[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


        FURADAN REGULATION NOT AFFECTED BY REGULATORY MORATORIUM

                                 ______


                           HON. EARL POMEROY

                            of north dakota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 2, 1995
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the intent of 
the Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Economic 
Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs is to exclude the 
Environmental Protection Agency Final Rule at 40 CFR part 180 titled, 
``Pesticide Tolerances for 2,3-Dihydro-2,2-Dimethyl-7-Benzofuranty-N-
Methylcarbamate,'' from H.R. 450, a bill that imposes a moratorium on 
the implementation of regulations issued between November 20, 1994, and 
the enactment of risk assessment/cost benefit analysis legislation, or 
December 31, 1995, whichever comes first.
  North Dakota has been granted a time-limited tolerance on Furadan CR-
10 for use on canola. Furadan CR-10 is considered the most effective 
insecticide used to control the flee beetle, one of the major threats 
to canola in North Dakota.
  North Dakota produces more canola than any other State and supports 
canola crushing facilities. Canola is a region-specific crop that when 
crushed produces one of the healthiest and highest demanded industrial 
use and edible use oils on the market today.
  The initiative by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] enables 
canola producers in North Dakota and a handful of northern tier States 
to sell Furadan-treated canola seed to ``Canola Crushing Processors'' 
within the United States. Prior to the tolerance, canola producers were 
required to export treated canola seed to foreign processors, mostly in 
Canada.
  It is my understanding that the regulation meets at least one of the 
general exclusions established in H.R. 450.

       Specifically, the definition of a ``rule'' excludes the 
     ``granting or recognizing an exemption, granting a variance 
     or petition for relief from regulatory requirement, or other 
     action relieving a restriction * * * or taking any action 
     necessary to permit * * * [the] use of a substance or 
     product.''

  In addition, H.R. 450 specifies that the term ``regulatory rulemaking 
action'' excludes:

       Rulemaking actions that are ``limited to repealing, 
     narrowing, or streamlining a rule, regulation, or 
     administrative process or otherwise reducing regulatory 
     burdens.''

  Additionally, based on H.R. 450, it would appear that should the 
Office of Management and Budget be asked to determine whether to 
exclude or exempt this regulation from the moratorium, that it should 
do so.


                          ____________________