiotics on citrus to combat citrus greening in 

Florida, which is devastating to the citrus industry. We also expedited registration of five 

chemicals for use on quinoa to be responsive to domestic grower's needs, as well as Peruvian 

import needs. 

Additionally, in response to the Zika virus crisis, four section 18 emergency exemptions 

were authorized to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reduce populations of 

disease carrying mosquitoes in Puerto Rico, the United States Island Territories, and the 

continental United States. Authorizations were completed on all of the actions in less than 39 

days and as little as eight days. The EPA also expedited 94 Zika fast track amendments with a 

turnaround time of two weeks or less, and expedited the approval of two unregistered sources to 

ensure adequate supplies of repellent to protect against Zika. 
54 

PESTICIDE REGISTRATION ENHANCEMENT ACT (PRIA 4) 

The Pesticide Registration Enhancement Act (PRIA 4) is the third reauthorization of the 

Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA), which was signed into law in 2004. PRIA and 

its reauthorizations (hereafter collectively rcfeiTed to as PRIA) provide examples for how user 

fees paid by the private sector can help suppmt vital regulatory activities. The EPA's pesticide 

regulatory programs arc funded by a combination of appropriations and user fees, with user fees 

consisting of a one-time registration service fees that accompany applications for covered 

activities under PRIA and annual maintenance fees to support continued registration of pesticide 

products. 

Under PRIA, entities seeking the EPA's approval to sell or distribute pesticide products 

must, in most cases, pay a fee to process their applications. The amount of the fee depends on the 

type of application, complexity of the application, and the type of entity. For example, under 

PRIA, lower fees are charged for new pesticide products that are the same or similar to products 

already registered (known as "me too products"), than for entirely new pesticides. Small 

businesses pay reduced fees, and PRIA exempts government and government-supported 

organizations, like the USDA's Interregional Research Project No.4 (IR-4), from application 

fees. PRIA registration service fees were intentionally set at levels that represent only a portion 

of the cost necessary for the EPA to complete its review about 20 percent to 40 percent of total 

costs depending on the PRIA category. 
55 

PRIA was developed by a coalition of pesticide stakeholders representing seven different 

trade groups within the pesticide industry and public interest groups reflecting the environmental 

and farmworker safety communities. The result of this collaboration is that there are elements to 

the law important to all of the represented stakeholder entities in the coalition. The EPA serves in 

an advisory capacity to this coalition and has welcomed the opportunity to provide technical 

assistance. 

For the pesticide industry, PRIA requires the EPA to make decisions on applications 

within mandated timeframes. PRIA was developed with the intention of providing additional 

resources to the EPA in order to achieve faster and more predictable registration decision time 

frames and in that respect has demonstrated success. The pesticide industry has actively sought 

to increase the number and types of registration actions covered under the fee for service 

programs from 90 categories in PRIA 1, to 140 categories in PRIA 2, 189 categories in PRIA 3, 

and now 212 proposed categories in the PRIA 41egislation. 

Before PRTA, because oflimited resources, the agency could not process all of the 

applications it received in a timely fashion. Large backlogs developed, and applicants could not 

predict when the agency would make a decision. Pesticide companies had to establish priorities 

for which of their applications the EPA would review first. With the additional resources 

provided by PRIA, the agency can now process new applications in a timelier manner. The EPA 

has approved more than 20,000 decisions since PRIA went into effect in 2004, meeting the 
56 

timeframes for more than 98 percent of those actions. With this kind of consistency in the EPA's 

review of registrations, pesticide companies can develop more accurate business plans for 

marketing their products. 

Pesticide users also benefit from the more rapid approval of more new pesticide products. 

Since PRIA became law, the agency has seen an increase in the approval of pesticides for "minor 

uses" to meet the pest control needs of farmers who grow minor crops- primarily fruits, 

vegetables, and nut crops. Further, under the law, some of the PRIA fees go to support improved 

safety standards for agricultural workers and to provide pesticide safety education for farm 

workers and farm worker families. Finally, PRIA sets aside a portion of the fees to increase 

funding for grants that improve understanding of integrated pest management and develop new 

tools to reduce pesticide use. 

Society and the environment also benefit from PRIA. A number of the new pesticides 

receiving approval under PRIA are safer than the previously approved products that they can 

replace. Expedited review time frames under PRIA provide incentive for the development and 

submission of these reduced risk pesticides. In addition, PRIA reauthorized maintenance fees to 

support the EPA's registration review program. As mentioned earlier, under FIFRA, the EPA 

must reevaluate all previously registered pesticides at least every 15 years to make sure that 

products in the marketplace can still be used safely. The registration review program makes sure 

that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as public policy and pesticide usc practices change, 
57 

all registered pesticides continue to meet the FIFRA statutory standard of no unreasonable 

adverse effects. 

Turning to PRIA 4, the House bill (H.R. I 029) reauthorizes PRIA for seven years and, 

consistent with previous authorizations, provides for two fee increases of five percent to be 

implemented in fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2021. With regard to maintenance fees collected 

under section 4 ofFTFRA, PRTA 4 extends that provision for seven years, increases fees from 

$27.8 million to $31 million per year, and includes a provision allowing the EPA to average 

across years to correct for over or under collection within PRIA 4. An existing provision in 

FIFRA is removed that prevents the EPA from spending annual maintenance fee funds without 

exactly matching those funds from dollars appropriated in the same year. In recent years, the 

EPA has not been able to spend all of the maintenance fees collected from registrants due to this 

constraint. We are working expeditiously to resolve this issue and are in the process of 

developing a plan to ensure that these fees are utilized in a cost effective manner to meet our 

statutorily mandated responsibilities. 

Also, an infmmation technology (IT) set-aside of $800,000 per year established under 

PRIA 3 is eliminated and replaced with a new set-aside of $500,000 per year over five years to 

develop and finalize rulemaking and guidance for product performance data requirements for 

certain invertebrate pests of significant public importance. In addition, a second maintenance fee 
58 

set-aside of $500,000 per year over seven years is established for Good Laboratory Practice 

(GLP) inspections. 

As mentioned before, PRIA 4 expands covered applications to 212 categories, up from 

the 189 categories specified under PRIA 3. An example of category changes requested by the 

regulated community is the alignment of antimicrobial new chemical and new use categories to 

be consistent with Part 158W definitions. In general, new and amended categories reflect an 

effort to better align fees and time frame structures to the EPA resources necessary to review 

those actions. PRIA 4 also creates a financial incentive for registrants to develop and submit to 

the EPA reduced-risk pesticide applications, by raising fees for corresponding non-reduced lisk 

categories within the conventional new chemical and new use fee tables. PRIA set-asides for 

worker protection, partnership grants, and pesticide safety education are extended. PRIA 4 

directs the EPA to look for opportunities to streamline review processes for new chemical and 

new use applications, and to provide prompt feedback to applicant during process. 

Additional reporting requirements specified by PRIA 4 include progress in meeting 

mandatory deadlines for development of product performance rulemaking and guidance for 

public health pests, the number of GLP inspections conducted under the set-aside, progress in 

pliolity review and approval of new pesticides to control vector borne public health pests for use 

in the United States, including territories and military bases globally, and the effectiveness of 

and engagement of stakeholders in worker protection, partnership grants and pesticide safety 
59 

education activities. Registration review reporting requirements are amended and reporting 

requirements remain for the unspent balance of the IT set-aside under PRIA 3. 

CONCLUSION 

The EPA has a history of working in strong collaboration with the grower community to 

address potential pesticide risks while still providing growers with the necessary tools to meet 

their pest management needs. Through meetings with the grower community, we will continue to 

gain the invaluable contributions that farmers make to our economy, the importance of working 

with them and the unique insights they provide. Under Administrator Pruitt's leadership, the 

EPA will double down on helping America through common sense regulations, including those 

in PRIA, allowing farmers to grow an abundant food supply and also grow the economy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be happy to answer any questions 

you and the other members may have. 
60 

Statement of Dr. Sheryl Kunickis 

Director 

Office of Pest Management Policy 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Before the 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

May 11,2017 

Chairman Robe1ts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to provide testimony on the crucial importance of pesticides in providing the 

safe, abundant, and affordable food supply that Americans enjoy and depend on. I am Dr. Sheryl 

Kunickis, Director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) OtTice of Pest Management 

Policy (OPMP). I have worked on behalf of the public for nearly 29 years, including 22 years at 

the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). I served as the Associate Deputy 

Director for Agriculture, Lands, and Wildlife at the White House Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) in 2008, and completed a detail as the Acting Director of the USDA Office of the 

Chief Scientist. I have served in my current position as OPMP Director for the past seven years. I 

earned a Ph.D. in soil science from North Carolina State University and a B.S. and an M.S. in 

agronomy from Brigham Young University. 

OPMP leads USDA activities related to pesticides and pest management, which includes 

harnessing the Department's expertise to inform federal regulatory actions under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as well as pesticide-related provisions of 

the Endangered Species Act; the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act; the Clean Water Act; 

and the Clean Air Act. We also coordinate agricultural bioteclmology issues for USDA, 

including the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21'1 Century Agriculture 

(AC21 ). In engaging with EPA and other entities, we strive to ensure fully-infmmcd decisionmaking in a number of ways: by clarifying the benefits and costs of federal actions on U.S. 

agriculture; by providing the best data on agricultural production and pesticide use; by 

effectively communicating the concerns of our stakeholders in all sectors of the agricultural 

industry; and by encouraging the usc of quality science for issues related to pesticides and pest 

management throughout the government. To this end, I lead a highly-regarded, interdisciplinary 

technical staff with broad expertise, including entomology, plant pathology, weed science, 

agricultural economics, biotechnology, and risk assessment. 

Several specific provisions ofFIFRA require EPA to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture 

during different parts of the pesticide registration and cancellation processes, as well as on any 

proposed or final regulation issued under FIFRA. We also comment on a wide range of 

guidelines, risk assessments, and other relevant documents. USDA has a good working 

relationship with EPA, and consultation is an important part of that. Where regulations or other 

policy changes impact agriculture, USDA should be a full partner whose input on proposed 

actions should be considered vital. When there are differences of opinions, EPA should work 
61 

with USDA to find practical solutions that recognize the importance and needs of agricultural 

production, while still protecting human health and the environment. 

America's abundant, affordable, high-quality, and safe food supply is exceptional, and the envy 

of the world, despite the uncertainties of weather, consumer markets, labor availability, pests and 

diseases, and production costs. Pesticides are a critical component of all farming systems. 

Whether it is the use of organic materials such as spinosad insecticide in organic cranberry 

production to manage fireworms, or plant-incorporated genetically-engineered (GE) Bt 

insecticide in controlling rootworms across millions of acres of corn production, pesticides are 

essential tools for farmers in managing pests, ensuring food security, and meeting market 

demands for quality. Therefore, it is extremely important to USDA that agriculture not be 

defined by those who are less than well-informed about agriculrural production. Some recent 

press accounts, for example, portrayed EPA's decision to deny the petition to revoke tolerances 

of chlorpyrifos, a key insecticide used on over 50 crops, and to keep it on the market as being 

politically-based. What was lost in much of the reporting was that EPA had concluded "despite 

several years of study, the science addressing ncurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved 

and that further evaluation of the science dtning the remaining time for completion of 

registration review is warranted" to the pesticide. USDA had serious concerns with EPA's risk 

assessment approach, as evidenced by our public comments throughout the last few years of the 

previous administration. We are confident that EPA will continue to regularly review any new 

data on chlorpyrifos, as it does for all pesticides, to make certain that pesticide usc regulations 

remain in line with the newest science. 

USDA also welcomed EPA's September 2016 classit1cation of glyphosate, commonly known as 

"Roundup," as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." When EPA presented its analysis to its 

Scientific Advisory Panel in December 2016, USDA publicly commented in support of EPA's 

conclusion, which is in line with other major, risk-based assessments conducted by regulatory 

bodies in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and other cotmtries. In fact, just last week, 

Health Canada concluded in its re-evaluation decision that glyphosate "is not gcnotoxic and is 

unlikely to pose a human cancer risk." Glyphosate has been used safely in the United States 

since the 1970s for general weed control in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings, and 

since the mid-1990s with genetically modified crops. Glyphosatc is important to U.S. agriculture 

because of its excellent crop safety in GE crops, the broad range of weeds it controls, its 

applicability in minimum and no-till as well as conventional tillage, and flexibility and economy 

of use. USDA is coordinating with EPA on approaches to manage the emergence of Roundupresistant weeds, through added information on labels and recommendations to diversify 

management practices and combine or alternate effective herbicides. 

Agriculture depends on a strong, scientifically-based EPA to evaluate pesticides, both new and 

old, to ensure that, when following the label, they can be used as part of integrated pest 

management system. USDA supports the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act as it 

will provide the certainty needed for registrants to get innovative technologies to the market, and 

for growers to know what tools they have available to address the next pest challenge. 
62 

Now let us discuss the role of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the registration of pesticides. 

Since 2013, EPA and the Services, which are the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, have been working on nationwide ESA consultations for three key 

pesticides- chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon. The Services analyze the effects of pesticides 

based on the maximum allowable use, as defined by the label, instead of the actual use on farms, 

while also considering how the impacts may be ameliorated based on the environmental fate and 

transport and subsequent toxicity for each threatened and endangered species. Among the many 

imp01tant uses of pesticides, chlorpyrifos is a key broad-spectrum insecticide, diazinon is 

impregnated in cattle ear tags to control flies, and malathion is part of the toolbox used to combat 

mosquitoes, maintain the cotton boll weevil program, and manage spotted wing drosophila, an 

extremely destructive invasive insect in fruit production. USDA supports appropriate reviews, 

protection, and where needed reasonable mitigation of federally listed species. However, we 

have concerns about the impacts that some of potential mitigation actions may have on U.S. 

agriculture. As you may know, EPA is currently required to evaluate the ecological impact of 

pesticides under the ESA, even though FIFRA, the law that directly regulates the registration of 

pesticides, already requires EPA to prevent "any unreasonable risk to man or the 

environment."-a standard which could possibly consider endangered species. This dual 

regulation under both ESA and FIFRA challenges EPA in meeting its statutory obligations to 

regularly review pesticide registrations. The first Biological Evaluations released to the public 

were over 12,000 pages long. The current workload is not sustainable. USDA has the motivation 

and expertise to offer advice and counsel to EPA and the Services. We look forward to working 

with the Services and EPA on these issues. Regulatory certainty is needed to ensure the 

continued safe use of pesticides, while offering necessary protections to endangered species and 

their habitat. 

In closing, let me reiterate that our food supply is one of the safest anywhere in the world. The 

USDA Pesticide Data Program annually tests a variety of widely-consumed domestic and 

imported foods for the pesticide residues. In 2015, more than 99 percent of the samples tested 

had pesticide residues below the tolerance levels established by EPA, which in turn contain 

safety factors to protect the most vulnerable segments of the population, such as infants and 

children. These legal limits arc established by our colleagues at EPA, and are but one example of 

the immensely important work EPA does to register safe and effective pesticides that are 

essential to both conventional and organic agricultural systems. 

Thank you very much. I'll be glad to address any questions you may have. 
63 

Testimony of Dale Murden, President of Texas Citrus Mutual and Past Chairman 

ofthe National Sorghum Producers 

United States Senate 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

Public Hearing on Pesticide Registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act: Providing Stakeholders with Certainty through the Pesticide 

Registration Improvement Act 

Washington, D.C. 

May 11,2017 

Thank you, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the 

Committee for the opportunity to testify in front of you today. On behalf of the 

more than 700 commercial citrus growers in Texas and the nearly 50,000 sorghum 

producers nationally, I want to express our appreciation for convening this 

hearing and allowing me to share details about some of the challenges facing 

farmers in this country, particularly as it applies to crop protection tools. 

My name is Dale Murden. I am the current President of Texas Citrus Mutual, Past 

Chairman of the National Sorghum Producers, Past State Director of the Texas 

Farm Bureau and a lifelong farmer. I spent the last 25 years operating a diversified 

irrigated 30,000 acre farm in Deep South Texas. I recently decided it was time to 

concentrate full time on my roots in the citrus industry and help where I could. 

My family and I currently still grow citrus, sorghum and cotton near Harlingen, 

Texas. 

The Texas citrus industry is comprised of almost 30,000 acres across three 

counties in the Lower Rio Grande Valley where we grow more than 9 million 

cartons of fresh grapefruits and oranges each year and another 5 million cartons 

for fruit juice. The Farmgate value of Texas citrus is about $100 million per year 

with approximately $5 million of it coming from organic production. 

The U.S. sorghum industry encompasses approximately 7 million acres, yielding 

over 500 million bushels of grain, most of which goes toward ethanol production 

and livestock feed. In addition, the sorghum industry has been successful in 

marketing our product internationally and now more than half of what we 
64 

produce is exported. These exports help chip away at our national trade deficit 

and strengthen our rural economy. 

Citrus and sorghum growers face a broad range of challenges, many of which are 

unique to their crop. However, my testimony today will focus on issues and 

concerns they share, specifically the need for access to crop protection tools, 

which are safe and effective when used properly and as directed by the label. 

Both crops are threatened by new and invasive pests that have the potential to 

wipe out their viability. My intention is to illustrate the fact that farmers need 

tools, we need options for dealing with existential threats to our livelihood and 

our ability to produce the food and fiber necessary to feed the nation and 

beyond. 

Fortunately, in this country we have a federal regulatory system and industries in 

place to help deliver on those needs. However, our system isn't perfect and there 

has been a general frustration in recent years that regulatory decisions and 

agency messaging has led to a shrinking toolbox and negatively impacting our 

ability to manage crop pests. If agriculture is to remain an important component 

of our national economy, farmers need the certainty that products to control 

damaging pests will be available because we are certain the pests will be there. 

P~~t_£h_allenge El<EI!'IJili~ __ :l; __ Huanglongbing (HLB or Citrus Greening) 

Recent finds of the disease HLB and its vector, the Asian Citrus Psyllid (ACP), has 

growers of all sizes in south Texas extremely concerned. There is no known cure 

for this disease and we've learned from the experience of our friends in Florida 

that its impacts are devastating. Since HLB was first detected in Florida in 2005, 

we believe that 100% of production acres are now infected and production has 

been cut by more than half, costing the state nearly $8 billion in revenue. 

Greening was first discovered in a Texas grove in January of 2012. Five short years 

later, we have confirmed that trees located in over 100 groves valley-wide show 

signs of the disease. With the extremely long latency period of this disease, it is 

unclear how many more trees have already been infected. 

What this has done to growers in terms of dollars is hard to quantify. When it was 

first discovered in Texas, We removed not only infected trees, but several of the 

surrounding trees as well. This translated to lost income, and with no HLB 
65 

resistant trees to plant, it equated to a loss of future income as well. Today, 

positive HLB finds have become so widespread, that most growers have 

discontinued tree removal. 

In a desperate attempt to mitigate the effects of HLB, most growers have initiated 

aggressive psyllid spray programs to try to slow the spread of infestation until a 

cure can be found. This strategy requires treatments above and beyond our 

regular care programs and has increased our grove care expenses by almost $400 

per acre or 22%. However, these treatments are vital to prevent and slow the 

spread of the disease and, hopefully, allow our industry to weather the storm that 

was brought to us via the psyllid. 

Pest Challenge ExarDJ:>Ie~2: Sug~qrcaQ~l\Qhid 

For sorghum the sugarcane aphid {SCA), first confirmed in the U.S. in 2014, is 

driving up costs of production even as we see market prices decline. In 2016, the 

SCA reached the full extent of sorghum producing regions in the United States, 

impacting over 70 percent of the acres planted. The SCA has been shown to 

increase operating expenses by as much as $40 per acre- an almost 30 percent 

spike in production costs. This translates into an additional $200 million in 

expenses, nationally. When increased production costs are combined with 

resulting yield losses, we calculate the total burden incurred by U.S. sorghum 

farmers on account of the SCA approached $430 million in the 2016 growing 

season alone. However, we know based on work done at the University of 

Mississippi that without treating for sugarcane aphid growers would see 81-100% 

yield loss. Any misstep in tackling this pest has the potential to break the back of 

the industry. · 

lmport.9t'}~~oLR_~Iatory(ertainty~f'JiiA 

The Asian Citrus Psyllid and Sugarcane Aphid are two examples of significant 

threats to their respective crops. But nearly every growing operation and every 

crop face pest and pathogen challenges. Farmers look toward federal and 

academic researchers, crop protection industries and regulators at the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to investigate, develop and approve tools 

that are safe and effective. 

Farming is all about managing risk with the intention of maximizing benefit, which 

for us is yield, not just for one day, month or even a year but instead over the 
66 

course of a generation or more. It isn't easy work and the agriculture community 

recognizes that approving products like pesticides, which come with inherent risk 

isn't easy either. We need the EPA to be sufficiently staffed with smart, qualified 

and dedicated people who can properly evaluate products in a timely manner. 

Pests and pathogens have the capacity to change over time, sometimes building 

resistance to some pesticide products and modes of action. That's why one tool in 

the toolbox is not enough. Farmers need options so that we can manage for 

resistance, using different active ingredients at different times. Without the 

necessary approvals for a diverse set of modes of action we can quickly lose our 

ability to manage damaging pests. 

The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) helps to foster and create a 

smoother pathway for new and effective products to come to the market. 

Furthermore, crops like sorghum and specialty crops like citrus typically are not 

the primary targets of new registrations due to their smaller acreage. However, 

PRIA provides a level of certainty and accountability to the registrants allowing 

them to invest the resources to gain approvals for crops like the ones I grow. 

For all of the reasons stated, I wish to express my strong support for the swift 

passage of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA-4). Because farmers 

need the certainty that the pipeline of new and innovative pest management 

products and the re-registration of existing products continues to flow, leading to 

the approvals of pesticides that meet the necessary benefits-to-risk thresholds. 

Without the certainty that I will be armed with the tools to tackle the pest 

challenges I am sure to confront it is hard to see how I would continue to farm. 

lf!lP_O rta nce~QffteKl]lator:y_~ert<!lnty_-::_EI£R~ 

While not wavering in my support for PRIA I do want to share my perspective that 

despite, perhaps, the best intensions of some statutes, regulations, guidance and 

agency actions there are a number of factors that have undermined regulatory 

certainty for the grower community. 

In recent years we've seen the publication of preliminary risk assessments and 

associated press releases by EPA. In the absence of related benefits assessments 

these reports paint a negative picture of certain pesticide use patterns and 

undermine public trust in those products. Some recent decisions by EPA were 
67 

made without a full risk assessment having been completed and instead were 

based on the identification of hazards only without knowing exposure risk. These 

are significant departures from what is expected under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and have prevented some crops, including 

sorghum and citrus from receiving access to vital tools. 

In addition, it seems that every time a new product is approved or re-registered 

the approval is challenged through litigation. This is completely contrary to an 

environment that creates a level of certainty and the very fact that these cases 

are commonplace suggests an underlying weakness in the process. FIFRA is the 

primary statute for the registration and regulatory approval of pesticides. These 

products are studied and evaluated by EPA for potential impacts to the 

environment, non-target organisms, and human health by some of the most 

knowledgeable individuals in these fields. However, the regularity of the lawsuits 

suggests that these products are subject to a double, perhaps triple jeopardy of 

sorts, sometimes pulling the rug from under what was anticipated to be a safe, 

cost efficient, and effective pest management tool for growers. I have to believe 

that our system can do better. It is important to remember that the registration 

and review process carried out by EPA through the authority provided under 

FIFRA is meant to assess and evaluate risk in combination with benefits and is not 

meant to eliminate or squelch innovation by accepting only "no risk" outcomes. 

GLC!vver Engagement 

I appreciate that we have a regulatory system at EPA that is largely transparent 

and encourages stakeholder engagement in the product review process. The 

trade organizations that I and many of my farming colleagues belong to often 

participate in many ofthese engagement opportunities to provide evidence and 

guidance on how the decisions made, including those by the Office of Pesticide 

Programs, will impact our industry. This is most typically done through the 

"comment period" of a "proposed rule." However, the Notice document 

associated with a proposed rule often includes extensive supporting 

documentation that are so technical in nature that only toxicologists and risk 

modelers are suited to respond and therefore impact the decision making 

process. While experimental data and theoretical models are undoubtedly 

important they should not wholesale supplant real-world data and the results of 

field studies in risk assessments. Are ecological risk assessments meant to 

evaluate likely scenarios and potential impacts or are they meant to reflect only 
68 

the most conservative and precautionary vision that can be dreamed up? I believe 

that with greater interaction and more conversations with the communities that 

actually use the crop protection tools they are assessing, EPA will be able to 

include stronger and more realistic scenarios into their assessments. I know that 

Texas Citrus Mutual and the National Sorghum Producers stand ready to work 

with the agency toward that end. 

Conclusion 

-------- ------- - --

Thank you again, Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, for holding 

this important hearing and the invitation to participate. We appreciate all of the 

work this Committee does on behalf of the American farmer. And once again, I 

urge the Committee and the Senate to take the necessary actions for the swift 

approval of H.R. 1029, PRIA-4. 
69 

Pesticide Registration under FIFRA: Providing Stakeholders 

with Certainty through the Pesticide Registration Improvement 

Act 

Senate Agriculture Committee 

Thursday, May II, 2017 

Testimony of Virginia Ruiz, Fannworker Justice 

Chainnan Roberts, Ranking Member Stabeno\v, and members of the 

Agriculture Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony this morning. 

My name is Virginia Ruiz and I am the Director of Occupational 

and Environmental Health at Farmworker Justice. 

Farmworker Justice is a national organization that supports 

farmworkers in the US to improve their living and working 

conditions, health, occupational safety, and access to justice. 

Farmworker Justice has been a member of the PRIA Coalition, 

along with the Natural Resources Defense Council and pesticide 

industry representatives. since the initial passage of the 2003 

Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, and we support its 

reauthorization in the fom1 of the Pesticide Registration 

Enhancement Act. 

Under PRIA, money set aside from pesticide registration fees 

supp01is worker protection activities. The PRIA set-asides fund 

important programs at EPA, including 

• pesticide safety training for fatmworkers and pesticide 

handlers; 
70 

• the development of worker and employer training materials on 

pesticide safety and implementation of the Worker Protection 

Standard and the Certified Pesticide Applicator rule; 

• education and training for medical providers to diagnose and 

treat pesticide poisonings; and 

• support for state public health agencies to maintain pesticide 

injury surveillance programs. 

Farmworkers, and especially those who mix and apply pesticides, 

face substantial risk of becoming poisoned by pesticides because 

they work with pesticides at their greatest concentrations and 

strengths. They come into contact with pesticides on a daily basis. 

The pesticide residues that remain on their work clothes and skin 

when they return home from work can also expose members of their 

families and cause injury. 

Pesticide exposure causes farmworkers to suffer more chemicalrelated injuries and illnesses than any other workforce in the nation. 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that up 

to 3,000 fannworkers sut!er acute pesticide poisoning every year 

through occupational exposures, including itTitated eyes, rashes, 

nausea, dizziness, headaches, and shortness ofbrcath. These 

estimates don't include those who suffer long-term effects of 

exposure. such as cancer. Parkinson's disease, asthma, birth defects 

and neurological harms, including developmental delays and 

leaming disabilities. In fact, EPA has found that the greatest risk 

from the pesticide chlorpyrifos- which can harm children's brainsis to agricultural communities and workers. 

Many of these acute poisonings arc preventable through basic 

workplace protections and worker safety education, such as those 

required by the EPA's Worker Protection Standard (WPS). The 

WPS applies to hired workers and pesticide handlers involved in the 
71 

production of agricultural crops. In November 2015, after more than 

a decade of stakeholder meetings, study and consideration, EPA 

finalized revisions to the WPS that provide critical improvements 

designed to reduce the risk of illness or injury resulting from 

farmworkers' occupational exposures to pesticides. 

Also, in January of this year, after more than 40 years, EPA updated 

its regulations concerning the cetiification of, and training 

requirements for, individuals who apply restricted usc pesticides 

(RUPs), which are some ofthe more dangerous pesticides available 

on the market. The updated WPS and CPA rule provide longoverdue protections for farmworkcrs, their families and mral 

communities across the US from exposure to pesticides. These 

regulations call for basic preventive measures that will save millions 

of dollars in medical costs and lost productivity due to illness. These 

common sense measures include annual basic safety training, 

posting of application and safety information, meaningful hazard 

communication, functioning personal protective equipment, 

adequate supervision of non-cet1ified pesticide applicators, and the 

prohibition of children from handling pesticides. 

PRIA funding is necessary to help EPA meaningfully implement 

these important safety standards. But these vvorkcr protection 

activities arc meaningless if the WPS and CPA rule are weakened 

and rolled back. PRIA set-asides help to provide employer 

compliance assistance and worker safety training. However, these 

funds must complement, not replace EPA funding for other 

impot1ant pesticide safety, worker protection and environmental 

justice programs. Stable funding for the Agency as a whole is vital 

to provide occupational and environmental education for workers, 

their families and rural communities, and to prevent adverse effects 

from pesticide exposure. 
72 

Farmworker Justice requests that this committee reauthmizc PRIA 

as quickly as possible, and \Vithout any changes or amendments to 

existing language. Thank you for the opportunity to address this 

important issue. I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. 
73 

Written Testimony of Jay Vroom 

President and CEO, Croplife America 

Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

To Review PRIA Reauthorization 

May 11,2017 

Thank you, Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, for the opportunity to address the 

Committee on behalf of Croplife America and our more than 110 members; their customers, the U.S. 

farmers; as well as the public, which benefits from a wholesome, affordable food supply and protection 

from disease vectors. I am Jay Vroom, President and CEO at Croplife America (CLA). CLA is the national 

trade association for the United States' crop protection industry. CLA is closely affiliated with RISE 

{Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), which represents the specialty, non-agricultural 

pesticide industry. 

It is with honor and pleasure that I speak before you today to address efforts to reauthorize the 

pesticide industry's fee-for-service program, commonly referred to as PRIA. (While the name of the 

statute has changed slightly, it is convenient to use the customary PRIA abbreviation.) In 2003, Phil Klein 

of the Consumer Specialty Products Association and I co-founded the PRIA Coalition. The Coalition 

consists of a diverse collection of interests that have come together once again to support our fee for 

service program. Coalition participants include the American Chemistry Council Biocides Panel, 

Biotechnology Innovation Organization, Biological Products Industry Alliance, Consumer Specialty 

Products Association, Croplife America, The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association, Responsible 

Industry for a Sound Environment, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 

Farmworker Justice, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

History of PRIA 

The FIFRA amendments of 1988 put in place new and significant fees on registered pesticide products in 

order to provide EPA with added resources to accomplish re-registration. Those so-called "FIFRA Light" 

amendments did finally put EPA on a path towards achieving older products reviews. But the Food 

Quality Protection Act of 1996 subsequently added significant regulatory burdens to the Agency, and as 

a result, new product approvals suffered. It took an additional8 years, from 1996 to 2004- and 2 

Administrations and 4 Congresses- to reach an agreement on fees for service that we now call PRIA. In 

the early years of PRIA, many of our companies saw wait times on registration of new food-use active 

ingredients drop from more than 4 years to about 2 years. But nothing ever stands still- and so we've 

experienced timeline erosion for almost all pesticide decision categories. The reasons for this fall into 

two clear categories. 

1. Diminished Resources 

Since PRIA has been in place (2004-2016), appropriations money met or exceeded the "PRIA trigger" 

for the first 9 fiscal years, but in the last 4 years, Congress has missed its appropriations obligations 

by a total of $29 million. Since PRIA's 2004 beginning, the full-time employee count in EPA;s Office 

of Pesticide programs has dropped by over 21% (625 to 491). Clearly, EPA has done much to to 

offset the resource constraints through efficiency improvements- but we all need Congressional 

appropriators to restore adequate resources to meet the statutory requirements of FIFRA. 
74 

Since 2004, industry fees have been substantial- topping $521 million over 13 years. It has been a 

very good investment. PRIA 4 will extend that record- and be even better when PRIA appropriation 

targets are met! 

2. Increased Regulatory Complexity 

Society expects EPA to apply the best available science in its regulatory decisions regarding pesticide 

products. Science never stands still so that regulatory burden on EPA increases every year. In that 

context, the single biggest regulatory challenge to EPA's performance is implementing the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the harmonization with FIFRA for pesticide registrations. In 

additional multiple new data requirements must be fulfilled to support pesticide registrations. 

CLA recently compared timelines for PRIA actions completed between 2012 and 2014. New active 

ingredient approvals took between 946 days and 1,137 days, on average, during those 3 yearscompared to the PRIA target of 730 days. In other words, about one half of the timeline gains have 

eroded since the start of PRIA. Working together we need to address these issues- and speedy 

reauthorization of PRIA 4 will be a big, positive step ahead! 

In recognition of this increase complexity and the increased burden on OPP, PRIA 4 substantially 

increases the user fees for certain registration categories. 

Reauthorizing PRIA in 2017 

On behalf of the pesticide industry, I would like to emphasize the benefit of working alongside the NGO 

community and in concert with our state and federal regulators to extend the process improvements 

achieved in EPA's pesticide regulatory program, support stable funding for EPA, and continue funding 

necessary training and education programs. 

The reauthorization legislation currently under consideration by the Senate would: 

• Provide for the annual collection of $31 million in product maintenance fees through 2023 (an 

increase of $22.4 million over the seven years covered by PRIA 4); 

cap the fees paid by small businesses; 

add Endangered Species Act reviews, risk reduction, and information technology system 

enhancements to the eligible uses of the funds collected; 

designate $500,000 per year for the establishment of efficacy guidelines for products to address 

invertebrate pests of significant public health or economic consequence; 

designate $500,000 per year for enhancements to the Good Laboratory Practices Standards 

compliance monitoring program; 

continue funding of not less than $1 million per year through 2023 to enhance scientific and 

technical activities relating to worker protection; 

continue funding of $500,000 per year through 2023 for partnership grants; 

continues funding of $500,000 per year through 2023 for pesticide safety education programs; 

extend the authority to collect registration service fees until 2023 and provides for two 5% 

increases in the fees paid in 2019 and 2021; and 

continue the authority of the Administrator to waive fees for small businesses, under certain 

circumstances. 
75 

Mr. Chairman, prior to the implementation of PRIA in 2004, there was little certainty for registration 

packages moving through the EPA. Product registrations would often linger with no real process or 

timeframe for completion. This ambiguous process often led to frustration, and more importantly 

jeopardized innovation, as there was diminished incentive to invest in the research and development of 

new chemistries for the marketplace. The enactment of PRIA changed that experience for product 

registrants and all stakeholders. The success of PRIA has led to process improvements in OPP, 

established a dedicated funding stream for the Agency, created specific block grants for training and 

education programs, and created business certainty that keeps the wheels of innovation turning, which 

in turn results in the creation of jobs in the agriculture sector. 

The PRIA fee framework ensures availability of: pesticide products to support U.S. agriculture; 

disinfectants for use by building and plant facilities managers; public health pesticides necessary to 

combat mosquito and other disease vectors; structural pesticides to protect homes and commercial 

buildings; products for the home and garden, turf, and ornamental industries. 

Implementing ESA in the Context of Pesticide Regulation 

PRIA 4 allows EPA to use industry fee resources to conduct endangered species reviews to support the 

registration review process. We can do better when it comes to the implementation of the ESA. The 

attempt to apply the ESA across the regulated business spectrum and the ongoing challenges between 

EPA and the Services (Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service) continue to 

frustrate the harmonization of ESA and FIFRA, and to date have redirected valuable resources away 

from thoughtful efforts to protect threatened and endangered species. 

We believe that we can achieve our national environmental goals, including goals to preserve and 

enhance biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, while maintaining and improving agricultural 

productivity. But we need effective, science-based federal policy to do so. 

Leadership at both the EPA and the Services, with input from both the regulated community and other 

stakeholders, including the NGO community, are required to implement workable solutions to the longstanding management disharmony in FIFRA and ESA integration to ensure greater agricultural 

productivity through common sense problem solving. 

Conclusion 

Over the years, registrants have maintained a good working relationship with EPA. While we have had 

our disagreements, we respect EPA's role, and, in fact, benefit from greater public assurance that our 

products meet the tough standards imposed by the law and expected by the public. 

Along with the need for more food production, the public has always wanted greater assurance of safety 

from our products. Over the years, the standards and requirements for pesticide registration have been 

toughened, laws have been amended, and public scrutiny has increased. Our industry has continued to 

respond to these demands through innovative products with improved environmental and safety 

profiles, lower application rates, more targeted modes of action, and reduced applicator risk. 

This is a big task and we accept these challenges. Currently it is estimated that to develop a new 

pesticide product, taking all costs of research and development and meeting regulatory requirements 

amounts to an average investment of about 11 years and $286 million. 
76 

The U.S. has the toughest set of pesticide regulatory standards anywhere. The Food Quality Protection 

Act (FQPA) of 1996 was a significant overhaul of our pesticide laws. FQPA sets a template for approvals 

around the world. Registration of a new pesticide active ingredient is based on extensive data, 

generated at great cost, with an exhaustive government review, using conservative assumptions 

applying the toughest standards. It is never easy, but we meet that challenge every time we develop a 

new product. When the registration process works in a predictable manner, the entire agriculture 

supply chain benefits, which results in jobs on farms, in distribution, in transportation, in production and 

in innovation. 

Mr. Chairman, PRIA is a critical piece in the regulatory picture that ensures timely registrations of new 

products and uses and supports the mandatory 15-year review of existing registrations. I am grateful for 

your past support of the pesticide industry's fee-for-service program. I appreciate the opportunity to 

provide input to the Committee today. We look forward to working closely with you and your staff as 

we ask for your support for seeing this important program reauthorized. 
(77) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MAY 11, 2017 
78 

The Honorable Pat Roberts 

Chairman 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition 

and Forestry 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

May 3, 2017 

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition 

and Forestry 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow: 

The undersigned organizations are writing to support HR 1029, the Pesticide 

Registration Enhancement Act. The support for this legislation comes from a unique 

coalition of organizations-environmental NGOs, farmworker advocates, state 

regulatory agencies, and pesticide companies. 

This coalition first came together to support initial passage of the Pesticide Registration 

Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA). The Pesticide Registration Enhancement Act is now 

the third reauthorization of PRIA. These same organizations continue to work with EPA 

to support administration of the program, to work together to develop subsequent 

reauthorization proposals, and to advocate for appropriated funds to further support the 

activities specified in the law. 

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), a pesticide 

cannot be legally used if it has not been approved for registration through EPA's Office 

of Pesticide Programs. In addition, EPA is required to review a pesticide at least every 

15 years to ensure that it continues to meet the FIFRA legal standard. The key goals of 

PRIA have been to provide an industry-funded source of adequate funding to support 

these key functions of EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs in registering new pesticides 

and new pesticide products, and, reviewing existing pesticide products. 

Prior to PRIA, the review process for new pesticides could take several years or longer. 

PRIA established a new section of FIFRA, which put in place a fee schedule for 

pesticide registration requests. PRIA also lists specific time periods for EPA to make a 

regulatory decision on pesticide actions. 

Also, prior to PRIA, EPA had a goal, but not a mandate, to review existing pesticides on 

the market. Under PRIA, EPA is required to review a pesticide at least every 15 years 

to determine whether the pesticide should continue to be distributed in the U.S., or 

whether additional measures are needed for a pesticide meet the legal standard for use 

under FIFRA. 

H.R. 1029 builds upon the win-win tradition of PRIA. The maintenance fees in H.R. 

1029 provide funds to EPA to accomplish the registration review required by the law in a 

timely fashion. It also tracks that the risk mitigation measures are implemented by the 
79 

agency. It increases and clarifies categories of EPA actions covered under the law and 

protects funds for research and grant programs for worker safety and training. It 

provides assurance that registration actions will be reviewed in a timely manner. The 

legislation also provides funds to address new issues, helping to ensure that companies 

continue to have access to export markets for their products. 

This legislation will continue the positive progress that the original PRIA brought to the 

pesticide registration and evaluation process. We respectively urge Congress to move 

quickly to reauthorize this highly successful program, providing certainty to the 

regulated community in the review of pesticide applications, and continued scrutiny over 

the appropriate use of pesticides to provide assurance to the public. 

Sincerely, 

American Chemistry Council Biocides Panel 

Biotechnology Innovation Organization 

Biological Products Industry Alliance 

Consumer Specialty Products Association 

Croplife America 

Farmworker Justice 

ISSA- The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment 
80 

California .\griuilturn! Commissionl·rs and Sealers .-\ssociation 

May 15.2017 

The I !onorable Pat Roberts 

Chairman 

('ommittee on Agricultur~. Nutrition 

Forestry 

U.S. Senate 

328 Russell Senate Onicc Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The llonorablc Debbie Stabenow 

Ranking \!ember 

Committee on Agriculture. Nutrition & 

Fnrcstr~ 

U.S. Senate 

328 Russell Senate Oflicc Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow: 

This is to acknowledge and thank you !(Jr the consideration of the Pesticide 

Registration Enhancement ,\ct of2017 (PRii\) bcli>rc the Committee on 

Agriculture. Nutrition & Forestry. We urge the adoption ofH.R. 1029. 

Specifically. Counly Agricultural Commissioners and Scalers of \Veights and 

Measures represent all oi'Calil(>rnia's 58 counitcs and haYc dual roles of promoting 

and protecting the state's li>od supply. agricultural trade, the environment public 

health and safety. consumer confidence and a f:.lir marketplace in California. 

Unique to California. County Commissioners and Scakrs are appointed by their 

respccti\'e Boards of Supcn·isors. and work coopi.!ratiYdy with CaliJ{Jrnia 

Ca!l'l~t'l F,sMr, Ptes10001 

Santa Barbara Counly 

Agncu!tl.t'al C-omm:<a!C""">f f 

Sealer o!W>;~f9:h!.s a ~wn!s 

M;tnu"l Sene~ndem•~, Pn:~'''NY<+~ 

Sal\ Lws Ql)<spo Cou'>iy 

A;·!O.n<.l'a> C«ttmoH•OM' i 

Sea:w. ef\'~g:t'n$ o r.~a~·.:r~'S. 

Jc'S."l H;r",~"l~r. V'<U! Pr·~l.l!i!<",t 

!A';"!'!:.,;!:.>N) 

Plillce·C~ti' 

A<;m:ult·Jal Cemr:'l~~o.~ J 

Sea:~r o!We-,;t1t~ & t.\ea~·e~ 

Pau!l<jos V~eePrcs<den\ 

{We>SI"Itsa.Meas.~.:res) 

Shas.laCounly 

A~ieult<.,r-;al CommiS1<or>cr I 

Se-aler ofWe.QI'lls & ~a~ms 

S~e~a!"-'e Mc.',l(!o1 T•U;,;rt'!-e.~..! 

M<~CffaCc-.mty 

AS'1C:.l~ll:'a! C:.~mm:ss.o!'* I 

~a!t-r e!We.(;''1!S !l. Me;:m;n.!J. 

SanoyElle~, E.K!:!Ool!Ne Otector 

BSO N Campu~ Dl'!'<i!. SUihl U 

Hanfurd CA S3230·l5!16 

{916) eso-3550 

Fa:<{8ea)252·S560 

Department of Food and Agriculture and Department of Pesticide Regulation. kderal and other 

state agencies. and stakeholders to implement regulatory programs at th~? local k\'d t(n 

applicable laws. regulations. and ordinances. Supporting state and federal dlill'ls. Agricultural 

Commissioners certif" agricultural shipments ilH' export. prcwnt the introduction. spread and 

establishment of invasive agricultural pests. and protect human health and the cn\'ironment 

through regulatory cnl"tlrccmcnt of pesticide usc. 

Calil(Jrnia's pesticide usc reporting program is recognized as the most comprchcnsiYc in the 

world. The Calit(>rnia Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) has been collecting. 

compiling and making usc of pesticide usc data l{lr over 60 years. Since 1949. pesticide use 

permits haYc been required to possess and usc pesticides classified as restricted materials. In 

1990. California became !he lirst state to require full reporting of agricultural pesticide use in 

response to demands for more realistic and compn.:hcnsi\'C pesticide usc data. Under the 

program. aU agricultural pesticide use (dntc of application. type and quantity of product used. 

location of application, commodity treated and the property opemtor) must he reported monthly 

to county Agricultural Commissioners. who, in turn, report the data to CDPR. 

We appreciate Congress' support of the !eel lt>r service program for pesticide registration 

andre registration programs at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This 

reauthorization, coupled with appropriated funds. allows EPA to continue to c!'!\:cthdy 

administer the program sp!.!cliicd in the statute. 
81 

Chairman Roberts. Ranking \!ember Stabenow PRIA Page 2 

As you know. under th<: Federal Insecticide. Fungicide: and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) a pesticide 

cannot be legally used if it has not been registered ''ith !-:!'A's Otllcc of Pesticide Programs. 

Prior to the passage of !'RIA the review process could take several years or longer. PRIJ\ 

established a new section ofFIFRA that creates a fcc schedule for pesticide registration 

requests. It lists spec iii.: time periods ftlr EPA to make a regulatory tkcisiotl on pesticide 

registration and tolerance: actions submitted to the Agency. The goal of I' RIA was to create a 

more predictable and eflccti\'1? C\'aluation scheme I(H' afkctcd pesticide decisions and couple the 

collection ofindividual tees with spccilic decision review periods. It also promoted shorter 

decision review periods for reduced risk applications. 

H.R. I 029 also increascs and clarifies cat<:gories of EPA actions co,·crcd under the law. uses 

maintenance fees for registration rc' icw. protects funds for research and grant programs 

for worker safety and training, and provides for funds to be used to addn:ss new issues and 

helping to ensure that companies continue to have access to export markets for their products. 

li.R. l 029 continues to build on the progress that the original PR!A brought to the pesticide 

registration process. \\'c urge Congress to enact this legislation that proddes certainty l{1r both 

regulators and those rcgulattd. 

Sinccrdy. 

e I ~)helL 

Cathy Fisher 

Presidcm 

cc: The llonorable Dianne Feinstein 

The Honorable Kamala Harris 

(83) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

MAY 11, 2017 
84 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

Pesticide Registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act: 

Providing Stakeholders with Certainty through the Pesticide Registration 

Improvement Act 

May 11,2017 

Questions for Commissioner Gary Black 

Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) 

1. I greatly appreciate your comments regarding the need for timely and predictable crop 

protection tools through FIFRA registration and reregistration. I also share your concern that 

pesticide registration, sale and use be primarily governed under the federal statute that was 

intended to do so FIFRA. FIFRA was intended to provide certainty and predictability through 

federal law, however, there are some indications that, for instance, certain relevant aspect of the 

sale of a pesticide may not be governed by FIFRA. Are you concerned about any court action 

that may degtade the jurisdiction of FIFRA? 

Answer: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 1 

establishes a unique, effective, and comprehensive regulatory process and 

framework to provide pesticide-related environmental and public health 

protection. FIFRA created requirements for pesticide registration, labeling, and 

use that are the end result of an extensive pre-market approval process. This 

registration process requires products to meet strict safety guidelines and includes 

rigorous examination of environmental fate data and health exposure assessments. 

NASDA supports the legislative intent and plain meaning of FIFRA to be the 

primaty federal statute under which pesticide registration and use is regulated, and 

NASDA is concerned with any litigation or court action attempting to subjugate 

or circumvent FIFRA's authority outside of the legislative process. In situations 

where requirements of other environmental statutes overlap with FTFRA, those 

requirements should be incorporated into the FIFRA registration process in a 

manner that is science-based, transparent, and allows stakeholders the opportunity 

to comment upon and fully analyze the ramifications of the proposed action. EPA 

must recognize. that state lead agencies are not only important stakeholders, but 

1 7 U.S. C. § 136 et seq. 
85 

are also co-regulators under FIFRA and must, therefore, be intimately involved in 

this process. 

NASDA members are regulators with responsibilities for conservation, 

environmental protection, and wildlife management and also serve as coregulators with federal agencies on numerous federal environmental statutes, and 

NASDA does support a science-based approach to advancing a workable 

integration of the requirements under FIFRA and the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA)2 in a manner to ensure federal agencies are able to achieve the objectives 

of both statutes. 

The ESA seeks to conserve endangered and threatened species and in doing so, 

often places unreasonable land use restrictions on landowners. ESA is enforced by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marines Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) (together as, the Services). States must be involved early and thoroughly 

in all listings, determinations and other ESA regulatory procedures as states are 

valuable resources for data and have a greater understanding of local landscapes. 

As regulatory partners, federal agencies should seek state agency involvement and 

consultation as the Services work toward the ultimate goal of delisting species. 

NASDA believes EPA and the Services must establish a collaborative, transparent 

and streamlined consultation process for pesticide registrations. The process 

should include clearly communicated criteria between EPA and the Services, be 

based on best available science and eliminate any duplicative steps. Any decisions 

made between EPA and the Services should not place unreasonable requirements 

on registrants and producers. EPA and the Services must include adequate time 

and robust opportunities for input from state departments of agriculture, who 

regulate pesticides in most states, and other impacted stakeholders. Regulatory 

decisions should be made in a timely manner that allows affected parties 

meaningful pmticipation while addressing regulatory certainty. 

2. In your testimony you discussed the National Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture's (NASDA) interest in codifying and institutionalizing the concept of Cooperative 

Federalism and you stated there are opportunities to strengthen the regulatory partnership 

between EPA and the State Departments of Agriculture. Please expand on your interpretation of 

Cooperative Federalism and identify what specific opportunities exist to help strengthen the 

regulatory partnership between EPA and the State Departments of Agiiculturc. 

2 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. 
86 

Answer: NASDA strongly suppotis the concept and principle of Cooperative 

Federalism, which requires a robust partnership, role, and responsibility for states 

to be involved in the development and delivery of federal policy initiatives and 

federal rulemaking processes. 

One essential component of Cooperative Federalism includes Consultations with 

states. Federalism consultations should commence early in the regulatory process 

and remain on-going. These consultations should allow significant opportunities 

for robust participation. Throughout the process of developing and implementing 

regulatory actions, it is important to emphasize that state regulatory agencies are 

not simply stakeholders, but arc in fact partners with our federal agencies. States 

can-and should-be used more as resources for federal agencies. Often states 

have a wealth of data, experience, and expertise that will help federal agencies 

better develop, deliver, and implement science-based and statutorily compliant 

regulatory programs. The successful development and delivery of a transparent, 

predictable, consistent and science-based regulatory process and framework 

requires robust and meaningful Consultations with states. 

As regulatory partners with EPA, NASDA members are charged with deliveting 

and enforcing a variety of FIFRA regulatory programs, and EPA regulations have 

significant impacts on many state departments of agriculture and the regulated 

community. NASDA strongly values our partnership with EPA's Office of 

Pesticide Programs (OPP), and in an effort to assist our federal partners in 

developing and delivering a regulatory framework that provides the necessary 

protections and minimizes the economic impact and undue regulatory burdens on 

agricultural producers, NASDA recommends EPA consult with states during the 

inter-agency review process, similar to USDA and Congressional Committees 

with agticultural oversight, as required for regulations under FIFRA. NASDA 

recommends Congress consider formalizing this state consultation process in 

FIFRA. 

In order to help strengthen our patinership with EPA and fulfill our statutory and 

regulatory mandates, NASDA strongly urges Congress to ensure OPP has the 

appropriate resources and staff necessary to consult and cooperate with its state 

partners and ensure states have adequate time, assistance, and resources necessary 

to assist in the development, delivery, and implementation of new rules and new 

standards. 

Cooperative Federalism is critical to enhancing our federal-state partnerships in 

order that we may deliver a predictable, transparent, and science-based regulatory 

framework to protect human health and the environment while allowing the 

agricultural community to prosper. NASDA stands ready to help our federal 

partners develop a regulatory framework that provides the necessary protections 

and minimizes the economic impact and undue regulatory burdens on agticultural 

producers. 
87 

Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) 

I. In your testimony you were critical of a court ruling that requires a modest, additional permit 

for pesticides sprayed directly into certain bodies of water. I'd like to get some claiity about the 

actual requirements of this court ruling for farmers and applicators. In 2015, EPA testified that 

zero permit applicants nationwide had difficulty applying their pesticides in a timely manner 

because of the permit. Can you point to any instances in Georgia where a pesticide applicator 

has not been able to apply their product because of the requirements outlined in the court ruling? 

~ Thank you for the opportunity to provide claiity on the duplicative 

regulatory requirements cmrently in place following a 6'h Circuit decision in 

National Cotton Council\'. EPA in 2009, which required pesticide applicators to 

obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit. For approximately forty years prior to this litigation, 

EPA and state agencies effectively regulated these pesticide uses exclusively 

under FIFRA, which already required EPA to consider the potential impacts on 

aquatic organisms or water quality in registering a pesticide. 

Under the cutTcnt NPDES regulatory regime, applicants are required to obtain a 

NPDES Pesticide General Pennit (PGP) for a FIFRA-approved label that EPA 

has already reviewed and approved for these very uses (mosquito control; weeds 

or algae in irrigation canals or ditches; treatment of forests to control canopy 

pests, etc), and the application is governed by the FIFRA label instructions. 

Since the 2009 ruling, EPA has repeatedly affirmed and testified that the cutTent 

pesticide permitting process under FIFRA provides sufficient environmental 

protection for pesticide applications over water. The former director of EPA's 

Office of Pesticide Programs testified before the House Agiiculture Committee 

that "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." Moreover, the NPDES PGP requirements 

do not improve water quality. The NPDES PGP does not require any changes to 

the use or amount of pesticide applications. The NPDES PGP simply requires 

applicators to report their pesticide use to their state government, but these reports 

do not enhance water quality or provide any additional regulatory benefits for 

these products, which are already incorporated and protected under FIFRA. 

While the duplicative NPDES permitting system does not provide any enhanced 

regulatory protections, it has created significant undue burdens and unwatTanted 

liability risks. For example, sixty-two mosquito control districts in California 
88 

spend an estimated $750,000 per year in compliance costs alone. This expense is 

not insignificant for extremely under-resourced districts, but these costs do 

require districts to divert precious resources from public health activities. 

In addition, failure to obtain or comply with the petmit can subject an application 

business to costly litigation, including those instituted under the citizen suit 

provisions of the CW A and can result in penalties of up to $51,570 per day for 

each violation. While I am not aware of any specific prohibitions currently in 

place in Georgia, I am aware of a recent on-going case involving a mosquito 

control district in northern Ohio, where the plaintiff's allegations involve a 

citizen's interpretation of tlte NPDES PGP requirements and related 

administrative matters. To date, that control district has spent more than $40,000 

in legal fees in responding to allegations involving its operations under its NPDES 

PGP. In Georgia, we remain concerned that future frivolous lawsuits brought 

against mosquito control districts could impose significant costs and uncertainty 

to these critical public health activities and other necessary applications under the 

NPDES permitting framework. 

The duplicative NPDES permit requirements negatively impact the use of critical 

tools in protecting human health and the food supply from destmctive and 

disease-carrying pests, managing invasive weeds to keep open waterways and 

shipping lanes, maintain rights of way for transportation and power generation, 

and in preventing damage to forests and recreation areas. NASDA strongly urges 

the Senate to eliminate this unnecessary, expensive, and duplicative permitting 

requirement. 

Senator Patrick Leahy {D-VT) 

1. What, if any, federal resources, either at the EPA or USDA, do you believe should be 

dedicated to educating fanners and the regulated community about the EPA's Agricultural 

Worker Protection Standard Revisions that are due to take effect next year? 

Answer: There is a clear and identifiable need for EPA to finalize, develop and 

deliver adequate enforcement guidance, educational materials, and training 

resources related to the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS) and to 

provide states the tools and financial resources necessary to effectively implement 

and assist the regulated community with compliance activities before any new 

regulatory requirements take effect. 

NASDA appreciates EPA's program staffs' on-going efforts to develop, revise, 

finalize, and disseminate complete and accurate training materials, enforcement 

guidance, compliance materials and other necessary educational resources to 

assist EPA's state regulatory partners with executing a successful implementation 
89 

of the final mle changes. Furthermore, states have been working diligently with 

EPA program staff since the final rule was published in November 2015 to 

review, improve, and facilitate the expeditious development and delivery of these 

materials prior to the January 2, 2017 and 2018 implementation dates, 

respectively. Unfortunately, much of EPA's work to develop and provide these 

critical compliance and enforcement materials to state regulatory agencies 

remains incomplete and the release date did not allow for adequate outreach to 

occur dming last year's grower meetings. 

Fmstrating the development and delivery of these critical training, guidance, and 

compliance materials was the insertion and final articulation of the Application 

Exclusion Zone (AEZ), which EPA has publicly acknowledged goes beyond the 

Agency's stated intent. Many State Agencies expressed concerns in letters to EPA 

in December of 2015. We m1derstand EPA's Office of General Counsel (OGC) 

has issued interpretive guidance. clarifying the Agency's intent under the final 

regulation; however, Agency guidance does not catTy the weight and authority of 

a codified federal regulation and does not provide the necessary clarity to assist 

state regulatory agencies with compliance and enforcement activities. 

In August 2016, the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials 

(AAPCO), which is a NASDA Affiliate Organization, sent a letter to EPA's 

Office of Pesticide Programs outlining their concerns with the lack of availability 

of Train-the-Trainer materials and the OGC's interpretive guidance regarding the 

AEZ. These concerns along with the lack of implementation materials remain 

unaddressed and further demonstrate the need for a review and extension to the 

WPS revisions and implementation timeline. 

In September 2016, the NASDA membership voted and approved an Action Ttem3 

during our Annual Meeting urging EPA to delay implementation of the revised 

WPS provisions. NASDA emphasized the new WPS regulations require 

significant additional staff time to provide outreach to workers, handlers, 

applicators, agricultural employers, trainers and other stakeholders. Under the 

WPS mlc changes, trainers will now require retraining, and according to EPA's 

implementation timcline, this retraining must take place during the same period 

the state agencies are expected to conduct outreach and education to the producers 

in their states. These enhanced compliance and record keeping requirements 

require EPA's timely delivery of educational resources or training materials to 

assist SLAs and the regulated commUllity in understanding, complying, and 

enforcing the new requirements. 

NASDA submitted a supplemental request for relief to EPA in Febmary asking 

the Agency to extend the implementation of the WPS mle changes that went into 

effect in 2015 until EPA has finalized and delivered adequate enforcement 

guidance, educational materials, and training resources to the states with the 

3 NASDA Action Item H: Implementation of Revised Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (Sept. 201 6); 

http::/v,:ww.n<L.\ci;!;orv-Tilc.a~px?id-=-453<)() 
90 

adequate advanced time necessary to effectively implement the mle changes and 

assist the regulated commw1ity with compliauce activities. 

At this time, even if all of the compliance and enforcement materials were 

completed and distributed to all the appropriate state enforcement agencies, there 

are simply not enough calendar days, training opportunities, or resources available 

to conduct the necessary outreach and educational activities necessary to facilitate 

a successful implementation of the updated WPS provisions. 

NASDA notes this request to extend the implementation timclinc is consistent 

with EPA's delay in implementation and enforcement to the WPS4 rule 

promulgated in 1992, which was implemented in the field in 1995-96. The 

previous WPS implementation delay was required due to the lack of necessary 

training materials for pesticide workers and pesticide handlers, compliance 

assistance materials for agricultural employers, and inspection guidance materials 

for state regulators. 

The implementation and compliance with the WPS mle changes are the 

responsibility shared by EPA, state regulatory agencies, agricultural employers, 

trainers, and workers. This requested extension to the implementation timeline is 

essential to ensure EPA's state regulatory partners and the regulated community 

have the appropriate information, training, aud resources necessary to effectuate a 

successful implementation of the WPS mle changes. Implementing these regulatory 

changes without providing the necessary educational resources or training materials 

to assist state regulatory agencies aud the regulated community in understanding the 

new requirements and how to comply with them is inappropriate and in direct 

conflict with the fundamental principle of"educate before you regulate." 

NASDA notes these interpretive issues, such as the AEZ, aud implementation 

challenges could have been averted if EPA had consulted with states during the 

on-set of WPS regulatory rulemaking process, and NASDA requests Congress 

provide EPA and the states the necessary time and resources to ensure an 

effective and efficient implementation of the WPS regulations. 

2. There have been some reports that the President's FYI8 budget request will completely 

eliminate several EPA pesticide programs that deal with human risk and the enviro11111ent or 

change them to rely completely on increased fee collections from the industry to fund the 

programs. Do you support such a change in these important programs? 

Answer: As regulatory partners with EPA, NASDA members are charged with 

delivering and enforcing a variety of FIFRA regulatory programs, and states rely 

4 40 C.F.R. § 170 
91 

heavily on EPA's State & Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) funding and PRIA 

funds to ensure EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and state departments 

of agriculture have the necessary resources to fulfill our statutory and regulatory 

mandates under F!FRA and to deliver a regulatmy li-amework that provides the 

necessary protections and minimizes the economic impact and undue regulatory 

burdens on agricultural producers. 

Specifically, NASDA encourages Congress to adequately fund EPA-OPP at 

$128.3 million to ensure the agency has appropriate resources necessary to 

support FIFRA-related activities, training, resources to facilitate state meetings, 

and field training resources. NASDA also urges Congress to fund EPA State 

Pesticide Program Implementation & Enforcement Grants at $34 million ($15 

million for Pesticide Program Implementation and $19 million for Pesticide 

Enforcement grants). NASDA supports funding of at least $5 million for OPP to 

support existing resources available to states and tribes to develop pollinator 

protection plans. This funding is ctitical for states in developing and 

implementing state managed pollinator plans. NASDA supports OPP's work to 

improve pollinator health through research and technical analysis on pollinators 

and improving understanding to promote pollinator health through the regulatory 

processes. 

3. USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for monitoring plant 

and animal health throughout the world and uses that infmmation to set effective agricultural 

import policies to prevent the introduction of foreign plant and animal pests and diseases. 

However, our farms and forestlands continue to see the devastating effects of exotic, invasive 

pests that make their way into this country every year. Do you feel that APHIS has been given 

sufficient resources to protect our fmms and forestlands from these dangerous invasive pests and 

plant diseases? 

Answer: APHIS is a critical partner to NASDA and state departments of 

agriculture across a range of animal and plant health mission areas necessary to 

protecting American agriculture and rural economies fi·om the threats posed by 

animal and plant diseases and invasive pests. It is estimated that plant pests alone 

cost the U.S. economy over $100 billion a year. 

In spite of APHIS' essential role and ctitical mission, the Agency has been subject 

to a steady decline of resources and staff over the recent past. To rectify this 

downward trend, NASDA strongly supports a minimum of $950 million in 

discretionary funding for APHIS. Any further reductions to the APHIS budget 
92 

will result in deterioration of essential services and impair the Agency fi·om 

carrying out its fundamental mission, which is "to protect the health and value of 

American agriculture and natural resources." 

NASDA also urges Congress to fully fund the Cooperative Agricultural Pest 

Survey (CAPS) program, which is an important state-federal cooperative program 

that conducts science-based national and state surveys targeted at specific exotic 

plant pests, diseases, and weeds identified as threats to U.S. agriculture and/or the 

environment. A strong agricultural pest detection system is essential to providing 

a continuum of checks from offshore programs, domestic port inspections, and 

countrywide surveys. 

NASDA further encourages Congress to adequately fund APHIS's critical 

Wildlife Services (WS) programs at $120 million and supporting $20 million to 

the national control program for feral swine, which are also invasive species that 

cause an estimated $1.5 billion annually in damages to pastures, crops, and 

natural areas .. In cooperation with state departments of agriculture, industry and 

others, WS leadership and expertise is needed to resolve conflicts between 

humans and wildlife, protect public health and safety related to water quality and 

safety of air travelers, and protect agriculture from detrimental animal predators 

through identification, demonstration, and application of the appropriate methods 

of controL 
93 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

Pesticide Registration under the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act: 

Providing Stakeholders with Certainty through the Pesticide Registration 

Improvement Act 

May II, 2017 

Questions for Mr. Rick Keigwin 

Chairman Pat Roberts {R-KS) 

Roberts 1. Please describe to us EPA's role regarding endangered species under FIFRA, 

including EPA's ecological risk assessment. Are significant agency resources dedicated to 

this IJpe of analysis? 

EPA Response. Before the EPA may register a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide. 

Fungicide. and Rodenticide Act (F!FRA). the applicant must show. among other things. that 

using the pesticide according to label specifications "will not generally cause unreasonable 

adverse e!1ects on the environment." FIFRA dclines em·ironment as .. water. air. land. and all 

plants and man and other animals living therein and the interrelationships which exist among 

these:· The EPA evaluates the impacts of pesticides to all animal and plant species as part of 

ecological risk assessments that support decision making under the FIFRA standard of" no 

unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." 

The application of the EPA ·s pesticide ecological risk assessment methods to all plant and 

animal species (except for five pilot projects discussed below) is described in a document called 

the 01·erview (){!he Ewlogical Risk Assessmenl Process in !he Office olPeslicide Programs. 

Em·ironmenfa/ Proteclion Agenc:v Endangered and Threatened Species Efj(•cts Determinalions 

(Overview Document. 2004). Although the Overview Document is consistent with agency-wide 

ecological risk assessment guidance. based on available data sources. and supportive of pesticide 

regulatory decisions under FlFRA. the EPA. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). collectively called "the Services ... had historically 

been unable to reach agreement regarding application of the scientific methods described in the 

Overview Document to endangered and threatened species (collectively referred to as listed 

species) assessments conducted to support consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. the EPA must ensure that agency actions 

taken under FIFRA are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA-Iisted species 

or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 

As a result of the agencies· disagreements and numerous associated lawsuits against the EPA and 

the Services I(Jr failure to meet ESA obligations. the EPA. the Sen·ices. and the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) sought out the advice of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to 

provide recommendations on how to assess the risk of pesticides to ESA-Iistcd species and 

critical habitat. In an April 2013 report. NAS provided recommendations to the EPA. the 
94 

Scn·iccs. and USDA on a common interagency approach for ESA pesticide consultations. 1 Since 

release of the NAS report in 2013. the EPA has been working with the Services and with USDA 

as an invited participant. to develop shared interim scientific approaches in the context of 

national-levellisted species risk assessments for live pilot chemicals (chlorpyrifos. diazinon. 

malathion. carbaryl. and methomyl) currently undergoing registration review. 

The EPA has employed a three pronged strategy that is intended to protect listed species and 

critical habitat by !()cusing resources on areas where we can achie\'C the most protections. First. 

the EPA is focusing the majority of its ESA consultation work through registration re,·iew. 

Second. the EPA intends to complete endangered species assessments for new herbicide tolerant 

crops. In order to maximize resources. these initial registrations will not be nationwide in scope. 

and to the extent practical. will focus on situations where the EPA can make .. no effecC 

decisions for ESA-listed species and critical habitat. 

Third. the EPA will provide infonnation that compares the potential hazards of new active 

ingredients to already registered pesticides with similar modes of toxicity and the same usc 

patterns to allow comparison of the relative toxicity of new chemicals to available alternatives. 

EPA resources needed to conduct ecological risk assessments in support ofFlFRA regulatory 

decisions as described in the three pronged strategy above arc estimated at approximately 55 to 

60 FTE per year. depending upon the number of submissions received each year under the 

Pesticide Rcgistmtion Improvement Act (!'RIA) and the complexity of any risk assessments 

conducted as part of the registration review program. 

Roberts 2. Under the Endangered Species Act, the EPA is charged with examining their 

actions to regulate pesticides. If a pesticide "may affect and is likely to adversely affect" a 

listed species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Sen·ice 

become involved in this regulatory process through formal consultation with the expert 

agency, here EPA. The Sen·ices then issue Biological Opinions providing documentation 

regarding whether a pesticide's use would jeopardize listed species or destroy or adwrsely 

modify critical habitat. Do the Services provide EPA with the best scientific and 

commercial data available in these processes? Does EPA hne satisfactory access to this 

data, including any modeling done by the Services? In what ways could the Services 

improve their Biological Opinions provided to EPA, or towards the consultation process 

generally? Is there sufficient transparency in these processes? 

EI'A Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies. including EPA. .. in 

consultation with and with the assistance oft he Secretary:· ensure their discretionary actions do 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. or result 

in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Regulations at 50 CFR 402 set lorth 

procedures tor consultations between the Services and Federal agencies on actions that may 

a!Tect listed species or designated critical habitat. Pursuant to these regulations. if an action is 

likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. fonnal consultation is required. Forn1al 

consultation commences with the Federal agency's \\Titten request for consultation and concludes 

with the appropriate Sen· icc's issuance of a biological opinion. Federal agencies requesting 

'https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18344/assessing-risks-to·endangered·and·threatened-species·from·pesticides 
95 

lonna] consultation arc required to provide the Services with the best scientilic and commercial 

data available or which can be obtained during the consultation. The Services use that 

infonnation and any otherwise available inf(mnation during consultation and the preparation of 

the biological opinion. 

The Services assist Federal agencies in carrying out their section 7(a)(2) responsibilities. in part. 

by providing technical assistance. For example. for the ongoing pesticide consultations on the 

live pilot chemicals initiated after release of the 2013 NAS report the Services assisted EPA by 

providing us with gcospatial data depicting the occurrence of listed species and critical habitat. 

Such infonnation is critical in establishing the overlap of species ranges with the areas of 

expected pesticide use. The spatial location data were obtained from the Services· field offices 

and provided to the EPA in varied levels of resolution, ranging lrom county to sub-county data. 

While this intom1ation is considered "best available data:· the agencies ha\·e acknowledged the 

need to further reline the maps for future consultations. 

Consistent with the consultation regulations. the Sef\·ices typically rely on the EPA's biological 

evaluations lor the exposure modeling and toxicity data cited in their Biological Opinions. 

NMFS relied on the biological evaluations as well as a peer reviewed salmon population model 

in their Biological Opinions. The EPA supports the usc of population models in listed species 

assessments for pesticides. and is working with the Scf\·ices on the development of those models. 

Since the NAS report was released in 2013.the EPA has been working collaboratively with the 

Services on interim methods related to the tina I step of the ESA consultation process lor 

pesticides in order to complete the first five pilot consultations using those methods. Due to the 

complexity of the consultations and the large number of species and critical habitats being 

assessed. the agencies are working to establish agreements intended to provide greater 

efficiencies and transparency to the consultation process. 

The agencies are using the process described in the 2013 paper entitled. "Enhancing Stakeholder 

Input in the Peslicide Registration Reriew ami ESA Consultation Processes and Del'elopmellf tl{ 

f{conomical(v and Tedmologica/(r Feasible Rea,wnuhle and Pruden/ Alternatires"' to ensure 

opportunities for stakeholder engagement and public comment. As part of this process. once 

received. EPA intends to make the Services' draJi Biological Opinions availabk lor public 

comment. 

Roberts 3. How much does it cost EPA from start to finish to complete a consultation with 

the Sen·ices? Please include any full time equivalent (FTE) estimate as well for the agency. 

EPA Response: To date. the EPA has completed lom1al consultation with the Scf\'ices. 

including implementation of the mitigation identified in the biological opinions. on a small 

number of pesticides. all of which were limited in tem1s of geographic scope and the number of 

species subject to consultation. 

2 Available at''.,,.,, in docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0442. 
96 

The EPA completed a f(lrmal consultation with FWS on the rodenticide products. Rozol and 

Kaput prairie dog baits. in a l 0 state area. Consultations with NMFS on listed Pacific Northwest 

salmon have also occurred for 32 chemicals in scYcn different biological opinions. although one 

biological opinion covering three chemicals was remanded. Mitigation recommended in one of 

the biological opinions. thiobencarb. have been implemented. 

Pesticide consultation costs are supported with FTEs. Howe\·er. data to support an accurate 

estimation of costs associated with nationwide pesticide consultations arc not yet aYailable 

b~-eause these consultations are ongoing and not yet complete. Since release of the NAS report in 

2013. the agencies have worked with litigants to align ESA related lawsuits so that the agencies 

can focus on national level consultations on all ESA-Iisted species rather than the focus on single 

species. or a small subset of species in smaller geographical areas. As a result. the EPA and the 

Services agreed to complete nationwide pesticide consultations for five pilot chemicals 

(chlorpyrifos. diazinon. malathion. carbaryl. and methomyl) based on shared interim methods. 

Since the EPA began the nationwide pesticide consultation work in fiscal year 1014. the EPA has 

expended approximately 6 FTE in FY 2014. 10 FTE in FY 2015. I 0 FTE in FY 2016. and 5 FTE 

in the lirst halfofFY :2017. in sta1Trcsourccs on pesticide consultations under the ESA. The 

work completed in liscal years 2014 through mid-20 17 has been largely focused on the 

development of the EPA ·s biological evaluations for the live pilot chemicals. These estimated 

costs do not include the EPA review of the Scrvicc·s drafi Biological Opinions and coordination 

with external stakeholders to implement any necessary label changes based on the conclusions of 

the final Biological Opinions since these steps have not yet occurred. Since the agencies have not 

yet completed a nationwide pesticide consultation following release of the 2013 NAS report. a 

comprehensive estimation of the total costs of pesticide consultation is not available. 

Roberts 4. "PRIA -1," which passed the House in a bipartisan manner on the suspension 

calendar, contains a reauthorization provision for 7 years. Can you please walk us through 

a tim cline that illustrates how this 7-years will be used towards the registration of 

pesticides? 

EPA Response: The Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2017 (PRIA 4) 

extends the authorization of the fcc for service framework under PRIA for an additional seven 

years. During that time. applicants who submit applications under one of the PRIA categories 

and pay the required fee have the certainty that there is an established time frame lor the EPA to 

review and provide its decision on that application. The EPA will review and provide decisions 

on all applications receiwd over those seven years in accordance with the time frames and 

provisions specified in PRJ A. 

!'RIA 4 also establishes funding to support good laboratory practice (GLP) inspections and to 

develop product pcrlimnancc guidance. The EPA will utilize the funds set aside from 

maintenance fees for those activities. and in the case of the product performance activities. will 

adhere to the deliverable schedule specified in the bill. Worker protection, partnership grants. 

and pesticide safety education acti,itics will continue. using the funds specitied for those 

activities. The EPA will provide an annual report each fiscal year providing the information 

required in the reporting requirements. 
97 

I~obcrts 5. The Texas State Department of Agriculture submitted a request to EPA for a 

Section 18 exemption for the emergency use ofsulfoxaflor to deal with the Asian Citrus 

Psyllid, the vector for Huanglongbing (HLB or citrus greening). I understand EPA 

recently rejected this request. What impacts will this decision have on citrus growers in 

Texas and how will this impact the citrus industry more broadly'! What recourse is 

available, if any, for EPA to reconsider this request? 

El' A Response: The EPA conducted an initial review of the Texas Department of Agriculture· s 

(fDA) Fl FRA section 18 emergency exemption request for the use of sulfoxatlor on citrus to 

control the Asian Citrus Psyllid (ACP). and provided feedback to TDA about its application. 

However, no regulatory decision has been made on this request. The agency is currently in 

discussion with TDA and their extension expert to carefully assess the pest situation and the 

requirements for an emergency clearance under FIFRA. 

As you may know, the regulations that establish the conditions for emergency approval state that 

the EPA must conclude that .. no effective pesticides arc available for control of the pest." The 

EPA approved emergency usc of another pesticide. clothianidin. for this purpose to TDA on 

February 7. 2017. The agency is aware of the devastating impact ACP can have on citrus 

product. As a result. the EPA is carefully assessing the m·ailability ofsurticient control measures 

with TDA to evaluate if a critical pest management gap exists. Emergency requests may also be 

reconsidered or resubmitted at any time. The EPA is committed to supporting producers. 

researchers and industry stakeholders in their cftbrts to help mitigate this dillicult disease. 

Roberts 6. In your testimony you discuss an initiative launched by Administrator Pruittthe "Back to Basics" agenda. Can you elaborate further on what EPA hopes to achieve 

through this effort, who are the stakeholders, and what action items should Congress 

anticipate from this'! 

EPA Response: The EPA Administrator launched a .. Back to Ba,ics" agenda-- a formal plan to 

return the agency to its core mission of protecting the environment while engaging in cooperative 

federalism across a broad spectrum of interested parties. For example. as part of the 

administration's regulatory reform eflbrt, the EPA held a public meeting in early May to gamer 

feedback on pesticide registration issues. With more than 175 participants. this meeting. one of 

several regulatory rcf(>rm meetings held by the EPA program olliccs. allowed regional. local. 

agriculturaL and other pesticides stakeholders to share their views on pesticide regulatory 

development. re1(lrm initiatives. evolving public policy and program implementation issues. 

These meetings highlighted the Administrator's commitment to all Americans in returning 

common sense. as well as transparent and peer reviewed science. to the pesticide registration 

process. For more information on the Administrator·s .. Back to Basics" agenda. please visit: 
98 

Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mil 

Stabenow I. One of PRIA's roles is providing the agency with resources for training 

agricultural workers in the safe and appropriate application of pesticides. These PRIA 

resources complement important rules that the EPA recently promulgated in this arena, 

including the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Rule and the Certified Pesticide 

Applicator (CPA) Rule. Last week, just hours after our hearing concluded, Administrator 

Pruitt delayed the implementation of those recently finalized rules. Why were the 

aforementioned rules' implementation dates delayed? 

EPA Response: Regarding the Certified Pesticide Applicator (CPA) rule. the effective date is 

being extended to \1ay 22. 2018. to give recently arrived agency onicials the opportunity to 

conduct a substantive review of the rule in accordance with the Presidential directives as 

expressed in the memorandum of January 20. 2017. from the Assistant to the President and Chief 

of Staff. entitled "'Regulatory Freeze Pending Review:· and the principles identified in the April 

25. 2017. Executive Order .. Promoting Agriculture and Rural Prosperity in America." At this 

time. the EPA has onlv one Senate confirmed official. and the new administration bas not had the 

time to adequately re,:iew the January 4. 2017. CPA rule. The extension to May 22. 2018. will 

prevent the confusion and disruption among the regulated community and stakeholders that 

would result if the CPA rule became effective (displacing the existing regulation) and then 

substantially revised or repealed as a result of administrative review. The 12 month extension 

also provides time for the EPA to consider revisions to the certification rule based on input 

received through the Regulatory Reform Agenda cfTort. 

Regarding the Worker Protection Standard (WI'S) rule. the EPA believes it is appropriate to 

extend the implementation of all revised provisions to the WI'S to provide state lead pesticide 

agencies with additional time to successfully implement the rule changes. As a result. the EPA 

intends to initiate a rulemaking action in the near future to extend the WPS implementation 

dates. The EPA is also working with our state regulatory counterparts to identif): what areas of 

the rule need clarification and additional guidance to ensure that the new requirements to protect 

farm workers achieve their intended goal. 

Stabenow 2. Stakeholders concerned with the WPS rule heard about the implementation 

delay through an agency Jetter responding to an association inquiry, instead of reading 

about it in the Federal Register. When will the WPS delay be published in the Federal 

Register? 

EPA Response: The May I I. 2017. letter to the National Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture (NASDA) accepting their petition was informational and does not have the etTect of 

regulation. The letter expressed EPA· s general agreement with the petition and expressly stated 

that EPA "will soon begin the regulatory process to formally extend'' the WPS compliance date. 

The EPA expects the notice of proposed rulcmaking to be published in the Federal Register in 

the summer of2017 and expects to have the rulcmaking process completed in tall20!7. 
99 

Stabenow 3. The notice for the delay of the CPA rule included a public comment period 

lasting five business days. Why is the agency providing such a limited period for the public 

to comment on a rule that took several years to finalize'? 

EPA Response: The agency"s implementation of the proposed delay in the effective date of the 

CPA rule with an abbreviated opportunity tor public comment is based on the good cause 

exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). in that providing additional time for public comment is 

impracticable. unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The delay of the effective date 

until May 12. 1018. is necessary to give agency officials the opportunity for further review and 

consideration of the CPA rule. consistent with the memorandum of the Assistant to the President 

and Chief of Staft: dated .January 20. 2017. and the principles identified in the April 25. 2017 

Executive Order "Promoting Agriculture and Rural Prosperity in America ... Given the 

imminence of the CPA rule etTective date. allowing a longer period for comment on this delay 

would have been impmctieal. as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly 

promulgation and implementation of regulations. 

The 90 day comment period ftlr the 2015 proposed rule, combined with the EPA's extensive 

stakeholder outreach. provided the EPA with robust public comment regarding the risks and 

benefits associated with the CPA rule. Since there was already public comment on the merits of 

the certification rule. the narrow issue of when the rule should become effective could 

reasonably be addressed in a short period of time. If the EPA had not shortened the comment 

period to live days, the January 4. 2017. certification rule would have gone into eflect. displacing 

the earlier rule. It would have caused unnecessary confusion and disruption to certifying 

authorities. pesticide safety education programs, pesticide applicators and other stakeholders for 

the certification rule to go into effect and then potentially he substantially revised or repealed 

following a substantive review. 

Stabenow 4. Would EPA consider extending the comment period on the Cl' A rule delay 

proposal to accommodate requests from interested stakeholders for more time? 

EPA Response: As explained above. the 90 day comment period lor the 1015 proposed rule. 

combined with the EPA's extensive stakeholder outreach. provided the EPA with robust public 

comment regarding the risks and benefits associated with the January 4. 2017. CPA rule. Since 

there was already a robust public comment on the merits of the CPA rule_ the narrow issue of 

when the rule should become el1cctivc could reasonably be addressed in a short period of time. 

The EPA received more than !30 comments addressing the proposed delay in the effective date 

of the CPA rule from a variety of commenters including: state pesticide regulatory agencies: 

pesticide safety education programs: organiz.ations representing state departments of agriculture. 

pesticide safety education programs. pesticide applicators. growers. pesticide manufactnrers. and 

pesticide retailers: nongovernmental organizations representing a range of interests. including 

hut not limited to larmworkers. environmental advocates. occupational or migrant health clinics 

and employment law: and many private citizens. On June 2. 2017. the EPA published a final rule 

extending the effective date of the CPA rule to May 22.2018. 
100 

Stabenow 5. With regard to the WI'S rule delay, EJ> A sent a letter to an outside stakeholder 

group on May II, 2017 indicating that the agency was accepting the group's petition to 

delay implementation of the rule, despite EJ> A rejecting a nearly identical petition from the 

same group less than four months earlier. What caused EPA to change its position? 

EPA Response: Although the length of delay requested in the two petitions was the same. their 

supporting rationales differed. The EPA did not agree with the Jirst petition·s contentions. among 

them the adequacy of enforcement guidance. educational materials and training resources. 

Further discussions with state regulatory partners provided the EPA with a better understanding 

of the states· concerns about their ability to effectively implement the rule. The second petition 

presented a more compelling argument that the states need additional time and resources 

effectively implement the WPS revisions and provide compliance assistance to the regulated 

community. Accordingly. the EPA agreed with the petitioners and granted the request to extend 

the WPS compliance date. 

Stabenow 6. Does EJ> A feel that the delay in the two rules contradicts the provisions 

provided by Congress in FIFRA, which requires EPA to ensure that pesticides sold and 

applied in the U.S. "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment?" 

EPA Response: To protect human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse 

comments that might be caused by pesticides. the EPA developed and implemented a rigorous 

process for registering and re-evaluating pesticides. The specific risk reduction and mitigation 

measures that result from the registration and re-evaluation processes are implemented through 

individual pesticide product labeling. Regulations such as the WI'S and CPA rules. as well as 

training. outreach and education. augment these ellorts to prevent unreasonable adverse effects 

on the environment by reinfixcing labeling requirement and establishing additional protections 

for agricultural workers. pesticide applicators. and other handlers and persons. 

During the delays. tho.: protections from the registration and re-evaluation processes will continue 

to be implemented. as will the pre\·ious versions of the WPS and CPA rules. The delays provide 

additional time tor the EPA and the states to prepare for implementation. The memorandum of 

the Assistant to the President and ChiefofStafC dated January 20, 2017, directed the EPA to 

postpone the eflecti\·e date ftlr regulations that ha\'c not yet taken eftect. This delay was for the 

purpose of the Administrator or his delegates to rc\'icw questions of fact, law. and policy that tho.: 

regulations raise. The requirements of the CPA rule would not haY<.: gone into c!Tect immediately 

because states. tribes and federal agencies have three years to submit rcYiscd certification plans. 

For the CPA mle. the additional time provides the EPA an opportunity to work with states and 

others to develop checklists. guidance and tools to facilitate the development of revised 

certification plans. For the WI'S extension of the compliance date. the additional time allows tor 

the deYelopment of necessary guidance and documents and more time to educate the regulated 

community. 

Even if the CPA rule had become effective on March 6. 2017. the procedures and standards used 

!(lr certifying applicators would not ha\'C immediately changed. Regarding the WPS rule. while 
101 

the agency has expressed its intent to extend the compliance date for the revised provisions in the 

2015 final rule, the rule as promulgated remains in effects until the agency takes the necessary 

statutorily required steps to extend the compliance date. 

Stabenow 7. Does EPA feel that accepting a petition for delay of the WPS rule without 

publishing notice of the delay in the Federal Register runs afoul of the agency's 

responsibilities under the Administrative Procedures Act, particularly because some of the 

requirements of the rule in question ban already been in effect for months? 

EPA Response: The May 1 L 2017. letter to NASDA accepting their petition was informational 

and does not have the effect of regulation. The letter expressed EPA's general agreement with 

the petition and expressly stated that EPA "will soon begin the regulatory process to formally 

extend" the WI'S compliance date. The EPA expects the notice of proposed rulemaking to be 

published in the Federal Register in the summer of20l7 and expects to have the rulemaking 

process completed in fall 2017. 

Stabenow 8. ()uring the implementation delays, does EPA intend to change the substance of 

either the Certified Pesticide Applicator Rule or the Worker Protection Standards Rule'? 

EPA Response: The changes in the implementation dates do not directly atTect the substance of 

these rules. The EPA is re\·icwing proposals to revise the CPA and WPS rules submitted in 

response to the Regulatory Rctom1 process announced through Executive Order 13 777. 

Stabenow 9. If yes to the previous question, will such an effort be accompanied by a formal 

rulemaking and public notice and comment period, as is required for modifying rules that 

have already been finalized? 

EPA Response: The EPA believes that substantive changes to the rules would require a formal 

rulcmaking process that complies with the Administrative Procedure Act and the statutorily 

required rulemaking process. including public notification and comment. 

Stabenow 10. Two weeks ago, President Trump and Administrator Pruitt abruptly 

dismissed several members of the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors. As you mentioned 

during the hearing, the primary scientific advisory board at EPA relating to pesticides is 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel. 

noes the administration plan future dismissals of scientists from the FIFRA scientific 

advisory panel? 

EPA Response: The EPA docs not have any plans to dismiss any current members of the FIFRA 

Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). Consistent with standard practice for federal advisory 

committees. the EPA will consider extensions and normal rotation process when the terms of 

current FIFRA SAP members expire. 

Regarding the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). members sen·e three year terms 

that c'an be renewed once. On April 28.2017. 13 members' terms expired. Four of these 
102 

members had served the maximum of two tcm1s and could not be renewed for an additional 

term. The other nine members had serYed one tem1 and were not renewed for a second term. 

On May 15. 1017. the EPA published a federal register notice soliciting new members for the 

BOSC. The EPA anticipates that by late 1017. the BOSC will be reconstituted with expert 

scientists and engineers who will review and provide advice and recommendations on research 

under the EPA's Onice of Research and Development. The individuals who have already served 

can reapply during the competitive nomination process. 

Stabenow 11. Can you talk about the implications to the agency's mission of a potential 

future dismissal of scientists from the FIFRA panel? 

EPA Response: The EPA docs not have any plans to dismiss any current members of the FIFRA 

SAP. Consistent with standard practice for federal advisory committees. the EPA will consider 

extensions and normal rotation process when the tenns of current FlFRA SAP members expire. 

The standing panel consists of seven members augmented with ad hoc experts for specific topics. 

Stabenow 12. Would such a dismissal of scientists from the FIFRA panel conceivably cause 

a delay in pesticide approval and reregistration timelines? 

EPA Response: The EPA does not have any plans to dismiss any current members of the FIFRA 

SAP. Consistent with standard practice for federal advisory committees. the EPA will consider 

extensions and nonnal rotation process when the terms of current FIFRA SAP members expire. 

A delay in scheduling peer review meetings can occur if a quorum of the standing panel falls 

below four members for any reason. The pesticide registration and registration revic·w programs 

require the timely input of the FIFRA SAP on critical science issues to address safety for human 

health and the em·ironment. 

Stabenow 13. The majority of biopesticide active ingredients have historically met the 

safety standards of Section 408 of the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, resulting in 

exemptions from the requirement of tolerance for a food or animal feed. Please explain if 

the EPA's policy for granting tolerance exemptions bas changed with respect to 

biopestieidc active ingredients'? 

EPA Response: All tolerances and tolerance exemptions established by the EPA meet the safety 

standard under section408 of the FederaL Food. Drug. and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) of 

"'reasonable certainty of no harm .. from consumption of the food treated with the pesticide and 

from other non-occupational sources of exposure. It is the EPA· s general practice to grant an 

exemption from the requirement oftolerance when no toxicological endpoints with adverse 

etTccts arc observed in the data or literature provided in support of the registration application. 

Almost all biopesticidcs fall into this category. In instances where toxicological endpoints 

showing adverse ct1'ccts arc identified and risk assessment comparing exposure to those 

endpoints is required. the EPA has typically established numeric tolerances lor residues in or on 

the treated commodity. This is consistent for all pesticides regulated by EPA including 

biopcsticidcs. antimicrobials. and conYcntional pesticides. 
103 

Senator J>atriek Leah\· !D-VT> 

Leahy I. With the EPA's recently announced a one-year delay until the new regulations for 

the certification and training of pesticide applicators come into effect, the Administrator 

cited the need for giving the regulated community adequate time to come into compliance 

with the regulations. How does the EPA plan to actually support education, guidance and 

training efforts for our farmers and state lead agencies to assist them in understanding the 

requirements to ensure we are protecting children, farmworkers, and pesticide applicators 

from exposure to pesticides? 

EPA Response: Even if the January 4. 2017. CPA rule had become etTective on March 6. 2017. 

the procedures and standards used for certifying applicators would not have immediately 

changed. The CPA rule included an implementation schedule where the certifying authorities. 

e.g .. states and federal agencies. would have up to three years to submit revised certification 

plans that conform to the revised standards with an additional two years for the EPA to review 

the plans and agree upon a timeline for the certifying authority to implement the plan. 

The initial focus of the EPA ·s implementation efforts will he to develop the infom1ation and 

materials that certifYing authorities need to determine what revisions arc necessary to their 

certification plans and any associated laws. regulations and policies. The EPA held an intensive 

implementation course for state and tribal regulators on the CPA mle in April 2017. which 

identified or clarified many of the key implementation issues and the tools that ccrtil}-ing 

authorities need to move forward in revising state certification plans. During the next 12 months. 

the EPA plans to work with the certifying authorities. pesticide safety education progmms. 

pesticide applicators and other stakeholders to develop checklists. guidance and tools to facilitate 

the development of revised certification plans and to discuss how to effectively implement the 

CPA mle. 

Leahy 2. Will the !•resident's Fiscal Year 2018 budget request include any funding 

increases to support this work to ensure that this rule can finally move forward next year? 

EJ>A Response: The President's 2018 budget request does not include funding increases for 

CPA rule implementation. 

Leahy 3. When the Pesticide Agricultural Worker Protection Standard ReYisions were first 

proposed in 201-l and then finalized in 2015, they had been a long time coming and were 

the product of years of work by the EPA and received oYer 390,000 public comments. In 

the two years since the rule was initially finalized how has the EPA worked with the 

regulated community to educate and assist them with the transition to the updated 

requirements? 

EPA Response: In 2016 and 2017. the EPA conducted extensive training for state. territorial and 

tribal regulatory agency program stall and inspectors and for pesticide safety educators. to 

develop a wide base of knowledge about the WI'S revisions. The states and pesticide safety 

educators have more direct n:ach to the regulated community and do much of the educational 
104 

and compliance assistance activities. The EPA educated the regulated community and other 

stakeholders through webinars. meetings and discussions with national trade associations. 

During this time frame. the EPA revised the two key implementation documents: the WI'S How 

to Comply Manual. which explains the WPS requirements to the regulated community 

(September 2016) and the WPS Inspection Manual (January 2017). The EPA also reviewed and 

approved pesticide safety training materials and train-the-trainer programs and has responded to 

hundreds of questions from states. the regulated community and other stakeholders. The 

following lour other important implementation tools arc being developed (with their anticipated 

completion date): ( 1) guidance on implementing the WPS respirator requirements (.June 2017): 

(2) revised WPS pesticide safety poster (summer 201 7): (3) an online train-the-trainer program 

(November 2017): and (4) a video version of WPS pesticide safety training for handlers (late 

20 17). Once these projects are complete. the regulated community will have the key tools it 

needs to comply with the WPS. As with any regulation. the EPA will continue to provide 

additional clarification and guidance as well as targeted tools like fact sheets over time. 

Leahy 4. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) tasks the EPA's 

regional offices with overseeing states' pesticide-use programs and ensures that chemicals 

are actuall~· used according to their label. In the past, some audits have found that different 

EPA regions were inconsistent in reporting or retaining records of issues disconred during 

reviews. How has the EPA strengthened its oversight to ensure adequate guidance and 

training on chemical usc? 

EPA Response: In response to the EPA Office of Inspector General Report 15-P-0156 titled. 

"EPA's Oversight of State Pesticides Inspections Need Improvement to Better Ensure 

Safeguards for Workers. Public and Environments arc Enforced.'' the EPA strengthened its 

oversight to ensure adequate guidance and training on chemical usc by the following actions: 

• Fl FRA Project Officer training- a three day training presented in March 2015. 

• FIFRA state grantee training- a one day training presented in September 2016. 
105 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

Pesticide Registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act: 

Providing Stakeholders with Certainty through the Pesticide Registration 

Improvement Act 

May 11,2017 

Questions for Dr. Sheryl Kunickis 

Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) 

1. What role is the USDA playing in the Endangered Species Consultation process during 

registration review? Do you have sufficient data on real world scenarios and management 

practices that reflect the use of products in the field? 

USDA docs not have a formal role in the Endangered Species Consultation process. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the "action" agency consults with the Fish and 

Wildlife Sen icc (FWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Scr\'icc (NMFSl. USDA has 

participated as an observer during the ongoing pesticide ESA consultations with FWS and 

NMFS. Staff in the USDA Office of Pest Management Policy, arc available to respond to 

questions regarding the usc and usage of pesticides on agricultural crop production as well as 

animal agriculture uses. OPMP works with grower groups. indiYidual farmers, university 

extt:nsion p~rsonncl. agricultural scientists, priYate crop consultants. pesticide registrants. and 

other stakeholders to obtain the best available infomwtion to help inform dlorts in 

registration review. OPMP relics on pesticide data provided by the National Agricultural 

Statistics Scn·icc (NASS) and purchased. non-govemmcntal data sources. However, there 

are minimal data on specialty crops due to the lower acn:ages. Only the State of California 

has a robust pesticide usc reporting database. 
106 

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 

I. Will the USDA prioritize any funding in the FY 18 budget proposal to suppott farmers or 

state lead agencies with educational materials and training resources so they can begin 

making changes in their operations to begin complying with the Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard Revisions next year when the rule is set to go into effect? 

There is no specific funding in the FY 18 budget proposal to support farmers or state lead 

agencies with educational materials and training resources. However. as part of 

implementation of this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has provided 

training materials as well as resources ti.)r states and educators. and grant opportunities on 

their Occupational Pesticide Safety and Health website located at 
107 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

Pesticide Registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act: 

Providing Stakeholders with Ce1iainty through the Pesticide Registration 

Improvement Act 

May 11,2017 

Questions for Mr. Dale Murden 

Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) 

I. You referenced frustrations about litigation and its impact on pesticide approvals. How 

do lawsuits such as these impact growers? 

Response: The regularity with which both new and older chemistries are 

challenged in the comts creates a great deal of uncertainty for a grower like me. 

We know that each year pest challenges will manifest yet we do not know if the 

tools needed to respond to these challenges will be available. 

New crop protection tools like sulfoxat1or and various neonicotinoids have been 

pivotal in citrus growers' attempts to slow the spread of the Asian Citrus Psyllid, 

the vector of citrus greening. Unfortunately recent court decisions have rejected 

the legitimate registration of these products. For sulfoxaflor, the court decided 

that EPA did not sufficiently assess risks to honeybees, which are not endemic to 

the United States and are not used by citrus growers for pollination services but 

arc instead uninvited livestock. Earlier in May a federal court decided that EPA 

did not meet the consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) when registering 59 pesticides, including neonicotinoids, despite meeting 

all of their Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

obligations. We do not yet know what will happen with the 59 crop protection 

tools but in the case of sulfoxaflor, the registration for citrus was lost. 
108 

Another case regarding 31 other active ingredients, including insecticides and 

herbicides, were challenged based on the ESA consultation process is still 

pending before the same court that decided against EPA on the 59 active 

ingredients. Most of the 31 active ingredients are older chemistries and are going 

through re-registration but the court has clearly indicated that they are threatened 

by the same legal jeopardy as 59 newer active ingredients. 

At a minimum the delays and costs associated with defending pesticide products 

will undoubtedly pass to the producer and eventually to the consumer, assuming 

the U.S. will remain competitive in the global marketplace for growing crops. 

Alternatively, we may lose these products entirely, significantly hampering our 

ability to control endemic and invasive pests and eliminate the viability of 

growing the vast majority of crops including the citrus and sorghum that I grow. 

How can I suggest to young people that they can make a life and living in farming 

when I'm not sure I'll be capable of it in the next few years based purely on 

concerns about maintaining access to safe and reliable pesticides? 

2. The Texas State Department of Agriculture submitted a request to EPA for a Section 18 

exemption for the emergency use of sulfoxaflor to deal with the Asian Citrus Psyllid, the 

vector for Huanglongbing (HLB or citrus greening). I w1derstand EPA recently rejected 

this request. What impacts will this decision have on citrus growers in Texas and how 

will this impact the citrus industry more broadly? 

Response: After initially receiving a notice from EPA rejecting our request, the 

agency has decided to reconsider and has asked for additional information. 
109 

Sulfoxaflor is a vital tool in slowing the spread of citrus greening, by controlling 

its vector, the Asian Citrus Psyllid. Unlike every other efiective insecticide, 

Sulfoxaflor can be applied just one day before harvest and allows for a 12 hour 

field re-entry, which means we can protect our trees from the psyllid the entire 

season, while protecting the health and safety of our farm works. 

Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) 

I. Can you provide the Committee with information regarding the responsibilities of the 

employees that handle pesticides in the course of running your citrus and sorghum 

operations? Roughly how many are mixing and applying those chemicals, and across 

how many acres? Can you also talk about some of the benefits that PRIA has 

provided to you, and those workers? 

Response: At this point in time, I personally do all of the pesticide mixing and 

applications on my farm. However, I used to bring on about ten employees. They 

were trained in handling and applying chemicals on approximately 30,000 acres 

of crops. Trainings on the products, their appropriate use and handing, the 

application equipment and what to do if a worker was exposed were done in both 

English and Spanish. In addition, records and safety information were readily 

available to workers. Sufficient water and soap, as well as, eye wash equipment 

are always kept close by when and where applications are being made. 
110 

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 

I. I understand that you, as a farmer in Texas, are subject to the state's Agricultural Hazard 

Communication Regulations, which requires a covered employer like yourself to make a 

Material Safety Data Sheets, product label, or equivalent documentation for covered 

pesticide chemicals accessible to agricultural laborers, an agricultural labor's designated 

representative, treating medical personnel, members of the community, the department, 

and emergency personnel in the same mauner as the workplace chemical list is to be 

made accessible to those persons. 

In the case of a state like Texas or California or Washington which already have 

designated representative laws in place, would the EPA's Agricultural Worker Protection 

Standard Revisions requirements for designated representative be any different from what 

you already have to comply with in Texas? 

Response: I do not believe it would be above and beyond what I am already 

doing. However, I must admit that I have not thoroughly evaluated the proposal. 

2. How have you worked on your own farm to reduce and limit your farmworkers' pesticide 

exposure? And how often do you offer your employees and pesticide handlers' full 

training on pesticide application and safety measures? 

Response: We practice integrated pest management scouting and application 

procedures on my farm. We do not ever want to spray anymore than ever 

absolutely needed. Cost is an issue, of course, but more impmtantly, a potential 
111 

dismption in the balance of beneficial insects that help to offset secondary pest 

outbreaks. 

In recent years, my family and I have done the work on the farm. When I have 

hired farm workers in years past (maximum 1 0), they are trained according to the 

EPA's Worker Protection Standard in their first week on the job. Typically, we do 

the training once per season. If a worker returns the following year, he/she is 

trained again with any and all updated information. 

3. USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for monitoring 

plant and animal health throughout the world and uses that information to set effective 

agricultural import policies to prevent the introduction of foreign plant and animal pests 

and diseases. Do you feel that APHIS has been given sufficient resources to protect our 

farms and forestlands from invasive pests and plant diseases? 

Response: I strongly believe that USDA-APHIS is underfunded. My border 

region in southern Texas is wide open to pest and disease pressures on a daily 

basis from airbome issues, commercial tmck passage, tomist travel and of comse 

illegal travel with fruits and vegetables that harbor numerous issues. We have had 

to deal with regular incursions of mexican fruit fly, boll weevil, fever tick just to 

name a few. The price tag for responding to these pest emergencies is in the 

hundreds of millions of dollars. I believe there would be a great deal of financial 

savings for producers and federal coffers if APHIS was better resourced to 

regularly survey and respond to invasive pest incursions before expanding to a 

regional issue. 
112 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

Pesticide Registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act: 

Providing Stakeholders with Certainty through the Pesticide Registration 

Improvement Act 

Mayll,2017 

Questions for Ms. Virginia Ruiz 

Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) 

1. I appreciate the PRIA coalition, of which your organization is a member, sending a letter of 

support to the Committee expressing swift consideration and advancement ofH.R. 1029. Will 

Farmworker Justice and other PRIA coalition members commit to work with me to get PRIA-4 

enacted into law before current authority expires? 

Farmworker Justice will support PRIA reauthorization if the statute assures that current 

standards and training requirements to protect agricultural workers and their families from 

pesticide-related illness and injury will not be weakened. Farmworker Justice has supported 

PRIA since the initial passage oft he 2003 Act. PRIA funding is necessary to help EPA 

meaningfully implement important worker safety standards, including the Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS) and Certified Pesticide Applicator (CPA) rule. The WPS and CPA rule are the 

only federal rules that provide protectionsfrom overexposure and pesticide-related injwy for 

agricultural workers and theirfamilies. After decades of stakeholder and public engagemellt, 

EPA strengthened the WPS in November 2015 and the CPA rule in December 2016. These rules 

fomz the basis for the "regulatory activities relating to worker protection" envisioned in the 

PRIA set-aside language at 136w-8(c)(3)(B). 
113 

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 

1. Do you believe that the EPA and USDA have sufficient resources and funding available to 

properly educate farmers and the regulated community about the EPA's Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard Revisions that have now been delayed a year? 

EPA has worked extensively with the regulated community to provide information and training 

to farmworkers, farmers and state regulat01y agencies about the changes to the Worker 

Protection Standard. EPA needs stable funding to cany out important pesticide safety, worker 

protection and environmental justice programs. In addition to PRIA set-aside funds that provide 

education and training resources for agricultural workers and employers, Congress should 

appropriate increased funding for EPA to provide occupational and environmental education for 

workers, their families and rural communities, and to prevent adverse effectsfi·om pesticide 

exposure. 

2. What do you think it would require for an education campaign to help farmers understand 

these new pesticide requirements to ensure we are actually protecting children, farmworkers, and 

pesticide applicators from the dangerous exposure to pesticides? 

EPA needs to engage all stakeholders, includingfarmworkers, farmers, and state regulat01y 

agencies in order to ensure that the important protections in the Worker Protection Standard 

and the Certified Pesticide Applicator rule are implemented in a meaningful way. EPA plays a 

crucial role in providing funding to facilitate education and compliance with worker protection 

rules. Non-profits mul educational institutions are providing pesticide safety training to workers 

and developing educational materials for stakeholders on the WPS and CPA rule using money 

.fi·om PRIA set-aside funds. PR!Afunds are an important resource, but there remains a gap 
114 

between the services needed and the services provided to improve worker safety and health. 

Congress must increase appropriations to EPA to support meaningful and effective worker 

protections in agriculture. 
115 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

Pesticide Registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act: 

Providing Stakeholders with Certainty through the Pesticide Registration 

Improvement Act 

May 11,2017 

Questions for Mr. Jay Vroom 

Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) 

1. Certainty is an issue I hear repeatedly from fanners back in Kansas and across the country. 

PRIA offers certainty to registrants and the crop protection industry as it directs EPA to 

review product registrations in a timely and predictable manner in order to get new products 

in the hands of farmers and to consumers to help protect public health. Your industry faces a 

variety of challenges on several fronts. Can you elaborate on some of the challenges that 

face your industry from regulatory issues like the Endangered Species Act or the Clean 

Water Act? Not all challenges facing your industry can be addressed administratively or 

through Executive Orders. Would your organization support Congressional efforts to address 

any of these issues? 

A: As you suggest, there are a number of challenges we face as an industry. However, your question hits 

on and specifies our most significant issue, that being the intersection of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Over the years, there have 

been attempts to find policy approaches that would allow for a more efficient and collaborative approach 

to the consultation process between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine and Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively the 

Services) when pesticides arc being registered and re-registered. Unfortunately, these approaches have not 

held and lawsuits have undermined these interagency efforts. While we continue to look for and work 
116 

with the administration to find ways that improve and harmonize the process we believe the most prudent 

and lasting approach requires legislative action. 

A requirement of ESA is an assessment to ensure that any federal govcmment action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species. The current FIFRA risk assessment 

requires that for a pesticide to be registered the EPA must determine that it will not cause unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment, which includes threatened and endangered species. In 2004, because 

of EPA's unique expertise and thorough pesticide risk assessment process, FWS promulgated regulations 

allowing for altemative ESA consultation procedures providing EPA the authority to decide when a 

pesticide is not likely to adversely affect a threatened or endangered species .. Unfortunately these 

resource saving procedures were partially struck down following a legal challenge by activist groups. As 

a result, pesticide registration and re-registration actions have been unreasonably delayed by years while 

the EPA and Services are required to go through a cumbersome and resource intensive process that has 

had no beneficial impact on threatened and endangered species or their critical habitat. 

In recent years, nearly every new pesticide registration and many re-registration decisions are challenged 

in the courts. Just two weeks ago, on May 12'\ a federal court found that EPA violated the ESA by failing 

to consult with the services when making registration decisions on 59 products. Now the activist 

plaintiffs would like the court to take these products offthe market despite the court's finding that the 

products do not cause any imminent hazard to the environment. This is an excellent example of a broken 

system and highlights the need for a legislative fix to ensure that threatened and endangered species are 

protected, while allowing our industry to bring new products to the market and help farmers provide the 

food and fiber our nation needs. 
117 

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 

I. There have been some reports that the President's FY 18 budget request will completely 

eliminate several EPA pesticide programs that deal with human lisk and the environment or 

change them to rely completely on increased fee collections from the industry to fund the 

programs. Do you support such a change in these important programs? 

A: We have now had an opportunity to review the President's FY 2018 budget and while we 

appreciate that the budget does not propose funding OPP entirely via fees, we are nonetheless 

concerned about any proposed rednction in EPA's Otlice of Pesticide Programs (OPP). The 

Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) was first enacted in 2004 and has been 

reauthorized twice since that time. Each ofthese was negotiated among registrants, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and non-governmental organizations with legally enforceable 

deadlines that the law applies to EPA and were based upon predictions and assumptions of 

resource availability to EPA. Those resources come through fees paid by industry as well as 

annual Congressional appropriations. The law includes provisions intended to ensure that 

industry fees enhance the funds available to EPA, rather than supplant them. This minimum 

appropriations amount is often referred to as the "PRIA trigger." 

Funding for OPP met or exceeded the minimum appropriation specified in PRIA for the first 

nine years of the law (2004-2016). However, in the last 4 years, Congress has missed its 

appropliations obligations by a total of$29 million. Commensurately, the full-time employee 

count in EPA's Office of Pesticide programs has dropped by over 21% (625 to 491) since 2004, 

with the sharpest declines occumng during the last four years. 
118 

PRIA was modeled after the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which establishes a costsharing, fee-for-service model for presctiption drug approvals at the Food and Drug 

Administration. Other public health and safety programs, such as meat and poultry inspection, 

operate on a I 00% taxpayer funding model to preserve public confidence in the regulatory 

decisions made by agencies while recognizing that fee-payers have little or no control over 

certain costs they would be expected to bear. We believe that the current OPP funding model 

best preserves the public's confidence in EPA's regulatory decisions while ensuring that industry 

fees help augment the agency's budget. 

0