[House Report 104-669]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                            Rept. 104-669
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                      Part 1
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                  FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT OF 1996
                                _______
                                

                 July 11, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

            Mr. Roberts, from the Committee on Agriculture,

                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1627]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1627) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.
  The amendments (stated in terms of the introduced bill) are 
as follows:
  Strike titles I through III and insert in lieu thereof the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Food Quality Protection Act of 
1996''.

                    TITLE I--SUSPENSION-APPLICATORS

 SEC. 101. REFERENCE.

  Whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
provision, the reference shall be considered to
be made to a section or other provision of the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

                         Subtitle A--Suspension

 SEC. 102. SUSPENSION.

  (a) Section 6(c)(1).--The second sentence of section 6(c)(1) 
(7 U.S.C. 136d(c)(1)) is amended to read: ``Except as provided 
in paragraph (3), no order of suspension may be issued under 
this subsection unless the Administrator has issued, or at the 
same time issues, a notice of intention to cancel the 
registration or change the classification of the pesticide 
under subsection (b).''.
  (b) Section 6(c)(3).--Section 6(c)(3) (7 U.S.C. 136d(c)(3)) 
is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following 
new sentence: ``The Administrator may issue an emergency order 
under this paragraph before issuing a notice of intention to 
cancel the registration or change the classification of the 
pesticide under subsection (b) and the Administrator shall 
proceed to issue the notice under subsection (b) within 90 days 
of issuing an emergency order. If the Administrator does not 
issue a notice under subsection (b) within 90 days of issuing 
an emergency order, the emergency order shall expire.''.

 SEC. 103. TOLERANCE REEVALUATION AS PART OF REREGISTRATION.

  Section 4(g)(2) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(g)(2)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
                  ``(E) As soon as the Administrator has 
                sufficient information with respect to the 
                dietary risk of a particular active ingredient, 
                but in any event no later than the time the 
                Administrator makes a determination under 
                subparagraph (C) or (D) with respect to 
                pesticides containing a particular active 
                ingredient, the Administrator shall--
                          ``(i) reassess each associated 
                        tolerance and exemption from the 
                        requirement for a tolerance issued 
                        under section 408 of the Federal Food, 
                        Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a) 
                        taking into account available 
                        information and reasonable assumptions 
                        concerning the dietary exposure levels 
                        of food consumers (and major 
                        identifiable subgroups of food 
                        consumers, including infants and 
                        children) to residue of the pesticide 
                        in food and available information and 
                        reasonable assumptions concerning the 
                        variability of the sensitivities of 
                        major identifiable groups, including 
                        infants and children;
                          ``(ii) determine whether such 
                        tolerance or exemption meets the 
                        requirements of that Act;
                          ``(iii) determine whether additional 
                        tolerances or exemptions should be 
                        issued;
                          ``(iv) publish in the Federal 
                        Register a notice setting forth the 
                        determinations made under this 
                        subparagraph; and
                          ``(v) commence promptly such 
                        proceedings under this Act and section 
                        408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
                        Cosmetic Act as are warranted by such 
                        determinations.''.

 SEC. 104. SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL.

  Section 25(d) (7 U.S.C. 136w(d)) is amended--
          (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The 
        Administrator shall'' and inserting:
          ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(2) Science review board.--There is established a 
        Science Review Board to consist of 60 scientists who 
        shall be available to the Scientific Advisory Panel to 
        assist in reviews conducted by the Panel. Members of 
        the Board shall be selected in the same manner as 
        members of temporary subpanels created under paragraph 
        (1). Members of the Board shall be compensated in the 
        same manner as members of the Panel.''.

 SEC. 105. NITROGEN STABILIZER.

  (a) Section 2.--Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``or'' after 
                ``defoliant,'' and inserting ``, or nitrogen 
                stabilizer'' after ``desiccant'';
                  (B) at the end of paragraph (3) by striking 
                ``and'';
                  (C) at the end of paragraph (4) by striking 
                the period and inserting ``; and''; and
                  (D) at the end by adding the following:
          ``(5) in the case of a nitrogen stabilizer, an 
        ingredient which will prevent or hinder the process of 
        nitrification, denitrification, ammonia volatilization, 
        or urease production through action affecting soil 
        bacteria.'';
          (2) in subsection (u), by striking ``and'' before 
        ``(2)'' and by inserting ``and (3) any nitrogen 
        stabilizer,'' after ``desiccant,''; and
          (3) at the end by adding the following:
  ``(hh) Nitrogen Stabilizer.--The term `nitrogen stabilizer' 
means any substance or mixture of substances intended for 
preventing or hindering the process of nitrification, 
denitrification, ammonia volatilization, or urease production 
through action upon soil bacteria. Such term shall not 
include--
          ``(1) dicyandiamide;
          ``(2) ammonium thiosulfate; or
          ``(3) any substance or mixture of substances.--
                  ``(A) that was not registered pursuant to 
                section 3 prior to January 1, 1992; and
                  ``(B) that was in commercial agronomic use 
                prior to January 1, 1992, with respect to which 
                after January 1, 1992, the distributor or 
                seller of the substance or mixture has made no 
                specific claim of prevention or hindering of 
                the process of nitrification, denitrification, 
                ammonia volatilization urease production 
                regardless of the actual use or purpose for, or 
                future use or purpose for, the substance or 
                mixture.
Statements made in materials required to be submitted to any 
State legislative or regulatory authority, or required by such 
authority to be included in the labeling or other literature 
accompanying any such substance or mixture shall not be deemed 
a specific claim within the meaning of this subsection.''.
  (b) Section 3(f).--Section 3(f) (7 U.S.C. 136a(f)) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
          ``(4) Mixtures of nitrogen stabilizers and fertilizer 
        products.--Any mixture or other combination of--
                  ``(A) 1 or more nitrogen stabilizers 
                registered under this Act; and
                  ``(B) 1 or more fertilizer products,
        shall not be subject to the provisions of this section 
        or sections 4, 5, 7, 15, and 17(a)(2) if the mixture or 
        other combination is accompanied by the labeling 
        required under this Act for the nitrogen stabilizer 
        contained in the mixture or other combination, the 
        mixture or combination is mixed or combined in 
        accordance with such labeling, and the mixture or 
        combination does not contain any active ingredient 
        other than the nitrogen stabilizer.''.

 SEC. 106. AUTHORITY OF STATES.

  (a) Definitions.--Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136), as amended by 
section 105, is further amended--
          (1) in subsection (aa), by adding at the end the 
        following new sentence: ``The term `State' does not 
        include a local government, as defined in subsection 
        (ii), and is not intended to grant any authority or to 
        otherwise refer to local governments or political 
        subdivisions of a State.''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(ii) Local Government.--The term `local government' means 
any political subdivision of a State including counties, 
townships, cities, towns, parishes, and boroughs, whether home 
rule entities or not, or any local agency or body of any type 
which has an organized existence, governmental character, and 
substantial autonomy including independent or autonomous school 
districts, housing authorities, and other special districts.''.
  (b) Records.--Section 8(b) (7 U.S.C. 136f(b)) is amended by 
striking ``or political subdivision'' in the first sentence.
  (c) Delegation and Cooperation.--Section 22(b) (7 U.S.C. 
136t(b)) is amended by striking ``or any political subdivision 
thereof''.
  (d) Authority of States.--Section 24 (7 U.S.C. 136v) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(d) Local Regulation.--Subject to subsection (e), a local 
government shall not impose or continue in effect any 
requirement or regulation regarding pesticides or devices.
  ``(e) Locally Specific State Regulation.--Nothing in this 
section shall prohibit a State from enforcing laws, enacting 
laws, or implementing regulations applicable to local 
governments regarding the sale or use of any federally 
registered pesticide or device.''.
  (e) Authority of Administrator.--The first sentence of 
section 25(e) (7 U.S.C. 136w(e)) is amended by striking ``or 
political subdivision thereof''.

 SEC. 107. PERIODIC REGISTRATION REVIEW.

  (a) Section 6.--Section 6 (7 U.S.C. 136d) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a), by striking the heading and 
        inserting the following:
  ``(a) Existing Stocks and Information.--''; and
          (2) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (a) to 
        read as follows:
          ``(1) Existing stocks.--The Administrator may permit 
        the continued sale and use of existing stocks of a 
        pesticide whose registration is suspended or canceled 
        under this section, or section 3 or 4, to such extent, 
        under such conditions, and for such uses as the 
        Administrator determines that such sale or use is not 
        inconsistent with the purposes of this Act.''.
  (b) Section 3.--Section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
  ``(g) Registration Review.--
          ``(1)(A) General rule.--The registrations of 
        pesticides are to be periodically reviewed. The 
        Administrator shall by regulation establish a procedure 
        for accomplishing the periodic review of registrations. 
        The goal of these regulations shall be a review of a 
        pesticide's registration every 15 years. No 
        registration shall be canceled as a result of the 
        registration review process unless the Administrator 
        follows the procedures and substantive requirements of 
        section 6.
          ``(B) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
        prohibit the Administrator from undertaking any other 
        review of a pesticide pursuant to this Act.
          ``(2)(A) Data.--The Administrator shall use the 
        authority in subsection (c)(2)(B) to require the 
        submission of data when such data are necessary for a 
        registration review.
          ``(B) Data submission, compensation, and exemption.--
        For purposes of this subsection, the provisions of 
        subsections (c)(1), (c)(2)(B), and (c)(2)(D) shall be 
        utilized for and be applicable to any data required for 
        registration review.''.

     Subtitle B--Training for Maintenance Applicators and Service 
                              Technicians

 SEC. 120. MAINTENANCE APPLICATORS AND SERVICE TECHNICIANS DEFINITIONS.

  Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136), as amended by section 106, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(jj) Maintenance Applicator.--The term `maintenance 
applicator' means any individual who, in the principal course 
of such individual's employment, uses, or supervises the use 
of, a pesticide not classified for restricted use (other than a 
ready to use consumer products pesticides); for the purpose of 
providing structural pest control or lawn pest control 
including janitors, general maintenance personnel, sanitation 
personnel, and grounds maintenance personnel. The term 
`maintenance applicator' does not include private applicators 
as defined in section 2(e)(2); individuals who use 
antimicrobial pesticides, sanitizers or disinfectants; 
individuals employed by Federal, State, and local governments 
or any political subdivisions thereof, or individuals who use 
pesticides not classified for restricted use in or around their 
homes, boats, sod farms, nurseries, greenhouses, or other 
noncommercial property.
  ``(kk) Service Technician.--The term `service technician' 
means any individual who uses or supervises the use of 
pesticides (other than a ready to use consumer products 
pesticide) for the purpose of providing structural pest control 
or lawn pest control on the property of another for a fee. The 
term `service technician' does not include individuals who use 
antimicrobial pesticides, sanitizers or disinfectants; or who 
otherwise apply ready to use consumer products pesticides.''.

 SEC. 121. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAINING OF MAINTENANCE APPLICATORS 
                    AND SERVICE TECHNICIANS.

  The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 
U.S.C. 136 et seq.) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating sections 30 and 31 as sections 
        33 and 34, respectively; and
          (2) by adding after section 29 the following:

``SEC. 30. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAINING OF MAINTENANCE APPLICATORS 
                    AND SERVICE TECHNICIANS.

  ``Each State may establish minimum requirements for training 
of maintenance applicators and service technicians. Such 
training may include instruction in the safe and effective 
handling and use of pesticides in accordance with the 
Environmental Protection Agency approved labeling, and 
instruction in integrated pest management techniques. The 
authority of the Administrator with respect to minimum 
requirements for training of maintenance applicators and 
service technicians shall be limited to ensuring that each 
State understands the provisions of this section.''.

     TITLE II--MINOR USE CROP PROTECTION, ANTIMICROBIAL PESTICIDE 
           REGISTRATION REFORM, AND PUBLIC HEALTH PESTICIDES

 SEC. 201. REFERENCE.

  Whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
section or other provision of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

                 Subtitle A--Minor Use Crop Protection

 SEC. 210. MINOR CROP PROTECTION.

  (a) Definition.--Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136), as amended by 
section 120, is further amended by adding at the end the 
following:
  ``(ll) Minor Use.--The term `minor use' means the use of a 
pesticide on an animal, on a commercial agricultural crop or 
site, or for the protection of public health where--
          ``(1) the total United States acreage for the crop is 
        less than 300,000 acres, as determined by the Secretary 
        of Agriculture; or
          ``(2) the Administrator, in consultation with the 
        Secretary of Agriculture, determines that, based on 
        information provided by an applicant for registration 
        or a registrant, the use does not provide sufficient 
        economic incentive to support the initial registration 
        or continuing registration of a pesticide for such use 
        and--
                  ``(A) there are insufficient efficacious 
                alternative registered pesticides available for 
                the use;
                  ``(B) the alternatives to the pesticide use 
                pose greater risks to the environment or human 
                health;
                  ``(C) the minor use pesticide plays or will 
                play a significant part in managing pest 
                resistance; or
                  ``(D) the minor use pesticide plays or will 
                play a significant part in an integrated pest 
                management program.
The status as a minor use under this subsection shall continue 
as long as the Administrator has not determined that, based on 
existing data, such use may cause an unreasonable adverse 
effect on the environment and the use otherwise qualifies for 
such status.''.
  (b) Exclusive Use of Minor Use Pesticides.--Section 
3(c)(1)(F) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(1)(F)) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as 
        clauses (iii) and (iv), respectively; and
          (2) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
                          ``(ii) The period of exclusive data 
                        use provided under clause (i) shall be 
                        extended 1 additional year for each 3 
                        minor uses registered after the date of 
                        enactment of this clause and within 7 
                        years of the commencement of the 
                        exclusive use period, up to a total of 
                        3 additional years for all minor uses 
                        registered by the Administrator if the 
                        Administrator, in consultation with the 
                        Secretary of Agriculture, determines 
                        that, based on information provided by 
                        an applicant for registration or a 
                        registrant, that--
                                  ``(I) there are insufficient 
                                efficacious alternative 
                                registered pesticides available 
                                for the use;
                                  ``(II) the alternatives to 
                                the minor use pesticide pose 
                                greater risks to the 
                                environment or human health;
                                  ``(III) the minor use 
                                pesticide plays or will play a 
                                significant part in managing 
                                pest resistance; or
                                  ``(IV) the minor use 
                                pesticide plays or will play a 
                                significant part in an 
                                integrated pest management 
                                program.
                        The registration of a pesticide for a 
                        minor use on a crop grouping 
                        established by the Administrator shall 
                        be considered for purposes of this 
                        clause 1 minor use for each 
                        representative crop for which data are 
                        provided in the crop grouping. Any 
                        additional exclusive use period under 
                        this clause shall be modified as 
                        appropriate or terminated if the 
                        registrant voluntarily cancels the 
                        product or deletes from the 
                        registration the minor uses which 
                        formed the basis for the extension of 
                        the additional exclusive use period or 
                        if the Administrator determines that 
                        the registrant is not actually 
                        marketing the product for such minor 
                        uses.'';
          (3) in clause (iv), as amended by paragraph (1), by 
        striking ``and (ii)'' and inserting ``, (ii), and 
        (iii)''; and
          (4) at the end of the section, as amended by 
        paragraph (1), by adding the following:
                          ``(v) The period of exclusive use 
                        provided under clause (ii) shall not 
                        take into effect until 1 year after 
                        enactment of this clause, except where 
                        an applicant or registrant is applying 
                        for the registration of a pesticide 
                        containing an active ingredient not 
                        previously registered.
                          ``(vi) With respect to data submitted 
                        after the date of enactment of this 
                        clause by an applicant or registrant to 
                        support an amendment adding a new use 
                        to an existing registration that does 
                        not retain any period of exclusive use, 
                        if such data relates solely to a minor 
                        use of a pesticide, such data shall 
                        not, without the written permission of 
                        the original data submitter, be 
                        considered by the Administrator to 
                        support an application for a minor use 
                        by another person during the period of 
                        10 years following the date of 
                        submission of such data. The applicant 
                        or registrant at the time the new minor 
                        use is requested shall notify the 
                        Administrator that to the best of their 
                        knowledge the exclusive use period for 
                        the pesticide has expired and that the 
                        data pertaining solely to the minor use 
                        of a pesticide is eligible for the 
                        provisions of this paragraph. If the 
                        minor use registration which is 
                        supported by data submitted pursuant to 
                        this subsection is voluntarily canceled 
                        or if such data are subsequently used 
                        to support a nonminor use, the data 
                        shall no longer be subject to the 
                        exclusive use provisions of this clause 
                        but shall instead be considered by the 
                        Administrator in accordance with the 
                        provisions of clause (i), as 
                        appropriate.''.
  (c) Time Extensions for Development of Minor Use Data.--
          (1) Data call-in.--Section 3(c)(2)(B) (7 U.S.C. 
        136a(c)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:
                  ``(vi) Upon the request of a registrant the 
                Administrator shall, in the case of a minor 
                use, extend the deadline for the production of 
                residue chemistry data under this subparagraph 
                for data required solely to support that minor 
                use until the final deadline for submission of 
                data under section 4 for the other uses of the 
                pesticide established as of the date of 
                enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act of 
                1996, if--
                          ``(I) the data to support other uses 
                        of the pesticide on a food are being 
                        provided;
                          ``(II) the registrant, in submitting 
                        a request for such an extension, 
                        provides a schedule, including interim 
                        dates to measure progress, to assure 
                        that the data production will be 
                        completed before the expiration of the 
                        extension period;
                          ``(III) the Administrator has 
                        determined that such extension will not 
                        significantly delay the Administrator's 
                        schedule for issuing a reregistration 
                        eligibility determination required 
                        under section 4; and
                          ``(IV) the Administrator has 
                        determined that based on existing data, 
                        such extension would not significantly 
                        increase the risk of any unreasonable 
                        adverse effect on the environment. If 
                        the Administrator grants an extension 
                        under this clause, the Administrator 
                        shall monitor the development of the 
                        data and shall ensure that the 
                        registrant is meeting the schedule for 
                        the production of the data. If the 
                        Administrator determines that the 
                        registrant is not meeting or has not 
                        met the schedule for the production of 
                        such data, the Administrator may 
                        proceed in accordance with clause (iv) 
                        regarding the continued registration of 
                        the affected products with the minor 
                        use and shall inform the public of such 
                        action. Notwithstanding the provisions 
                        of this clause, the Administrator may 
                        take action to modify or revoke the 
                        extension under this clause if the 
                        Administrator determines that the 
                        extension for the minor use may cause 
                        an unreasonable adverse effect on the 
                        environment. In such circumstance, the 
                        Administrator shall provide, in writing 
                        to the registrant, a notice revoking 
                        the extension of time for submission of 
                        data. Such data shall instead be due in 
                        accordance with the date established by 
                        the Administrator for the submission of 
                        the data.''.
          (2) Reregistration.--Sections 4(d)(4)(B), 4(e)(2)(B), 
        and 4(f)(2)(B) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(d)(4)(B), (e)(2)(B), 
        and (f)(2)(B)) are each amended by adding at the end 
        the following: ``Upon application of a registrant, the 
        Administrator shall, in the case of a minor use, extend 
        the deadline for the production of residue chemistry 
        data under this subparagraph for data required solely 
        to support that minor use until the final deadline for 
        submission of data under this section for the other 
        uses of the pesticide established as of the date of 
        enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 
        if--
                          ``(i) the data to support other uses 
                        of the pesticide on a food are being 
                        provided;
                          ``(ii) the registrant, in submitting 
                        a request for such an extension 
                        provides a schedule, including interim 
                        dates to measure progress, to assure 
                        that the data production will be 
                        completed before the expiration of the 
                        extension period;
                          ``(iii) the Administrator has 
                        determined that such extension will not 
                        significantly delay the Administrator's 
                        schedule for issuing a reregistration 
                        eligibility determination required 
                        under this section; and
                          ``(iv) the Administrator has 
                        determined that based on existing data, 
                        such extension would not significantly 
                        increase the risk of any unreasonable 
                        adverse effect on the environment. If 
                        the Administrator grants an extension 
                        under this subparagraph, the 
                        Administrator shall monitor the 
                        development of the data and shall 
                        ensure that the registrant is meeting 
                        the schedule for the production of the 
                        data. If the Administrator determines 
                        that the registrant is not meeting or 
                        has not met the schedule for the 
                        production of such data, the 
                        Administrator may proceed in accordance 
                        with clause (iv) of section 3(c)(2)(B) 
                        or other provisions of this section, as 
                        appropriate, regarding the continued 
                        registration of the affected products 
                        with the minor use and shall inform the 
                        public of such action. Notwithstanding 
                        the provisions of this subparagraph, 
                        the Administrator may take action to 
                        modify or revoke the extension under 
                        this subparagraph if the Administrator 
                        determines that the extension for the 
                        minor use may cause an unreasonable 
                        adverse affect on the environment. In 
                        such circumstance, the Administrator 
                        shall provide written notice to the 
                        registrant revoking the extension of 
                        time for submission of data. Such data 
                        shall instead be due in accordance with 
                        the date then established by the 
                        Administrator for submission of the 
                        data.''.
  (d) Minor Use Waiver.--Section 3(c)(2) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)) 
is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``In general.--'' after ``(A)'';
          (2) by inserting ``Additional data.--'' after 
        ``(B)'';
          (3) by inserting ``Simplified procedures.--'' after 
        ``(C)''; and
          (4) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(E) Minor use waiver.--In handling the 
                registration of a pesticide for a minor use, 
                the Administrator may waive otherwise 
                applicable data requirements if the 
                Administrator determines that the absence of 
                such data will not prevent the Administrator 
                from determining--
                          ``(i) the incremental risk presented 
                        by the minor use of the pesticide; and
                          ``(ii) that such risk, if any, would 
                        not be an unreasonable adverse effect 
                        on the environment.''.
  (e) Expediting Minor Use Registrations.--Section 3(c)(3) (7 
U.S.C. 136a(c)(3)) is amended --
          (1) by inserting after ``(A)'' the following: ``In 
        general.--'';
          (2) by inserting after ``(B)'' the following: 
        ``Identical or substantially similar.--''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(C) Minor use registration.--
                          ``(i) The Administrator shall, as 
                        expeditiously as possible, review and 
                        act on any complete application--
                                  ``(I) that proposes the 
                                initial registration of a new 
                                pesticide active ingredient if 
                                the active ingredient is 
                                proposed to be registered 
                                solely for minor uses, or 
                                proposes a registration 
                                amendment solely for minor uses 
                                to an existing registration; or
                                  ``(II) for a registration or 
                                a registration amendment that 
                                proposes significant minor 
                                uses.
                          ``(ii) For the purposes of clause 
                        (i)--
                                  ``(I) the term `as 
                                expeditiously as possible' 
                                means that the Administrator 
                                shall, to the greatest extent 
                                practicable, complete a review 
                                and evaluation of all data, 
                                submitted with a complete 
                                application, within 12 months 
                                after the submission of the 
                                complete application, and the 
                                failure of the Administrator to 
                                complete such a review and 
                                evaluation under clause (i) 
                                shall not be subject to 
                                judicial review; and
                                  ``(II) the term `significant 
                                minor uses' means 3 or more 
                                minor uses proposed for every 
                                nonminor use, a minor use that 
                                would, in the judgment of the 
                                Administrator, serve as a 
                                replacement for any use which 
                                has been canceled in the 5 
                                years preceding the receipt of 
                                the application, or a minor use 
                                that in the opinion of the 
                                Administrator would avoid the 
                                reissuance of an emergency 
                                exemption under section 18 for 
                                that minor use.
                  ``(D) Adequate time for submission of minor 
                use data.--If a registrant makes a request for 
                a minor use waiver, regarding data required by 
                the Administrator, pursuant to paragraph 
                (2)(E), and if the Administrator denies in 
                whole or in part such data waiver request, the 
                registrant shall have a full-time period for 
                providing such data. For purposes of this 
                subparagraph, the term `full-time period' means 
                the time period originally established by the 
                Administrator for submission of such data, 
                beginning with the date of receipt by the 
                registrant of the Administrator's notice of 
                denial.''.
  (f) Temporary Extension of Registration for Unsupported Minor 
Uses.--
          (1) Reregistration.--
                  (A) Sections 4(d)(6) and 4(f)(3) (7 U.S.C. 
                136a-1(d)(6) and (f)(3)) are each amended by 
                adding at the end the following: ``If the 
                registrant does not commit to support a 
                specific minor use of the pesticide, but is 
                supporting and providing data in a timely and 
                adequate fashion to support uses of the 
                pesticide on a food, or if all uses of the 
                pesticide are nonfood uses and the registrant 
                does not commit to support a specific minor use 
                of the pesticide but is supporting and 
                providing data in a timely and adequate fashion 
                to support other nonfood uses of the pesticide, 
                the Administrator, at the written request of 
                the registrant, shall not take any action 
                pursuant to this paragraph in regard to such 
                unsupported minor use until the final deadline 
                established as of the date of enactment of the 
                Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, for the 
                submission of data under this section for the 
                supported uses identified pursuant to this 
                paragraph unless the Administrator determines 
                that the absence of the data is significant 
                enough to cause human health or environmental 
                concerns. On such a determination the 
                Administrator may refuse the request for 
                extension by the registrant. Upon receipt of 
                the request from the registrant, the 
                Administrator shall publish in the Federal 
                Register a notice of the receipt of the request 
                and the effective date upon which the uses not 
                being supported will be voluntarily deleted 
                from the registration pursuant to section 
                6(f)(1). If the Administrator grants an 
                extension under this paragraph, the 
                Administrator shall monitor the development of 
                the data for the uses being supported and shall 
                ensure that the registrant is meeting the 
                schedule for the production of such data. If 
                the Administrator determines that the 
                registrant is not meeting or has not met the 
                schedule for the production of such data, the 
                Administrator may proceed in accordance with 
                section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) regarding the continued 
                registration of the affected products with the 
                minor and other uses and shall inform the 
                public of such action in accordance with 
                section 6(f)(2). Notwithstanding this 
                subparagraph, the Administrator may deny, 
                modify, or revoke the temporary extension under 
                this paragraph if the Administrator determines 
                that the continuation of the minor use may 
                cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the 
                environment. In the event of modification or 
                revocation, the Administrator shall provide, in 
                writing, to the registrant a notice revoking 
                the temporary extension and establish a new 
                effective date by which the minor use shall be 
                deleted from the registration.''.
                  (B) Section 4(e)(3)(A) (7 U.S.C. 136a-
                1(e)(3)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the 
                following: ``If the registrant does not commit 
                to support a specific minor use of the 
                pesticide, but is supporting and providing data 
                in a timely and adequate fashion to support 
                uses of the pesticide on a food, or if all uses 
                of the pesticide are nonfood uses and the 
                registrant does not commit to support a 
                specific minor use of the pesticide but is 
                supporting and providing data in a timely and 
                adequate fashion to support other nonfood uses 
                of the pesticide, the Administrator, at the 
                written request of the registrant, shall not 
                take any action pursuant to this subparagraph 
                in regard to such unsupported minor use until 
                the final deadline established as of the date 
                of enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act 
                of 1996, for the submission of data under this 
                section for the supported uses identified 
                pursuant to this subparagraph unless the 
                Administrator determines that the absence of 
                the data is significant enough to cause human 
                health or environmental concerns. On the basis 
                of such determination, the Administrator may 
                refuse the request for extension by the 
                registrant. Upon receipt of the request from 
                the registrant, the Administrator shall publish 
                in the Federal Register a notice of the receipt 
                of the request and the effective date upon 
                which the uses not being supported will be 
                voluntarily deleted from the registration 
                pursuant to section 6(f)(1). If the 
                Administrator grants an extension under this 
                subparagraph, the Administrator shall monitor 
                the development of the data for the uses being 
                supported and shall ensure that the registrant 
                is meeting the schedule for the production of 
                such data. If the Administrator determines that 
                the registrant is not meeting or has not met 
                the schedule for the production of such data, 
                the Administrator may proceed in accordance 
                with section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) regarding the 
                continued registration of the affected products 
                with the minor and other uses and shall inform 
                the public of such action in accordance with 
                section 6(f)(2). Notwithstanding this 
                subparagraph, the Administrator may deny, 
                modify, or revoke the temporary extension under 
                this subparagraph if the Administrator 
                determines that the continuation of the minor 
                use may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on 
                the environment. In the event of modification 
                or revocation, the Administrator shall provide, 
                in writing, to the registrant a notice revoking 
                the temporary extension and establish a new 
                effective date by which the minor use shall be 
                deleted from the registration.''.
          (2) Data.--Section 3(c)(2)(B) (7 U.S.C. 
        136a(c)(2)(B)), as amended by subsection (c)(1), is 
        further amended by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(vii) If the registrant does not commit to 
                support a specific minor use of the pesticide, 
                but is supporting and providing data in a 
                timely and adequate fashion to support uses of 
                the pesticide on a food, or if all uses of the 
                pesticide are nonfood uses and the registrant 
                does not commit to support a specific minor use 
                of the pesticide but is supporting and 
                providing data in a timely and adequate fashion 
                to support other nonfood uses of the pesticide, 
                the Administrator, at the written request of 
                the registrant, shall not take any action 
                pursuant to this clause in regard to such 
                unsupported minor use until the final deadline 
                established as of the date of enactment of the 
                Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, for the 
                submission of data under section 4 for the 
                supported uses identified pursuant to this 
                clause unless the Administrator determines that 
                the absence of the data is significant enough 
                to cause human health or environmental 
                concerns. On the basis of such determination, 
                the Administrator may refuse the request for 
                extension by the registrant. Upon receipt of 
                the request from the registrant, the 
                Administrator shall publish in the Federal 
                Register a notice of the receipt of the request 
                and the effective date upon which the uses not 
                being supported will be voluntarily deleted 
                from the registration pursuant to section 
                6(f)(1). If the Administrator grants an 
                extension under this clause, the Administrator 
                shall monitor the development of the data for 
                the uses being supported and shall ensure that 
                the registrant is meeting the schedule for the 
                production of such data. If the Administrator 
                determines that the registrant is not meeting 
                or has not met the schedule for the production 
                of such data, the Administrator may proceed in 
                accordance with clause (iv) of this 
                subparagraph regarding the continued 
                registration of the affected products with the 
                minor and other uses and shall inform the 
                public of such action in accordance with 
                section 6(f)(2). Notwithstanding the provisions 
                of this clause, the Administrator may deny, 
                modify, or revoke the temporary extension under 
                this subparagraph if the Administrator 
                determines that the continuation of the minor 
                use may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on 
                the environment. In the event of modification 
                or revocation, the Administrator shall provide, 
                in writing, to the registrant a notice revoking 
                the temporary extension and establish a new 
                effective date by which the minor use shall be 
                deleted from the registration.''.
  (g) Section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1)(C)(ii) by striking ``90-day'' 
        each place it appears and inserting ``180-day''; and
          (2) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ``90-day'' and 
        inserting ``180-day''.
  (h) Utilization of Data for Voluntarily Canceled Chemicals.--
Section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
          ``(4) Utilization of data for voluntarily canceled 
        pesticide.--When an application is filed with the 
        Administrator for the registration of a pesticide for a 
        minor use and another registrant subsequently 
        voluntarily cancels its registration for an identical 
        or substantially similar pesticide for an identical or 
        substantially similar use, the Administrator shall 
        process, review, and evaluate the pending application 
        as if the voluntary cancellation had not yet taken 
        place except that the Administrator shall not take such 
        action if the Administrator determines that such minor 
        use may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the 
        environment. In order to rely on this subsection, the 
        applicant must certify that it agrees to satisfy any 
        outstanding data requirements necessary to support the 
        reregistration of the pesticide in accordance with the 
        data submission schedule established by the 
        Administrator.''.
  (i) Environmental Protection Agency Minor Use Program.--The 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 
136 et seq.), as amended by section 121, is amended by adding 
after section 30 the following:

``SEC. 31. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MINOR USE PROGRAM.

  ``(a) The Administrator shall assure coordination of minor 
use issues through the establishment of a minor use program 
within the Office of Pesticide Programs. Such office shall be 
responsible for coordinating the development of minor use 
programs and policies and consulting with growers regarding 
minor use issues and registrations and amendments which are 
submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency.
  ``(b) The Office of Pesticide Programs shall prepare a public 
report concerning the progress made on the registration of 
minor uses, including implementation of the exclusive use as an 
incentive for registering new minor uses, within 3 years of the 
passage of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.''.
  (j) Department of Agriculture Minor Use Program.--The Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et 
seq.), as amended by subsection (i), is amended by adding after 
section 31 the following:

``SEC. 32. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MINOR USE PROGRAM.

  ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter 
in this section referred to as the `Secretary') shall assure 
the coordination of the responsibilities of the Department of 
Agriculture related to minor uses of pesticides, including--
          ``(1) carrying out the Inter-Regional Project Number 
        4 (IR-4) as described in section 2 of Public Law 89-106 
        (7 U.S.C. 450i(e)) and the national pesticide 
        resistance monitoring program established under section 
        1651 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
        Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5882);
          ``(2) supporting integrated pest management research;
          ``(3) consulting with growers to develop data for 
        minor uses; and
          ``(4) providing assistance for minor use 
        registrations, tolerances, and reregistrations with the 
        Environmental Protection Agency.
  ``(b)(1) Minor Use Pesticide Data.--
          ``(A) Grant authority.--The Secretary, in 
        consultation with the Administrator, shall establish a 
        program to make grants for the development of data to 
        support minor use pesticide registrations and 
        reregistrations. The amount of any such grant shall not 
        exceed \1/2\ of the cost of the project for which the 
        grant is made.
          ``(B) Applicants.--Any person who wants to develop 
        data to support minor use pesticide registrations and 
        reregistrations may apply for a grant under 
        subparagraph (A). Priority shall be given to an 
        applicant for such a grant who does not directly 
        receive funds from the sale of pesticides registered 
        for minor uses.
          ``(C) Data ownership.--Any data that is developed 
        under a grant under subparagraph (A) shall be jointly 
        owned by the Department of Agriculture and the person 
        who received the grant. Such a person shall enter into 
        an agreement with the Secretary under which such person 
        shall share any fee paid to such person under section 
        3(c)(1)(F).
  ``(2) Minor use pesticide data revolving fund.--
          ``(A) Establishment.--There is established in the 
        Treasury of the United States a revolving fund to be 
        known as the Minor Use Pesticide Data Revolving Fund. 
        The Fund shall be available without fiscal year 
        limitation to carry out the authorized purposes of this 
        subsection.
          ``(B) Contents of the fund.--There shall be deposited 
        in the Fund--
                  ``(i) such amounts as may be appropriated to 
                support the purposes of this subsection; and
                  ``(ii) fees collected by the Secretary for 
                any data developed under a grant under 
                paragraph (1)(A).
          ``(C) Authorizations of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year to 
        carry out the purposes of this subsection $10,000,000 
        to remain available until expended.''.

        Subtitle B--Antimicrobial Pesticide Registration Reform

 SEC. 221. DEFINITIONS.

  Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136), as amended by section 210(a) is 
further amended--
          (1) in subsection (u), by adding at the end the 
        following: ``The term `pesticide' does not include 
        liquid chemical sterilant products (including any 
        sterilant or subordinate disinfectant claims on such 
        products) for use on a critical or semi-critical 
        device, as defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, 
        Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321). For purposes of 
        the preceding sentence, the term `critical device' 
        includes any device which is introduced directly into 
        the human body, either into or in contact with the 
        bloodstream or normally sterile areas of the body and 
        the term `semi-critical device' includes any device 
        which contacts intact mucous membranes but which does 
        not ordinarily penetrate the blood barrier or otherwise 
        enter normally sterile areas of the body.''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(mm) Antimicrobial Pesticide.--
          ``(1) In general.--The term `antimicrobial pesticide' 
        means a pesticide that--
                  ``(A) is intended to--
                          ``(i) disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or 
                        mitigate growth or development of 
                        microbiological organisms; or
                          ``(ii) protect inanimate objects, 
                        industrial processes or systems, 
                        surfaces, water, or other chemical 
                        substances from contamination, fouling, 
                        or deterioration caused by bacteria, 
                        viruses, fungi, protozoa, algae, or 
                        slime; and
                  ``(B) in the intended use is exempt from, or 
                otherwise not subject to, a tolerance under 
                section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
                Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a and 348) or a food 
                additive regulation under section 409 of such 
                Act.
          ``(2) Excluded products.--The term `antimicrobial 
        pesticide' does not include --
                  ``(A) a wood preservative or antifouling 
                paint product for which a claim of pesticidal 
                activity other than or in addition to an 
                activity described in paragraph (1) is made;
                  ``(B) an agricultural fungicide product; or
                  ``(C) an aquatic herbicide product.
          ``(3) Included products.--The term `antimicrobial 
        pesticide' does include any other chemical sterilant 
        product (other than liquid chemical sterilant products 
        exempt under subsection (u)), any other disinfectant 
        product, any other industrial microbiocide product, and 
        any other preservative product that is not excluded by 
        paragraph (2).''.

 SEC. 222. FEDERAL AND STATE DATA COORDINATION.

  Section 3(c)(2)(B) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(B)), as amended by 
section 210(f)(2), is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                  ``(viii)(I) If data required to support 
                registration of a pesticide under subparagraph 
                (A) is requested by a Federal or State 
                regulatory authority, the Administrator shall, 
                to the extent practicable, coordinate data 
                requirements, test protocols, timetables, and 
                standards of review and reduce burdens and 
                redundancy caused to the registrant by multiple 
                requirements on the registrant.
                  ``(II) The Administrator may enter into a 
                cooperative agreement with a State to carry out 
                subclause (I).
                  ``(III) Not later than 1 year after the date 
                of enactment of this clause, the Administrator 
                shall develop a process to identify and assist 
                in alleviating future disparities between 
                Federal and State data requirements.''.

 SEC. 223. LABEL AND LABELING.

  Section 3(c) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
          ``(9) Labeling.--
                  ``(A) Additional statements.--Subject to 
                subparagraphs (B) and (C), it shall not be a 
                violation of this Act for a registrant to 
                modify the labeling of an antimicrobial 
                pesticide product to include relevant 
                information on product efficacy, product 
                composition, container composition or design, 
                or other characteristics that do not relate to 
                any pesticidal claim or pesticidal activity.
                  ``(B) Requirements.--Proposed labeling 
                information under subparagraph (A) shall not be 
                false or misleading, shall not conflict with or 
                detract from any statement required by law or 
                the Administrator as a condition of 
                registration, and shall be substantiated on the 
                request of the Administrator.
                  ``(C) Notification and disapproval.--
                          ``(i) Notification.--A registration 
                        may be modified under subparagraph (A) 
                        if --
                                  ``(I) the registrant notifies 
                                the Administrator in writing 
                                not later than 60 days prior to 
                                distribution or sale of a 
                                product bearing the modified 
                                labeling; and
                                  ``(II) the Administrator does 
                                not disapprove of the 
                                modification under clause (ii).
                          ``(ii) Disapproval.--Not later than 
                        30 days after receipt of a notification 
                        under clause (i), the Administrator may 
                        disapprove the modification by sending 
                        the registrant notification in writing 
                        stating that the proposed language is 
                        not acceptable and stating the reasons 
                        why the Administrator finds the 
                        proposed modification unacceptable.
                          ``(iii) Restriction on sale.--A 
                        registrant may not sell or distribute a 
                        product bearing a disapproved 
                        modification.
                          ``(iv) Objection.--A registrant may 
                        file an objection in writing to a 
                        disapproval under clause (ii) not later 
                        than 30 days after receipt of 
                        notification of the disapproval.
                          ``(v) Final action.--A decision by 
                        the Administrator following receipt and 
                        consideration of an objection filed 
                        under clause (iv) shall be considered a 
                        final agency action.
                  ``(D) Use dilution.--The label or labeling 
                required under this Act for an antimicrobial 
                pesticide that is or may be diluted for use may 
                have a different statement of caution or 
                protective measures for use of the recommended 
                diluted solution of the pesticide than for use 
                of a concentrate of the pesticide if the 
                Administrator determines that --
                          ``(i) adequate data have been 
                        submitted to support the statement 
                        proposed for the diluted solution uses; 
                        and
                          ``(ii) the label or labeling provides 
                        adequate protection for exposure to the 
                        diluted solution of the pesticide.''.

 SEC. 224. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTIMICROBIAL PESTICIDES.

  Section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a), as amended by section 107(b), is 
further amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(h) Registration Requirements for Antimicrobial 
Pesticides.--
          ``(1) Evaluation of process.--To the maximum extent 
        practicable consistent with the degrees of risk 
        presented by a antimicrobial pesticide and the type of 
        review appropriate to evaluate the risks, the 
        Administrator shall identify and evaluate reforms to 
        the antimicrobial registration process that would 
        reduce review periods existing as of the date of 
        enactment of this subsection for antimicrobial 
        pesticide product registration applications and 
        applications for amended registration of antimicrobial 
        pesticide products, including--
                  ``(A) new antimicrobial active ingredients;
                  ``(B) new antimicrobial end-use products;
                  ``(C) substantially similar or identical 
                antimicrobial pesticides; and
                  ``(D) amendments to antimicrobial pesticide 
                registrations.
          ``(2) Review time period reduction goal.--Each reform 
        identified under paragraph (1) shall be designed to 
        achieve the goal of reducing the review period 
        following submission of a complete application, 
        consistent with the degree of risk, to a period of not 
        more than --
                  ``(A) 540 days for a new antimicrobial active 
                ingredient pesticide registration;
                  ``(B) 270 days for a new antimicrobial use of 
                a registered active ingredient;
                  ``(C) 120 days for any other new 
                antimicrobial product;
                  ``(D) 90 days for a substantially similar or 
                identical antimicrobial product;
                  ``(E) 90 days for an amendment to an 
                antimicrobial registration that does not 
                require scientific review of data; and
                  ``(F) 90 to 180 days for an amendment to an 
                antimicrobial registration that requires 
                scientific review of data and that is not 
                otherwise described in this paragraph.
          ``(3) Implementation.--
                  ``(A) Proposed rulemaking.--
                          ``(i) Issuance.--Not later than 270 
                        days after the date of enactment of 
                        this subsection, the Administrator 
                        shall publish in the Federal Register 
                        proposed regulations to accelerate and 
                        improve the review of antimicrobial 
                        pesticide products designed to 
                        implement, to the extent practicable, 
                        the goals set forth in paragraph (2).
                          ``(ii) Requirements.--Proposed 
                        regulations issued under clause (i) 
                        shall --
                                  ``(I) define the various 
                                classes of antimicrobial use 
                                patterns, including household, 
                                industrial, and institutional 
                                disinfectants and sanitizing 
                                pesticides, preservatives, 
                                water treatment, and pulp and 
                                paper mill additives, and other 
                                such products intended to 
                                disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or 
                                mitigate growth or development 
                                of microbiological organisms, 
                                or protect inanimate objects, 
                                industrial processes or 
                                systems, surfaces, water, or 
                                other chemical substances from 
                                contamination, fouling, or 
                                deterioration caused by 
                                bacteria, viruses, fungi, 
                                protozoa, algae, or slime;
                                  ``(II) differentiate the 
                                types of review undertaken for 
                                antimicrobial pesticides;
                                  ``(III) conform the degree 
                                and type of review to the risks 
                                and benefits presented by 
                                antimicrobial pesticides and 
                                the function of review under 
                                this Act, considering the use 
                                patterns of the product, 
                                toxicity, expected exposure, 
                                and product type;
                                  ``(IV) ensure that the 
                                registration process is 
                                sufficient to maintain 
                                antimicrobial pesticide 
                                efficacy and that antimicrobial 
                                pesticide products continue to 
                                meet product performance 
                                standards and effectiveness 
                                levels for each type of label 
                                claim made; and
                                  ``(V) implement effective and 
                                reliable deadlines for process 
                                management.
                          ``(iii) Comments.--In developing the 
                        proposed regulations, the Administrator 
                        shall solicit the views from 
                        registrants and other affected parties 
                        to maximize the effectiveness of the 
                        rule development process.
                  ``(B) Final regulations.--
                          ``(i) Issuance.--The Administrator 
                        shall issue final regulations not later 
                        than 240 days after the close of the 
                        comment period for the proposed 
                        regulations.
                          ``(ii) Failure to meet goal.--If a 
                        goal described in paragraph (2) is not 
                        met by the final regulations, the 
                        Administrator shall identify the goal, 
                        explain why the goal was not attained, 
                        describe the element of the regulations 
                        included instead, and identify future 
                        steps to attain the goal.
                          ``(iii) Requirements.--In issuing 
                        final regulations, the Administrator 
                        shall--
                                  ``(I) consider the 
                                establishment of a 
                                certification process for 
                                regulatory actions involving 
                                risks that can be responsibly 
                                managed, consistent with the 
                                degree of risk, in the most 
                                cost-efficient manner;
                                  ``(II) consider the 
                                establishment of a 
                                certification process by 
                                approved laboratories as an 
                                adjunct to the review process;
                                  ``(III) use all appropriate 
                                and cost-effective review 
                                mechanisms, including--
                                          ``(aa) expanded use 
                                        of notification and 
                                        non-notification 
                                        procedures;
                                          ``(bb) revised 
                                        procedures for 
                                        application review; and
                                          ``(cc) allocation of 
                                        appropriate resources 
                                        to ensure streamlined 
                                        management of 
                                        antimicrobial pesticide 
                                        registrations; and
                                  ``(IV) clarify criteria for 
                                determination of the 
                                completeness of an application.
                  ``(C) Expedited review.--This subsection does 
                not affect the requirements or extend the 
                deadlines or review periods contained in 
                subsection (c)(3).
                  ``(D) Alternative review periods.--If the 
                final regulations to carry out this paragraph 
                are not effective 630 days after the date of 
                enactment of this subsection, until the final 
                regulations become effective, the review 
                period, beginning on the date of receipt by the 
                Agency of a complete application, shall be --
                          ``(i) 2 years for a new antimicrobial 
                        active ingredient pesticide 
                        registration;
                          ``(ii) 1 year for a new antimicrobial 
                        use of a registered active ingredient;
                          ``(iii) 180 days for any other new 
                        antimicrobial product;
                          ``(iv) 90 days for a substantially 
                        similar or identical antimicrobial 
                        product;
                          ``(v) 90 days for an amendment to an 
                        antimicrobial registration that does 
                        not require scientific review of data; 
                        and
                          ``(vi) 240 days for an amendment to 
                        an antimicrobial registration that 
                        requires scientific review of data and 
                        that is not otherwise described in this 
                        subparagraph.
                  ``(E) Wood preservatives.--An application for 
                the registration, or for an amendment to the 
                registration, of a wood preservative product 
                for which a claim of pesticidal activity listed 
                in section 2(mm) is made (regardless of any 
                other pesticidal claim that is made with 
                respect to the product) shall be reviewed by 
                the Administrator within the same period as 
                that established under this paragraph for an 
                antimicrobial pesticide product application, 
                consistent with the degree of risk posed by the 
                use of the wood preservative product, if the 
                application requires the applicant to satisfy 
                the same data requirements as are required to 
                support an application for a wood preservative 
                product that is an antimicrobial pesticide.
                  ``(F) Notification.--
                          ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause 
                        (iii), the Administrator shall notify 
                        an applicant whether an application has 
                        been granted or denied not later than 
                        the final day of the appropriate review 
                        period under this paragraph, unless the 
                        applicant and the Administrator agree 
                        to a later date.
                          ``(ii) Final decision.--If the 
                        Administrator fails to notify an 
                        applicant within the period of time 
                        required under clause (i), the failure 
                        shall be considered an agency action 
                        unlawfully withheld or unreasonably 
                        delayed for purposes of judicial review 
                        under chapter 7 of title 5, United 
                        States Code.
                          ``(iii) Exemption.--This subparagraph 
                        does not apply to an application for an 
                        antimicrobial pesticide that is filed 
                        under subsection (c)(3)(B) prior to 90 
                        days after the date of enactment of 
                        this subsection.
          ``(4) Annual report.--
                  ``(A) Submission.--Beginning on the date of 
                enactment of this subsection and ending on the 
                date that the goals under paragraph (2) are 
                achieved, the Administrator shall, not later 
                than March 1 of each year, prepare and submit 
                an annual report to the Committee on 
                Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
                the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
                Forestry of the Senate.
                  ``(B) Requirements.--A report submitted under 
                subparagraph (A) shall include a description 
                of--
                          ``(i) measures taken to reduce the 
                        backlog of pending registration 
                        applications;
                          ``(ii) progress toward achieving 
                        reforms under this subsection; and
                          ``(iii) recommendations to improve 
                        the activities of the Agency pertaining 
                        to antimicrobial registrations.''.

 SEC. 225. DISPOSAL OF HOUSEHOLD, INDUSTRIAL, OR INSTITUTIONAL 
                    ANTIMICROBIAL PRODUCTS.

  Section 19(h) (7 U.S.C. 136q(h)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``Nothing in'' and inserting the 
        following:
          ``(1) In general.--Nothing in''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(2) Antimicrobial products.--A household, 
        industrial, or institutional antimicrobial product that 
        is not subject to regulation under the Solid Waste 
        Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) shall not be 
        subject to the provisions of subsections (a), (e), and 
        (f), unless the Administrator determines that such 
        product must be subject to such provisions to prevent 
        an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.''.

                  Subtitle C--Public Health Pesticides

 SEC. 230. DEFINITIONS.

  (a) Adverse Effects.--Section 2(bb) (7 U.S.C. 136(bb)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The Administrator 
shall consider the risks and benefits of public health 
pesticides separate from the risks and benefits of other 
pesticides. In weighing any regulatory action concerning a 
public health pesticide under this Act, the Administrator shall 
weigh any risks of the pesticide against the health risks such 
as the diseases transmitted by the vector to be controlled by 
the pesticide.''.
  (b) New Definitions.--Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136), as amended by 
section 221, is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(nn) Public Health Pesticide.--The term `public health 
pesticide' means any minor use pesticide product registered for 
use and used predominantly in public health programs for vector 
control or for other recognized health protection uses, 
including the prevention or mitigation of viruses, bacteria, or 
other microorganisms (other than viruses, bacteria, or other 
microorganisms on or in living man or other living animal) that 
pose a threat to public health.
  ``(oo) Vector.--The term `vector' means any organism capable 
of transmitting the causative agent of human disease or capable 
of producing human discomfort or injury, including mosquitoes, 
flies, fleas, cockroaches, or other insects and ticks, mites, 
or rats.''.

 SEC. 231. REGISTRATION.

  Section 3(c)(2)(A) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(A)) is amended--
          (1) by inserting after ``pattern of use,'' the 
        following: ``the public health and agricultural need 
        for such minor use,''; and
          (2) by striking ``potential exposure of man and the 
        environment to the pesticide'' and inserting 
        ``potential beneficial or adverse effects on man and 
        the environment''.

 SEC. 232. REREGISTRATION.

  Section 4 (7 U.S.C. 136a-1) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (i)(4), by redesignating 
        subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), 
        respectively, and by adding after subparagraph (A) the 
        following:
                  ``(B) The Administrator shall exempt any 
                public health pesticide from the payment of the 
                fee prescribed under paragraph (3) if, in 
                consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
                Human Services, the Administrator determines, 
                based on information supplied by the 
                registrant, that the economic return to the 
                registrant from sales of the pesticide does not 
                support the registration or reregistration of 
                the pesticide.'';
          (2) in subsection (i)(5), by redesignating 
        subparagraphs (F) and (G) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), 
        respectively, and by adding after subparagraph (E) the 
        following:
                  ``(F) The Administrator shall exempt any 
                public health pesticide from the payment of the 
                fee prescribed under paragraph (3) if, in 
                consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
                Humans Services, the Administrator determines, 
                based on information supplied by the 
                registrant, that the economic return to the 
                registrant from sales of the pesticide does not 
                support the registration or reregistration of 
                the pesticide.'';
          (3) in subsection (i)(7)(B), by striking ``or to 
        determine'' and inserting ``, to determine'' and by 
        inserting before the period the following: ``, or to 
        determine the volume usage for public health 
        pesticides''; and
          (4) in subsection (k)(3)(A), by striking ``or'' at 
        the end of clause (i), by striking the period at the 
        end of clause (ii) and inserting thereof ``; or'', and 
        by adding after clause (ii) the following:
                          ``(iii) proposes the initial or 
                        amended registration of an end use 
                        pesticide that, if registered as 
                        proposed, would be used for a public 
                        health pesticide.''.

 SEC. 233. CANCELLATION.

  Section 6(b) (7 U.S.C. 136d(b)) is amended by adding after 
the eighth sentence the following: ``When a public health use 
is affected, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should 
provide available benefits and use information, or an analysis 
thereof, in accordance with the procedures followed and subject 
to the same conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture in the 
case of agricultural pesticides.''.

 SEC. 234. VIEWS OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

  Section 21 (7 U.S.C. 136s) is amended by redesignating 
subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), 
respectively, and by adding after subsection (a) the following:
  ``(b) Secretary of Health and Human Services.--The 
Administrator, before publishing regulations under this Act for 
any public health pesticide, shall solicit the views of the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services in the same manner as 
the views of the Secretary of Agriculture are solicited under 
section 25(a)(2).''.

 SEC. 235. AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATOR.

  Section 25(a)(1) (7 U.S.C. 136w(a)(1)) is amended--
          (1) by inserting after ``various classes of 
        pesticides'' the following: ``, including public health 
        pesticides,''; and
          (2) by striking ``and nonagricultural pesticides'' 
        and inserting ``, nonagricultural, and public health 
        pesticides''.

 SEC. 236. IDENTIFICATION OF PESTS.

  Section 28 (7 U.S.C. 136w-3) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(d) Public Health Pests.--The Administrator, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall identify pests of 
significant public health importance and, in coordination with 
the Public Health Service, develop and implement programs to 
improve and facilitate the safe and necessary use of chemical, 
biological, and other methods to combat and control such pests 
of public health importance.''.

 SEC. 237. PUBLIC HEALTH DATA.

  Section 4 (7 U.S.C. 136a-1) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(m) Authorization of Funds To Develop Public Health Data.--
          ``(1) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, 
        `Secretary' means the Secretary of Health and Human 
        Services, acting through the Public Health Service.
          ``(2) Consultation.--In the case of a pesticide 
        registered for use in public health programs for vector 
        control or for other uses the Administrator determines 
        to be human health protection uses, the Administrator 
        shall, upon timely request by the registrant or any 
        other interested person, or on the Administrator's own 
        initiative may, consult with the Secretary prior to 
        taking final action to suspend registration under 
        section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv), or cancel a registration under 
        section 4, 6(e), or 6(f). In consultation with the 
        Secretary, the Administrator shall prescribe the form 
        and content of requests under this section.
          ``(3) Benefits to support family.--The Administrator, 
        after consulting with the Secretary, shall make a 
        determination whether the potential benefits of 
        continued use of the pesticide for public health or 
        health protection purposes are of such significance as 
        to warrant a commitment by the Secretary to conduct or 
        to arrange for the conduct of the studies required by 
        the Administrator to support continued registration 
        under section 3 or registration under section 4.
          ``(4) Additional time.--If the Administrator 
        determines that such a commitment is warranted and in 
        the public interest, the Administrator shall notify the 
        Secretary and shall, to the extent necessary, amend a 
        notice issued under section 3(c)(2)(B) to specify 
        additional reasonable time periods for submission of 
        the data.
          ``(5) Arrangements.--The Secretary shall make such 
        arrangements for the conduct of required studies as the 
        Secretary finds necessary and appropriate to permit 
        submission of data in accordance with the time periods 
        prescribed by the Administrator. Such arrangements may 
        include Public Health Service intramural research 
        activities, grants, contracts, or cooperative 
        agreements with academic, public health, or other 
        organizations qualified by experience and training to 
        conduct such studies.
          ``(6) Support.--The Secretary may provide for support 
        of the required studies using funds authorized to be 
        appropriated under this section, the Public Health 
        Service Act, or other appropriate authorities. After a 
        determination is made under subsection (d), the 
        Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations 
        of the House Representatives and the Senate of the sums 
        required to conduct the necessary studies.
          ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out the purposes 
        of this section $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, and 
        such sums as may be necessary for succeeding fiscal 
        years.''.

     Subtitle D--Expedited Registration of Reduced Risk Pesticides

 SEC. 250. EXPEDITED REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES.

  Section 3(c) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)), as amended by section 223, 
is amended--
          (1) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the 
        following:
                  ``(G) If the applicant is requesting that the 
                registration or amendment to the registration 
                of a pesticide be expedited, an explanation of 
                the basis for the request must be submitted, in 
                accordance with paragraph (10) of this 
                subsection.''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(10) Expedited registration of pesticides.--
                  ``(A) Not later than 1 year after the date of 
                enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator 
                shall, utilizing public comment, develop 
                procedures and guidelines, and expedite the 
                review of an application for registration of a 
                pesticide or an amendment to a registration 
                that satisfies such guidelines.
                  ``(B) Any application for registration or an 
                amendment, including biological and 
                conventional pesticides, will be considered for 
                expedited review under this paragraph. An 
                application for registration or an amendment 
                shall qualify for expedited review if use of 
                the pesticide proposed by the application may 
                reasonably be expected to accomplish 1 or more 
                of the following:
                          ``(i) Reduce the risks of pesticides 
                        to human health.
                          ``(ii) Reduce the risks of pesticides 
                        to nontarget organisms.
                          ``(iii) Reduce the potential for 
                        contamination of groundwater, surface 
                        water, or other valued environmental 
                        resources.
                          ``(iv) Broaden the adoption of 
                        integrated pest management strategies, 
                        or make such strategies more available 
                        or more effective.
                  ``(C) The Administrator, not later than 30 
                days after receipt of an application for 
                expedited review, shall notify the applicant 
                whether the application is complete. If it is 
                found to be incomplete, the Administrator may 
                either reject the request for expedited review 
                or ask the applicant for additional information 
                to satisfy the guidelines developed under 
                subparagraph (A).''.

 TITLE III--DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES TO ASSURE THE HEALTH OF INFANTS 
                    AND CHILDREN AND OTHER MEASURES

 SEC. 301. DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES TO ASSURE THE HEALTH OF INFANTS 
                    AND CHILDREN.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in 
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, shall coordinate the development and implementation 
of survey procedures to ensure that adequate data on food 
consumption patterns of infants and children are collected.
  (b) Procedures.--To the extent practicable, the procedures 
referred to in subsection (a) shall include the collection of 
data on food consumption patterns of a statistically valid 
sample of infants and children.
  (c) Residue Data Collection.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
shall ensure that the residue data collection activities 
conducted by the Department of Agriculture in cooperation with 
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of 
Health and Human Services, provide for the improved data 
collection of pesticide residues, including guidelines for the 
use of comparable analytical and standardized reporting 
methods, and the increased sampling of foods most likely 
consumed by infants and children.

 SEC. 302. COLLECTION OF PESTICIDE USE INFORMATION.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall collect 
data of statewide or regional significance on the use of 
pesticides to control pests and diseases of major crops and 
crops of dietary significance, including fruits and vegetables.
  (b) Collection.--The data shall be collected by surveys of 
farmers or from other sources offering statistically reliable 
data.
  (c) Coordination.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall, as 
appropriate, coordinate with the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency in the design of the surveys 
and make available to the Administrator the aggregate results 
of the surveys to assist the Administrator.

 SEC. 303. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT.

  The Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with the 
Administrator, shall implement research, demonstration, and 
education programs to support adoption of Integrated Pest 
Management. Integrated Pest Management is a sustainable 
approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, 
physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, 
health, and environmental risks. The Secretary of Agriculture 
and the Administrator shall make information on Integrated Pest 
Management widely available to pesticide users, including 
Federal agencies. Federal agencies shall use Integrated Pest 
Management techniques in carrying out pest management 
activities and shall promote Integrated Pest Management through 
procurement and regulatory policies, and other activities.

 SEC. 304. COORDINATION OF CANCELLATION.

  Section 2(bb) (7 U.S.C. 136(bb)) is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``means''; and
          (2) by striking the period at the end of the first 
        sentence and inserting ``, or (2) a human dietary risk 
        from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in 
        or on any food inconsistent with the standard the 
        Administrator determines is adequate to protect the 
        public health under section 408 of the Federal Food, 
        Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a).''.

 SEC. 305. PESTICIDE USE INFORMATION STUDY.

  (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall, in consultation with 
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
prepare a report to Congress evaluating the current status and 
potential improvements in Federal pesticide use information 
gathering activities. This report shall at least include--
          (1) an analysis of the quality and reliability of the 
        information collected by the Department of Agriculture, 
        the Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal 
        agencies regarding the agricultural use of pesticides; 
        and
          (2) an analysis of options to increase the 
        effectiveness of national pesticide use information 
        collection, including an analysis of costs, burdens 
        placed on agricultural producers and other pesticide 
        users, and effectiveness in tracking risk reduction by 
        those options.
  (b) The Secretary shall submit this report to Congress not 
later than 1 year following the date of enactment of this 
section.

  Add at the end the following:

                             TITLE V--FEES

SEC. 501. REREGISTRATION FEES.

  (a) Section 4(i).--Section 4(i) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(i)), as 
amended by section 232(2), is amended--
          (1) in paragraphs (5)(H) and (6), by striking 
        ``1997'' and inserting ``2001''; and
          (2) in paragraph (5)(C), by inserting ``(i)'' after 
        ``(C)'' and by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(ii) in each of the fiscal years 1998, 
                1999, and 2000, the Administrator is authorized 
                to collect up to an additional $2,000,000 in a 
                manner consistent with subsection (k)(5) and 
                the recommendations of the Inspector General of 
                the Environmental Protection Agency. The total 
                fees that may be collected under this clause 
                shall not exceed $6,000,000.''.
  (b) Section 4(k)(1).--Section 4(k)(1) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(k)(1) 
is amended by inserting before the period the following: 
``which shall be known as the Reregistration and Expedited 
Processing Fund''.
  (c) Section 4(k)(2).--Section 4(k)(2) (7 136a-1(k)(2)) is 
amended to read as follows:
          ``(2) Source and use.--
                  ``(A) All moneys derived from fees collected 
                by the Administrator under subsection (i) shall 
                be deposited in the fund and shall be available 
                to the Administrator, without fiscal year 
                limitation, specifically to offset the costs of 
                reregistration and expedited processing of the 
                applications specified in paragraph (3). Such 
                moneys derived from fees may not be expended in 
                any fiscal year to the extent such moneys 
                derived from fees would exceed money 
                appropriated for use by the Administrator and 
                expended in such year for such costs of 
                reregistration and expedited processing of such 
                applications. The Administrator shall, prior to 
                expending any such moneys derived from fees--
                          ``(i) effective October 1, 1997, 
                        adopt specific and cost accounting 
                        rules and procedures as approved by the 
                        General Accounting Office and the 
                        Inspector General of the Environmental 
                        Protection Agency to ensure that moneys 
                        derived from fees are allocated solely 
                        to the costs of reregistration and 
                        expedited processing of the 
                        applications specified in paragraph (3) 
                        in the same portion as appropriated 
                        funds;
                          ``(ii) prohibit the use of such 
                        moneys derived from fees to pay for any 
                        costs other than those necessary to 
                        achieve reregistration and expedited 
                        processing of the applications 
                        specified in paragraph (3); and
                          ``(iii) ensure that personnel and 
                        facility costs associated with the 
                        functions to be carried out under this 
                        paragraph do not exceed agency averages 
                        for comparable personnel and facility 
                        costs.
                  ``(B) The Administrator shall also--
                          ``(i) complete the review of 
                        unreviewed reregistration studies 
                        required to support the reregistration 
                        eligibility decisions scheduled for 
                        completion in accordance with 
                        subsection (l)(2); and
                          ``(ii) contract for such outside 
                        assistance as may be necessary for 
                        review of required studies, using a 
                        generally accepted competitive process 
                        for the selection of vendors of such 
                        assistance.''.
  (d) Section 4(k)(3).--Section 4(k)(3) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(k)(3)) 
is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking out ``for each 
        of the fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994, \1/7\th of 
        the maintenance fees collected, up to 2 million each 
        year'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``for each of the 
        fiscal years 1997 through 2001, not more than \1/7\ of 
        the maintenance fees collected in such fiscal year''; 
        and
          (2) by adding a new subparagraph (C) to read as 
        follows:
                  ``(C) These Administrator shall complete the 
                processing of the unprocessed expedited review 
                applications within 5 years from the date of 
                enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act of 
                1996.''.
  (e) Section 4(k)(5).--Section 4(k)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(k)(5)) 
is amended to read as follows:
          ``(5) Accounting and performance.--The Administrator 
        shall take all steps necessary to ensure that 
        expenditures from fees authorized by subsection 
        (i)(5)(C)(ii) are used only to carry out the goals 
        established under subsection (l). The Reregistration 
        and Expedited Processing Fund shall be designated as an 
        Environmental Protection Agency component for purposes 
        of section 3515(c) of title 31, United States Code. The 
        annual audit required under section 3521 of such title 
        of the financial statements of activities under this 
        Act under section 3515(b) of such title shall include 
        an audit of the fees collected under subsection 
        (i)(5)(C) and disbursed, of the amount appropriated to 
        match such fees, and of the Administrator's attainment 
        of performance measure and goals established under 
        subsection (l). Such an audit shall also include a 
        review of the reasonableness of the overhead allocation 
        and adequacy of disclosures of direct and indirect 
        costs associated with carrying out the reregistration 
        and expedited processing of the applications specified 
        in paragraph (3), and the basis for and accuracy of all 
        costs paid with moneys derived from such fees. The 
        Inspector General shall conduct the annual audit and 
        report the findings and recommendations of such audit 
        to the Administrator and to the Committees on 
        Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the 
        Senate. The cost of such audit shall be paid for out of 
        the fees collected under subsection (i)(5)(C).''.
  (f) Goals.--Subsections (l) and (m) of section 4 (7 U.S.C. 
136a-1), as amended by section 237, are redesignated as 
subsections (m) and (n) respectively and the following is 
inserted after subsection (k):
  ``(l) Performance Measures and Goal.--The Administrator shall 
establish and publish annually in the Federal Register 
performance measures and goals. Such measures and goals shall 
include--
          ``(1) the number of products reregistered, canceled, 
        or amended, the status of reregistration, the number 
        and type of data requests under section 3(c)(2)(B) 
        issued to support product reregistration by active 
        ingredient, the progress in reducing the number of 
        unreviewed, required reregistration studies, the 
        aggregate status of tolerances reassessed, and the 
        number of applications for registration submitted under 
        subsection (k)(3) that were approved or disapproved;
          ``(2) the future schedule for reregistrations, 
        including the projection for such schedules that will 
        be issued under subsection (g)(2)(A) and (B) in the 
        current fiscal year and the succeeding fiscal year; and
          ``(3) the projected year of completion of the 
        reregistrations under this section.''.

                        TITLE VI--INDIAN TRIBES

 SEC. 601. AUTHORITY OF INDIAN TRIBES.

  (a) In General.--Section 24 (7 U.S.C. 136v) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the comma 
        the following: ``and an Indian tribe may only regulate 
        the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide 
        or device within the boundaries of a Federal Indian 
        reservation for such tribe if at least 50 percent of 
        the lands in such reservation are owned by members of 
        the tribe or the tribe'';
          (2) in subsections (b) and (c), by inserting ``or 
        Indian tribe'' after ``State'' each time it occurs; and
          (3) in the section heading, by inserting before the 
        period the following: ``AND INDIAN TRIBES''.
  (b) Enforcement.--Section 26 (7 U.S.C. 136w-1) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and an Indian 
        tribe with respect to violations which occur within the 
        boundaries of a Federal Indian reservation for such 
        tribe, but only if at least 50 percent of the lands in 
        such reservation are owned by members of the tribe or 
        the tribe'' after ``violations'' and by inserting ``or 
        Indian tribe'' after ``State'' each place it occurs;
          (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or Indian 
        tribe'' after ``State'' in the first sentence;
          (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or Indian 
        tribes'' after ``States''; and
          (4) in the section heading, by inserting ``AND INDIAN 
        TRIBE'' after ``STATE''.

                           Brief Explanation

    Title I, Subtitle A would amend various FIFRA provisions 
governing EPA regulation of pesticide distribution and use.
    Section 102 would retain the current requirement that EPA 
issue a notice of its intention to cancel the registration or 
to change the classification of a pesticide before it issues an 
order of suspension. However, the bill would amend FIFRA to 
allow EPA to issue a suspension order in an emergency before 
issuing a notice of intent to cancel registration, as long as a 
notice was issued no more than 90 days after the emergency 
order. If a notice were not issued within 90 days, the 
emergency order would expire.
    Current law requires all pesticides first registered for 
use prior to 1984 to be reregistered based on current 
standards. Section 103 of the bill would require EPA, when 
reregistering these older pesticides for uses on food and 
animal feed, to reevaluate pesticide residue limits 
(tolerances) and exemptions issued under the FFDCA Section 408 
in light of the requirements of the amended Act. The section 
directs EPA to consider available information and reasonable 
assumptions about consumers' exposure to pesticide residue on 
foods, and specifically the exposures and sensitivities of 
infants and children.
    Section 104 would create a Science Review Board of 60 
scientists to assist the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel under 
FIFRA with reviews.
    Section 105 would define ``nitrogen stabilizers'' for FIFRA 
purposes.
    Section 106 would remove references to political 
subdivisions of states in sections of FIFRA that authorize 
state action to enforce FIFRA and that require EPA to 
coordinate such actions with state governments. Section 106 
would prohibit local regulation of pesticides.
    Section 107 would eliminate the existing provision of FIFRA 
that requires a registration to be canceled after 5 years. 
Instead, Section 107 would require periodic review of 
registrations with a goal of reviewing each pesticide every 15 
years. The existing provision allowing sale and use of existing 
pesticide stocks after cancellation would be retained.
    Title I, Subtitle B would add a new section to FIFRA to 
authorize states to establish minimum requirements for training 
of pesticide maintenance applicators, such as janitors and 
grounds maintenance personnel, and service technicians who use 
or supervise the use of pesticides for the purpose of providing 
structural or lawn pest control. Such requirements would not 
apply to government employees, individuals who use 
antimicrobial pesticides, private use of pesticides, or any use 
of ready-to-use consumer products pesticides. EPA's authority 
would be limited to ensuring that states understood the 
provisions of this section.
    Title II, Subtitle A would address registration and 
reregistration of pesticides for relatively small-scale uses, 
such as fruit or nut production; these are known as ``minor 
uses.'' Section 210(a) would add a definition for ``minor use'' 
to FIFRA.
    Section 210(b) would extend the period of exclusive use of 
data supporting a minor use registration by the original 
registrant. The current 10-year period of exclusive use would 
be expanded one additional year for each 3 minor uses 
registered within 7 years of the first registration. No 
exclusive use period would be longer than 13 years. Data 
supporting a new minor use registered after the original 
exclusive use period has lapsed would be protected for 10 
years, as long as the data were not used to support a 
registration for a non-minor use and the minor use registration 
remained in effect.
    Section 210(c) would require EPA to provide additional time 
for the submission of residue chemistry data supporting 
registration or reregistration of minor-use pesticides, if the 
registrant requests it; commits to provide data for any food 
use, or if all uses are non- food uses, for any other use; and 
the Administrator determines that the extension would not 
significantly delay a reregistration eligibility determination 
and would not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable 
adverse effects on the environment.
    Section 210(d) would authorize EPA to waive data 
requirements for a minor-use pesticide registration if it would 
not adversely affect risk assessment or have an unreasonable 
adverse effect on the environment.
    Section 210(e) would require expeditious review and action 
on complete applications for registration or reregistration of 
minor use pesticides. In addition, it would provide a full time 
period to submit data if a minor use waiver were requested and 
denied.
    Section 210(f) would require EPA to delay action regarding 
an unsupported minor use reregistration until after the final 
data submission deadline for supported uses.
    Section 210(g) would require the Administrator to defer for 
180 days, 90 days longer than required under current law, a 
decision regarding a request for voluntary cancellation of a 
registration that might adversely affect the availability of 
the pesticide for a minor use. This would provide additional 
time for a registrant to reach an agreement with others to 
transfer registration of the pesticide. Section 210(g) also 
facilitates registrations that are transferred.
    Section 210(h) would require EPA to process an application 
for a minor pesticide use without regard to any pending request 
to voluntarily cancel a substantially similar pesticide use.
    Section 210(i) would establish a program in EPA to 
coordinate activities related to minor use pesticides. The USDA 
also would be required to coordinate its minor use pesticide 
activities. A minor-use, matching grant program would be 
established by USDA to develop data to support registrations. 
Section 210(i) would authorize appropriations of up to $10 
million annually.
    Title II, Subtitle B would amend FIFRA to expedite 
registration procedures for antimicrobial pesticides. The bill 
directs EPA to identify and evaluate reforms to the 
registration process for such pesticides in order to reduce 
review periods to the maximum extent practicable. Maximum time 
periods for review are specified in Subtitle B for various 
activities.
    Title II, Subtitle C also would modify registration 
procedures for pesticides used to protect public health, for 
example, through the control of insect vectors. Subtitle C 
would mandate increased involvement by the Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in decisions 
about such pesticides. The Administrator would be directed to 
identify pests of significant public health importance and to 
analyze and compare public health benefits of pesticide use 
against the risks. Up to $12 million would be authorized to be 
appropriated for this subtitle in FY1997.
    Title II, Subtitle D would establish an expedited review 
process for applications to register or amend registrations for 
pesticides that are expected to reduce pesticide risks.
    Title III would require the USDA Secretary, in consultation 
with EPA and DHHS, to coordinate the development and 
implementation of procedures to ensure collection of adequate 
data on food consumption patterns and pesticide exposures of 
infants and children. Title III also would establish a 
research, demonstration, and education program to support 
adoption of integrated pest management.
    Title IV, as introduced, would amend the FFDCA to 
restructure the statutory authority for setting pesticide 
chemical residue tolerances and exemptions for food. It would 
not amend Section 409 which contains the Delaney Clause, but it 
would remove pesticide residues in processed food from the 
definition of a ``food additive'' and redefine other terms. The 
effect would be to require tolerances for all pesticide 
residues on raw and processed food to be based on a single 
negligible risk criterion, in accordance with new procedures 
set out in an amended Section 408.
    Section 402 would redefine ``pesticide chemical,'' 
``pesticide chemical residue,'' and ``food additive,'' and 
define for the first time ``processed food'' and 
``Administrator.''
    Section 405 would rewrite FIFRA Section 408 so that EPA 
would be required to set tolerances at a level that the dietary 
risk to consumers from exposure to the pesticide is negligible. 
No quantitative standard of negligible risk would be required, 
but EPA would be directed to take into account the actual 
levels of residues on foods and USDA pesticide use and residue 
data. Section 405 would require EPA to consider a tolerance 
adequate to protect public health when it posed a risk that was 
not unreasonable, considering the risks avoided through 
pesticide use as well as the benefits conferred by an adequate, 
wholesome, and economical food supply. EPA would be prohibited 
from considering the economic effects of a tolerance level on 
the pesticide registrant, manufacturer, or marketer of a 
pesticide. Title IV would allow any person to petition EPA to 
establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or an exemption.
    Section 405 would codify EPA's ``coordination policy'' 
requiring EPA to cancel or suspend tolerances for pesticides 
when the relevant food-use registration has been canceled or 
suspended under FIFRA. It also provides for national uniformity 
of tolerances by prohibiting states and localities from issuing 
or enforcing different and more stringent tolerance limits on 
pesticide residues which they can do today; states would be 
allowed to petition EPA for a different tolerance.
    Section 406 would authorize to be appropriated an 
additional $12 million for FDA monitoring of pesticide residues 
in imported and domestic food.
    Title V Section 501 would extend EPA authorization to 
collect $14 million annually in registration maintenance fees 
from pesticide registrants until September 30, 2001. It 
authorizes collection of up to $2 million in additional fees in 
the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. EPA would be required to 
complete processing all pending applications for expedited 
review within 5 years of enactment. Section 501 directs EPA to 
establish and publish annually performance measures and goals, 
including goals for reregistration, and to ensure that 
expenditures from fees are used only to accomplish those goals. 
The bill would require an annual audit of the fees collected 
and disbursed and of EPA attainment of performance goals.
    Title VI would authorize Indian tribes to regulate the sale 
or use of any federally registered pesticide or device and to 
enforce violations of FIFRA on lands within the boundaries of a 
federal Indian reservation if at least 50% of such land is 
owned by members of the tribe or the tribe.

                            Purpose and Need

                                   I

    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
(FIFRA) of 1947 was enacted to regulate the marketing of 
pesticides and devices, and for other purposes. In the 
intervening years, the Act was expanded to extend additional 
authority to the primary federal regulatory agency, the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to evaluate and regulate 
the human health and environmental risks of pesticides. By law, 
the EPA is authorized to register a pesticide for use in the 
United States only if a pesticide will not generally cause 
unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the 
environment. The FIFRA further specifies that a determination 
of unreasonable adverse effects requires a finding that the 
risks associated with the use of a pesticide outweigh the 
environmental, social and economic benefits associated with the 
pesticide's use.
    Sound, verifiable scientific analysis is critical to 
ensuring rational regulatory decisions. Many pesticides have 
been registered, and several have been voluntarily or 
regulatorily cancelled, since the statute was first enacted. 
Over the years, the standards for pesticide evaluation and 
registration have generally evolved in tandem with science and 
public policy. In particular, test data requirements for 
pesticides have become increasingly stringent because of 
analytical advances in toxicology, oncology, residue chemistry, 
and other scientific disciplines. Under the FIFRA, pesticide 
registrants are responsible for providing all of the test data 
necessary to satisfy the EPA's registration requirements.
    Titles I, II, and III of the bill are to ensure that the 
Administrator of EPA is able to make balanced regulatory 
decisions affecting the registration and use of pesticides. 
Particular changes to the FIFRA where necessary to preserve and 
advance the Administrator's ability to accomplish these 
regulatory decisions and clarify the Act where confusion had 
emerged. This is accomplished by providing the Administrator of 
EPA with sufficient authority to adjust pesticide evaluation 
and registration standards as scientific risk and benefit 
assessment technologies and methodologies advance, to react 
expeditiously to threats of imminent hazards as defined in the 
Act, clarify definitions and the Administrator's role in 
regulating nitrogen stabilizers, establish continuity among the 
states regarding the regulation of pesticides, and to ensure 
the Administrator has sufficient cooperation from the 
Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services in 
developing and utilizing dietary and other exposure data that 
will assist the Administrator in making sound science-based 
regulatory decisions.

                                   II

    The bill requires the Administrator of EPA to periodically 
review the registration of each pesticide. It has become 
apparent that the rapid development of science and the 
subsequent application of that knowledge in how it impacts 
human health and the environment is not only important but 
continuing to evolve. The goal of establishing ongoing 
scientific look-back procedures will enable the important 
process of registration review to be considered every 15 years 
during a pesticide product's market life. This creates a 
continuous reregistration process that both the Agency and the 
registrant can plan for, rather than creating the need for 
another complete, resource-intensive reregistration of all 
pesticide products at one time in the future.

                                  III

    A number of pesticides have not been evaluated against the 
current, more stringent standards that have been developed 
since the time when the pesticides were first approved. As a 
result of amendments to FIFRA in 1988, the registrations of 
pesticides licensed prior to 1984 are currently undergoing 
review based on the new standards (reregistration). The process 
of reregistration involves the production of additional data to 
support the continuation of the registration of a particular 
pesticide product label. This reregistration process has 
stimulated the voluntary cancellation of numerous labels 
important to the smaller acreage agricultural crops also known 
as ``minor use'' crops. If the EPA Administrator receives a 
commitment by a registrant to support a labelled use with the 
necessary data requirements to reregister that use it is 
allowed to remain available to farmers. If the labelled use is 
unsupported then that use is dropped from the label and becomes 
unavailable to farmers. In other words, reregistration has 
caused the registrant to withdraw support for minor use labels 
because of an economic choice between the cost of 
reregistration testing and future sales of that product. In the 
final analysis, this acts as a bias against minor uses because 
they are discontinued while registrants continue to support 
labels for major uses.
    New pesticide registrations require a comprehensive safety 
testing data package for all labeled uses and few new pesticide 
product registrations seek labels allowing for use on minor 
crops. As registrants develop and register new generation 
pesticides, little economic incentive exists for registrants to 
pursue the costly safety testing to label them for minor use 
crops. Similar to the economic dilemma registrants face with 
reregistration, the potential sales a pesticide product may 
generate on a minor crop might be insufficient to justify the 
expense of the required safety data needed to realize a label 
for that particular crop. The result is fewer pesticide tools 
being registered for use on minor crops.
    The development of regulatory mechanisms that create 
incentives for registrants to go to the trouble and expense of 
establishing labels that have uses for minor crops is 
important. The bill will create the following, among other, 
incentives for a registrant to develop and maintain minor use 
labels:
    (1) Provides to the registrant an additional 3 years of 
exclusive use of data to support the registration.
    (2) Allows a time extension for submission of certain data.
    (3) Allows for a waiver of certain data requirements as 
long as the absence of this data does not prevent a 
determination of the pesticide's risk.
    (4) Allows for the expedited review of new minor use 
registrations.

                                   IV

    Pesticides utilized for the control of microorganisms in 
restaurants, hospitals, and institutions for sanitation reasons 
are indispensable. Protection against the presence and growth 
of microorganisms capable of food borne illness or spread of 
nosocomial infections need to be addressed through a diverse 
and efficacious arsenal of antimicrobial sanitizers. The 
antimicrobial pesticide registration process has been patterned 
after the process utilized for agricultural pesticides. The 
registration of antimicrobial pesticides have been plagued with 
inefficiencies and unnecessary delays. In order to improve upon 
the registration of antimicrobial pesticides and how those 
registrations are managed, the bill provides a definition for 
these important products and improves the registration 
efficiency by recognizing their unique purpose compared to that 
of other pesticide products. Furthermore, the bill will 
streamline label changes for registered antimicrobial products, 
and require Federal and State coordination where duplicative 
requirements exist.

                                   V

    Pesticides utilized for control of organisms responsible 
for spread of human illness are important to society. The 
spread of disease takes many forms and insect carriers or 
vectors can become a major public health problem. Insect 
vectors of human disease will continue to persist and new ones 
continue to emerge. Menacing vectors, such as the Asian Tiger 
Mosquito, that are capable of transmitting malaria, as well as 
other diseases, are able to survive under extreme climatic 
conditions, and therefore pose a grave public health concern 
and need to be controlled. Pesticides important to the quality 
of public health qualify as minor uses since they do not always 
provide sufficient economic incentive to the registrant to 
maintain existing registrations or support new registrations. 
The proposed legislation recognizes the distinctive need of 
these pesticides and that they should be evaluated for approval 
on a different standard. The bill requires EPA to evaluate a 
qualifying public health pesticide by comparing the risks from 
the pesticide to the risks associated with the disease 
transmitted by the vector.

                                   VI

    Many newer generation pesticides have the benefit of being 
more specific to the indicated target pest and having a shorter 
environmental life. These newer technologies contain important 
qualities and should be promoted. Recognizing that some 
pesticides may have a reduced risk to human health and the 
environment, an expedited review by the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency would more rapidly advance the 
registration of these new pesticide tools, and would speed up 
end-use access to the next generation of pest management tools. 
The Administrator has already recognized the importance of 
expediting registrations of reduced risk pesticides. This 
section of the bill is to compliment and reinforce the 
processing of the registration applications of those pesticide 
products that the Administrator reasonably believes will reduce 
the risks of pesticide use to human health and to nontarget 
organisms, reduce the potential for contamination of 
environmental resources, and broaden the adoption of and 
improve the effectiveness of integrated pest management 
strategies.

                                  VII

    There is an increase in the concerns regarding the effects 
of pesticide food residues on the young, particularly on 
infants and children. The medical and risk assessment 
disciplines have voiced concern about the lack of good data on 
the dietary consumption patterns of infants and children. These 
same credible sources have indicated the absence of information 
on the dietary patterns of the young may be putting our 
children at risk relative to those pesticide residue tolerances 
based on generally accepted assumptions by the EPA instead of 
hard data. The Committee recognizes the need for this 
information and directs the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA), 
the Administrator of the EPA, and the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services (HHS) to coordinate the development and 
implementation of dietary survey procedures to ensure adequate 
data on the food consumption patterns of infants and children. 
It is also the Committee's expectation that USDA, EPA and HHS 
will extend this cooperative effort to related dietary surveys.

                                  VIII

    The 1988 amendments to the FIFRA established a seven-year 
time frame for the Administrator of EPA to complete the 
reregistration of the active ingredients and related pesticide 
products registered for use prior to 1985. Included in the 
reregistration provisions was the authority for the 
Administrator to collect fees to augment the Agency resources 
necessary to conduct reregistration. For several reasons, the 
Administrator will not be able to finish reregistration by the 
September 30, 1997 deadline. Therefore it is necessary to 
extend EPA's authority to annually collect $14 million in 
maintenance fees under FIFRA Section 4, for a total of $70 
million over the five years authorized. In order to assist the 
Administrator with the so-called ``back-log'' of reregistration 
studies the bill authorizes an additional $6 million in fees 
that can be collected over the five year FIFRA reauthorization.
    Due to the various reasons that this reregistration was not 
successfully completed in the time frame allotted by the 1988 
FIFRA amendment, the Committee finds it necessary to establish 
financial and performance standards and implement an audit 
procedure for the reregistration process to ensure that the 
current and future Congresses have adequate information by 
which to judge the EPA's progress toward completing 
reregistration.

                           Section-By-Section

Sec. 1. Short title

    H.R. 1627 may be cited as the ``Food Quality Protection Act 
of 1996.''

                    title i--suspension-applicators

Sec. 101. Reference

    Section 101 states that whenever this title provides for 
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
referenced section or provision is of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 USC 136).

                         subtitle a--suspension

Sec. 102. Suspension

    Section 102 would amend Section 6(c) of FIFRA (7 USC 
136d(c)) pertaining to the necessary suspension of a pesticide 
registration to prevent an imminent hazard during the time 
required for cancellation or change in classification 
proceedings. Existing law requires, as a condition for ordering 
a suspension, issuance of a notice of intention to cancel the 
registration or to change the pesticide classification. This 
provision would be retained. However, under the amended Section 
6(c), EPA could issue an emergency order before issuing a 
notice of its intent to cancel a registration (or to change a 
pesticide classification). However, if a notice were not issued 
within 90 days of the issuance of the emergency order, the 
emergency order would expire.

       Sec. 103. Tolerance reevaluation as part of reregistration

    Section 103 would amend FIFRA Section 4(g)(2) (7 USC 136a-
1(g)(2)), pertaining to reregistration of pesticides, by adding 
at the end a new subparagraph (E) requiring the Administrator: 
(i) to reassess each pesticide residue tolerance and exemption 
from the requirement for a tolerance issued under Section 408 
of the FFDCA; (ii) to determine whether it meets requirements 
of the FFDCA (as it would be amended by the ``Food Quality 
Protection Act of 1995''; (iii) to determine whether additional 
tolerances or exemptions should be issued; (iv) to publish a 
notice of these determinations in the Federal Register; and (v) 
promptly to commence such proceedings as are warranted under 
FIFRA and the new Section 408 of the FFDCA, as soon as there is 
sufficient information with respect to the dietary risk of a 
particular active ingredient and no later than when a 
determination is made as to whether pesticides containing a 
particular active ingredient should or should not be 
reregistered. In reassessing tolerances and exemptions, it 
directs EPA to consider available information and reasonable 
assumptions concerning dietary exposure levels of consumers, 
including major identifiable subgroups such as infants and 
children, and the variability of sensitivities of such groups.

Sec. 104. Scientific advisory panel

    Section 104(1) would amend FIFRA Section 25(d) (7 USC 
136w(d)) by making the existing provisions establishing the 
Scientific Advisory Panel a single subsection (1) and adding 
the subsection title ``IN GENERAL.''
    Section 104(2) would amend FIFRA Section 25(d) (7 USC 
136w(d)) by adding a new subsection (2) creating a Science 
Review Board consisting of 60 scientists selected and 
compensated in the same way as members of temporary subpanels 
created under subparagraph (1). The Board would be available to 
assist in reviews conducted by the Panel.

Sec. 105. Nitrogen stabilizer

     Section 105(a)(1) would amend the definition for ``active 
ingredient'' in FIFRA Section 2(a) (7 USC 136(a)) to 
distinguish the function of active ingredients in nitrogen 
stabilizers from the functions of other active ingredients. The 
stated function of an active ingredient in a nitrogen 
stabilizer would be to ``prevent or hinder the process of 
nitrification, denitrification, ammonia volatilization, or 
urease production through action affecting soil bacteria.''
    Section 105(a)(2) would expand the definition of 
``pesticide'' in Section 2(u) to include nitrogen stabilizers.
    Section 105(a)(3) would add a definition at clause (hh) for 
``nitrogen stabilizer'' which excludes from the definition (1) 
dicyandiamide, (2) ammonium thiosulfate, or (3) any substance 
or mixture of substances that (A) were not registered prior to 
January 1, 1992 pursuant to Section 3, and (B) were in 
commercial agronomic use prior to January 1, 1992; such 
substances would be excluded from the definition of nitrogen 
stabilizer if the distributor or seller ``has made no specific 
claim of prevention or hindering of the process of 
nitrification, denitrification, ammonia volatilization[, or] 
urease production'' after January 1, 1992, ``regardless of the 
actual use or purpose for, or future use or purpose for, the 
substance or mixture.'' Statements in materials required to be 
submitted to a state legislative or regulatory authority or 
required by such authority to be included in the labelling or 
other literature for such substance or mixture, would not be 
considered ``a specific claim'' for the purpose of this 
subsection.
    Section 105(b) would amend FIFRA Section 3(f) (7 USC 
136a(f)), pertaining to miscellaneous matters related to 
pesticide registration, by adding a new paragraph (4) providing 
that a mixture of registered nitrogen stabilizers and 
fertilizer products is not subject to the provisions of 
Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 15, or 17(a)(2) if the mixture is labelled 
as required for the nitrogen stabilizer contained in the 
mixture, the mixture is in accordance with the label, and the 
mixture does not contain any other active ingredient.

Sec. 106. Authority of States

    Section 106(a)(1) would amend FIFRA Section 2(aa) (7 USC 
136(aa)) by adding to the definition of ``state'' to exclude a 
local government (as defined in new subsection (ii) below). 
Section 106(a)(1) also would clarify that the definition is not 
intended to grant any authority or to otherwise refer to 
political subdivisions of a state.
    Section 106(a)(2) would add a new subsection (ii) to define 
``local government.''
    Section 106(b) would amend FIFRA Section 8(b) (7 USC 
136f(b)) to eliminate the requirement that pesticide facilities 
permit political subdivisions of a state access to facility 
records for the purpose of FIFRA enforcement.
    Section 106(c) would amend FIFRA Section 22(b) (7 USC 
136t(b)) to eliminate the requirement for EPA to cooperate with 
political subdivisions of states in implementing FIFRA and in 
securing uniformity of regulations.
    Section 106(d) would amend Section 24 (7 USC 136v), 
pertaining to the authority of state governments, by adding two 
new subsections. New Section 24(d) would prohibit local 
governments from imposing or continuing in effect any 
regulation or requirement regarding pesticides or devices. New 
Section 24(e) would declare that Section 24 does not prohibit 
state enforcement or enactment of laws or implementation of 
regulations applicable to local governments regarding the sale 
or use of a federally registered pesticide or device.
    Section 106(e) would amend Section 25(e) (7 USC 136w(e)) 
pertaining to peer review. New Section 25(e) would not require 
peer review for studies conducted by a political subdivision of 
a state.

Sec. 107. Periodic registration review

    Section 107(a) would rewrite FIFRA Section 6(a) (7 USC 
136d(a)) which currently requires EPA to cancel registration of 
any pesticide at the end of the 5-year period beginning on the 
date of its registration unless the registrant requests that 
the registration be continued in effect. The current law 
permits continued sale and use of existing stocks of a 
pesticide whose registration is canceled ``to such extent, 
under such conditions, and for such uses as the Administrator 
may specify, if the Administrator determines that such sale or 
use is not inconsistent with the purposes of FIFRA and will not 
have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' New 
Section 6(a) would eliminate the requirement for cancellation 
and permit the continued sale and use of existing stocks of a 
pesticide whose registration is suspended or canceled ``to such 
extent, under such conditions, and for such uses as the 
Administrator determines that such sale or use is not 
inconsistent with the purposes of this Act.''
    Section 107(b) would amend Section 3, pertaining to 
registration, by adding a new subsection (g). New Section 
3(g)(1)(A) would require registrations of pesticides to be 
periodically reviewed. It would direct the Administrator to 
promulgate rules establishing a procedure for such review with 
a goal of review for each pesticide's registration every 15 
years. Cancellation of registration as a result of the review 
would be permitted only if EPA followed the procedures and 
substantive requirements of Section 6. New Section 3(g)(1)(B) 
states that the subsection would not prohibit EPA from 
undertaking any other review of a pesticide authorized under 
FIFRA.
    New Section 3(g)(2)(A) would direct EPA to use its 
authority in Section 3(c)(2)(B) to require submission of any 
data needed for registration review.
    New Section 3(g)(2)(B) would extend the application of 
subsections 3(c)(1), 3(c)(2)(B), and 3(c)(2)(D) to data 
required for registration renewal under this subsection.

      Subtitle B--Training for Maintenance Applicators and Service 
                              Technicians

Sec. 120. Maintenance applicators and service technicians definitions

    Section 120 would amend FIFRA Section 2 by adding a new 
definition at clause (jj) for ``maintenance applicator.'' The 
term would be defined to mean any individual who, in the 
principal course of employment, uses, or supervises the use of, 
a pesticide not classified for restricted use (other than a 
ready-to-use consumer product); for the purpose of providing 
structural pest control or lawn pest control including 
janitors, general maintenance personnel, sanitation personnel, 
and grounds maintenance personnel. The term would not include 
private applicators as defined in Section 2(e)(2); individuals 
who use antimicrobial pesticides, sanitizers or disinfectants; 
individuals employed by federal, state, or local governments or 
any political subdivisions thereof, or individuals who use 
pesticides not classified for restricted use in or around their 
homes, boats, sod farms, nurseries, green houses, or other non-
commercial property.
    Section 120 also would add a new definition for ``service 
technician'' at clause (kk) of Section 2. The term ``service 
technician'' would mean any individual who uses or supervises 
the use of pesticides (other than ready-to-use consumer 
products) for the purpose of providing structural pest control 
or lawn pest control on the property of another for a fee. The 
term would not include individuals who use antimicrobial 
pesticides, sanitizers or disinfectants or who otherwise apply 
ready-to-use consumer products pesticides.

Sec. 121. Minimum requirements for training of maintenance applicators 
        and service technicians

    Section 121 would amend FIFRA by redesignating Sections 30 
and 31 as Sections 32 and 33, respectively and by adding a new 
Section 30. New Section 30 would authorize states to establish 
minimum requirements for training of maintenance applicators 
and service technicians, including instruction in the safe and 
effective handling and use of pesticides in accordance with 
EPA-approved labels and in integrated pest management 
techniques. Section 121 would limit EPA authority under this 
section to ensuring that each state understands the provisions.
    The fiscal 1996 appropriations law for the Environmental 
Protection Agency (P.L. 104-134) provided the Administrator the 
authority to make grants annually from funds appropriated under 
the state and Tribal Assistance Grants section. The grants, 
referred to by the Agency as Performance Partnership Grants, 
could be made to any State or a federal recognized Indian tribe 
for multimedia or single media pollution prevention, control 
and abatement, and related environmental activities at the 
request of the Governor or other appropriate State official or 
the tribe. The Committee is seriously concerned about the 
implementation of these grants; specifically that the pesticide 
enforcement programs in the states may not receive the funding 
necessary to ensure the proper use of pesticides or the safety 
of the food supply. The Committee is concerned that these 
important pesticide enforcement funds could, inappropriately, 
be used to fund other programs. To ensure that safety of the 
American food supply, the Committee fully expects and intends 
that in implementing the Performance Partnership Grants, the 
Agency will ensure that all pesticide enforcement and program 
monies continue to be provided to the state lead pesticide 
agency responsible for pesticide enforcement. The Committee 
further expects and intends that EPA will ensure that pesticide 
enforcement and programs funds will not be used for other 
environmental purposes.

     Title II--Minor Use Crop Protection, Antimicrobial Pesticide 
            Registration Reform and Public Health Pesticides

Sec. 201. Reference

    Section 201 establishes that whenever this title provides 
for amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, 
the referenced section or provision is of the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 USC 136).

                 Subtitle A--Minor Use Crop Protection

Sec. 210. Minor crop protection

    Section 210(a) would add a definition for ``minor use'' in 
a new subsection (ll) of FIFRA Section 2 (7 USC 136). ``Minor 
use'' would be defined as the use of a pesticide on an animal, 
commercial agricultural crop, or site, or for the protection of 
public health where: (1) total acreage is less than 300,000 
acres, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, or (2) 
the use does not provide sufficient economic incentive to 
support the initial registration or continuing registration for 
such use, as determined by the Administrator in consultation 
with the Secretary of Agriculture based on information provided 
by an applicant for registration or a registrant, and either 
(A) there are too few effective alternative pesticides 
registered for the use, (B) alternatives for the use pose 
greater risks to the environment or human health, (C) the 
pesticide is important in managing pest resistance, or (D) the 
pesticide is important in an integrated pest management (IPM) 
program. Section 210(a) would allow a pesticide to retain its 
status as a minor use pesticide as long as the pesticide 
satisfied the definition, and the Administrator had not decided 
that such use might cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the 
environment.
    Section 210(b) would amend Section 3(c)(1)(F) (7 USC 
136a(c)(1)(F)), which establishes requirements for submissions 
of scientific data in support of pesticide registration. 
Section 3(c)(1)(F)(i) of existing law provides that data 
submitted to support the application for the original 
registration of a pesticide shall not be considered to support 
an application by another person during a period of ten years 
following the date the pesticide is first registered. Section 
210(b) would redesignate clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses 
(iii) and (iv), respectively, and add a new subparagraph (ii). 
It would extend the period of exclusive use of data submitted 
to support the application for the original registration of a 
pesticide for one additional year for each 3 minor uses 
registered after the date of enactment of the ``Food Quality 
Protection Act of 1995'' and within 7 years of the commencement 
of the period, up to a total of 3 additional years for all 
minor uses registered, if: (I) there are too few effective 
alternative registered pesticides available for the use, (II) 
alternatives to the minor use pesticide pose greater risks, 
(III) the pesticide is important in managing pest resistance, 
or (IV) the pesticide is important to an IPM program. A minor 
use on a crop grouping established by the Administrator would 
be considered one minor use for each representative crop for 
which data are provided in the crop grouping. Additional 
periods of exclusive use would be modified or terminated if 
registration for the product or relevant minor use is 
voluntarily canceled or if the Administrator determines that 
the product is not actually being marketed for such minor use. 
Section 210(b) would add a clause (v) to FIFRA Section 
3(c)(1)(F) directing that this period of exclusive use provided 
under clause (ii) may not take effect until one year after 
enactment of H.R. 1627, except when the application is for 
registration of a pesticide containing an active ingredient not 
previously registered.
    Section 210(b) also would add a clause (vi) to FIFRA 
Section 3(c)(1)(F) to provide 10 years of protection for data 
submitted after enactment in support of an amendment to allow a 
new minor use of a registered pesticide with no remaining 
period of data protection. Such exclusive use data would no 
longer be protected if the minor use registration were canceled 
voluntarily or if the data were used to support a non-minor 
use.
    Section 210(c)(1) would amend Section 3(c)(2)(B) (7 USC 
136a(c)(2)(B)), pertaining to registration, by adding a new 
clause (vi) to extend (under certain circumstances specified 
below) the deadline for producing residue chemistry data to 
support product registration or reregistration for a minor use 
until the final deadline for submission of data under Section 4 
for the other uses of the pesticide that were established 
before the date of enactment of the ``Food Quality Protection 
Act of 1995.'' A deadline may be extended if a registrant so 
requests, and if: (I) data are being provided to support other 
uses, (II) a schedule to measure progress is provided by the 
registrant to assure that the data will be complete prior to 
the end of the extension period, (III) such extension will not 
significantly delay the Administrator's schedule for issuing a 
reregistration eligibility determination (RED), and (IV) the 
Administrator has determined based on existing data that such 
extension would not significantly increase the risk of any 
unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. If the 
Administrator grants an extension, the bill would require 
monitoring of data development to ensure that the registrant is 
meeting the schedule. If the registrant does not meet the 
schedule for data production, the bill would authorize the 
Administrator to consider the data in support of an application 
by another applicant or otherwise to proceed in accordance with 
other provisions of the relevant section regarding continued 
registration of the affected products. The Administration would 
be required to inform the public of such action. In addition, 
the bill would authorize the Administrator to modify or revoke 
the extension if it may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on 
the environment. Written notice revoking the extension of time 
for data submission must be provided to the registrant. In such 
cases, data would be due in accordance with the date 
established by the Administrator prior to granting the 
extension.
    Section 210(c)(2) would amend each of the three FIFRA 
sections 4(d)(4)(B), 4(e)(2)(B), and 4(f)(2)(B) (7 USC 136a-
1(d)(4)(B), (e)(2)(B), and (f)(2)(B)), pertaining to 
reregistration, in the same manner as Section 210(c)(1) amends 
Section 3(c)(2)(B).
    Section 210(d) would amend Section 3(c)(2) (7 USC 
136a(c)(2)) to add headings to existing subparagraphs (A), (B), 
and (C) and to add a new subparagraph (E) authorizing the 
Administrator to waive applicable data requirements for 
registering a pesticide for a minor use if the Administrator 
determined that the incremental risk posed by the minor use 
could be assessed without such data and such risk would not be 
an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
    Section 210(e) would amend Section 3(c)(3) (7 USC 
136a(c)(3)). Paragraph (1) of Section 210(e) would add a 
heading to existing subparagraph (A). Paragraph (2) would do 
the same to existing subparagraph (B). Section 210(e)(3) would 
add two new subparagraphs (C) and (D) pertaining to 
registration of minor uses. New Section 3(c)(3)(C)(i) would 
require the Administrator to act as expeditiously as possible 
to review and act on a complete application: (I) to initially 
register a new active ingredient solely for minor uses, to 
amend a registration solely to include minor uses, or (II) to 
register or amend a registration for significant minor uses. 
New Section 3(c)(3)(C)(ii)(I) would define ``as expeditiously 
as possible'' to mean that review and evaluation of all data 
should be completed to the greatest extent practicable within 
12 months after submission of the application. Failure of the 
Administrator to complete such a review would not be subject to 
judicial review. New Section 3(c)(3)(C)(ii)(II) would define 
``significant minor uses'' to mean: 3 or more minor uses 
proposed for every non-minor use; a minor use that would 
replace any use that had been canceled during the 5 preceding 
years; or a minor use that would avoid the reissuance of an 
emergency exemption under Section 18 for that minor use.
    New Section 3(c)(3)(D) would provide a full time period for 
providing data to EPA if the registrant made a request for a 
minor use waiver pursuant to new paragraph (2)(E), and the 
Administrator denied the request in whole or in part. ``Full 
time period'' would mean the time period originally established 
for submission of such data beginning with the date of receipt 
by the registrant of the notice of denial.
    Section 210(f)(1)(A) would amend FIFRA Sections 4(d)(6) and 
4(f)(3) (7 USC 136a-1 (d)(6) and (f)(3)), pertaining to the 
reregistration of pesticides, to require that if a registrant 
so requests, the Administrator would not take any action 
regarding an unsupported minor use of a pesticide until after 
the final data submission deadline for the supported uses, 
unless the absence of data is significant enough to cause human 
health or environmental concerns. In the case that absence of 
data is significant, the Administrator would be authorized to 
refuse the request for extension of the time period. An 
unsupported minor use would include any specific minor use of a 
pesticide which the registrant did not commit to support when 
the registrant was providing data in a timely and adequate 
fashion to support uses of the same pesticide on a food or, 
when all uses of the pesticide are nonfood uses, on other 
nonfood uses. The bill would require EPA to publish in the 
Federal Register a notice of receipt of a request and the 
effective date upon which the unsupported uses would be 
voluntarily deleted from the registration pursuant to Section 
6(f)(1). If an extension were granted, the Administrator would 
be required to monitor the development of the data for the 
supported uses and to ensure that the registrant is meeting the 
schedule for data production. If the schedule were not being 
met, the bill would authorize the Administrator to proceed in 
accordance with the procedure in Section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) to 
suspend registration; in such cases, the Administrator would be 
required to inform the public of such action in accordance with 
Section 6(f)(2). In addition, Section 210(f) would authorize 
the Administrator to deny, modify, or revoke a temporary 
extension under this paragraph if continuation of the minor use 
may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. If 
the temporary extension were to be revoked, the Administrator 
would be required to provide the registrant written notice and 
a new effective date when the minor use would be deleted from 
the registration.
    Section 210(f)(1)(B) would amend Section 4(e)(3)(A) (7 USC 
136a-1(e)(3)(A)), also pertaining to reregistration, in the 
same way that Section 210(f)(1)(A) would amend Sections 4(d)(6) 
and 4(f)(3).
    Section 210(f)(2) would amend new Section 3(c)(2)(B) (7 USC 
136a(c)(2)(B)), pertaining to data submission to support an 
initial registration, in the same way as Section 210(f)(1)(A) 
would amend Sections 4(d)(6) and 4(f)(3).
    Section 210(g) would amend FIFRA Section 6(f) (7 USC 
136d(f)) which contains general provisions pertaining to 
changes in classification, cancellation, suspension, and other 
terms and conditions of registration. New Section 
6(f)(1)(C)(ii) would lengthen the normal waiting period from 90 
days to 180 days during which time EPA may not respond to a 
request for voluntary cancellation of a registration when EPA 
determines that such cancellation or termination of uses would 
adversely affect the availability of the pesticide for use and 
the pesticide is registered for a minor use. Section 210(g) 
amends Section 6(f)(3)(A) to reflect the longer period which is 
available for registrants to reach an agreement with others to 
transfer registration of the pesticide in lieu of canceling or 
amending it to terminate use.
    Section 210(h) also would amend Section 6(f) (7 USC 
136d(f)) by adding a new paragraph (4). If a registrant 
requested voluntary cancellation of a pesticide registration 
for a minor use while an application (by a different applicant) 
was pending for registration of a substantially similar 
pesticide for a substantially similar minor use, new Section 
6(f)(4) would require the Administrator to process, review, and 
evaluate the pending application as if the voluntary 
cancellation had not yet taken place, except if such minor use 
may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. 
The new Section 6(f)(4), however, would require an applicant to 
certify agreement to satisfy any outstanding data requirements 
needed to support the registration in accordance with the 
schedule established by the Administrator.
    Section 210(i) would amend FIFRA by redesignating Sections 
31 and 32 as Sections 33 and 34, respectively, and adding a new 
Section 31. New Section 31(a) would require the Administrator 
to assure coordination of minor use issues by establishing a 
minor use program within the Office of Pesticide Programs at 
EPA. The program would be required to coordinate the 
development of minor use programs and policies and to consult 
with growers regarding minor use issues and registrations and 
amendments submitted to the Agency.
    New Section 31(b) would direct EPA's Office of Pesticide 
Programs to prepare a report within 3 years on the progress in 
registering minor uses, including implementation of the 
exclusive use as an incentive for registering new minor uses.
    Section 210(j) would amend FIFRA by adding a new Section 
32. New Section 32(a) would require the Secretary of 
Agriculture to ensure the coordination of the responsibilities 
of USDA related to minor uses of pesticides, including: (1) the 
Inter-Regional Project Number 4 (IR-4), the national pesticide 
resistance monitoring program, (2) IPM research, (3) 
consultation with growers to develop data for minor use, and 
(4) providing assistance for minor use registrations, 
tolerances, and reregistrations with the EPA.
    New Section 32(b)(1)(A) would require the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish a minor use grant program to ensure 
the development of data to support minor use pesticide 
registrations and reregistrations. The amount of such grants 
would be limited to no more than one half the cost of each 
project. New Section 32(b)(1)(B) would authorize any person 
desiring to develop data to support minor use pesticide 
registrations to apply for a grant. Priority for grants would 
be given to applicants who would not directly receive funds 
from the sale of pesticides registered on minor uses. New 
Section 32(b)(1)(C) states that any data developed through the 
program would be jointly owned by the person who received the 
grant and USDA, and that such person must enter into an 
agreement with USDA to share any fee paid to such person under 
Section 3(c)(F). New Section 32(b)(2)(A) would establish in the 
Treasury a revolving fund to be known as the Minor Use 
Pesticide Data Revolving Fund. No fiscal year limitation is 
imposed on the availability of the fund to carry out the 
authorized purposes of this subsection. New Section 32(b)(2)(B) 
would require to be deposited in the fund such amounts as may 
be appropriated to support the purposes of the subsection and 
any fees collected by the Secretary for any data developed 
under a grant under paragraph (a)(A). New Section 32(b)(2)(C) 
would authorize to be appropriated $10,000,000 annually to 
carry out the purposes of the subsection, to remain available 
until expended.

        Subtitle B--Antimicrobial Pesticide Registration Reform

Sec. 221. Definitions

    Section 221 would amend the definition of ``pesticide'' at 
FIFRA Section 2(u) (7 USC 136(u)) to exclude liquid chemical 
sterilant products (including any sterilant or subordinate 
disinfectant claims on such products) for use on a critical or 
semi-critical device, as defined in FFDCA Section 201 (21 USC 
321) (that is, devices that come into contact with the human 
body). Section 221 also would amend Section 2 by adding a new 
subsection (mm) defining the term ``antimicrobial pesticide'' 
to mean a pesticide that: (A) is intended to (i) disinfect, 
sanitize, reduce, or mitigate growth or development of 
microbiological organisms, or (ii) to protect inanimate 
objects, industrial processes or systems, surfaces, water or 
other chemical substances from contamination, fouling, or 
deterioration caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, 
algae, or slime; and (B) in the intended use is exempt from, or 
not subject to, a tolerance under Section 408 or 409 of the 
FFDCA. Antimicrobial pesticides do not include wood 
preservatives or antifouling paint products for which a claim 
is made of pesticidal activity other than an activity described 
in the definition. The definition also excludes agricultural 
fungicide products and aquatic herbicide products from the 
definition of ``antimicrobial pesticide.'' The definition does 
include any other chemical sterilant product (except liquid 
chemical sterilant products exempt by Section 2(u)), 
disinfectant product, industrial microbiocide, and preservative 
product.
     Section 222 would amend Section 3(c)(2)(B) (7 USC 
136a(c)(2)(B)), pertaining to data submissions to support 
pesticide registration applications, by adding at the end new 
clause (vi). New clause (vi)(I) would direct the Administrator, 
to the extent practicable, to coordinate data requirements, 
test protocols, timetables, and standards of review with state 
and federal authorities that request data described in FIFRA 
Section 3(c)(2)(A). New subclause (II) authorizes cooperative 
agreements that achieve the goals of the clause between EPA and 
the states. New clause (vi)(III) also would require the 
Administrator to develop a process within one year of enactment 
to identify and assist in alleviating future federal/state data 
requirement disparities.
     Section 223 of the ``Food Quality Protection Act of 1995'' 
would amend Section 3(c) (7 USC 136(a)(c)) by adding a new 
paragraph (9) pertaining to labels and labeling statements. 
Subparagraph (A) of new paragraph (9) would permit a registrant 
of an antimicrobial pesticide to change the label to include 
information about product efficacy, product composition, 
container composition or design, or other features not related 
to a pesticidal claim.
     New subparagraph (B) would prohibit false or misleading 
labels and any changes that conflict with or detract from 
required statements. Proposed statements on labels must be 
substantiated at the request of EPA.
     New subparagraph (C)(i) would allow registrations to be 
amended if (I) the registrant notifies EPA in writing at least 
60 days prior to distribution or sale of products bearing the 
amended labels, and (II) EPA does not disapprove the change. 
New clause (ii) authorizes EPA disapproval; applicants must be 
notified in writing of EPA disapproval within 30 days of 
receipt of the registrant's notice. Clause (iii) prohibits sale 
and distribution of a product with a disapproved label. Clause 
(iv) would allow a registrant to file an objection in writing 
within 30 days of receiving a disapproval. Finally, new clause 
(v) would make the Administrator's decision after consideration 
of an objection a final agency action.
     Subparagraph (D) of new paragraph (9) would allow the 
label or labeling requirement for an antimicrobial pesticide 
that is or may be diluted for use, to contain a different 
statement of caution or protective measures for use of 
recommended diluted solutions of the pesticide than for the use 
of concentrates of the pesticide. However, new clause (i) would 
compel the registrant to submit adequate data to support the 
statement, and clause (ii) would require the label to provide 
adequate protection for exposure to the dilute solution of the 
pesticide.
     Section 224 would amend registration requirements in FIFRA 
Section 3 (7 USC 136a) by adding a new subsection (g) for 
antimicrobial pesticides. New Section 3(g)(1) would require the 
Administrator to identify and evaluate reforms to the 
antimicrobial registration process to reduce current review 
periods to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the 
degree of risk posed by the pesticide and type of review 
appropriate, for: (A) new antimicrobial active ingredients, (B) 
new antimicrobial end-use products, (C) substantially similar 
or identical antimicrobial pesticides, and (D) amendments to 
existing antimicrobial pesticide registrations.
    New Section 3(g)(2) would mandate that the reforms required 
by new paragraph (1) be designed to achieve a goal of reducing 
the review period for each action, after a complete application 
is submitted and consistent with the degree of risk, to a 
period of no more than: (A) 540 days for a new antimicrobial 
active ingredient pesticide registration, (B) 270 days for a 
new antimicrobial use of a registered active ingredient, (C) 
120 days for any other new antimicrobial product, (D) 90 days 
for a substantially similar or identical antimicrobial product, 
(E) 90 days for an amendment to a current antimicrobial 
registration that does not require scientific review of data, 
and (F) 90 to 180 days for an amendment to a current 
antimicrobial registration that requires scientific review of 
data.
     Within 270 days of the date of enactment, paragraph 
(3)(A)(i) of new subsection (g) would require the Administrator 
to publish in the Federal Register proposed rules to accelerate 
and improve review of antimicrobial pesticide products to the 
extent practicable to achieve the goals of paragraph (2). 
Clause (ii) would require that proposed rules: (I) define 
various classes of antimicrobial use patterns, such as 
household, industrial, and institutional disinfectants and 
sanitizing pesticides, preservatives, water treatment, pulp and 
paper mill additives, and similar products; (II) differentiate 
types of review for antimicrobial pesticides; (III) conform the 
degree and type of review to the risks and benefits of the 
pesticides and the function of the review considering patterns 
of use of the product, its toxicity, expected exposure, and the 
product type; (IV) ensure that registration is sufficient to 
maintain pesticide efficacy and that antimicrobial pesticide 
products continue to meet product performance standards and 
effectiveness levels for each label claim; and (V) implement 
effective and reliable deadlines for process management. New 
clause (iii) would require the Administrator to solicit views 
of registrants and other affected parties in developing the 
proposed regulations.
     New paragraph (3)(B)(i) would provide 240 days from the 
close of the comment period for EPA to issue the final rules. 
If final rules would not attain a goal specified in paragraph 
(2), clause (ii) would require EPA to identify the goal, 
explain why it was not attained, describe provisions of the 
regulation in lieu of the goal, and identify future steps to 
attain it. New clause (iii) would require the Administrator in 
issuing regulations: (I) to consider establishing a 
certification process for regulating risks that could be 
managed responsibly consistent with their degree in the most 
cost-efficient manner; (II) to consider establishing a 
certification process by approved laboratories, as an adjunct 
to the review process; (III) to utilize all appropriate and 
cost-effective review mechanisms, including (aa) expanded use 
of notification and non-notification procedures, (bb) revised 
procedures for application review, and (cc) allocation of 
appropriate and sufficient resources to ensure streamlined 
management of antimicrobial pesticide registrations; and (IV) 
clarify criteria for determining the completeness of an 
application.
     New Section 3(g)(3)(C) states that subsection (g) does not 
affect requirements of subsection (c)(3).
     New Section 3(g)(3)(D) would establish review periods 
specified in new clauses (i) through (vii) for antimicrobial 
pesticide applications, if the final rules implementing new 
paragraph (3) were not effective 630 days after the date of 
enactment of new subsection (g). The specified time periods for 
review would begin on the date the Agency received a complete 
application. New clause (i) would limit review for a new active 
ingredient pesticide registration to 2 years. New clause (ii) 
would limit review for a new use of a registered active 
ingredient to 1 year. New clause (iii) would limit review of 
any other new product to 180 days. New clause (iv) would limit 
review for a substantially similar or identical product to 90 
days. New clause (v) would limit review for an amendment to a 
current registration that does not require scientific review of 
data to 90 days. New clause (vi) would limit review for an 
amendment to a current registration that requires scientific 
review of data to 240 days.
     New subparagraph (E) would require EPA to review an 
application for registration (or amendment to a registration) 
of a wood preservative product in the same time period as 
established for an antimicrobial pesticide product, consistent 
with the degree of risk posed, if a claim is made for 
antimicrobial pesticide activity as described in section 
2(mm)(A) and the applicant is required to satisfy the data 
requirements otherwise required for a wood preservative product 
that is an antimicrobial pesticide.
     New Section 3(g)(3)(F) would establish notification 
requirements related to review periods. Clause (i) of new 
subparagraph (F) would generally require the Administrator to 
notify the registrant whether an application has been granted 
or denied before the end of the appropriate review period 
specified in new paragraph (3). New clause (ii) would deem EPA 
failure to notify the registrant as required under new clause 
(i) a final agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably 
delayed and subject to judicial review under 5 USC 706(1). New 
clause (iii) states that the subparagraph (F) does not apply to 
applications filed prior to 90 days after the date of 
enactment.
     New Section 3(g)(4) would require the Administrator to 
prepare and submit an annual report, due March 1 of each year 
after the date of enactment until the reform goals specified in 
new subsection (g) have been achieved, to the House Committee 
on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry. As required by subparagraph (B), the 
report would include (i) measures taken to reduce the backlog 
of pending registration applications, (ii) progress toward 
achieving reforms, and (iii) recommendations to improve EPA 
activities pertaining to antimicrobial registrations.
     Section 225 amends FIFRA Section 19(h) (7 USC 136q(h)) by 
adding at the end a statement that household, industrial, and 
institutional antimicrobial products that are not subject to 
regulation under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 USC 6901 et. 
seq.) shall not be subject to regulation under subsections (a), 
(e), or (f) of FIFRA Section 19, unless necessary to prevent an 
unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. These 
subsections authorize EPA to specify requirements for 
registration applications, containers, and labeling, all 
pertaining to the storage, disposal, and transportation of 
pesticides.

                  Subtitle C--Public Health Pesticides

Sec. 230. Definitions

    Section 230(a) would amend the existing definition of 
``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment'' in FIFRA 
Section 2(bb) (7 USC 136(bb)) by adding a statement requiring 
the Administrator to consider the risks and benefits of public 
health pesticides separately from the risks and benefits of 
other pesticides. New Section 2(bb) would require the 
Administrator to weigh any risks of the pesticide against the 
health risks posed by the agent that is the target of the 
pesticide, such as the risks of disease transmitted by a vector 
to be controlled by the pesticide.
    Section 230(b) would add two new definitions to Section 2. 
New subsection (nn) would define ``public health pesticide'' as 
any minor use pesticide product registered for use and used 
predominantly in public health programs for vector control or 
for other recognized health protection uses, including the 
prevention or mitigation of viruses, bacteria, or other 
microorganisms that pose a threat to public health. The 
definition would exclude ``other recognized health protection 
uses'' that prevent or mitigate ``viruses, bacteria, or other 
microorganisms on or in living man or other living animal'' 
that pose a threat to public health.
    New Section 2(oo) would define ``vector'' as any animal 
capable of transmitting the causative agent of human disease or 
capable of producing human discomfort or injury, including 
mosquitoes, flies, fleas, cockroaches, or other insects and 
ticks, mites, or rats.

Sec. 231. Registration

    Section 231 would amend FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(A) (7 USC 
136a(c)(2)(A)) pertaining to the types of data that registrants 
may be required to submit in support of an application for 
pesticide registration. Current law directs the Administrator 
to set standards for data requirements for registration of 
pesticides for minor uses commensurate with the anticipated 
extent of use, pattern of use, and the level and degree of 
potential exposure of man and the environment to the pesticide. 
New Section 3(c)(2)(A) would direct the Administrator to set 
such standards commensurate also with--(1) the public health 
and agricultural need for such minor use, and (2) the level and 
degree of potential beneficial or adverse effects on man and 
the environment, but not with the level and degree of potential 
exposure of man and the environment to the pesticide.

Sec. 232. Reregistration

    Section 232(1) would amend Section 4 (7 USC 136a-1), 
pertaining to fees, by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) 
in subsection (i)(4) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), 
respectively, and adding a new subparagraph (B). New 
subparagraph B would exempt from fees prescribed in paragraph 
(3) any public health pesticide if the Administrator, in 
consultation with the DHHS Secretary, determines that the 
economic return from sales does not support registration or 
reregistration. Section 232(2) would amend Section 4(i)(5) by 
redesignating subparagraphs (F) and (G) as subparagraphs (G) 
and (H), respectively, and adding a new subparagraph (F) 
providing that an end-use product registered as a public health 
pesticide would be exempt from the fees prescribed by paragraph 
(3), if the Administrator, in consultation with the DHHS 
Secretary, determines that the economic return from sales does 
not support registration or reregistration. Section 232(3) 
would amend subsection (i)(7)(B). The current law authorizes 
the Administrator to order a registrant to submit necessary 
reports to allow EPA to determine and apportion fees or to 
determine the registrant's eligibility for a reduction or 
waiver of a fee. New Section 4(i)(7)(B) also would authorize 
such orders for reports to allow EPA to determine the volume 
usage of public health pesticides. Finally, Section 232(4) 
would amend subsection (k)(3)(A), pertaining to the 
reregistration and expedited processing fund, adding a new 
clause (iii). Currently, Section 4(k)(3)(A) directs the 
Administrator to use up to $2 million of the fund in each 
fiscal year to obtain sufficient personnel and resources to 
assure expedited processing and review of certain applications 
which are specified in clauses (i) and (ii). New clause (iii) 
would instruct the Administrator to use some of the authorized 
expenditures from the fund to obtain sufficient personnel and 
resources to assure expedited processing and review of 
applications that propose the initial or amended registration 
of an end-use pesticide that would be used for a public health 
pesticide.

Sec. 233. Cancellation

    Section 233 would amend FIFRA Section 6(b) pertaining to 
cancellation of registration and change in classification of a 
pesticide. A new sentence in section 6(b) would direct that 
when a public health use is affected, the DHHS Secretary should 
provide available benefits and use information, or an analysis 
thereof, in accordance with the procedures and conditions as 
apply to the Secretary of USDA in the case of agricultural 
pesticides.

Sec. 234. Views

    Section 234 would amend Section 21 (7 USC 136s) pertaining 
to solicitation of comments and notice of public hearings, to 
redesignate subsections (b) and (c) as (c) and (d), 
respectively, and to add a new subsection (b). New subsection 
(b) would require the Administrator, prior to publishing a 
regulation for any public health pesticide, to solicit the 
views of the DHHS Secretary in the same manner as the views of 
the USDA Secretary are solicited under Section 25(a)(2) of 
FIFRA.

Sec. 235. Authority of Administrator

    Section 235 would amend Section 25(a)(1) (7 USC 
136w(a)(1)), which pertains to the authority of the 
Administrator. Under existing law, when prescribing regulations 
implementing FIFRA, the Administrator is required to take into 
account the difference in concept and usage among various 
classes of pesticides. Section 235(1) would require the 
Administrator also to take into account public health 
pesticides. Under current law, the Administrator also must 
consider differences in environmental risk and the appropriate 
data for evaluating such risk for agricultural and non-
agricultural pesticides. Section 235(2) would direct the 
Administrator specifically to take into account the risk and 
relevant data for public health pesticides.

Sec. 236. Identification of pests

    Section 236 would amend FIFRA Section 28 (7 USC 136w-3), 
pertaining to the identification of pests, by adding a new 
subsection (d). New Section 28(d) would require the 
Administrator, in coordination with the USDA and DHHS, to 
identify pests of ``significant public health importance.'' The 
Administrator also would be required to develop and implement 
programs, in consultation with the Public Health Service, to 
improve and facilitate safe and necessary use of chemical, 
biological, and other methods to combat and control such pests.

Sec. 237. Authorization of appropriations

    Section 237 would authorize appropriations of up to $12 
million for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may be necessary 
thereafter for implementation of Subtitle C.

     Subtitle D--Expedited Registration of Reduced Risk Pesticides

Sec. 250. Expedited registration of pesticides

    Section 250(1) would amend FIFRA Section 3(c)(1) (7 USC 
136a(c)(1)) by adding a new subparagraph (G). New Section 
3(c)(1)(G) would require applicants requesting expedited 
registration or amendment to registration to explain the basis 
of such request in accordance with new paragraph (9), which is 
added by Section 250(2).
    New Section 3(c)(9)(A) would direct the Administrator to 
develop procedures and guidelines and expedite review of 
applications that satisfy such guidelines. New Section 
3(c)(9)(B) states that applications for registration or 
amendments to registrations would be eligible for expedited 
reviews if use of the pesticide may: (i) reduce pesticide risks 
to human health; (ii) reduce pesticide risks to nontarget 
organisms: (iii) reduce the potential for contamination of 
valued environment resources; or (iv) broaden adoption of IPM 
strategies or make them more available or effective.
    New Section 3(c)(9)(C) would require the Administrator to 
notify an applicant for expedited review as to whether or not 
the application is complete within 30 days of receiving it. EPA 
would be allowed to reject an incomplete request or ask for 
additional information as indicated by EPA guidelines to be 
developed under new Section 3(c)(9)(A).

 Title III--Data Collection Activities to Assure the Health of Infants 
                    and Children and Other Measures

Sec. 301. Data collection activities to assure the health of infants 
        and children

    Section 301(a) would require the USDA Secretary, in 
consultation with EPA and DHHS, to coordinate the development 
and implementation of survey procedures to ensure the 
collection of adequate data on food consumption patterns of 
infants and children.
    Section 301(b) would require such survey procedures to 
include collection of data on food consumption patterns of a 
statistically valid sample of infants and children.
    Section 301(c) would require the USDA Secretary to ensure 
that USDA activities in cooperation with EPA and DHHS improve 
data collection of pesticide residues in food and provide 
guidelines for use of comparable analytical methods and 
standardized reporting methods and increased sampling of foods 
most likely to be consumed by infants and children.
    The Committee is aware of recent scientific reports 
indicating that some pesticides may imitate, enhance, or block 
the activity of hormones in humans and wildlife. For example, a 
linkage has been suggested between human exposure to chemicals 
that imitate estrogen and breast cancer. Since hormones govern 
fundamental biological functions such as reproduction, growth, 
and metabolism in humans and other species, the Committee 
believes that it is important for EPA to obtain data about the 
potential hormone-disrupting effects of pesticides in order to 
make informed regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
    The Committee notes that the Agency has commissioned a 
report from the National Research Council to examine the issue 
more closely and identify data gaps that exists in current 
testing requirements. The Committee has reviewed and considered 
this issue and has determined that the EPA currently has 
sufficient authority to request information related to such 
effects. The Committee recognizes there are efforts ongoing to 
design and implement research to objectively assess and 
characterize the risk of endocrine disrupters on human health 
and the environment. Therefore, the Committee expects the 
Agency, within 4 years of the date of enactment of this Act, to 
evaluate the need for and, if necessary, to use its existing 
authorities under sections 3 and 4 of FIFRA to establish 
standards for data requirements, to determine whether a 
pesticide can disrupt hormonal activity. Collection and 
analysis of data specified in EPA standards related to 
disruption of hormonal activity should not delay reregistration 
eligibility decisions for pesticides first registered before 
1984.

Sec. 302. Collection of pesticide use information

    Section 302(a) would require the USDA Secretary to collect 
data of statewide or regional importance on the use of 
pesticides to control pests and diseases of major crops and 
crops of dietary significance, including fruits and vegetables.
    Section 302(b) would require the USDA Secretary to collect 
such data by surveying farmers or from other sources offering 
statistically reliable data.
    Section 302(c) would require the Secretary to coordinate 
with the EPA to design surveys and to make the aggregate 
results of surveys available to EPA to assist the 
Administrator.

Sec. 303. Integrated pest management

    Section 303 would require the USDA Secretary, in 
cooperation with EPA, to conduct research, demonstration, and 
education programs to support adoption of IPM. Section 303 
would state that IPM is a sustainable approach to pest 
management that combines biological, cultural, physical, and 
chemical tools so as to minimize economic, health, and 
environmental risks. The USDA Secretary and EPA Administrator 
would be directed to make information on IPM widely available 
to pesticide users, including federal agencies. Finally, 
Section 303 would direct federal agencies to use IPM techniques 
in carrying out pest management activities and to promote IPM 
through procurement and regulatory policies and other 
activities.

Sec. 304. Coordination of cancellation

    Section 304 would expand FIFRA Section 2(bb), the 
definition for ``unreasonable adverse effects on the 
environment,'' to include ``human dietary risk from residues 
that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food 
inconsistent with the standard the Administrator determines is 
adequate to protect the public health under Section 408 of the 
[FFDCA] (21 USC 346a) as amended by the Food Quality Protection 
Act of 1995.''

Sec. 305. Pesticide use information study

    Section 305(a) would direct USDA, in consultation with EPA, 
to prepare a report to Congress evaluating the current status 
and potential improvements in federal activities to collect 
pesticide use information. The quality and reliability of the 
information collected by federal agencies regarding 
agricultural uses of pesticides and options to increase the 
effectiveness of national collection of pesticide use 
information would have to be analyzed in the report. Analysis 
of options would consider costs, burdens placed on agricultural 
producers and other pesticide users, and effectiveness in 
tracking risk reduction. Section 305(b) would require 
submission of the report within one year of enactment.

  Title IV--Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Title IV is summarized as introduced. It was not considered by 
the House Committee on Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 401. Reference

    Section 401 states that all amendments refer to the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA; 21 USC 321 et seq.).

Sec. 402. Definitions

    Section 402(a) would amend FFDCA Section 201(q) (21 USC 
321(q)) to change the definition of ``pesticide chemical'' to 
conform to the definition of pesticide in FIFRA and to include 
(A) any pesticide within the meaning of FIFRA; and (B) any 
active ingredient of a pesticide within the meaning of FIFRA. 
Subsection (a) also would expand the definition of a 
``pesticide chemical residue'' to include a residue in or on a 
raw agricultural commodity or processed food of (A) a pesticide 
chemical, or (B) any metabolites or degradation products of a 
pesticide chemical. The EPA Administrator would be allowed to 
exempt a substance from these definitions if the occurrence of 
the residue in a food is due to natural causes, or human 
activities unrelated to ``a pesticidal purpose,'' and the 
Administrator and Secretary determine that the substance should 
be regulated under a section of FFDCA other than Sections 
402(a)(2)(B) and 408.
    Section 402(b) would amend the definition of a ``food 
additive'' in FFDCA Section 201(s) to exclude (1) a pesticide 
chemical residue on raw or processed food, and (2) a pesticide 
chemical.
    Section 302(c) would amend Section 201 by adding 
definitions for ``processed food'' and ``Administrator.'' New 
subsection (bb) would define ``processed food'' as any food 
other than a raw agricultural commodity, including any such 
commodity that has been subject to canning, cooking, freezing, 
dehydration, or milling. New subsection (cc) would define 
``Administrator'' as the Administrator of the EPA.

Sec. 403. Prohibited acts

    Section 403 would amend FFDCA Section 301(j) (21 USC 
331(j)) which prohibits disclosure of information about 
confidential methods or processes, except to employees of USDA 
or to the courts when relevant to a proceeding. It adds Section 
408(g)(2) to the list of sections under which, if confidential 
information is gained, the prohibition applies.

Sec. 404. Adulterated food

    Section 404 would amend FFDCA Section 402(a)(2) (21 USC 
342(a)(2)) so that pesticide chemical residues on processed 
food, as well as raw commodities, that are unsafe within the 
meaning of Section 408(a) would result in the food being deemed 
to be adulterated. It also would remove from Section 402 the 
so-called ``pass-through provision'' that processed food with a 
pesticide residue should not be deemed unsafe, if the 
concentration in the ready-to-eat food is not greater than the 
raw food tolerance, the residue has been removed to the extent 
possible, and the pesticide has been used in conformance with a 
legal exemption or tolerance under Section 408. (However, this 
provision is retained in new FFDCA Section 408(a)(2)).

Sec. 405. Tolerances and exemptions for pesticide chemical residues

    Section 405 would amend FFDCA Section 408 (21 USC 346a), 
currently pertaining to pesticide residue tolerances for raw 
food. The proposed amendments would establish a single 
regulatory framework for both raw and processed foods. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ To facilitate comparison with the proposed amendments, the 
provisions of the current FFDCA, Section 408 are summarized in the 
following paragraphs as they pertain to raw and sometimes processed 
foods. However, current provisions relating to pesticide residues 
concentrated in processed foods are not summarized, because such 
residues are treated as food additives and are covered by FFDCA Section 
409, which is not amended by S. 1166, as introduced. Instead, S. 1166, 
Section 302 would redefine ``food'' and ``pesticide chemical residue'' 
so that pesticide residues always would be covered by Section 408, as 
it would be amended. A key effect of this change is to make the Delaney 
clause no longer applicable to potentially carcinogenic pesticide 
residues concentrated in processed foods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New Section 408(a) sets out the requirements for setting a 
tolerance or granting an exemption. Subsection (a)(1) defines 
``food'' to include both raw agricultural commodities and 
processed food. It retains the current provisions of FFDCA 
Section 408(a) which deem any pesticide residue on food unsafe 
(and therefore adulterated under Section 402(a)(2)(B)), unless 
it has a tolerance and is within the limits of the tolerance, 
or has an exemption from a tolerance. New subsection (a)(1), 
however, no longer would exclude from its requirements 
pesticides ``generally recognized . . . as safe'' by 
scientists. However, new subsection (i) would exempt from 
tolerance requirements pesticides ``generally recognized as 
safe'' on the day before enactment of H.R. 1627.
    New FFDCA Section 408(a)(2) would contain the ``pass-
through provision'' (removed from FFDCA Section 402) for 
residues of pesticide chemicals found in processed food at 
concentrations below the tolerance for such residues in the raw 
food (or that is exempt from the requirement for a raw food 
tolerance).
    New subsection (a)(3) would require EPA to apply the 
tolerances and exemptions established for residues of a 
pesticide chemical to residues of the pesticide's break-down 
products, except that permitted quantities of degradation 
product residues could be adjusted to reflect any known 
differences in toxicity from the parent pesticide. A tolerance 
for a pesticide would apply to a ``stoichiometrically 
equivalent level'' \3\ of degradation products as long as it 
did not exceed the tolerance, the tolerance did not expressly 
exclude breakdown products, and EPA had not determined that the 
dietary exposure to the breakdown product posed a different or 
significantly greater potential health risk than the parent 
pesticide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Stoichiometrically equivalent level means the quantity of a 
chemical substance that is equal with respect to its involvement in 
chemical reactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New Section 408(a)(4) would specifically prohibit 
considering a food adulterated ``by reason of bearing or 
containing any amount'' of pesticide residue, if a tolerance or 
exemption were in effect for that pesticide on that food.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ This provision may contradict new section 408(a)(2)(A) which 
would deem a food unsafe unless pesticide residues were within the 
limits of an established tolerance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Existing Section 408(b) requires the Administrator to 
promulgate regulations establishing tolerances for pesticides 
used on food ``to the extent necessary to protect the public 
health.'' In setting tolerances, the Administrator is required 
to consider relevant factors including the necessity for 
production of an adequate, wholesome, and economical food 
supply; other ways in which the consumer may be affected by the 
same pesticide or by other related substances; and to the 
opinion and certification of usefulness of the pesticide by the 
Secretary of Agriculture. The Administrator is authorized to 
establish a tolerance at zero level if the scientific data do 
not justify establishing a greater tolerance. This provision 
generally has been applied to certain potentially carcinogenic 
pesticide residues.
    New Section 408(b)(1) would authorize the EPA Administrator 
to issue regulations establishing, modifying, or revoking 
tolerances for pesticide chemical residues in response to a 
petition or on the Administrator's initiative. New Section 
408(b)(2)(A), (B), and (C) would prohibit setting, and would 
require modifying or revoking, a tolerance at a level higher 
than is adequate to protect the public health.5 In 
determining the level that is adequate to protect public 
health, EPA must take into account relevant factors including: 
validity, completeness, and reliability of available pesticide 
chemical residue data; the nature of any demonstrated toxic 
effects; and available information and reasonable assumptions 
concerning the relationship of study results to human risk, 
dietary exposure levels to residues of food consumers (and 
major identifiable subgroups of food consumers, including 
infants and children), and variability in sensitivities of 
major identifiable groups, including infants and children. The 
Administrator no longer would be authorized to set a tolerance 
at a zero level; in fact, new subsection (b)(3)(C) would appear 
to prohibit it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ It is not clear whether ``higher'' means more stringent or at a 
greater concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New Section 408(b)(2)(D) would declare that a tolerance 
level for a pesticide chemical residue in food is adequate to 
protect the public health if the dietary risk to consumers from 
exposure to the pesticide is negligible. The Administrator is 
authorized to set forth by regulation the factors and methods 
that are required to determine negligible dietary risk and 
exposure.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\  This definition of negligible risk does not identify a 
specific numerical expression of a level of risk. It would give EPA the 
flexibility to decide to ignore de minimis or insignificant risks and 
to use the evolving science of risk assessment in this process. It 
implements the 1987 National Academy of Science recommendation for a 
uniform negligible risk standard for food. This recommendation is found 
in the report Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox 
(Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1987, 272 p.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New Section 408(b)(2)(E) would require procedures to ensure 
that tolerances safeguard the health of infants and children.
    New Section 408(b)(2)(F) would require EPA to calculate 
dietary risk posed to food consumers by residues on the basis 
of the percent of food actually treated with the chemical and 
the actual levels of the residues, if reliable data were 
available. Specifically, the bill would require EPA to take 
into account USDA pesticide use and residue data.
    New Section 408(b)(2)(G) would declare a pesticide residue 
tolerance level adequate to protect the public health when it 
poses a risk that is not unreasonable, considering the health 
and environmental risks avoided through the pesticide use as 
well as the benefits conferred in terms of an adequate, 
wholesome, and economical food supply. However, EPA would be 
prohibited from considering the economic effects on the 
pesticide registrant, manufacturer, or marketer of a pesticide 
when setting a tolerance. A tolerance could be established at a 
residue level posing a more than negligible risk, if the EPA 
considered the risk reasonable because: (1) the risk to public 
health or the environment prevented by pesticide use outweighs 
the dietary pesticide risk; (2) alternative pesticides or pest 
control methods pose greater risks to the public than the 
dietary residue; or (3) use of the pesticide maintains the 
national or regional availability of an adequate, wholesome, 
and economical food supply for consumers.
    New Section 408(b)(3)(A) would limit EPA's authority to set 
tolerances at residue levels posing more than a negligible 
risk. It would permit such tolerances only if EPA had assessed 
the extent to which efforts were being made to develop 
alternative methods of pesticide control that would meet the 
negligible risk requirement.
    Under new subsection (b)(3)(B), the EPA would be prohibited 
from setting a tolerance unless a method for detection and 
measurement of residues were practical, or that a practical 
method is unavailable or not feasible. New subsection (b)(3)(C) 
would prohibit tolerance levels from being set at a level lower 
than the detection limit of the practical residue detection and 
measurement method identified by EPA.
    New subsection (b)(4) would encourage international 
harmonization of limits to pesticide residues in/on foods. 
These limits are called tolerances in the United States and 
Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) elsewhere. This subsection 
directs EPA in setting tolerances to determine whether an MRL 
has been established for the chemical by the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission (Codex). If it has, and the EPA decides not to adopt 
the same level, when the EPA publishes the final tolerance, it 
would also have to publish a determination with supporting data 
that the Codex level is not supported by adequate and reliable 
scientific data or would not protect the health of U.S. 
consumers. It also must state that the effect of the tolerance 
on the availability to consumers of an adequate, wholesome, and 
economical food supply does not outweigh the risk posed by the 
pesticide residue. This new subsection brings our tolerance 
setting system into compliance with the spirit of the Uruguay 
Round Agreement of the World Trade Organization (formerly known 
as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and other 
international trade agreements for it tries to avoid 
unjustified restraints on trade and to make U.S. regulatory 
decisions consistent with our international trade agreements.
    Section 408(c) of current law requires the Administrator to 
promulgate regulations exempting any pesticide from the 
necessity of a tolerance when it is not needed to protect 
public health.
    New subsection (c)(1) would authorize the Administrator, in 
response to a petition or on the Administrator's initiative, to 
issue a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking an 
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for a pesticide 
chemical residue on food. New subsection (c)(2) would limit the 
Administrator's authority to issue such regulations. An 
exemption could only be established if a tolerance were not 
needed to protect the public health, given the dietary levels 
of exposure to the residue that would reasonably be expected to 
occur. An existing exemption that did not meet that criterion 
would have to be revoked. In determining whether a tolerance 
were needed to protect the public health, the bill would 
require EPA to consider relevant factors specified in new 
subsection (b)(2)(C) which include: validity, completeness, and 
reliability of available pesticide chemical residue data; the 
nature of any demonstrated toxic effects; and available 
information and reasonable assumptions concerning the 
relationship of study results to human risk, dietary exposure 
levels to residues of food consumers (and major identifiable 
subgroups of food consumers, including infants and children), 
and variability in sensitivities of major identifiable groups, 
including infants and children.
    New subsection (c)(3) would prohibit an exemption, unless 
there were a practical method for detecting and measuring the 
levels of the residue, or there were no need for such a method 
and the reasons were stated in the order issuing the regulation 
establishing or modifying the regulation.
    Existing FFDCA, Section 408(d) authorizes any applicant for 
a pesticide registration under FIFRA to file a petition for the 
issuance of a tolerance or an exemption. It requires the 
petition to contain data showing the name, chemical identity, 
and composition of the pesticide; the amount, frequency, and 
time of application of the pesticide; full reports of safety 
studies conducted; results of tests on pesticide residues on 
crops and identification of analytical methods used; 
practicable methods for removing residue that exceeds a 
proposed tolerance; proposed tolerances, if they are being 
proposed; and reasonable grounds in support of the petition. 
The law also requires petitioners to provide samples of the 
pesticide upon request. The EPA must publish a notice of the 
petition filing within 30 days, which must include the 
analytical methods to determine the pesticide residue levels. 
Within 90 days after a certification of usefulness of the 
pesticide by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator 
[of Health and Human Services] 7 is required to either 
establish a tolerance or exempt the pesticide from a tolerance, 
unless the petitioner requests or the Administrator decides to 
refer the petition to an advisory committee. In that case, the 
Administrator must submit the petition and data to an advisory 
committee which must report to the Administrator with their 
recommendation within 60 days. The Administrator is required 
within 30 days of the committee report to issue a regulation 
establishing a tolerance or exempting the pesticide; the 
regulation becomes effective on publication. Section 408 
provides 30 days thereafter for any person adversely affected 
by the regulation to file an objection with the Administrator, 
who would then be required to hold a public hearing to receive 
evidence relevant and material to the issues raised by the 
objection. A member of the National Academy of Sciences is 
required to designate a member of the advisory committee to 
testify before the hearing. As soon as practicable after the 
hearing, the law directs the Administrator to regulate based 
only on substantial evidence of record at the hearing. The 
regulation may take effect no sooner than 90 days after the 
rule is published, unless an emergency condition exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\  The words ``Health and Human Services'' probably are 
inadvertent, but appear in several places in the codified FFDCA, for 
example, at 21 USC 346a(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New subsection (d) for the most part would be similar to 
current law, but the amended subsection would authorize any 
person to file a tolerance petition rather than only an 
applicant for a pesticide registration. New subsection (d)(1) 
also would authorize petitions for modifying or revoking a 
tolerance or for revoking an exemption. New subsection (d)(2) 
would authorize the Administrator to require additional 
information accompanying a petition. In addition to the 
information required to be submitted under current law, new 
subsection (d)(2) would require a petitioner to provide: a 
summary of the petition, data, information, and arguments; a 
statement that the petitioner agrees to have the summary 
contents published with the notice of petition filing and as 
part of any proposed or final regulation; and information about 
practical methods for detecting and measuring levels of residue 
(or a statement that it is not needed), the methods used in 
safety and residue testing, the effect that the pesticide is 
intended to have and the quantity of chemical required to 
produce it, and, if the petition relates to a tolerance for a 
processed food, the processing methods used to produce the 
food.
    New subsection (d)(3) would direct the Administrator to 
publish the notice of petition filing, including an 
announcement of the availability of a description of the 
analytical methods for detecting and measuring residues (or a 
statement that such methods are not needed) and the summary of 
the petition. H.R. 1627 does not provide for referral of the 
petition to an advisory committee. Nor would the bill impose 
time limits on the Administrator to act.
    New subsection (d)(4) would authorize the Administrator to 
issue a final regulation, to issue a proposed regulation 
followed by a final regulation or an order denying the 
petition, or to issue an order denying the petition. New 
subsection (d)(5) states that any regulation would take effect 
upon publication. New subsection (d)(6) would double the time 
allowed for a person adversely affected by the regulation to 
file an objection from 30 days to 60 days. An objector could 
request a public evidentiary hearing. New Section 408(d)(6) 
would allow the Administrator to decide whether a hearing were 
necessary to receive factual evidence relevant to material 
issues of fact raised by the objections. The bill would provide 
the hearing officer with various authorities, for example to 
issue a subpoena to compel testimony, but would also impose 
limitations.
    New subsection (d)(7) would retain most of the existing 
provisions of FFDCA Section 408(i). The existing section 
authorizes any person adversely affected by an order within 60 
days of its publication to obtain judicial review in the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the circuit wherein that person resides or 
has a business or with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit. The Administrator must file with 
the court the record of the rulemaking. The court has exclusive 
jurisdiction to affirm or set aside the order in whole or in 
part. The findings of the Administrator are required to be 
sustained only if supported by substantial evidence when 
considered on the record as a whole. FFDCA Section 408(i) 
allows for additional evidence to be introduced if it appears 
proper to do so. The EPA can then modify its order or 
regulation to take into account that evidence. The judgment of 
the court is final, subject to review by the U.S. Supreme 
Court, but this appeal may not operate as a stay of the order. 
Currently, the rulemaking record, which becomes part of the 
court record, includes certification by the Secretary of 
Agriculture as to the usefulness of the pesticide. New 
subsection (d)(7) omits references to certification of 
usefulness and to the Secretary. New Section 408(d)(7)(E) would 
prohibit review under any other section of law of issues that 
are subject to review under new paragraph (6).
     New Section 408(e) authorizes the Administrator to propose 
a tolerance or an exemption at any time. Thirty days after the 
proposal is published, the Administrator may publish the final 
regulation, which becomes effective upon publication, unless a 
registrant or applicant for a registration of the pesticide 
chemical named in the proposal requests referral of the 
proposal to an advisory committee. If requested, the 
Administrator must submit the proposal and the advisory 
committee must report back certified recommendations within 60 
days. Within 30 days of such certification, the Administrator 
may publish a regulation establishing a tolerance for a 
pesticide or exempting it. A regulation is effective upon 
publication, but any person adversely affected by it may file 
an objection, as described with reference to Section 408(d) 
above.
    New subsection (e)(1) also authorizes rulemaking by the EPA 
Administrator to establish a tolerance or an exemption. In 
addition, it authorizes the Administrator to modify or to 
revoke a tolerance and to revoke an exemption, as well as to 
establish general implementation procedures and requirements. 
New subsection (e)(2) would require EPA to issue a notice of 
proposed rulemaking and to provide a 60-day public-comment 
period, unless there were good cause to modify this 
requirement. EPA must provide an opportunity for a public 
hearing during the rulemaking procedures. However, the new 
procedure provides no role for an advisory committee.
    New subsection (f)(1) would authorize EPA to collect 
additional data to support an existing pesticide tolerance or 
exemption. The Administrator would be allowed to collect data 
under FIFRA, Section 3(c)(2)(B) or the Toxic Substances Control 
Act (TSCA), Section 4, or by publishing an order in the Federal 
Register. In the last case, the order would be required to 
identify the persons required to submit the data, the type of 
data and information and why it could not be obtained under 
FIFRA or TSCA, the reports that would be prepared from this 
data, and the dates that the information is due. A 90-day 
notice-and-comment period would be required. Subsection (f)(2) 
would authorize the Administrator to modify or revoke the 
tolerance or exemption in question if this required data were 
not submitted in the time specified. Subsection (f)(3) would 
make an order subject to review in accordance with new 
subsection (d), paragraphs (6) and (7).
    Existing FFDCA Section 408(f) requires that all data 
submitted in support of a petition be considered confidential 
until publication of a regulation. New subsection (g)(1) would 
require EPA to treat all data and information submitted in 
support of a tolerance confidentially. In addition, such 
information would be entitled to exclusive use and data 
compensation to the same extent as provided under FIFRA, 
Sections 3 and 10. Subsection (g)(2) would allow disclosure of 
the information to the Congress of the United States and, at 
the Administrator's discretion, to authorized federal employees 
and contractors. Subsection (g)(3) would permit publication of 
an informative summary of the data.
    FFDCA Section 408(g) sets forth requirements related to the 
appointment and functioning of advisory committees. Section 
408(h) provides a petitioner and representatives of the 
Department of Health and Human Services the right to consult 
with the advisory committee. These provisions are not included 
in H.R. 1627.
    New subsection (h)(1) retains the provisions of FFDCA, 
Section 408(k), which concerns regulations promulgated based on 
hearings held before 1953, but would subject modifications and 
revocations of such regulations to new Section 408, subsections 
(d) and (e). New paragraphs (2) and (3) in subsection (h) are 
technical amendments which continue in effect all current 
regulations affecting pesticide residues that have been 
promulgated under FFDCA Sections 408 or 409 and subject 
modifications and revocations of such rules to new subsections 
(d) and (e). Under current law, the Administrator is required 
by subsection 408(m) to amend or repeal regulations according 
to a procedure that conforms to that for establishing 
tolerances. Subsection 408(m) would be eliminated by H.R. 1627.
    New subsection (i) would exempt from tolerance regulations 
those pesticide residues and food or color additives that on 
the day before enactment the Administrator or Secretary regard 
as generally-recognized-as-safe (GRAS) within the meaning of 
the existing provisions of FFDCA Section 408(a) or 201(s). The 
new subsection also would exempt from regulation substances 
described in FFDCA 201(s)(4). EPA would be required to publish 
regulations listing which substances are covered by this 
exemption.
    Under current law, FFDCA Section 408(j) authorizes the 
Administrator to grant temporary tolerances for experimental 
pesticide uses. H.R. 1627 omits this provision.
    New subsection (j)(1) would codify part of EPA's 
coordination policy by linking the tolerance or exemption, to 
any action revoking, modifying, or suspending a pesticide 
registration under FIFRA. Subsection (j)(2) states that if the 
Administrator acting under FIFRA cancels or modifies the 
registration of a pesticide for a food use because of dietary 
risks to human health posed by the residues, the Administrator 
also must revoke any tolerance or exemption that would allow 
the presence of the pesticide chemical in or on that food. A 
revocation under this paragraph would become effective not 
later than 180 days after the date on which the use of the 
canceled pesticide becomes unlawful. Subsection (j)(3) 
similarly would require the suspension of tolerances for food 
use pesticides, if the registration were suspended under FIFRA. 
A tolerance suspension would become effective not later than 60 
days after the registration was suspended. Tolerances or 
exemptions would be restored if the Administrator rescinded any 
suspension of the pesticide registration.
    New subsection (j)(4) would authorize the Administrator to 
establish tolerances for unavoidable residues of canceled or 
suspended pesticides on food. The required tolerance level 
would be set taking into account the potential risk from 
exposure to the pesticide residue. These tolerances would have 
to be revisited periodically and modified as necessary to allow 
only that level of residue that is unavoidable due to its 
environmental persistence.
    New subsection (j)(5) would be known as the ``pipeline'' 
provision. It would allow pesticide residues on foods that were 
the result of lawful application of a pesticide. In a case 
where a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide residue is 
revoked, suspended, or modified, a food that was legally 
treated with the pesticide would not be deemed unsafe, if the 
pesticide residue did not exceed the previously authorized 
tolerance level. EPA would retain the power to declare legally 
treated food unlawful, but only after determining that 
consumption of the legally treated food during the period of 
its likely availability in commerce poses an unreasonable 
dietary risk. This provision would allow the use of existing 
food stocks that were treated with a lawful pesticide, thus 
protecting against unnecessary destruction of legally treated 
food, disruption in the marketplace, and economic loss. It also 
would ensure that food producers were not unfairly penalized 
for use of legal pesticides that were subject to regulatory 
action at a subsequent date.
     New subsection (k) would require EPA to assess or waive 
fees to the same extent as required by current law (FFDCA, 
Section 408(o); 21 USC 346a(o)).
    Currently, FFDCA Section 408(n) makes the provisions of 
Section 303(c), furnishing guaranties, applicable to raw 
agricultural commodities. This provision is not included in 
H.R. 1627.
    New Section 408(l) would preempt state and local regulation 
of food with pesticide residues under certain conditions. Under 
current law, states and local governments can set tolerances 
for pesticide residues in foods that are lower (more stringent) 
than those established by EPA. They also may require warnings 
for food products that contain legal pesticide residues (that 
is, below federal tolerance levels). Subsection (l)(1) would 
define ``qualifying pesticide chemical residue'' as a residue 
from a pesticide use first registered after April 25, 1985 (and 
therefore not subject to FIFRA Section 4(g), reregistration 
requirements) or older pesticides reregistered in the future 
after H.R. 1627 is enacted. 8 Subsection (l)(2) would 
define ``qualifying [f]ederal determination'' as (A) a 
tolerance or exemption issued after enactment of H.R. 1627 or 
determined by the Administrator (by rule as required under new 
subsection (d) or (e)) to adequately protect public health as 
defined under new Section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2); and (B) any 
statement by the Secretary of a level permitted that protects 
human health during the period to which the statement applies. 
New subsection (l)(4) would prohibit state and local regulation 
of any ``qualifying pesticide chemical residue'' to which any 
``qualifying federal determination'' applied. This appears to 
mean that state and local governments would not be permitted to 
regulate foods with residues of pesticides registered after 
1985 or reregistered after enactment, if: an exemption or 
tolerance for the residue was issued under new subsection 
(b)(2) or (c)(2), an exemption or tolerance was determined by 
an EPA rulemaking to meet the requirements of new subsection 
(b)(2) or (c)(2), or the Secretary (of Health and Human 
Services, by definition at FFDCA Section 201(d)) stated that 
the residue level would protect human health and would be 
permitted during some specified period. The only exception 
allowed would be for state or local regulation of food with 
``qualifying pesticide chemical residue'' at the level of the 
``qualifying federal determination.'' Specifically, state and 
local governments would be precluded from prohibiting or 
penalizing the production, processing, shipping, or handling of 
a food containing qualifying residue levels deemed protective 
of public health by federal officials. ``Warning requirements'' 
and other statements relating to the presence of such residues 
in food would not be permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\  This provision does not affect pesticides that were 
reregistered before enactment of H.R. 1627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New subsection (l)(5) would set up petition procedures for 
states. Subsection (l)(5)(A) would allow states to petition for 
a regulatory limit on a qualifying residue different than the 
federal limit, if the state's petition established adequate 
justification to EPA. Subsection (l)(5)(B) would require that 
this justification include scientific data about the pesticide, 
consumption data, and exposure data of people residing in the 
state. Subsection (l)(5)(C) would give the states exemptions 
from uniform federal limits if justified by evidence of 
compelling local conditions, and it would not unduly burden 
interstate commerce nor cause any food to be in violation of 
federal law. Subsection (l)(5)(D) would allow the Administrator 
to treat a state petition as if it were a new petition for a 
tolerance and would require it to meet requirements set out in 
Sec. 408(d).
    New subsection (l)(6) assures that no state or political 
subdivision can declare a food unlawful which contains a 
residue that was the result of the application of a pesticide 
that, at the time of its use, complied with all federal and 
state laws. However, the only exception would be if the state 
or locality could show that a certain residue level in a food 
would pose an unreasonable dietary risk to the health of 
persons within that state.

Sec. 406. Authorization for increase monitoring.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Increase'' in the title probably should be ``Increased.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 306 would authorize appropriations of an additional 
$12 million for increased monitoring by FDA of pesticide 
residues in imported and domestic food.

                             Title V--Fees

Sec. 501. Fees

    Section 501(a)(1) would extend EPA authorization to collect 
$14 million annually in registration maintenance fees from 
pesticide registrants until September 30, 2001. Section 
501(a)(2) would authorize collection of up to $6 million in 
additional fees, $2 million in each of the years 1998, 1999, 
and 2000.
    Section 501(b) would amend FIFRA Section 4(k)(1) to name 
the fund established the Reregistration and Expedited 
Processing Fund.
    Section 501(c) would amend FIFRA Section 4(k)(2) to direct 
EPA to deposit in the fund all money derived from maintenance 
fees. H.R. 1627 would make this money available to offset the 
costs of reregistration and expedited processing of 
applications specified in FIFRA Section 3(c)(3)(B) (7 USC 
136a(c)(3)(B)), which refers to applications to register or 
amend the registration of an end-use pesticide that would be 
identical or substantially similar to a currently registered 
pesticide, or to amend the registration of a pesticide that 
does not require scientific review of data. The bill would 
prohibit expenditures in the fiscal year in excess of the 
amount appropriated and expended for reregistration and 
expedited processing of applications. Prior to expending any 
money derived from fees, EPA would have to adopt specific and 
cost accounting rules and procedures approved by the General 
Accounting Office and the EPA Inspector General. Such rules and 
procedures are required to ensure that funds are allocated only 
to costs of reregistration and expedited processing of 
applications and in the same portion as appropriated funds. New 
FIFRA Section 4(k)(2) would require EPA to prohibit use of fees 
to pay any costs other than those necessary to achieve 
reregistration and expedited processing of the applications 
specified in paragraph (3). It would direct EPA to ensure that 
personnel and facility costs of the program did not exceed 
agency averages for comparable personnel and facility costs. In 
addition, the bill would require EPA to complete review of 
unreviewed reregistration studies required to support the 
reregistration eligibility decisions scheduled for completion 
according to subsection (l)(2) and to contract (after selecting 
vendors through a competitive process) for outside assistance 
as necessary to conduct the reviews.
    H.R. 1627, Section 501(d) would amend FIFRA Section 4(k)(3) 
which allocates a portion of the collected maintenance fees to 
obtain sufficient personnel and resources to ensure expedited 
processing of applications. The bill would direct EPA to use no 
more than 1/7th of the maintenance fees collected in each 
fiscal year 1997 through 2001 for that purpose. It also would 
mandate completion of processing of unprocessed expedited 
review applications within 5 years of enactment.
    Section 501(e) would amend FIFRA Section 4(k)(5) (7 USC 
136a-1(k)(5)) pertaining to accounting. It would require EPA to 
ensure that expenditures from fees are used only to carry out 
the goals of subsection (l). The bill would designate the 
Federal Insecticide and Rodenticide Fund as an EPA component in 
financial statements under 31 USC 3515(c) which must be audited 
annually under 31 USC 3521. The bill would require the EPA 
Inspector General to conduct (or to contract with a nationally 
recognized accounting firm to conduct) an audit of the 
maintenance fees collected and disbursed, the amount 
appropriated to match the fees, and EPA attainment of 
performance measures and goals, and to review the basis for and 
accuracy of all costs, overhead allocation, and disclosures of 
direct and indirect costs of reregistration and expedited 
processing of applications. Findings of the audit and review 
and recommendations are to be reported to EPA and to the House 
Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The bill mandates payment 
for the audit from the maintenance fees collected.
    Section 501(f) redesignates FIFRA Section 4(l) as Section 
4(m) and inserts a new subsection (l) on performance measures 
and goals. It directs EPA to establish and publish in the 
Federal Register each year performance measures and goals which 
must include number of products reregistered, canceled, or 
amended; status of reregistration; number and type of EPA data 
requests issued to support reregistration, by active 
ingredient; the progress in reducing the number of unreviewed, 
required reregistration studies; status of tolerances 
reassessed; number of approvals and disapprovals of 
applications for registration; projected schedule for 
reregistration in the current and succeeding fiscal year, 
including reregistration of antimicrobial pesticides; and 
projected year of completion of the reregistrations under FIFRA 
Section 4.
    The 1988 amendments to the FIFRA established a 9-year 
timetable for the EPA to complete the review and reregistration 
of approximately 600 groups--or ``cases''--of related pesticide 
active ingredients representing 1,150 active ingredients used 
in approximately 45,000 pesticide products that were registered 
for use prior to 1985. The 1988 cost estimated was $260 million 
to complete the reregistration program by September 30, 1997. 
The cost of reregistration was to be split between industry and 
appropriated tax payer dollars. The estimated industry share 
was $150 million over the nine years.
    According to EPA the Agency has collected a cumulative 
(projected) total of $147 in industry fees through FY-1997. The 
Committee recognizes the importance of keeping the 
reregistration program moving forward with sufficient resources 
to accomplish reregistration and ensure the older pesticides 
are safe to use as intended. However, the Committee is not 
satisfied with the Agency's performance and the estimate that 
it will need at least eight additional years--nearly twice the 
original estimate of nine years--to complete the reregistration 
program.
    To address this concern, the Committee took two specific 
actions. First, the Committee extends the EPA's current 
authority to annually collect up to $14 million in maintenance 
fees from pesticide registrants from September 30, 1997, to 
September 30, 2001. To address backlogged case studies and 
related reregistration reviews, the Committee also authorizes 
collection of an additional $6 million in maintenance fees. In 
addition to the $14 million currently authorized for FY-1997, 
this legislation authorizes the EPA to collect an additional 
$62 million in industry contributions to continue the 
reregistration process beyond FY-1997, for a total of $76 
million over the five-year authorization of this legislation.
    Second, to ensure that this Committee is able to conduct 
meaningful oversight in the future as to how the FIFRA 
reregistration fees and related appropriated monies are spent 
by the Agency, this legislation includes requirements mandating 
that:
          --The EPA Inspector General (EPA IG) and the General 
        Accounting Office (GAO) are to work cooperatively with 
        the EPA Administrator to develop financial and 
        performance standards consistent with the goals of the 
        reregistration program.
          --The EPA IG is to conduct an annual comprehensive 
        financial audit of the EPA pesticide program and a 
        performance audit of the reregistration program. The 
        results and recommendations of this audit are to be 
        reported to the EPA Administrator and to the House and 
        Senate Committees on Agriculture.
          --To ensure the audit is performed as stipulated and 
        free of undue influence as is possible, the 
        Administrator shall reimburse the EPA IG for the cost 
        of the audit out of the reregistration maintenance 
        fees, rather than from appropriated monies.
    The Committee expects the EPA IG to exercise thrift in 
conducting the audit and to take steps to ensure that 
expenditures are made for the exclusive purpose of completing 
the annual audit as outlined in the legislation be included in 
the cost of the audit. Furthermore, in order to protect the 
registrant, who is paying for the audit, and the EPA 
Administrator, who needs the maintenance fees to help finance 
Agency activities associated with the registration program, it 
is the expectation of the Committee that the EPA IG will 
attempt to limit spending to $100,000 for each yearly audit.
    The Committee does recognize that the EPA has made progress 
in issuing final reregistration eligibility determinations, and 
in reviewing and acting upon expedited review applications, 
including ``me-too'' applications and amendments. For example, 
the Committee notes that in FY-95, the EPA Office of 
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances completed 40 
registration eligibility determinations (REDs) and 4,113 
expedited review applications, including 570 ``me-too'' 
applications and 3,543 amendments. The Committee expects the 
EPA to work expeditiously to maintain, if not increase, its 
level of activity to achieve the goal of completing the 
reregistration program as soon as possible.
    The Committee expects that the information provided to the 
Committee, the EPA Administrator, and the GAO through the 
annual EPA IG audits will provide much-needed benchmarks by 
which the efficiency and progress of the program can be judged, 
as well as provide recommendations on how to improve the 
program in the coming years. The Committee notes that 
Subcommittee Chairman Bill Emerson provided valuable 
information to the Committee via his investigation of 
reregistration fees and related activities which was 
instrumental in creating a system of accountability that would 
track the increased costs for reregistration.
    The Committee expects EPA and industry to work 
cooperatively to avoid future regulatory logjams such as is 
illustrated by the reregistration program. The Committee 
provides the foundation for this cooperation is provided in 
Title I, Sections 103 and 107, which require the EPA to review 
the FIFRA registration of a pesticide at least once every 15 
years to ensure the data supporting the pesticide's safe use 
meet currently accepted registration standards, and at the same 
time, to review any tolerance or exemption from a tolerance 
established under the appropriated Section of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

                        Title VI--Indian Tribes

Sec. 601. Authority of Indian tribes

     Section 601(a)(1) would amend Section 24 (7 USC 136v) to 
authorize Indian tribes to regulate the sale or use of any 
federally registered pesticide or device only within the 
boundaries of a federal Indian reservation for such tribe, if 
at least 50 percent of the lands in such reservation are owned 
by members of the tribe or the tribe. Section 601(b) would 
amend Section 26 (7 USC 136w-1) to provide similar limited 
authority to tribes to enforce FIFRA on federal Indian 
reservation land if at least 50 percent of it is owned by 
members of the tribe or the tribe.

                        Committee Consideration

                              I--Hearings

    On May 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Department Operations, 
Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture conducted a hearing for the 
purposes of reviewing H.R. 1627, the ``Food Quality Protection 
Act of 1995''. (Serial #104-15).
    The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: Mr. Daniel Botts, Chairman, Minor Crop Alliance 
Technical Committee; Ms. Rebecca Doyle, Director, Illinois 
Department of Agriculture; Ms. Juanita Duggan, National Food 
Processors Association; Mr. Ralph Engel, Chemical Specialties 
Manufacturers Association; Mr. Jay Feldman, National Coalition 
Against the Misuse of Pesticides; Mr. Alan Goldhammer, 
Biotechnology Industry Organization; Ms. Lynn Goldman, 
Assistant Administrator, EPA; Mr. Gerald Pflug, President, The 
Soap and Detergent Association; Mr. Ray Ratto, Ratto Brothers, 
Inc. Mr. Warren Stickle, Chemical Producers and Distributors 
Association; Mr. Dennis Stolte, American Farm Bureau 
Federation; Mr. Jay Vroom, President, American Crop Protection 
Association; and Mr. Paul Wright, Senior Attorney, the Dow 
Chemical Company.
    Additional material submitted was provided by the 
Agricultural Retailers Association, by EPA in response to 
questions by Mr. Emerson, and by the International Sanitary 
Supply Association.

                     II--Subcommittee Consideration

    On May 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Department Operations, 
Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture met, pursuant to notice to 
consider H.R. 1627, the ``Food Quality Protection Act of 
1995''.
    Chairman Emerson called the meeting to order and stated 
that the Subcommittee had received permission to sit while the 
House was under the five-minute rule. The Chairman then offered 
an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1627 and 
without objection it was considered as original text for 
purposes of amendment.
    Chairman Emerson made a brief opening statement and 
recognized Messrs. Condit and Canady for opening statements. 
Chairman Emerson also noted that Members could offer amendments 
for discussion purposes with the understanding that the 
amendments could be withdrawn for further consideration by 
representatives of the EPA and staff for consideration at the 
Full Committee. The Chairman further noted that representatives 
of EPA and the pest control industry were to work on an issue 
involving termiticides before full Committee consideration of 
the bill.
    Mr. Allard was then recognized to discuss an amendment 
regarding additional exclusive use of data and minor use 
reregistration which he did not offer, but which he reserved 
the right to offer at Full Committee.
    Mr. Brown was then recognized to offer and explain an 
amendment regarding registration renewal. Discussion occurred 
and without objection, the amendment was withdrawn.
    Mr. Brown then offered and explained an amendment 
restricting a pesticide to use only by prescription. Discussion 
occurred and without objection, the amendment was withdrawn.
    Mr. Brown also expressed concern about a provision in the 
bill that exempts nitrogen stabilizers. Chairman Emerson noted 
that Mr. Canady had discussed this provision in his opening 
statement and indicated a desire to seek a solution to the 
problem before full Committee consideration.
    Mr. Bishop was recognized and advised the Committee that he 
was working on an amendment that would provide for adequate 
staff and funds from the EPA budget to expedite processing 
applications for minor use pesticides. Mr. Allard expressed 
some concern about earmarking EPA funds. Mr. Emerson encouraged 
the Members to continue discussions on the amendment and to 
work for a solution.
    Mr. Farr was then recognized to offer and explain an 
amendment to retain current roles of USDA and the Science 
Advisory Panel in cancellation procedures. Discussion occurred 
and by a voice vote the amendment was adopted.
    Mr. Farr was recognized to offer and explain an amendment 
regarding recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Discussion 
occurred and without objection the amendment was withdrawn.
     Mr. Farr was recognized to offer and explain an amendment 
to waive fees for biological pesticides. Discussion occurred 
and Chairman Emerson noted that he had requested specific 
information from EPA regarding fees and that their forthcoming 
response would be helpful in consideration of the amendment. 
Discussion occurred and without objection the amendment was 
withdrawn.
     Mr. Farr offered an amendment concerning risk assumptions 
with respect to infants and children. Discussion occurred and 
without objection, the amendment was withdrawn.
     Mr. Farr offered an amendment that would make certain 
changes to section 102 entitled, cancellation. Discussion 
occurred and without objection the amendment was withdrawn.
     Mr. Condit then moved that H.R. 1627, as amended, be 
ordered favorably reported to the full Committee. By a voice 
vote, H.R. 1627 as amended, was adopted and favorably reported 
to the full Committee in the presence of a quorum.

                          III--Full Committee

     The Committee on Agriculture met, pursuant to notice on 
June 20, 1995, a quorum being present, to consider the bill 
H.R. 1627, as reported by the Subcommittee on Department 
Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture.
     Chairman Roberts called the meeting to order and noted the 
procedures, which had been cleared with the Minority, under 
which the bill would be considered. He stated that title IV of 
H.R. 1627 was under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Commerce and there was a place holder for new title VI, Fees, 
in the Roberts Substitute to H.R. 1627, as reported by the 
Subcommittee. The Chairman further noted that it was his 
intention to defer consideration of title VI until such time as 
the Commerce Committee completed mark up of title IV. Chairman 
Roberts also indicated that there may be further consideration 
of section 110 relating to the administrative hearing process 
and the relationship to the Administrative Procedures Act at 
that later date
     Thereafter, Messrs. de la Garza, Emerson, and Condit made 
brief opening statements.
     Chairman Roberts then offered an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute to the bill, H.R. 1627, as reported by the 
Subcommittee. Without objection the substitute amendment was 
laid before the Committee and considered as original text for 
purposes of amendment. Counsel then explained the substitute 
amendment.
     Mr. Farr was recognized to offer and explain an amendment 
regarding pesticide use data gathering. Discussion occurred and 
by a voice vote the amendment was adopted.
     Mr. de la Garza advised the Committee that some Members 
were not present and that he wished to have it noted in the 
record that he wanted to preserve their right to continue 
working with the Committee staff on an amendment. Mr. de la 
Garza then moved for the adoption of the substitute amendment, 
as amended by the Farr amendment. By a voice vote and in 
presence of a quorum, the substitute amendment, as amended, was 
adopted.
     Without objection, staff was given permission to make 
technical, clarifying or conforming changes to the substitute 
adopted. The Chairman then adjourned, to reconvene subject to 
the call of the Chair.
     On June 19, 1996, the Committee on Agriculture met, 
pursuant to notice to consider H.R. 1627, the Food Quality 
Protection Act and other pending business. Chairman Roberts 
advised the Committee that H.R. 1627 had been considered by the 
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign 
Agriculture on May 23, 1995, and it had been ordered reported 
to the full Committee. The full Committee had considered the 
bill on June 20, 1995. Furthermore, Chairman Roberts explained 
that the Committee on Agriculture did not report the bill on 
June 20, 1995, because it was the Chair's intention to 
reconvene the Committee after final consideration by the 
Commerce Committee on title IV.
     Chairman Roberts at that point stated that the fees 
language had been worked out and would provide the 
Environmental Protection Agency authority to collect $76 
million in reregistration fees through the year 2001 and would 
require a thorough annual financial and performance audit of 
the fees collected and appropriated monies used for 
reregistration. It was further noted that the outstanding issue 
of new product registration fees was still being discussed with 
the registrant community.
     Chairman Roberts indicated that the cancellation 
provisions of H.R. 1627 were being dropped at the request of 
EPA and the chemical industry which negated the need for such 
amendments, including section 110. The Chairman also wanted the 
record to reflect that it had never been the intent of section 
110 to shift the burden of proof, but rather to ensure that 
hearings conducted under the reform cancellation procedures 
would conform to the Administrative Procedures Act.
    The Chairman also noted the many years of effort that had 
been put forth by many Members of the Committee to try and 
address the concerns of the current Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food Drug 
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) pesticide regulatory policies. He 
specifically commended Messrs. Emerson and Condit for their 
leadership in the Subcommittee and Mr. de la Garza, the former 
Secretary of Agriculture Ed Madigan, Mr. Brown, Mr. Stenholm, 
and others who had worked on the FIFRA issues over a period of 
years.
    Mr. de la Garza was then recognized for a statement and he 
pointed out that Mr. Berkley Bedell from Iowa had also worked 
on the issue and had come very close to getting a bill passed. 
Mr. Condit was also recognized and wished to state for the 
record that if there were no action taken by the Commerce 
Committee that it was his intention to go forward with a 
discharge petition.
    Discussion occurred with Mr. Smith questioning staff about 
the issue of the disposal of pesticide containers.
    Mr. Brown was also recognized by Chairman Roberts for his 
hard work over the years on FIFRA, and Mr. Brown made an 
opening statement.
    Chairman Roberts then offered a substitute amendment to 
H.R. 1627 which contained all that was considered by the 
Committee on June 20, 1995, with certain exceptions, such as 
replacing the antimicrobial language in the text and inserting 
the text of H.R. 3338, which is identical to S. 1491, and 
substitutes for earlier antimicrobial pesticide registration 
reform language that appeared in the June 1995 version of H.R. 
1627. The substitute amendment also contained a provision on 
fees not previously in the bill, H.R. 1627, and a provision 
relating to Indian nations' pesticide authority that appeared 
earlier in H.R. 1627 but that had been changed by compromise 
language which it was believed would address the concerns of 
all parties to that issue. The Chairman stated that he would 
work with all those interested to resolve the issue. Without 
objection, the substitute amendment to H.R. 1627 was considered 
as original text for purposes of amendment.
    Mr. Volkmer was then recognized to ask Administration 
witnesses for their views on the fee provisions in the bill. 
The Administration expressed concern about the cost of the 
audit required by the bill. Chairman Roberts indicated that he 
would work with Mr. Volkmer on report language which would 
address the concerns of the Administration. The advice of the 
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office had also 
been requested on that issue.
    Mr. Brown was then recognized to offer and explain an 
amendment regarding reregistration labeling of those pesticides 
that have not been reregistered. It would have required that 
each pesticide which is not reregistered by September 30, 1997, 
bear a label stating that the pesticide is subject to 
reregistration requirements and may not meet current health and 
safety standards of the EPA. Mr. Brown expressed his 
frustration with the reregistration process that began in 1988 
and was to have been completed by now. Chairman Roberts 
indicated his disagreement with the Brown amendment and said 
that EPA had recently estimated they could not finish 
reregistration before 2005 and that he did not think that the 
companies should be punished for the lack of speed and 
efficiency of EPA. Discussion occurred and without objection, 
the amendment was withdrawn.
    Mr. Brown was further recognized to offer and explain an 
amendment for himself and on the behalf of Mr. Farr that would 
require a standard for the submission of data for hormonally 
active pesticide chemicals. Mr. Brown also noted that the 
Commerce Committee has some language regarding this issue in 
legislation that would reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    Discussion occurred and Chairman Roberts indicated that he 
would resist putting this in legislation as he thought that EPA 
had the authority to consider the matter and suggested that Mr. 
Brown and staff work together on report language to address Mr. 
Brown's concerns. Without objection, the amendment was 
withdrawn.
    Mr. Baker was recognized to offer report language regarding 
Performance Partnership Grants appropriated under the State and 
Tribal Assistance Grants section and the use of those funds. 
Discussion occurred and without objection, the report language 
was adopted.
    Mr. Baldacci was recognized to ask staff a question 
concerning the preemption of local government regulations in 
section 106 and indicated that he would be offering dissenting 
views to the report accompanying H.R. 1627 to assure that his 
concerns about this issue are noted.
    Chairman Roberts stated that Messrs. Pombo and Dooley had 
written to the Chair in relation to a food safety issue 
involving a potential problem that would be created by a 
regulation being developed by EPA and the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service to restrict the use of pesticides within a 
critical habitat of endangered and threatened species where 
commercial facilities are located. The Chairman indicated his 
readiness to work with Messrs. Pombo and Dooley and any other 
Member on this issue as the bill proceeds to the Floor.
    Mr. Gunderson then moved that the amendment to H.R. 1627, 
as amended, be reported favorably to the House. By a voice 
vote, H.R. 1627, as amended, was ordered favorably to the 
House.
    Mr. Gunderson also moved that the Committee authorize the 
Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary to go to 
conference with the Senate on the bill H.R. 1627 and other 
pending business or similar Senate bills. By a voice vote the 
motion was agreed to.
    Without objection, staff was given permission to make such 
technical, clarifying, or conforming changes as are appropriate 
without changing the substance of the legislation.
    The Chairman then thanked the Members and adjourned the 
meeting subject to the call of the chair.

                   Reporting the Bill--Rollcall Votes

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(2) of rule XI of the House 
of Representatives, H.R. 1627, was reported, as amended, with a 
quorum actually present. There was no motion or request for a 
recorded vote.

          Budget Act Compliance (Section 308 and Section 403)

    The provisions of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of Rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new 
budget authority, new spending authority, or new credit 
authority, or increased or decreased revenues or tax 
expenditures) are not considered applicable. The estimate and 
comparison required to be prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under clause 2(l)(C)(3) of Rule XI 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 403 of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 submitted to the Committee 
prior to the filing of this report are as follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 10, 1996.
Hon. Pat Roberts,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1627, the Food 
Quality Protection Act of 1996.
    Enactment of H.R. 1627 would affect direct spending. 
Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
    If you wish further details on their estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    1. Bill number: H.R. 1627.
    2. Bill title: Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Agriculture on June 19, 1996.
    4. Bill purpose: The bill would amend the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and would provide additional fund 
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) to continue their responsibilities under 
these acts. Title I would establish a goal for EPA to review 
pesticide registrations every 15 years. Title II would direct 
EPA and USDA to establish programs to facilitate the 
registration of minor-use pesticides. Minor use of a pesticide 
is defined as use on a crop grown on less than 300,000 acres 
nationwide, or where the use is insufficient to provide an 
economic incentive to the manufacturer to register the 
pesticide. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $10 
million annually for grants to develop the necessary data to 
support the registration of minor-use pesticides. The bill also 
would authorize the appropriation of $12 million to the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 1997 for 
grants to develop data to register pesticides used 
predominantly in public health programs.
    Title III would direct USDA to develop survey data on food 
consumption patters of infants and children and to improve the 
data collected by the department on pesticide residues in food. 
Title IV would change the standards EPA is directed to use when 
setting tolerances for pesticide residues in raw and processed 
food. Title V would authorize EPA to continue collecting up to 
$14 million annually for pesticide reregistration maintenance 
fees over the 1998-2001 period. In addition, EPA would be 
authorized to collect an additional $2 million annually in such 
fees over the 1998-2000 period.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming 
appropriation of the amounts either estimated or specifically 
authorized for discretionary programs conducted by EPA, USDA, 
and HHS, enacting H.R. 1627 would lead to fiscal year 1997 
funding for pesticide programs of $289 million. CBO estimates 
that the bill would authorize appropriations totaling about 
$1.9 billion over the 1997-2002 period.
    EPA's authority to collect and spend pesticide 
reregistration fees from the pesticide industry expires at the 
end of 1997. The bill would extend the agency's authority to 
collect $14 million annually for reregistration maintenance 
fees until 2001, and would authorize the collection of an 
additional $2 million annually over the 1998-2000 period. Under 
current law, EPA is authorized to spend reregistration 
maintenance fees without further appropriation. If H.R. 1627 
were enacted, however, the agency would be authorized to spend 
the fees to pay the costs of reregistration and expedited 
processing of such applications only to the extent that a 
matching amount is appropriated for those purposes from general 
funds. In 1996, approximately $26 million was appropriated for 
reregistration activities. Over the 1997-2001 period, we assume 
sufficient amounts would be appropriated for reregistration 
work to allow the agency to spend all of the fees collected. 
Hence, the income from the fees and the spending of that income 
would offset each other in each year, and there would be no net 
impact on direct spending for each fiscal year.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1996   1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                       
                                                                                                                
Spending under current law:                                                                                     
    Estimated budget authority.................................    253     --     --     --     --     --     --
    Estimated outlays..........................................    247     56     15     --     --     --     --
Proposed changes:                                                                                               
    Estimated authorization level..............................     --    289    297    306    315    324    334
    Estimated outlays..........................................     --    215    276    303    312    321    330
Spending under H.R. 1627:                                                                                       
    Estimated authorization level..............................    253    289    297    306    315    324    334
    Estimated outlays..........................................    247    271    291    303    312    321    330
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of this bill fall within budget functions 300, 
350, and 550.
    6. Basis of estimate: Spending Subject to Appropriations. 
For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will 
be enacted before 1997 appropriations for EPA, USDA, and HHS 
are provided and that all funds authorized by H.R. 1627 will be 
appropriated for each fiscal year. The bill would specify 
authorizations totaling $72 million over the 1997-2002 period 
for grants to support the registration of minor-use pesticides 
and public health pesticides. In addition, CBO estimates the 
bill would authorize the appropriation of $1.8 billion for 
pesticide programs to be conducted by USDA, EPA, and HHS over 
the next six years.
    CBO estimates that, if H.R. 1627 is enacted, EPA would need 
to maintain the level of funding provided in 1996 (about $47 
million in appropriated funds, plus direct spending of $14 
million of pesticide fees) for registering or reregistering 
pesticides, and establishing food tolerances for pesticide 
residues over the 1997-2002 period. Estimated appropriations 
over the six-year period would total $313 million.
    CBO estimates that, if H.R. 1627 is enacted, USDA would be 
required to continue to perform a variety of tasks currently 
undertaken, such as surveys of pesticide use, collection of 
data on pesticide residues, research and extension activities 
related to integrated pest management (IMP) programs, and data 
management and reporting on pesticide use. These activities at 
USDA received $206 million in funding for 1996. Section 210 
would authorize the appropriation of $10 million annually to 
USDA to establish a grant program for developing data to 
support minor-use pesticide registrations. In addition, Title 
III would require USDA to conduct surveys on food consumption 
patterns of infants and children. CBO estimates that about $7 
million would be required annually to provide such data. In 
total, CBO estimates the bill would authorize appropriations of 
$1,475 million over the 1997-2002 period for pesticide and IPM 
activities at USDA.
    Section 237 would direct the Secretary of HHS to establish 
a grant program for the development of data to support 
registration or reregistration of pesticides used in the 
control of public health pests. Based on the bill's specified 
authorization for fiscal year 1997 and information from HHS, 
CBO estimates this program would initially cost $12 million a 
year, increasing to about $14 million by 2002.
    Direct Spending. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1627 
would result in additional offsetting receipts and direct 
spending of $16 million annually over the 1998-2000 period and 
$14 million in 2001 from pesticide reregistration fees paid by 
industry. Thus, this provision would result in no net budgetary 
impact.
    In addition, section 210 would direct the Secretary of 
Agriculture to collect fees from industry for the use of data 
developed with federal funds to support minor-use pesticide 
registrations. The bill also would authorize the Secretary to 
spend, without further appropriation, any fees collected to 
conduct additional minor-use pesticide research. CBO estimates 
that the amount of any fees collected by USDA for this purpose 
would be spent as authorized, and that over time this provision 
would result in no net budgetary impact.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enacting 
H.R. 1627 would affect direct spending. Therefore, pay-as-you-
go procedures would apply to the bill. We estimate the 
pesticide reregistration fee authorized by this bill would 
result in new offsetting receipts of $16 million in 1998, and 
new direct spending of the same amount, thus resulting in no 
net impact. (The affected fees are already authorized under 
current law for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1996    1997    1998 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays...............................       0       0       0
Change in receipts..............................  ......   (\1\)  ......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.                                                     

    8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal 
governments: H.R. 1627 contains intergovernmental mandates as 
defined in Public Law 104-4, but these mandates would impose no 
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    This bill would prohibit local governments from regulating 
pesticides. It also would limit the authority of Indian tribes 
to regulate pesticides within the boundaries of a reservation. 
The later provision would limit such authority to reservations 
in which at least 50 percent of the lands are owned by the 
tribe or members of the tribe. While these provisions would 
limit the regulatory authority of these governments and tribes, 
they would not impose any costs.
    9. Estimated impact on the private sector: CBO estimates 
that annual direct costs imposed by private-sector mandates in 
the bill would not exceed the $100 million threshold 
established in Public Law 104-4. Moreover, the direct costs of 
the new mandates on the private sector could be at least 
partially offset by savings from changes the bill would make in 
the registration and reregistration processes and in other 
aspects of federal pesticide regulation.
    Section 105 of the bill would expand the definition of 
``pesticide'' to include nitrogen stabilizers for which 
manufacturers make pesticidal claims. However, the bill would 
provide exemptions from regulations for several uses of 
nitrogen stabilizers that would make the incremental cost to 
the industry zero.
    Further, H.R. 1627 would impose a mandate by extending 
EPA's authorization to collect certain fees. Under current law 
EPA requires pesticide manufacturers and developers to submit 
data on a pesticide's toxicity and behavior in the environment 
when they apply to register a pesticide for new use or to 
reregister an existing pesticide. Registrants must pay annual 
registration maintenance fees in an amount that would total $14 
million annually. EPA's authority to collect maintenance fees 
from registrants expires at the end of 1997. H.R. 1627 would 
extend EPA's authority to collect registration maintenance fees 
until 2001 and would authorize an increase in the total level 
to $16 million, from 1998 to 2000. Thus, the fees required by 
the bill for fiscal years 1998-2000 would be $16 million more 
than required for that year under current law, and $2 million 
more than is currently being paid.
    These additional costs to registrants could be at least 
partially offset by a number of other changes in pesticide 
programs that could lower the costs of complying with 
requirements. Savings could result from reforms in the 
registration and review of agricultural minor-use, 
antimicrobial, and public health pesticides that would enable 
EPA to expedite the regulatory process. Moreover, provisions in 
Title IV would change standards EPA is directed to use when 
setting tolerances for pesticide residues in raw and processed 
food and could potentially provide savings to the private 
sector.
    In addition to the potential savings in the bill, H.R. 1627 
would authorize an appropriation of $10 million annually for 
grants to develop necessary data to support the registration of 
minor-use pesticides. The bill also would authorize an 
appropriation of $12 million in 1997 for grants to develop data 
to register pesticides used predominantly in public health 
programs.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Federal cost estimate--Kim 
Cawley, David Hull, and Jennifer Jenson; State and local 
government impact--Majorie Miller; private-sector impact--
Patrice Gordon.
    12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine for Paul N. 
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that 
enactment of H.R. 1627, as amended, will have no inflationary 
impact on the national economy.

                          Oversight Statement

    No summary of oversight findings and recommendations made 
by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight under 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives was available to the Committee with reference 
to the subject matter specifically addressed by H.R. 1627, as 
amended.
    No specific oversight activities other than the hearings 
detailed in this report were conducted by the Committee within 
the definition of clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
titles I-III and V of the bill, as reported, are shown as 
follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in 
black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing law 
in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

          FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  For purposes of this Act--
  (a) Active Ingredient.--The term ``active ingredient'' 
means--
          (1) in the case of a pesticide other than a plant 
        regulator, defoliant, [or] desiccant, or nitrogen 
        stabilizer, an ingredient which will prevent, destroy, 
        repel, or mitigate any pest;
          (2) in the case of a plant regulator, an ingredient 
        which, through physiological action, will accelerate or 
        retard the rate of growth or rate of maturation or 
        otherwise alter the behavior of ornamental or crop 
        plants or the product thereof;
          (3) in the case of a defoliant, an ingredient which 
        will cause the leaves or foliage to drop from a plant; 
        [and]
          (4) in the case of a desiccant, an ingredient which 
        will artificially accelerate the drying of plant 
        tissue[.]; and
          (5) in the case of a nitrogen stabilizer, an 
        ingredient which will prevent or hinder the process of 
        nitrification, denitrification, ammonia volatilization, 
        or urease production through action affecting soil 
        bacteria.
          * * * * * * *
  (u) Pesticide.--The term ``pesticide'' means (1) any 
substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, 
destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, [and] (2) any 
substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant 
regulator, defoliant, or desiccant, and (3) any nitrogen 
stabilizer, except that the term ``pesticide'' shall not 
include any article that is a ``new animal drug'' within the 
meaning of section 201(w) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(w)), that has been determined by 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services not to be a new 
animal drug by a regulation establishing conditions of use for 
the article, or that is an animal feed within the meaning of 
section 201(x) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 321(x)) bearing or 
containing a new animal drug. The term ``pesticide'' does not 
include liquid chemical sterilant products (including any 
sterilant or subordinate disinfectant claims on such products) 
for use on a critical or semi-critical device, as defined in 
section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 321). For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 
``critical device'' includes any device which is introduced 
directly into the human body, either into or in contact with 
the bloodstream or normally sterile areas of the body and the 
term ``semi-critical device'' includes any device which 
contacts intact mucous membranes but which does not ordinarily 
penetrate the blood barrier or otherwise enter normally sterile 
areas of the body.
          * * * * * * *
  (aa) State.--The term ``State'' means a State, the District 
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
Islands, Guam, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and 
American Samoa. The term ``State'' does not include a local 
government, as defined in subsection (ii), and is not intended 
to grant any authority or to otherwise refer to local 
governments or political subdivisions of a State.
  (bb) Unreasonable Adverse Effects on the Environment.--The 
term ``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment'' means 
(1) any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking 
into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and 
benefits of the use of any pesticide[.], or (2) a human dietary 
risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or 
on any food inconsistent with the standard the Administrator 
determines is adequate to protect the public health under 
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 346a). The Administrator shall consider the risks and 
benefits of public health pesticides separate from the risks 
and benefits of other pesticides. In weighing any regulatory 
action concerning a public health pesticide under this Act, the 
Administrator shall weigh any risks of the pesticide against 
the health risks such as the diseases transmitted by the vector 
to be controlled by the pesticide.
          * * * * * * *
  (hh) Nitrogen Stabilizer.--The term ``nitrogen stabilizer'' 
means any substance or mixture of substances intended for 
preventing or hindering the process of nitrification, 
denitrification, ammonia volatilization, or urease production 
through action upon soil bacteria. Such term shall not 
include--
          (1) dicyandiamide;
          (2) ammonium thiosulfate; or
          (3) any substance or mixture of substances.--
                  (A) that was not registered pursuant to 
                section 3 prior to January 1, 1992; and
                  (B) that was in commercial agronomic use 
                prior to January 1, 1992, with respect to which 
                after January 1, 1992, the distributor or 
                seller of the substance or mixture has made no 
                specific claim of prevention or hindering of 
                the process of nitrification, denitrification, 
                ammonia volatilization urease production 
                regardless of the actual use or purpose for, or 
                future use or purpose for, the substance or 
                mixture.
Statements made in materials required to be submitted to any 
State legislative or regulatory authority, or required by such 
authority to be included in the labeling or other literature 
accompanying any such substance or mixture shall not be deemed 
a specific claim within the meaning of this subsection.
  (ii) Local Government.--The term ``local government'' means 
any political subdivision of a State including counties, 
townships, cities, towns, parishes, and boroughs, whether home 
rule entities or not, or any local agency or body of any type 
which has an organized existence, governmental character, and 
substantial autonomy including independent or autonomous school 
districts, housing authorities, and other special districts.
  (jj) Maintenance Applicator.--The term ``maintenance 
applicator'' means any individual who, in the principal course 
of such individual's employment, uses, or supervises the use 
of, a pesticide not classified for restricted use (other than a 
ready to use consumer products pesticides); for the purpose of 
providing structural pest control or lawn pest control 
including janitors, general maintenance personnel, sanitation 
personnel, and grounds maintenance personnel. The term 
``maintenance applicator'' does not include private applicators 
as defined in section 2(e)(2); individuals who use 
antimicrobial pesticides, sanitizers or disinfectants; 
individuals employed by Federal, State, and local governments 
or any political subdivisions thereof, or individuals who use 
pesticides not classified for restricted use in or around their 
homes, boats, sod farms, nurseries, greenhouses, or other 
noncommercial property.
  (kk) Service Technician.--The term ``service technician'' 
means any individual who uses or supervises the use of 
pesticides (other than a ready to use consumer products 
pesticide) for the purpose of providing structural pest control 
or lawn pest control on the property of another for a fee. The 
term ``service technician'' does not include individuals who 
use antimicrobial pesticides, sanitizers or disinfectants; or 
who otherwise apply ready to use consumer products pesticides.
  (ll) Minor Use.--The term ``minor use'' means the use of a 
pesticide on an animal, on a commercial agricultural crop or 
site, or for the protection of public health where--
          (1) the total United States acreage for the crop is 
        less than 300,000 acres, as determined by the Secretary 
        of Agriculture; or
          (2) the Administrator, in consultation with the 
        Secretary of Agriculture, determines that, based on 
        information provided by an applicant for registration 
        or a registrant, the use does not provide sufficient 
        economic incentive to support the initial registration 
        or continuing registration of a pesticide for such use 
        and--
                  (A) there are insufficient efficacious 
                alternative registered pesticides available for 
                the use;
                  (B) the alternatives to the pesticide use 
                pose greater risks to the environment or human 
                health;
                  (C) the minor use pesticide plays or will 
                play a significant part in managing pest 
                resistance; or
                  (D) the minor use pesticide plays or will 
                play a significant part in an integrated pest 
                management program.
The status as a minor use under this subsection shall continue 
as long as the Administrator has not determined that, based on 
existing data, such use may cause an unreasonable adverse 
effect on the environment and the use otherwise qualifies for 
such status.
  (mm) Antimicrobial Pesticide.--
          (1) In general.--The term ``antimicrobial pesticide'' 
        means a pesticide that--
                  (A) is intended to--
                          (i) disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or 
                        mitigate growth or development of 
                        microbiological organisms; or
                          (ii) protect inanimate objects, 
                        industrial processes or systems, 
                        surfaces, water, or other chemical 
                        substances from contamination, fouling, 
                        or deterioration caused by bacteria, 
                        viruses, fungi, protozoa, algae, or 
                        slime; and
                  (B) in the intended use is exempt from, or 
                otherwise not subject to, a tolerance under 
                section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
                Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a and 348) or a food 
                additive regulation under section 409 of such 
                Act.
          (2) Excluded products.--The term ``antimicrobial 
        pesticide'' does not include--
                  (A) a wood preservative or antifouling paint 
                product for which a claim of pesticidal 
                activity other than or in addition to an 
                activity described in paragraph (1) is made;
                  (B) an agricultural fungicide product; or
                  (C) an aquatic herbicide product.
          (3) Included products.--The term ``antimicrobial 
        pesticide'' does include any other chemical sterilant 
        product (other than liquid chemical sterilant products 
        exempt under subsection (u)), any other disinfectant 
        product, any other industrial microbiocide product, and 
        any other preservative product that is not excluded by 
        paragraph (2).
  (nn) Public Health Pesticide.--The term ``public health 
pesticide'' means any minor use pesticide product registered 
for use and used predominantly in public health programs for 
vector control or for other recognized health protection uses, 
including the prevention or mitigation of viruses, bacteria, or 
other microorganisms (other than viruses, bacteria, or other 
microorganisms on or in living man or other living animal) that 
pose a threat to public health.
  (oo) Vector.--The term ``vector'' means any organism capable 
of transmitting the causative agent of human disease or capable 
of producing human discomfort or injury, including mosquitoes, 
flies, fleas, cockroaches, or other insects and ticks, mites, 
or rats.

SEC. 3. REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES.

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Procedure for Registration.--
          (1) Statement required.--Each applicant for 
        registration of a pesticide shall file with the 
        Administrator a statement which includes--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  (F) except as otherwise provided in paragraph 
                (2)(D), if requested by the Administrator, a 
                full description of the tests made and the 
                results thereof upon which the claims are 
                based, or alternatively a citation to data that 
                appear in the public literature or that 
                previously had been submitted to the 
                Administrator and that the Administrator may 
                consider in accordance with the following 
                provisions:
                          (i)  * * *
                          (ii) The period of exclusive data use 
                        provided under clause (i) shall be 
                        extended 1 additional year for each 3 
                        minor uses registered after the date of 
                        enactment of this clause and within 7 
                        years of the commencement of the 
                        exclusive use period, up to a total of 
                        3 additional years for all minor uses 
                        registered by the Administrator if the 
                        Administrator, in consultation with the 
                        Secretary of Agriculture, determines 
                        that, based on information provided by 
                        an applicant for registration or a 
                        registrant, that--
                                  (I) there are insufficient 
                                efficacious alternative 
                                registered pesticides available 
                                for the use;
                                  (II) the alternatives to the 
                                minor use pesticide pose 
                                greater risks to the 
                                environment or human health;
                                  (III) the minor use pesticide 
                                plays or will play a 
                                significant part in managing 
                                pest resistance; or
                                  (IV) the minor use pesticide 
                                plays or will play a 
                                significant part in an 
                                integrated pest management 
                                program.
                        The registration of a pesticide for a 
                        minor use on a crop grouping 
                        established by the Administrator shall 
                        be considered for purposes of this 
                        clause 1 minor use for each 
                        representative crop for which data are 
                        provided in the crop grouping. Any 
                        additional exclusive use period under 
                        this clause shall be modified as 
                        appropriate or terminated if the 
                        registrant voluntarily cancels the 
                        product or deletes from the 
                        registration the minor uses which 
                        formed the basis for the extension of 
                        the additional exclusive use period or 
                        if the Administrator determines that 
                        the registrant is not actually 
                        marketing the product for such minor 
                        uses.
                          [(ii)] (iii) Except as otherwise 
                        provided in clause (i), with respect to 
                        data submitted after December 31, 1969, 
                        by an applicant or registrant to 
                        support an application for 
                        registration, experimental use permit, 
                        or amendment adding a new use to an 
                        existing registration, to support or 
                        maintain in effect an existing 
                        registration, or for reregistration, 
                        the Administrator may, without the 
                        permission of the original data 
                        submitter, consider any such item of 
                        data in support of an application by 
                        any other person (hereinafter in this 
                        subparagraph referred to as the 
                        ``applicant'') within the fifteen-year 
                        period following the date the data were 
                        originally submitted only if the 
                        applicant has made an offer to 
                        compensate the original data submitter 
                        and submitted such offer to the 
                        Administrator accompanied by evidence 
                        of delivery to the original data 
                        submitter of the offer. The terms and 
                        amount of compensation may be fixed by 
                        agreement between the original data 
                        submitter and the applicant, or, 
                        failing such agreement, binding 
                        arbitration under this subparagraph. 
                        If, at the end of ninety days after the 
                        date of delivery to the original data 
                        submitter of the offer to compensate, 
                        the original data submitter and the 
                        applicant have neither agreed on the 
                        amount and terms of compensation nor on 
                        a procedure for reaching an agreement 
                        on the amount and terms of 
                        compensation, either person may 
                        initiate binding arbitration 
                        proceedings by requesting the Federal 
                        Mediation and Conciliation Service to 
                        appoint an arbitrator from the roster 
                        of arbitrators maintained by such 
                        Service. The procedure and rules of the 
                        Service shall be applicable to the 
                        selection of such arbitrator and to 
                        such arbitration proceedings, and the 
                        findings and determination of the 
                        arbitrator shall be final and 
                        conclusive, and no official or court of 
                        the United States shall have power or 
                        jurisdiction to review any such 
                        findings and determination, except for 
                        fraud, misrepresentation, or other 
                        misconduct by one of the parties to the 
                        arbitration or the arbitrator where 
                        there is a verified complaint with 
                        supporting affidavits attesting to 
                        specific instances of such fraud, 
                        misrepresentation, or other misconduct. 
                        The parties to the arbitration shall 
                        share equally in the payment of the fee 
                        and expenses of the arbitrator. If the 
                        Administrator determines that an 
                        original data submitter has failed to 
                        participate in a procedure for reaching 
                        an agreement or in an arbitration 
                        proceeding as required by this 
                        subparagraph, or failed to comply with 
                        the terms of an agreement or 
                        arbitration decision concerning 
                        compensation under this subparagraph, 
                        the original data submitter shall 
                        forfeit the right to compensation for 
                        the use of the data in support of the 
                        application. Notwithstanding any other 
                        provision of this Act, if the 
                        Administrator determines that an 
                        applicant has failed to participate in 
                        a procedure for reaching an agreement 
                        or in an arbitration proceeding as 
                        required by this subparagraph, or 
                        failed to comply with the terms of an 
                        agreement or arbitration decision 
                        concerning compensation under this 
                        subparagraph, the Administrator shall 
                        deny the application or cancel the 
                        registration of the pesticide in 
                        support of which the data were used 
                        without further hearing. Before the 
                        Administrator takes action under either 
                        of the preceding two sentences, the 
                        Administrator shall furnish to the 
                        affected person, by certified mail, 
                        notice of intent to take action and 
                        allow fifteen days from the date of 
                        delivery of the notice for the affected 
                        person to respond. If a registration is 
                        denied or canceled under this 
                        subparagraph, the Administrator may 
                        make such order as the Administrator 
                        deems appropriate concerning the 
                        continued sale and use of existing 
                        stocks of such pesticide. Registration 
                        action by the Administrator shall not 
                        be delayed pending the fixing of 
                        compensation.
                          [(iii)] (iv) After expiration of any 
                        period of exclusive use and any period 
                        for which compensation is required for 
                        the use of an item of data under 
                        clauses (i) [and (ii)], (ii), and 
                        (iii), the Administrator may consider 
                        such item of data in support of an 
                        application by any other applicant 
                        without the permission of the original 
                        data submitter and without an offer 
                        having been received to compensate the 
                        original data submitter for the use of 
                        such item of data.
                          (v) The period of exclusive use 
                        provided under clause (ii) shall not 
                        take into effect until 1 year after 
                        enactment of this clause, except where 
                        an applicant or registrant is applying 
                        for the registration of a pesticide 
                        containing an active ingredient not 
                        previously registered.
                          (vi) With respect to data submitted 
                        after the date of enactment of this 
                        clause by an applicant or registrant to 
                        support an amendment adding a new use 
                        to an existing registration that does 
                        not retain any period of exclusive use, 
                        if such data relates solely to a minor 
                        use of a pesticide, such data shall 
                        not, without the written permission of 
                        the original data submitter, be 
                        considered by the Administrator to 
                        support an application for a minor use 
                        by another person during the period of 
                        10 years following the date of 
                        submission of such data. The applicant 
                        or registrant at the time the new minor 
                        use is requested shall notify the 
                        Administrator that to the best of their 
                        knowledge the exclusive use period for 
                        the pesticide has expired and that the 
                        data pertaining solely to the minor use 
                        of a pesticide is eligible for the 
                        provisions of this paragraph. If the 
                        minor use registration which is 
                        supported by data submitted pursuant to 
                        this subsection is voluntarily canceled 
                        or if such data are subsequently used 
                        to support a nonminor use, the data 
                        shall no longer be subject to the 
                        exclusive use provisions of this clause 
                        but shall instead be considered by the 
                        Administrator in accordance with the 
                        provisions of clause (i), as 
                        appropriate.
                  (G) If the applicant is requesting that the 
                registration or amendment to the registration 
                of a pesticide be expedited, an explanation of 
                the basis for the request must be submitted, in 
                accordance with paragraph (10) of this 
                subsection.
          (2) Data in support of registration.--
                  (A) In general.--The Administrator shall 
                publish guidelines specifying the kinds of 
                information which will be required to support 
                the registration of a pesticide and shall 
                revise such guidelines from time to time. If 
                thereafter the Administrator requires any 
                additional kind of information under 
                subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the 
                Administrator shall permit sufficient time for 
                applicants to obtain such additional 
                information. The Administrator, in establishing 
                standards for data requirements for the 
                registration of pesticides with respect to 
                minor uses, shall make such standards 
                commensurate with the anticipated extent of 
                use, pattern of use, the public health and 
                agricultural need for such minor use, and the 
                level and degree of [potential exposure of man 
                and the environment to the pesticide] potential 
                beneficial or adverse effects on man and the 
                environment. The Administrator shall not 
                require a person to submit, in relation to a 
                registration or reregistration of a pesticide 
                for minor agricultural use under this Act, any 
                field residue data from a geographic area where 
                the pesticide will not be registered for such 
                use. In the development of these standards, the 
                Administrator shall consider the economic 
                factors of potential national volume of use, 
                extent of distribution, and the impact of the 
                cost of meeting the requirements on the 
                incentives for any potential registrant to 
                undertake the development of the required data. 
                Except as provided by section 10, within 30 
                days after the Administrator registers a 
                pesticide under this Act the Administrator 
                shall make available to the public the data 
                called for in the registration statement 
                together with such other scientific information 
                as the Administrator deems relevant to the 
                Administrator's decision.
                  (B) Additional data.--(i) If the 
                Administrator determines that additional data 
                are required to maintain in effect an existing 
                registration of a pesticide, the Administrator 
                shall notify all existing registrants of the 
                pesticide to which the determination relates 
                and provide a list of such registrants to any 
                interested person.
          * * * * * * *
                  (vi) Upon the request of a registrant the 
                Administrator shall, in the case of a minor 
                use, extend the deadline for the production of 
                residue chemistry data under this subparagraph 
                for data required solely to support that minor 
                use until the final deadline for submission of 
                data under section 4 for the other uses of the 
                pesticide established as of the date of 
                enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act of 
                1996, if--
                          (I) the data to support other uses of 
                        the pesticide on a food are being 
                        provided;
                          (II) the registrant, in submitting a 
                        request for such an extension, provides 
                        a schedule, including interim dates to 
                        measure progress, to assure that the 
                        data production will be completed 
                        before the expiration of the extension 
                        period;
                          (III) the Administrator has 
                        determined that such extension will not 
                        significantly delay the Administrator's 
                        schedule for issuing a reregistration 
                        eligibility determination required 
                        under section 4; and
                          (IV) the Administrator has determined 
                        that based on existing data, such 
                        extension would not significantly 
                        increase the risk of any unreasonable 
                        adverse effect on the environment. If 
                        the Administrator grants an extension 
                        under this clause, the Administrator 
                        shall monitor the development of the 
                        data and shall ensure that the 
                        registrant is meeting the schedule for 
                        the production of the data. If the 
                        Administrator determines that the 
                        registrant is not meeting or has not 
                        met the schedule for the production of 
                        such data, the Administrator may 
                        proceed in accordance with clause (iv) 
                        regarding the continued registration of 
                        the affected products with the minor 
                        use and shall inform the public of such 
                        action. Notwithstanding the provisions 
                        of this clause, the Administrator may 
                        take action to modify or revoke the 
                        extension under this clause if the 
                        Administrator determines that the 
                        extension for the minor use may cause 
                        an unreasonable adverse effect on the 
                        environment. In such circumstance, the 
                        Administrator shall provide, in writing 
                        to the registrant, a notice revoking 
                        the extension of time for submission of 
                        data. Such data shall instead be due in 
                        accordance with the date established by 
                        the Administrator for the submission of 
                        the data.
                  (vii) If the registrant does not commit to 
                support a specific minor use of the pesticide, 
                but is supporting and providing data in a 
                timely and adequate fashion to support uses of 
                the pesticide on a food, or if all uses of the 
                pesticide are nonfood uses and the registrant 
                does not commit to support a specific minor use 
                of the pesticide but is supporting and 
                providing data in a timely and adequate fashion 
                to support other nonfood uses of the pesticide, 
                the Administrator, at the written request of 
                the registrant, shall not take any action 
                pursuant to this clause in regard to such 
                unsupported minor use until the final deadline 
                established as of the date of enactment of the 
                Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, for the 
                submission of data under section 4 for the 
                supported uses identified pursuant to this 
                clause unless the Administrator determines that 
                the absence of the data is significant enough 
                to cause human health or environmental 
                concerns. On the basis of such determination, 
                the Administrator may refuse the request for 
                extension by the registrant. Upon receipt of 
                the request from the registrant, the 
                Administrator shall publish in the Federal 
                Register a notice of the receipt of the request 
                and the effective date upon which the uses not 
                being supported will be voluntarily deleted 
                from the registration pursuant to section 
                6(f)(1). If the Administrator grants an 
                extension under this clause, the Administrator 
                shall monitor the development of the data for 
                the uses being supported and shall ensure that 
                the registrant is meeting the schedule for the 
                production of such data. If the Administrator 
                determines that the registrant is not meeting 
                or has not met the schedule for the production 
                of such data, the Administrator may proceed in 
                accordance with clause (iv) of this 
                subparagraph regarding the continued 
                registration of the affected products with the 
                minor and other uses and shall inform the 
                public of such action in accordance with 
                section 6(f)(2). Notwithstanding the provisions 
                of this clause, the Administrator may deny, 
                modify, or revoke the temporary extension under 
                this subparagraph if the Administrator 
                determines that the continuation of the minor 
                use may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on 
                the environment. In the event of modification 
                or revocation, the Administrator shall provide, 
                in writing, to the registrant a notice revoking 
                the temporary extension and establish a new 
                effective date by which the minor use shall be 
                deleted from the registration.
                  (viii)(I) If data required to support 
                registration of a pesticide under subparagraph 
                (A) is requested by a Federal or State 
                regulatory authority, the Administrator shall, 
                to the extent practicable, coordinate data 
                requirements, test protocols, timetables, and 
                standards of review and reduce burdens and 
                redundancy caused to the registrant by multiple 
                requirements on the registrant.
                  (II) The Administrator may enter into a 
                cooperative agreement with a State to carry out 
                subclause (I).
                  (III) Not later than 1 year after the date of 
                enactment of this clause, the Administrator 
                shall develop a process to identify and assist 
                in alleviating future disparities between 
                Federal and State data requirements.
                  (C) Simplified procedures.--Within nine 
                months after the date of enactment of this 
                subparagraph, the Administrator shall, by 
                regulation, prescribe simplified procedures for 
                the registration of pesticides, which shall 
                include the provisions of subparagraph (D) of 
                this paragraph.
                  (D) Exemption.--No applicant for registration 
                of a pesticide who proposes to purchase a 
                registered pesticide from another producer in 
                order to formulate such purchased pesticide 
                into the pesticide that is the subject of the 
                application shall be required to--
                          (i) submit or cite data pertaining to 
                        such purchased product; or
                          (ii) offer to pay reasonable 
                        compensation otherwise required by 
                        paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection for 
                        the use of any such data.
                  (E) Minor use waiver.--In handling the 
                registration of a pesticide for a minor use, 
                the Administrator may waive otherwise 
                applicable data requirements if the 
                Administrator determines that the absence of 
                such data will not prevent the Administrator 
                from determining--
                          (i) the incremental risk presented by 
                        the minor use of the pesticide; and
                          (ii) that such risk, if any, would 
                        not be an unreasonable adverse effect 
                        on the environment.
          (3) Time for acting with respect to Application.--
                  (A) In general.--The Administrator shall 
                review the data after receipt of the 
                application and shall, as expeditiously as 
                possible, either register the pesticide in 
                accordance with paragraph (5), or notify the 
                applicant of the Administrator's determination 
                that it does not comply with the provisions of 
                the Act in accordance with paragraph (6).
                  (B) Identical or substantially similar.--(i) 
                The Administrator shall, as expeditiously as 
                possible, review and act on any application 
                received by the Administrator that--
          * * * * * * *
                  (C) Minor use registration.--
                          (i) The Administrator shall, as 
                        expeditiously as possible, review and 
                        act on any complete application--
                                  (I) that proposes the initial 
                                registration of a new pesticide 
                                active ingredient if the active 
                                ingredient is proposed to be 
                                registered solely for minor 
                                uses, or proposes a 
                                registration amendment solely 
                                for minor uses to an existing 
                                registration; or
                                  (II) for a registration or a 
                                registration amendment that 
                                proposes significant minor 
                                uses.
                          (ii) For the purposes of clause (i)--
                                  (I) the term ``as 
                                expeditiously as possible'' 
                                means that the Administrator 
                                shall, to the greatest extent 
                                practicable, complete a review 
                                and evaluation of all data, 
                                submitted with a complete 
                                application, within 12 months 
                                after the submission of the 
                                complete application, and the 
                                failure of the Administrator to 
                                complete such a review and 
                                evaluation under clause (i) 
                                shall not be subject to 
                                judicial review; and
                                  (II) the term ``significant 
                                minor uses'' means 3 or more 
                                minor uses proposed for every 
                                nonminor use, a minor use that 
                                would, in the judgment of the 
                                Administrator, serve as a 
                                replacement for any use which 
                                has been canceled in the 5 
                                years preceding the receipt of 
                                the application, or a minor use 
                                that in the opinion of the 
                                Administrator would avoid the 
                                reissuance of an emergency 
                                exemption under section 18 for 
                                that minor use.
                  (D) Adequate time for submission of minor use 
                data.--If a registrant makes a request for a 
                minor use waiver, regarding data required by 
                the Administrator, pursuant to paragraph 
                (2)(E), and if the Administrator denies in 
                whole or in part such data waiver request, the 
                registrant shall have a full-time period for 
                providing such data. For purposes of this 
                subparagraph, the term ``full-time period'' 
                means the time period originally established by 
                the Administrator for submission of such data, 
                beginning with the date of receipt by the 
                registrant of the Administrator's notice of 
                denial.
          * * * * * * *
          (9) Labeling.--
                  (A) Additional statements.--Subject to 
                subparagraphs (B) and (C), it shall not be a 
                violation of this Act for a registrant to 
                modify the labeling of an antimicrobial 
                pesticide product to include relevant 
                information on product efficacy, product 
                composition, container composition or design, 
                or other characteristics that do not relate to 
                any pesticidal claim or pesticidal activity.
                  (B) Requirements.--Proposed labeling 
                information under subparagraph (A) shall not be 
                false or misleading, shall not conflict with or 
                detract from any statement required by law or 
                the Administrator as a condition of 
                registration, and shall be substantiated on the 
                request of the Administrator.
                  (C) Notification and disapproval.--
                          (i) Notification.--A registration may 
                        be modified under subparagraph (A) if 
                        --
                                  (I) the registrant notifies 
                                the Administrator in writing 
                                not later than 60 days prior to 
                                distribution or sale of a 
                                product bearing the modified 
                                labeling; and
                                  (II) the Administrator does 
                                not disapprove of the 
                                modification under clause (ii).
                          (ii) Disapproval.--Not later than 30 
                        days after receipt of a notification 
                        under clause (i), the Administrator may 
                        disapprove the modification by sending 
                        the registrant notification in writing 
                        stating that the proposed language is 
                        not acceptable and stating the reasons 
                        why the Administrator finds the 
                        proposed modification unacceptable.
                          (iii) Restriction on sale.--A 
                        registrant may not sell or distribute a 
                        product bearing a disapproved 
                        modification.
                          (iv) Objection.--A registrant may 
                        file an objection in writing to a 
                        disapproval under clause (ii) not later 
                        than 30 days after receipt of 
                        notification of the disapproval.
                          (v) Final action.--A decision by the 
                        Administrator following receipt and 
                        consideration of an objection filed 
                        under clause (iv) shall be considered a 
                        final agency action.
                  (D) Use dilution.--The label or labeling 
                required under this Act for an antimicrobial 
                pesticide that is or may be diluted for use may 
                have a different statement of caution or 
                protective measures for use of the recommended 
                diluted solution of the pesticide than for use 
                of a concentrate of the pesticide if the 
                Administrator determines that --
                          (i) adequate data have been submitted 
                        to support the statement proposed for 
                        the diluted solution uses; and
                          (ii) the label or labeling provides 
                        adequate protection for exposure to the 
                        diluted solution of the pesticide.
          (10) Expedited registration of pesticides.--
                  (A) Not later than 1 year after the date of 
                enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator 
                shall, utilizing public comment, develop 
                procedures and guidelines, and expedite the 
                review of an application for registration of a 
                pesticide or an amendment to a registration 
                that satisfies such guidelines.
                  (B) Any application for registration or an 
                amendment, including biological and 
                conventional pesticides, will be considered for 
                expedited review under this paragraph. An 
                application for registration or an amendment 
                shall qualify for expedited review if use of 
                the pesticide proposed by the application may 
                reasonably be expected to accomplish 1 or more 
                of the following:
                          (i) Reduce the risks of pesticides to 
                        human health.
                          (ii) Reduce the risks of pesticides 
                        to nontarget organisms.
                          (iii) Reduce the potential for 
                        contamination of groundwater, surface 
                        water, or other valued environmental 
                        resources.
                          (iv) Broaden the adoption of 
                        integrated pest management strategies, 
                        or make such strategies more available 
                        or more effective.
                  (C) The Administrator, not later than 30 days 
                after receipt of an application for expedited 
                review, shall notify the applicant whether the 
                application is complete. If it is found to be 
                incomplete, the Administrator may either reject 
                the request for expedited review or ask the 
                applicant for additional information to satisfy 
                the guidelines developed under subparagraph 
                (A).
          * * * * * * *
  (f) Miscellaneous.--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) Mixtures of nitrogen stabilizers and fertilizer 
        products.--Any mixture or other combination of--
                  (A) 1 or more nitrogen stabilizers registered 
                under this Act; and
                  (B) 1 or more fertilizer products,
        shall not be subject to the provisions of this section 
        or sections 4, 5, 7, 15, and 17(a)(2) if the mixture or 
        other combination is accompanied by the labeling 
        required under this Act for the nitrogen stabilizer 
        contained in the mixture or other combination, the 
        mixture or combination is mixed or combined in 
        accordance with such labeling, and the mixture or 
        combination does not contain any active ingredient 
        other than the nitrogen stabilizer.
  (g) Registration Review.--
          (1)(A) General rule.--The registrations of pesticides 
        are to be periodically reviewed. The Administrator 
        shall by regulation establish a procedure for 
        accomplishing the periodic review of registrations. The 
        goal of these regulations shall be a review of a 
        pesticide's registration every 15 years. No 
        registration shall be canceled as a result of the 
        registration review process unless the Administrator 
        follows the procedures and substantive requirements of 
        section 6.
          (B) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
        prohibit the Administrator from undertaking any other 
        review of a pesticide pursuant to this Act.
          (2)(A) Data.--The Administrator shall use the 
        authority in subsection (c)(2)(B) to require the 
        submission of data when such data are necessary for a 
        registration review.
          (B) Data submission, compensation, and exemption.--
        For purposes of this subsection, the provisions of 
        subsections (c)(1), (c)(2)(B), and (c)(2)(D) shall be 
        utilized for and be applicable to any data required for 
        registration review.
  (h) Registration Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides.--
          (1) Evaluation of process.--To the maximum extent 
        practicable consistent with the degrees of risk 
        presented by a antimicrobial pesticide and the type of 
        review appropriate to evaluate the risks, the 
        Administrator shall identify and evaluate reforms to 
        the antimicrobial registration process that would 
        reduce review periods existing as of the date of 
        enactment of this subsection for antimicrobial 
        pesticide product registration applications and 
        applications for amended registration of antimicrobial 
        pesticide products, including--
                  (A) new antimicrobial active ingredients;
                  (B) new antimicrobial end-use products;
                  (C) substantially similar or identical 
                antimicrobial pesticides; and
                  (D) amendments to antimicrobial pesticide 
                registrations.
          (2) Review time period reduction goal.--Each reform 
        identified under paragraph (1) shall be designed to 
        achieve the goal of reducing the review period 
        following submission of a complete application, 
        consistent with the degree of risk, to a period of not 
        more than --
                  (A) 540 days for a new antimicrobial active 
                ingredient pesticide registration;
                  (B) 270 days for a new antimicrobial use of a 
                registered active ingredient;
                  (C) 120 days for any other new antimicrobial 
                product;
                  (D) 90 days for a substantially similar or 
                identical antimicrobial product;
                  (E) 90 days for an amendment to an 
                antimicrobial registration that does not 
                require scientific review of data; and
                  (F) 90 to 180 days for an amendment to an 
                antimicrobial registration that requires 
                scientific review of data and that is not 
                otherwise described in this paragraph.
          (3) Implementation.--
                  (A) Proposed rulemaking.--
                          (i) Issuance.--Not later than 270 
                        days after the date of enactment of 
                        this subsection, the Administrator 
                        shall publish in the Federal Register 
                        proposed regulations to accelerate and 
                        improve the review of antimicrobial 
                        pesticide products designed to 
                        implement, to the extent practicable, 
                        the goals set forth in paragraph (2).
                          (ii) Requirements.--Proposed 
                        regulations issued under clause (i) 
                        shall --
                                  (I) define the various 
                                classes of antimicrobial use 
                                patterns, including household, 
                                industrial, and institutional 
                                disinfectants and sanitizing 
                                pesticides, preservatives, 
                                water treatment, and pulp and 
                                paper mill additives, and other 
                                such products intended to 
                                disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or 
                                mitigate growth or development 
                                of microbiological organisms, 
                                or protect inanimate objects, 
                                industrial processes or 
                                systems, surfaces, water, or 
                                other chemical substances from 
                                contamination, fouling, or 
                                deterioration caused by 
                                bacteria, viruses, fungi, 
                                protozoa, algae, or slime;
                                  (II) differentiate the types 
                                of review undertaken for 
                                antimicrobial pesticides;
                                  (III) conform the degree and 
                                type of review to the risks and 
                                benefits presented by 
                                antimicrobial pesticides and 
                                the function of review under 
                                this Act, considering the use 
                                patterns of the product, 
                                toxicity, expected exposure, 
                                and product type;
                                  (IV) ensure that the 
                                registration process is 
                                sufficient to maintain 
                                antimicrobial pesticide 
                                efficacy and that antimicrobial 
                                pesticide products continue to 
                                meet product performance 
                                standards and effectiveness 
                                levels for each type of label 
                                claim made; and
                                  (V) implement effective and 
                                reliable deadlines for process 
                                management.
                          (iii) Comments.--In developing the 
                        proposed regulations, the Administrator 
                        shall solicit the views from 
                        registrants and other affected parties 
                        to maximize the effectiveness of the 
                        rule development process.
                  (B) Final regulations.--
                          (i) Issuance.--The Administrator 
                        shall issue final regulations not later 
                        than 240 days after the close of the 
                        comment period for the proposed 
                        regulations.
                          (ii) Failure to meet goal.--If a goal 
                        described in paragraph (2) is not met 
                        by the final regulations, the 
                        Administrator shall identify the goal, 
                        explain why the goal was not attained, 
                        describe the element of the regulations 
                        included instead, and identify future 
                        steps to attain the goal.
                          (iii) Requirements.--In issuing final 
                        regulations, the Administrator shall--
                                  (I) consider the 
                                establishment of a 
                                certification process for 
                                regulatory actions involving 
                                risks that can be responsibly 
                                managed, consistent with the 
                                degree of risk, in the most 
                                cost-efficient manner;
                                  (II) consider the 
                                establishment of a 
                                certification process by 
                                approved laboratories as an 
                                adjunct to the review process;
                                  (III) use all appropriate and 
                                cost-effective review 
                                mechanisms, including--
                                          (aa) expanded use of 
                                        notification and non-
                                        notification 
                                        procedures;
                                          (bb) revised 
                                        procedures for 
                                        application review; and
                                          (cc) allocation of 
                                        appropriate resources 
                                        to ensure streamlined 
                                        management of 
                                        antimicrobial pesticide 
                                        registrations; and
                                  (IV) clarify criteria for 
                                determination of the 
                                completeness of an application.
                  (C) Expedited review.--This subsection does 
                not affect the requirements or extend the 
                deadlines or review periods contained in 
                subsection (c)(3).
                  (D) Alternative review periods.--If the final 
                regulations to carry out this paragraph are not 
                effective 630 days after the date of enactment 
                of this subsection, until the final regulations 
                become effective, the review period, beginning 
                on the date of receipt by the Agency of a 
                complete application, shall be --
                          (i) 2 years for a new antimicrobial 
                        active ingredient pesticide 
                        registration;
                          (ii) 1 year for a new antimicrobial 
                        use of a registered active ingredient;
                          (iii) 180 days for any other new 
                        antimicrobial product;
                          (iv) 90 days for a substantially 
                        similar or identical antimicrobial 
                        product;
                          (v) 90 days for an amendment to an 
                        antimicrobial registration that does 
                        not require scientific review of data; 
                        and
                          (vi) 240 days for an amendment to an 
                        antimicrobial registration that 
                        requires scientific review of data and 
                        that is not otherwise described in this 
                        subparagraph.
                  (E) Wood preservatives.--An application for 
                the registration, or for an amendment to the 
                registration, of a wood preservative product 
                for which a claim of pesticidal activity listed 
                in section 2(mm) is made (regardless of any 
                other pesticidal claim that is made with 
                respect to the product) shall be reviewed by 
                the Administrator within the same period as 
                that established under this paragraph for an 
                antimicrobial pesticide product application, 
                consistent with the degree of risk posed by the 
                use of the wood preservative product, if the 
                application requires the applicant to satisfy 
                the same data requirements as are required to 
                support an application for a wood preservative 
                product that is an antimicrobial pesticide.
                  (F) Notification.--
                          (i) In general.--Subject to clause 
                        (iii), the Administrator shall notify 
                        an applicant whether an application has 
                        been granted or denied not later than 
                        the final day of the appropriate review 
                        period under this paragraph, unless the 
                        applicant and the Administrator agree 
                        to a later date.
                          (ii) Final decision.--If the 
                        Administrator fails to notify an 
                        applicant within the period of time 
                        required under clause (i), the failure 
                        shall be considered an agency action 
                        unlawfully withheld or unreasonably 
                        delayed for purposes of judicial review 
                        under chapter 7 of title 5, United 
                        States Code.
                          (iii) Exemption.--This subparagraph 
                        does not apply to an application for an 
                        antimicrobial pesticide that is filed 
                        under subsection (c)(3)(B) prior to 90 
                        days after the date of enactment of 
                        this subsection.
          (4) Annual report.--
                  (A) Submission.--Beginning on the date of 
                enactment of this subsection and ending on the 
                date that the goals under paragraph (2) are 
                achieved, the Administrator shall, not later 
                than March 1 of each year, prepare and submit 
                an annual report to the Committee on 
                Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
                the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
                Forestry of the Senate.
                  (B) Requirements.--A report submitted under 
                subparagraph (A) shall include a description 
                of--
                          (i) measures taken to reduce the 
                        backlog of pending registration 
                        applications;
                          (ii) progress toward achieving 
                        reforms under this subsection; and
                          (iii) recommendations to improve the 
                        activities of the Agency pertaining to 
                        antimicrobial registrations.

SEC. 4. REREGISTRATION OF REGISTERED PESTICIDES.

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Phase Two.--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) Time periods.--
                  (A)  * * *
                  (B) A registrant shall submit data in 
                accordance with a commitment entered into under 
                paragraph (3)(B) within a reasonable period of 
                time, as determined by the Administrator, but 
                not more than 48 months after the date the 
                registrant submitted the commitment. The 
                Administrator, on application of a registrant, 
                may extend the period prescribed by the 
                preceding sentence by no more than 2 years if 
                extraordinary circumstances beyond the control 
                of the registrant prevent the registrant from 
                submitting data within such prescribed period. 
                Upon application of a registrant, the 
                Administrator shall, in the case of a minor 
                use, extend the deadline for the production of 
                residue chemistry data under this subparagraph 
                for data required solely to support that minor 
                use until the final deadline for submission of 
                data under this section for the other uses of 
                the pesticide established as of the date of 
                enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act of 
                1996 if--
                          (i) the data to support other uses of 
                        the pesticide on a food are being 
                        provided;
                          (ii) the registrant, in submitting a 
                        request for such an extension provides 
                        a schedule, including interim dates to 
                        measure progress, to assure that the 
                        data production will be completed 
                        before the expiration of the extension 
                        period;
                          (iii) the Administrator has 
                        determined that such extension will not 
                        significantly delay the Administrator's 
                        schedule for issuing a reregistration 
                        eligibility determination required 
                        under this section; and
                          (iv) the Administrator has determined 
                        that based on existing data, such 
                        extension would not significantly 
                        increase the risk of any unreasonable 
                        adverse effect on the environment. If 
                        the Administrator grants an extension 
                        under this subparagraph, the 
                        Administrator shall monitor the 
                        development of the data and shall 
                        ensure that the registrant is meeting 
                        the schedule for the production of the 
                        data. If the Administrator determines 
                        that the registrant is not meeting or 
                        has not met the schedule for the 
                        production of such data, the 
                        Administrator may proceed in accordance 
                        with clause (iv) of section 3(c)(2)(B) 
                        or other provisions of this section, as 
                        appropriate, regarding the continued 
                        registration of the affected products 
                        with the minor use and shall inform the 
                        public of such action. Notwithstanding 
                        the provisions of this subparagraph, 
                        the Administrator may take action to 
                        modify or revoke the extension under 
                        this subparagraph if the Administrator 
                        determines that the extension for the 
                        minor use may cause an unreasonable 
                        adverse affect on the environment. In 
                        such circumstance, the Administrator 
                        shall provide written notice to the 
                        registrant revoking the extension of 
                        time for submission of data. Such data 
                        shall instead be due in accordance with 
                        the date then established by the 
                        Administrator for submission of the 
                        data.
          * * * * * * *
          (6) Suspensions and penalties.--The Administrator 
        shall issue a notice of intent to suspend the 
        registration of a pesticide in accordance with the 
        procedures prescribed by section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) if the 
        Administrator determines that (A) progress is 
        insufficient to ensure the submission of the data 
        required for such pesticide under a commitment made 
        under paragraph (3)(B) within the time period 
        prescribed by paragraph (4)(B) or (B) the registrant 
        has not submitted such data to the Administrator within 
        such time period. If the registrant does not commit to 
        support a specific minor use of the pesticide, but is 
        supporting and providing data in a timely and adequate 
        fashion to support uses of the pesticide on a food, or 
        if all uses of the pesticide are nonfood uses and the 
        registrant does not commit to support a specific minor 
        use of the pesticide but is supporting and providing 
        data in a timely and adequate fashion to support other 
        nonfood uses of the pesticide, the Administrator, at 
        the written request of the registrant, shall not take 
        any action pursuant to this paragraph in regard to such 
        unsupported minor use until the final deadline 
        established as of the date of enactment of the Food 
        Quality Protection Act of 1996, for the submission of 
        data under this section for the supported uses 
        identified pursuant to this paragraph unless the 
        Administrator determines that the absence of the data 
        is significant enough to cause human health or 
        environmental concerns. On such a determination the 
        Administrator may refuse the request for extension by 
        the registrant. Upon receipt of the request from the 
        registrant, the Administrator shall publish in the 
        Federal Register a notice of the receipt of the request 
        and the effective date upon which the uses not being 
        supported will be voluntarily deleted from the 
        registration pursuant to section 6(f)(1). If the 
        Administrator grants an extension under this paragraph, 
        the Administrator shall monitor the development of the 
        data for the uses being supported and shall ensure that 
        the registrant is meeting the schedule for the 
        production of such data. If the Administrator 
        determines that the registrant is not meeting or has 
        not met the schedule for the production of such data, 
        the Administrator may proceed in accordance with 
        section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) regarding the continued 
        registration of the affected products with the minor 
        and other uses and shall inform the public of such 
        action in accordance with section 6(f)(2). 
        Notwithstanding this subparagraph, the Administrator 
        may deny, modify, or revoke the temporary extension 
        under this paragraph if the Administrator determines 
        that the continuation of the minor use may cause an 
        unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. In the 
        event of modification or revocation, the Administrator 
        shall provide, in writing, to the registrant a notice 
        revoking the temporary extension and establish a new 
        effective date by which the minor use shall be deleted 
        from the registration.
          * * * * * * *
  (e) Phase Three.--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) Time periods.--
                  (A)  * * *
                  (B) A registrant shall submit data in 
                accordance with a commitment entered into under 
                paragraph (1)(H) within a reasonable period of 
                time, as determined by the Administrator, but 
                not more than 48 months after the date the 
                registrant submitted the commitment under such 
                paragraph. The Administrator, on application of 
                a registrant, may extend the period prescribed 
                by the preceding sentence by no more than 2 
                years if extraordinary circumstances beyond the 
                control of the registrant prevent the 
                registrant from submitting data within such 
                prescribed period. Upon application of a 
                registrant, the Administrator shall, in the 
                case of a minor use, extend the deadline for 
                the production of residue chemistry data under 
                this subparagraph for data required solely to 
                support that minor use until the final deadline 
                for submission of data under this section for 
                the other uses of the pesticide established as 
                of the date of enactment of the Food Quality 
                Protection Act of 1996 if--
                          (i) the data to support other uses of 
                        the pesticide on a food are being 
                        provided;
                          (ii) the registrant, in submitting a 
                        request for such an extension provides 
                        a schedule, including interim dates to 
                        measure progress, to assure that the 
                        data production will be completed 
                        before the expiration of the extension 
                        period;
                          (iii) the Administrator has 
                        determined that such extension will not 
                        significantly delay the Administrator's 
                        schedule for issuing a reregistration 
                        eligibility determination required 
                        under this section; and
                          (iv) the Administrator has determined 
                        that based on existing data, such 
                        extension would not significantly 
                        increase the risk of any unreasonable 
                        adverse effect on the environment. If 
                        the Administrator grants an extension 
                        under this subparagraph, the 
                        Administrator shall monitor the 
                        development of the data and shall 
                        ensure that the registrant is meeting 
                        the schedule for the production of the 
                        data. If the Administrator determines 
                        that the registrant is not meeting or 
                        has not met the schedule for the 
                        production of such data, the 
                        Administrator may proceed in accordance 
                        with clause (iv) of section 3(c)(2)(B) 
                        or other provisions of this section, as 
                        appropriate, regarding the continued 
                        registration of the affected products 
                        with the minor use and shall inform the 
                        public of such action. Notwithstanding 
                        the provisions of this subparagraph, 
                        the Administrator may take action to 
                        modify or revoke the extension under 
                        this subparagraph if the Administrator 
                        determines that the extension for the 
                        minor use may cause an unreasonable 
                        adverse affect on the environment. In 
                        such circumstance, the Administrator 
                        shall provide written notice to the 
                        registrant revoking the extension of 
                        time for submission of data. Such data 
                        shall instead be due in accordance with 
                        the date then established by the 
                        Administrator for submission of the 
                        data.
          (3) Cancellation.--
                  (A) If the registrant of a pesticide fails to 
                submit the information required by paragraph 
                (1) within the time prescribed by paragraph 
                (2), the Administrator, by order and without 
                hearing, shall cancel the registration of such 
                pesticide. If the registrant does not commit to 
                support a specific minor use of the pesticide, 
                but is supporting and providing data in a 
                timely and adequate fashion to support uses of 
                the pesticide on a food, or if all uses of the 
                pesticide are nonfood uses and the registrant 
                does not commit to support a specific minor use 
                of the pesticide but is supporting and 
                providing data in a timely and adequate fashion 
                to support other nonfood uses of the pesticide, 
                the Administrator, at the written request of 
                the registrant, shall not take any action 
                pursuant to this subparagraph in regard to such 
                unsupported minor use until the final deadline 
                established as of the date of enactment of the 
                Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, for the 
                submission of data under this section for the 
                supported uses identified pursuant to this 
                subparagraph unless the Administrator 
                determines that the absence of the data is 
                significant enough to cause human health or 
                environmental concerns. On the basis of such 
                determination, the Administrator may refuse the 
                request for extension by the registrant. Upon 
                receipt of the request from the registrant, the 
                Administrator shall publish in the Federal 
                Register a notice of the receipt of the request 
                and the effective date upon which the uses not 
                being supported will be voluntarily deleted 
                from the registration pursuant to section 
                6(f)(1). If the Administrator grants an 
                extension under this subparagraph, the 
                Administrator shall monitor the development of 
                the data for the uses being supported and shall 
                ensure that the registrant is meeting the 
                schedule for the production of such data. If 
                the Administrator determines that the 
                registrant is not meeting or has not met the 
                schedule for the production of such data, the 
                Administrator may proceed in accordance with 
                section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) regarding the continued 
                registration of the affected products with the 
                minor and other uses and shall inform the 
                public of such action in accordance with 
                section 6(f)(2). Notwithstanding this 
                subparagraph, the Administrator may deny, 
                modify, or revoke the temporary extension under 
                this subparagraph if the Administrator 
                determines that the continuation of the minor 
                use may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on 
                the environment. In the event of modification 
                or revocation, the Administrator shall provide, 
                in writing, to the registrant a notice revoking 
                the temporary extension and establish a new 
                effective date by which the minor use shall be 
                deleted from the registration.
          * * * * * * *
  (f) Phase Four.--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) Time periods.--
                  (A)  * * *
                  (B) If the Administrator issues a notice to a 
                registrant under paragraph (1)(B) for the 
                submission of additional data, the registrant 
                shall submit such data within a reasonable 
                period of time, as determined by the 
                Administrator, but not to exceed 48 months 
                after the issuance of such notice. The 
                Administrator, on application of a registrant, 
                may extend the period prescribed by the 
                preceding sentence by no more than 2 years if 
                extraordinary circumstances beyond the control 
                of the registrant prevent the registrant from 
                submitting data within such prescribed period. 
                Upon application of a registrant, the 
                Administrator shall, in the case of a minor 
                use, extend the deadline for the production of 
                residue chemistry data under this subparagraph 
                for data required solely to support that minor 
                use until the final deadline for submission of 
                data under this section for the other uses of 
                the pesticide established as of the date of 
                enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act of 
                1996 if--
                          (i) the data to support other uses of 
                        the pesticide on a food are being 
                        provided;
                          (ii) the registrant, in submitting a 
                        request for such an extension provides 
                        a schedule, including interim dates to 
                        measure progress, to assure that the 
                        data production will be completed 
                        before the expiration of the extension 
                        period;
                          (iii) the Administrator has 
                        determined that such extension will not 
                        significantly delay the Administrator's 
                        schedule for issuing a reregistration 
                        eligibility determination required 
                        under this section; and
                          (iv) the Administrator has determined 
                        that based on existing data, such 
                        extension would not significantly 
                        increase the risk of any unreasonable 
                        adverse effect on the environment. If 
                        the Administrator grants an extension 
                        under this subparagraph, the 
                        Administrator shall monitor the 
                        development of the data and shall 
                        ensure that the registrant is meeting 
                        the schedule for the production of the 
                        data. If the Administrator determines 
                        that the registrant is not meeting or 
                        has not met the schedule for the 
                        production of such data, the 
                        Administrator may proceed in accordance 
                        with clause (iv) of section 3(c)(2)(B) 
                        or other provisions of this section, as 
                        appropriate, regarding the continued 
                        registration of the affected products 
                        with the minor use and shall inform the 
                        public of such action. Notwithstanding 
                        the provisions of this subparagraph, 
                        the Administrator may take action to 
                        modify or revoke the extension under 
                        this subparagraph if the Administrator 
                        determines that the extension for the 
                        minor use may cause an unreasonable 
                        adverse affect on the environment. In 
                        such circumstance, the Administrator 
                        shall provide written notice to the 
                        registrant revoking the extension of 
                        time for submission of data. Such data 
                        shall instead be due in accordance with 
                        the date then established by the 
                        Administrator for submission of the 
                        data.
          (3) Suspensions and penalties.--The Administrator 
        shall issue a notice of intent to suspend the 
        registration of a pesticide in accordance with the 
        procedures prescribed by section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) if the 
        Administrator determines that (A) tests necessary to 
        fill an outstanding data requirement for such pesticide 
        have not been initiated within 1 year after the 
        issuance of a notice under paragraph (1)(B), or (B) 
        progress is insufficient to ensure submission of the 
        data referred to in clause (A) within the time period 
        prescribed by paragraph (2)(B) or the required data 
        have not been submitted to the Administrator within 
        such time period. If the registrant does not commit to 
        support a specific minor use of the pesticide, but is 
        supporting and providing data in a timely and adequate 
        fashion to support uses of the pesticide on a food, or 
        if all uses of the pesticide are nonfood uses and the 
        registrant does not commit to support a specific minor 
        use of the pesticide but is supporting and providing 
        data in a timely and adequate fashion to support other 
        nonfood uses of the pesticide, the Administrator, at 
        the written request of the registrant, shall not take 
        any action pursuant to this paragraph in regard to such 
        unsupported minor use until the final deadline 
        established as of the date of enactment of the Food 
        Quality Protection Act of 1996, for the submission of 
        data under this section for the supported uses 
        identified pursuant to this paragraph unless the 
        Administrator determines that the absence of the data 
        is significant enough to cause human health or 
        environmental concerns. On such a determination the 
        Administrator may refuse the request for extension by 
        the registrant. Upon receipt of the request from the 
        registrant, the Administrator shall publish in the 
        Federal Register a notice of the receipt of the request 
        and the effective date upon which the uses not being 
        supported will be voluntarily deleted from the 
        registration pursuant to section 6(f)(1). If the 
        Administrator grants an extension under this paragraph, 
        the Administrator shall monitor the development of the 
        data for the uses being supported and shall ensure that 
        the registrant is meeting the schedule for the 
        production of such data. If the Administrator 
        determines that the registrant is not meeting or has 
        not met the schedule for the production of such data, 
        the Administrator may proceed in accordance with 
        section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) regarding the continued 
        registration of the affected products with the minor 
        and other uses and shall inform the public of such 
        action in accordance with section 6(f)(2). 
        Notwithstanding this subparagraph, the Administrator 
        may deny, modify, or revoke the temporary extension 
        under this paragraph if the Administrator determines 
        that the continuation of the minor use may cause an 
        unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. In the 
        event of modification or revocation, the Administrator 
        shall provide, in writing, to the registrant a notice 
        revoking the temporary extension and establish a new 
        effective date by which the minor use shall be deleted 
        from the registration.
  (g) Phase Five.--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) Reregistration and other actions.--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  (E) As soon as the Administrator has 
                sufficient information with respect to the 
                dietary risk of a particular active ingredient, 
                but in any event no later than the time the 
                Administrator makes a determination under 
                subparagraph (C) or (D) with respect to 
                pesticides containing a particular active 
                ingredient, the Administrator shall--
                          (i) reassess each associated 
                        tolerance and exemption from the 
                        requirement for a tolerance issued 
                        under section 408 of the Federal Food, 
                        Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a) 
                        taking into account available 
                        information and reasonable assumptions 
                        concerning the dietary exposure levels 
                        of food consumers (and major 
                        identifiable subgroups of food 
                        consumers, including infants and 
                        children) to residue of the pesticide 
                        in food and available information and 
                        reasonable assumptions concerning the 
                        variability of the sensitivities of 
                        major identifiable groups, including 
                        infants and children;
                          (ii) determine whether such tolerance 
                        or exemption meets the requirements of 
                        that Act;
                          (iii) determine whether additional 
                        tolerances or exemptions should be 
                        issued;
                          (iv) publish in the Federal Register 
                        a notice setting forth the 
                        determinations made under this 
                        subparagraph; and
                          (v) commence promptly such 
                        proceedings under this Act and section 
                        408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
                        Cosmetic Act as are warranted by such 
                        determinations.
          * * * * * * *
  (i) Fees.--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) Reduction or waiver of fees for minor use and 
        other pesticides.--
                  (A) An active ingredient that is contained 
                only in pesticides that are registered solely 
                for agricultural or nonagricultural minor uses, 
                or a pesticide the value or volume of use of 
                which is small, shall be exempt from the fees 
                prescribed by paragraph (3).
                  (B) The Administrator shall exempt any public 
                health pesticide from the payment of the fee 
                prescribed under paragraph (3) if, in 
                consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
                Human Services, the Administrator determines, 
                based on information supplied by the 
                registrant, that the economic return to the 
                registrant from sales of the pesticide does not 
                support the registration or reregistration of 
                the pesticide.
                  [(B)] (C) An antimicrobial active ingredient, 
                the production level of which does not exceed 
                1,000,000 pounds per year, shall be exempt from 
                the fees prescribed by paragraph (3). For 
                purposes of this subparagraph, the term 
                ``antimicrobial active ingredient'' means any 
                active ingredient that is contained only in 
                pesticides that are not registered for any food 
                or feed use and that are--
                          (i)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  [(C)] (D)(i) Notwithstanding any other 
                provision of this subsection, in the case of a 
                small business registrant of a pesticide, the 
                registrant shall pay a fee for the 
                reregistration of each active ingredient of the 
                pesticide that does not exceed an amount 
                determined in accordance with this 
                subparagraph.
          * * * * * * *
          (5) Maintenance fee.--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  (C)(i) The amount of each fee prescribed 
                under subparagraph (A) shall be adjusted by the 
                Administrator to a level that will result in 
                the collection under this paragraph of, to the 
                extent practicable, an aggregate amount of 
                $14,000,000 each fiscal year.
                  (ii) in each of the fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
                and 2000, the Administrator is authorized to 
                collect up to an additional $2,000,000 in a 
                manner consistent with subsection (k)(5) and 
                the recommendations of the Inspector General of 
                the Environmental Protection Agency. The total 
                fees that may be collected under this clause 
                shall not exceed $6,000,000.
          * * * * * * *
                  (F) The Administrator shall exempt any public 
                health pesticide from the payment of the fee 
                prescribed under paragraph (3) if, in 
                consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
                Humans Services, the Administrator determines, 
                based on information supplied by the 
                registrant, that the economic return to the 
                registrant from sales of the pesticide does not 
                support the registration or reregistration of 
                the pesticide.
                  [(F)] (G) If any fee prescribed by this 
                paragraph with respect to the registration of a 
                pesticide is not paid by a registrant by the 
                time prescribed, the Administrator, by order 
                and without hearing, may cancel the 
                registration.
                  [(G)] (H) The authority provided under this 
                paragraph shall terminate on September 30, 
                [1997] 2001.
          (6) Other fees.--During the period beginning on the 
        date of enactment of this section and ending on 
        September 30, [1997] 2001, the Administrator may not 
        levy any other fees for the registration of a pesticide 
        under this Act except as provided in paragraphs (1) 
        through (5).
          (7) Apportionment.--
                  (A)  * * *
                  (B) The Administrator, by order, may require 
                any registrant to submit such reports as the 
                Administrator determines to be necessary to 
                allow the Administrator to determine and 
                apportion fees under this subsection [or to 
                determine], to determine the registrant's 
                eligibility for a reduction or waiver of a fee, 
                or to determine the volume usage for public 
                health pesticides.
          * * * * * * *
  (k) Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund.--
          (1) Establishment.--There shall be established in the 
        Treasury of the United States a reregistration and 
        expedited processing fund which shall be known as the 
        Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund.
          [(2) Source and use.--All fees collected by the 
        Administrator under subsection (i) shall be deposited 
        into the fund and shall be available to the 
        Administrator, without fiscal year limitation, to carry 
        out reregistration and expedited processing of similar 
        applications.]
          (2) Source and use.--
                  (A) All moneys derived from fees collected by 
                the Administrator under subsection (i) shall be 
                deposited in the fund and shall be available to 
                the Administrator, without fiscal year 
                limitation, specifically to offset the costs of 
                reregistration and expedited processing of the 
                applications specified in paragraph (3). Such 
                moneys derived from fees may not be expended in 
                any fiscal year to the extent such moneys 
                derived from fees would exceed money 
                appropriated for use by the Administrator and 
                expended in such year for such costs of 
                reregistration and expedited processing of such 
                applications. The Administrator shall, prior to 
                expending any such moneys derived from fees--
                          (i) effective October 1, 1997, adopt 
                        specific and cost accounting rules and 
                        procedures as approved by the General 
                        Accounting Office and the Inspector 
                        General of the Environmental Protection 
                        Agency to ensure that moneys derived 
                        from fees are allocated solely to the 
                        costs of reregistration and expedited 
                        processing of the applications 
                        specified in paragraph (3) in the same 
                        portion as appropriated funds;
                          (ii) prohibit the use of such moneys 
                        derived from fees to pay for any costs 
                        other than those necessary to achieve 
                        reregistration and expedited processing 
                        of the applications specified in 
                        paragraph (3); and
                          (iii) ensure that personnel and 
                        facility costs associated with the 
                        functions to be carried out under this 
                        paragraph do not exceed agency averages 
                        for comparable personnel and facility 
                        costs.
                  (B) The Administrator shall also--
                          (i) complete the review of unreviewed 
                        reregistration studies required to 
                        support the reregistration eligibility 
                        decisions scheduled for completion in 
                        accordance with subsection (l)(2); and
                          (ii) contract for such outside 
                        assistance as may be necessary for 
                        review of required studies, using a 
                        generally accepted competitive process 
                        for the selection of vendors of such 
                        assistance.
          (3) Expedited processing of similar applications.--
                  (A) The Administrator shall use [for each of 
                the fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994, \1/7\th 
                of the maintenance fees collected, up to $2 
                million each year] for each of the fiscal years 
                1997 through 2001, not more than \1/7\ of the 
                maintenance fees collected in such fiscal year 
                to obtain sufficient personnel and resources to 
                assure the expedited processing and review of 
                any application that--
                          (i) proposes the initial or amended 
                        registration of an end-use pesticide 
                        that, if registered as proposed, would 
                        be identical or substantially similar 
                        in composition and labeling to a 
                        currently-registered pesticide 
                        identified in the application, or that 
                        would differ in composition and 
                        labeling from any such currently-
                        registered pesticide only in ways that 
                        would not significantly increase the 
                        risk of unreasonable adverse effects on 
                        the environment; [or]
                          (ii) proposes an amendment to the 
                        registration of a registered pesticide 
                        that does not require scientific review 
                        of data[.]; or
                          (iii) proposes the initial or amended 
                        registration of an end use pesticide 
                        that, if registered as proposed, would 
                        be used for a public health pesticide.
                  (B) Any amounts made available under 
                subparagraph (A) shall be used to obtain 
                sufficient personnel and resources to carry out 
                the activities described in such subparagraph 
                that are in addition to the personnel and 
                resources available to carry out such 
                activities on the date of enactment of this 
                section.
                  (C) The Administrator shall complete the 
                processing of the unprocessed expedited review 
                applications within 5 years from the date of 
                enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act of 
                1996.
          * * * * * * *
          [(5) Accounting.--The Administrator shall--
                  [(A) provide an annual accounting of the fees 
                collected and disbursed from the fund; and
                  [(B) take all steps necessary to ensure that 
                expenditures from such fund are used only to 
                carry out this section.]
          (5) Accounting and performance.--The Administrator 
        shall take all steps necessary to ensure that 
        expenditures from fees authorized by subsection 
        (i)(5)(C)(ii) are used only to carry out the goals 
        established under subsection (l). The Reregistration 
        and Expedited Processing Fund shall be designated as an 
        Environmental Protection Agency component for purposes 
        of section 3515(c) of title 31, United States Code. The 
        annual audit required under section 3521 of such title 
        of the financial statements of activities under this 
        Act under section 3515(b) of such title shall include 
        an audit of the fees collected under subsection 
        (i)(5)(C) and disbursed, of the amount appropriated to 
        match such fees, and of the Administrator's attainment 
        of performance measure and goals established under 
        subsection (l). Such an audit shall also include a 
        review of the reasonableness of the overhead allocation 
        and adequacy of disclosures of direct and indirect 
        costs associated with carrying out the reregistration 
        and expedited processing of the applications specified 
        in paragraph (3), and the basis for and accuracy of all 
        costs paid with moneys derived from such fees. The 
        Inspector General shall conduct the annual audit and 
        report the findings and recommendations of such audit 
        to the Administrator and to the Committees on 
        Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the 
        Senate. The cost of such audit shall be paid for out of 
        the fees collected under subsection (i)(5)(C).
  (l) Performance Measures and Goal.--The Administrator shall 
establish and publish annually in the Federal Register 
performance measures and goals. Such measures and goals shall 
include--
          (1) the number of products reregistered, canceled, or 
        amended, the status of reregistration, the number and 
        type of data requests under section 3(c)(2)(B) issued 
        to support product reregistration by active ingredient, 
        the progress in reducing the number of unreviewed, 
        required reregistration studies, the aggregate status 
        of tolerances reassessed, and the number of 
        applications for registration submitted under 
        subsection (k)(3) that were approved or disapproved;
          (2) the future schedule for reregistrations, 
        including the projection for such schedules that will 
        be issued under subsection (g)(2)(A) and (B) in the 
        current fiscal year and the succeeding fiscal year; and
          (3) the projected year of completion of the 
        reregistrations under this section.
  [(l)] (m) Judicial Review.--Any failure of the Administrator 
to take any action required by this section shall be subject to 
judicial review under the procedures prescribed by section 
16(b).
          * * * * * * *
  (n) Authorization of Funds To Develop Public Health Data.--
          (1) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, 
        ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health and Human 
        Services, acting through the Public Health Service.
          (2) Consultation.--In the case of a pesticide 
        registered for use in public health programs for vector 
        control or for other uses the Administrator determines 
        to be human health protection uses, the Administrator 
        shall, upon timely request by the registrant or any 
        other interested person, or on the Administrator's own 
        initiative may, consult with the Secretary prior to 
        taking final action to suspend registration under 
        section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv), or cancel a registration under 
        section 4, 6(e), or 6(f). In consultation with the 
        Secretary, the Administrator shall prescribe the form 
        and content of requests under this section.
          (3) Benefits to support family.--The Administrator, 
        after consulting with the Secretary, shall make a 
        determination whether the potential benefits of 
        continued use of the pesticide for public health or 
        health protection purposes are of such significance as 
        to warrant a commitment by the Secretary to conduct or 
        to arrange for the conduct of the studies required by 
        the Administrator to support continued registration 
        under section 3 or registration under section 4.
          (4) Additional time.--If the Administrator determines 
        that such a commitment is warranted and in the public 
        interest, the Administrator shall notify the Secretary 
        and shall, to the extent necessary, amend a notice 
        issued under section 3(c)(2)(B) to specify additional 
        reasonable time periods for submission of the data.
          (5) Arrangements.--The Secretary shall make such 
        arrangements for the conduct of required studies as the 
        Secretary finds necessary and appropriate to permit 
        submission of data in accordance with the time periods 
        prescribed by the Administrator. Such arrangements may 
        include Public Health Service intramural research 
        activities, grants, contracts, or cooperative 
        agreements with academic, public health, or other 
        organizations qualified by experience and training to 
        conduct such studies.
          (6) Support.--The Secretary may provide for support 
        of the required studies using funds authorized to be 
        appropriated under this section, the Public Health 
        Service Act, or other appropriate authorities. After a 
        determination is made under subsection (d), the 
        Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations 
        of the House Representatives and the Senate of the sums 
        required to conduct the necessary studies.
          (7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out the purposes 
        of this section $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, and 
        such sums as may be necessary for succeeding fiscal 
        years.

SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW; SUSPENSION.

  [(a) Cancellation After Five Years--
          [(1) Procedure.--The Administrator shall cancel the 
        registration of any pesticide at the end of the five-
        year period which begins on the date of its 
        registration (or at the end of any five-year period 
        thereafter) unless the registrant, or other interested 
        person with the concurrence of the registrant, before 
        the end of such period, requests in accordance with 
        regulations prescribed by the Administrator that the 
        registration be continued in effect. The Administrator 
        may permit the continued sale and use of existing 
        stocks of a pesticide whose registration is canceled 
        under this subsection or subsection (b) to such extent, 
        under such conditions, and for such uses as the 
        Administrator may specify if the Administrator 
        determines that such sale or use is not inconsistent 
        with the purposes of this Act and will not have 
        unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. The 
        Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register, at 
        least 30 days prior to the expiration of such five-year 
        period, notice that the registration will be canceled 
        if the registrant or other interested person with the 
        concurrence of the registrant does not request that the 
        registration be continued in effect.]
  (a) Existing Stocks and Information.--
          (1) Existing stocks.--The Administrator may permit 
        the continued sale and use of existing stocks of a 
        pesticide whose registration is suspended or canceled 
        under this section, or section 3 or 4, to such extent, 
        under such conditions, and for such uses as the 
        Administrator determines that such sale or use is not 
        inconsistent with the purposes of this Act.
          * * * * * * *
  (b) Cancellation and Change in Classification.--If it appears 
to the Administrator that a pesticide or its labeling or other 
material required to be submitted does not comply with the 
provisions of this Act or, when used in accordance with 
widespread and commonly recognized practice, generally causes 
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the 
Administrator may issue a notice of the Administrator's intent 
either--
          (1) to cancel its registration or to change its 
        classification together with the reasons (including the 
        factual basis) for the Administrator's action, or
          (2) to hold a hearing to determine whether or not its 
        registration should be canceled or its classification 
        changed.
Such notice shall be sent to the registrant and made public. In 
determining whether to issue any such notice, the Administrator 
shall include among those factors to be taken into account the 
impact of the action proposed in such notice on production and 
prices of agricultural commodities, retail food prices, and 
otherwise on the agricultural economy. At least 60 days prior 
to sending such notice to the registrant or making public such 
notice, whichever occurs first, the Administrator shall provide 
the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of such notice and an 
analysis of such impact on the agricultural economy. If the 
Secretary comments in writing to the Administrator regarding 
the notice and analysis within 30 days after receiving them, 
the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register (with 
the notice) the comments of the Secretary and the response of 
the Administrator with regard to the Secretary's comments. If 
the Secretary does not comment in writing to the Administrator 
regarding the notice and analysis within 30 days after 
receiving them, the Administrator may notify the registrant and 
make public the notice at any time after such 30-day period 
notwithstanding the foregoing 60-day time requirement. The time 
requirements imposed by the preceding 3 sentences may be waived 
or modified to the extent agreed upon by the Administrator and 
the Secretary. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
subsection (b) and section 25(d), in the event that the 
Administrator determines that suspension of a pesticide 
registration is necessary to prevent an imminent hazard to 
human health, then upon such a finding the Administrator may 
waive the requirement of notice to and consultation with the 
Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to subsection (b) and of 
submission to the Scientific Advisory Panel pursuant to section 
25(d) and proceed in accordance with subsection (c). When a 
public health use is affected, the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services should provide available benefits and use 
information, or an analysis thereof, in accordance with the 
procedures followed and subject to the same conditions as the 
Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural 
pesticides. The proposed action shall become final and 
effective at the end of 30 days from receipt by the registrant, 
or publication, of a notice issued under paragraph (1), 
whichever occurs later, unless within that time either (i) the 
registrant makes the necessary corrections, if possible, or 
(ii) a request for a hearing is made by a person adversely 
affected by the notice. In the event a hearing is held pursuant 
to such a request or to the Administrator's determination under 
paragraph (2), a decision pertaining to registration or 
classification issued after completion of such hearing shall be 
final. In taking any final action under this subsection, the 
Administrator shall consider restricting a pesticide's use or 
uses as an alternative to cancellation and shall fully explain 
the reasons for these restrictions, and shall include among 
those factors to be taken into account the impact of such final 
action on production and prices of agricultural commodities, 
retail food prices, and otherwise on the agricultural economy, 
and the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register an 
analysis of such impact.
  (c) Suspension.--
          (1) Order.--If the Administrator determines that 
        action is necessary to prevent an imminent hazard 
        during the time required for cancellation or change in 
        classification proceedings, the Administrator may, by 
        order, suspend the registration of the pesticide 
        immediately. [No order of suspension may be issued 
        unless the Administrator has issued or at the same time 
        issues notice of the Administrator's intention to 
        cancel the registration or change the classification of 
        the pesticide.] Except as provided in paragraph (3), no 
        order of suspension may be issued under this subsection 
        unless the Administrator has issued, or at the same 
        time issues, a notice of intention to cancel the 
        registration or change the classification of the 
        pesticide under subsection (b). Except as provided in 
        paragraph (3), the Administrator shall notify the 
        registrant prior to issuing any suspension order. Such 
        notice shall include findings pertaining to the 
        question of ``imminent hazard''. The registrant shall 
        then have an opportunity, in accordance with the 
        provisions of paragraph (2), for an expedited hearing 
        before the Administrator on the question of whether an 
        imminent hazard exists.
          * * * * * * *
          (3) Emergency order.--Whenever the Administrator 
        determines that an emergency exists that does not 
        permit the Administrator to hold a hearing before 
        suspending, the Administrator may issue a suspension 
        order in advance of notification to the registrant. The 
        Administrator may issue an emergency order under this 
        paragraph before issuing a notice of intention to 
        cancel the registration or change the classification of 
        the pesticide under subsection (b) and the 
        Administrator shall proceed to issue the notice under 
        subsection (b) within 90 days of issuing an emergency 
        order. If the Administrator does not issue a notice 
        under subsection (b) within 90 days of issuing an 
        emergency order, the emergency order shall expire. In 
        that case, paragraph (2) shall apply except that (A) 
        the order of suspension shall be in effect pending the 
        expeditious completion of the remedies provided by that 
        paragraph and the issuance of a final order on 
        suspension, and (B) no party other than the registrant 
        and the Administrator shall participate except that any 
        person adversely affected may file briefs within the 
        time allotted by the Administrator's rules. Any person 
        so filing briefs shall be considered a party to such 
        proceeding for the purposes of section 16(b).
          * * * * * * *
  (f) General Provisions.--
          (1) Voluntary cancellation.--
                  (A) * * *
          * * * * * * *
                          (i) shall publish in the Federal 
                        Register a notice of the receipt of the 
                        request and make reasonable efforts to 
                        inform persons who so use the pesticide 
                        of the request; and
                          (ii) may not approve or reject the 
                        request until the termination of the 
                        [90-day] 180-day period beginning on 
                        the date of publication of the notice 
                        in the Federal Register, except that 
                        the Administrator may waive the [90-
                        day] 180-day period upon the request of 
                        the registrant or if the Administrator 
                        determines that the continued use of 
                        the pesticide would pose an 
                        unreasonable adverse effect on the 
                        environment.
          * * * * * * *
          (3) Transfer of registration of pesticides registered 
        for minor agricultural uses.--In the case of a 
        pesticide that is registered for a minor agricultural 
        use:
                  (A) During the [90-day] 180-day period 
                referred to in paragraph (1)(C)(ii), the 
                registrant of the pesticide may notify the 
                Administrator of an agreement between the 
                registrant and a person or persons (including 
                persons who so use the pesticide) to transfer 
                the registration of the pesticide, in lieu of 
                canceling or amending the registration to 
                terminate the use.
          * * * * * * *
          (4) Utilization of data for voluntarily canceled 
        pesticide.--When an application is filed with the 
        Administrator for the registration of a pesticide for a 
        minor use and another registrant subsequently 
        voluntarily cancels its registration for an identical 
        or substantially similar pesticide for an identical or 
        substantially similar use, the Administrator shall 
        process, review, and evaluate the pending application 
        as if the voluntary cancellation had not yet taken 
        place except that the Administrator shall not take such 
        action if the Administrator determines that such minor 
        use may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the 
        environment. In order to rely on this subsection, the 
        applicant must certify that it agrees to satisfy any 
        outstanding data requirements necessary to support the 
        reregistration of the pesticide in accordance with the 
        data submission schedule established by the 
        Administrator.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 8. BOOKS AND RECORDS.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Inspection.--For the purposes of enforcing the provisions 
of this Act, any producer, distributor, carrier, dealer, or any 
other person who sells or offers for sale, delivers or offers 
for delivery any pesticide or device subject to this Act, 
shall, upon request of any officer or employee of the 
Environmental Protection Agency or of any State [or political 
subdivision], duly designated by the Administrator, furnish or 
permit such person at all reasonable times to have access to, 
and to copy: (1) all records showing the delivery, movement, or 
holding of such pesticide or device, including the quantity, 
the date of shipment and receipt, and the name of the consignor 
and consignee; or (2) in the event of the inability of any 
person to produce records containing such information, all 
other records and information relating to such delivery, 
movement, or holding of the pesticide or device. Any inspection 
with respect to any records and information referred to in this 
subsection shall not extend to financial data, sales data other 
than shipment data, pricing data, personnel data, and research 
data (other than data relating to registered pesticides or to a 
pesticide for which an application for registration has been 
filed). Before undertaking an inspection under this subsection, 
the officer or employee must present to the owner, operator, or 
agent in charge of the establishment or other place where 
pesticides or devices are held for distribution or sale, 
appropriate credentials and a written statement as to the 
reason for the inspection, including a statement as to whether 
a violation of the law is suspected. If no violation is 
suspected, an alternate and sufficient reason shall be given in 
writing. Each such inspection shall be commenced and completed 
with reasonable promptness.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 19. STORAGE, DISPOSAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND RECALL.

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (h) Relationship to Solid Waste Disposal Act.--[Nothing in]
          (1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall 
        diminish the authorities or requirements of the Solid 
        Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).
          (2) Antimicrobial products.--A household, industrial, 
        or institutional antimicrobial product that is not 
        subject to regulation under the Solid Waste Disposal 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) shall not be subject to 
        the provisions of subsections (a), (e), and (f), unless 
        the Administrator determines that such product must be 
        subject to such provisions to prevent an unreasonable 
        adverse effect on the environment.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 21. SOLICITATION OF COMMENTS; NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.

  (a) Secretary of Agriculture.--The Administrator, before 
publishing regulations under this Act, shall solicit the views 
of the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with the 
procedure described in section 25(a).
  (b) Secretary of Health and Human Services.--The 
Administrator, before publishing regulations under this Act for 
any public health pesticide, shall solicit the views of the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services in the same manner as 
the views of the Secretary of Agriculture are solicited under 
section 25(a)(2).
  [(b)] (c) Views.--In addition to any other authority relating 
to public hearings and solicitation of views, in connection 
with the suspension or cancellation of a pesticide registration 
or any other actions authorized under this Act, the 
Administrator may, at the Administrator's discretion, solicit 
the views of all interested persons, either orally or in 
writing, and seek such advice from scientists, farmers, farm 
organizations, and other qualified persons as the Administrator 
deems proper.
  [(c)] (d) Notice.--In connection with all public hearings 
under this Act the Administrator shall publish timely notice of 
such hearings in the Federal Register.

SEC. 22. DELEGATION AND COOPERATION.

  (a) Delegation.--All authority vested in the Administrator by 
virtue of the provisions of this Act may with like force and 
effect be executed by such employees of the Environmental 
Protection Agency as the Administrator may designate for the 
purpose.
  (b) Cooperation.--The Administrator shall cooperate with the 
Department of Agriculture, any other Federal agency, and any 
appropriate agency of any State [or any political subdivision 
thereof], in carrying out the provisions of this Act, and in 
securing uniformity of regulations.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 24. AUTHORITY OF STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.

  (a) In General.--A State may regulate the sale or use of any 
federally registered pesticide or device in the State and an 
Indian tribe may only regulate the sale or use of any federally 
registered pesticide or device within the boundaries of a 
Federal Indian reservation for such tribe if at least 50 
percent of the lands in such reservation are owned by members 
of the tribe or the tribe, but only if and to the extent the 
regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this 
Act.
  (b) Uniformity.--Such State or Indian tribe shall not impose 
or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or 
packaging in addition to or different from those required under 
this Act.
  (c) Additional Uses.--
          (1) A State or Indian tribe may provide registration 
        for additional uses of federally registered pesticides 
        formulated for distribution and use within that State 
        or Indian tribe to meet special local needs in accord 
        with the purposes of this Act and if registration for 
        such use has not previously been denied, disapproved, 
        or canceled by the Administrator. Such registration 
        shall be deemed registration under section 3 for all 
        purposes of this Act, but shall authorize distribution 
        and use only within such State or Indian tribe.
          (2) A registration issued by a State or Indian tribe 
        under this subsection shall not be effective for more 
        than ninety days if disapproved by the Administrator 
        within that period. Prior to disapproval, the 
        Administrator shall, except as provided in paragraph 
        (3) of this subsection, advise the State or Indian 
        tribe of the Administrator's intention to disapprove 
        and the reasons therefor, and provide the State or 
        Indian tribe time to respond. The Administrator shall 
        not prohibit or disapprove a registration issued by a 
        State or Indian tribe under this subsection (A) on the 
        basis of lack of essentiality of a pesticide or (B) 
        except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, 
        if its composition and use patterns are similar to 
        those of a federally registered pesticide.
          (3) In no instance may a State or Indian tribe issue 
        a registration for a food or feed use unless there 
        exists a tolerance or exemption under the Federal Food, 
        Drug, and Cosmetic Act that permits the residues of the 
        pesticide on the food or feed. If the Administrator 
        determines that a registration issued by a State or 
        Indian tribe is inconsistent with the Federal Food, 
        Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the use of, a pesticide 
        under a registration issued by a State or Indian tribe 
        constitutes an imminent hazard, the Administrator may 
        immediately disapprove the registration.
          (4) If the Administrator finds, in accordance with 
        standards set forth in regulations issued under section 
        25 of this Act, that a State or Indian tribe is not 
        capable of exercising adequate controls to assure that 
        State or Indian tribe registration under this section 
        will be in accord with the purposes of this Act or has 
        failed to exercise adequate controls, the Administrator 
        may suspend the authority of the State or Indian tribe 
        to register pesticides until such time as the 
        Administrator is satisfied that the State or Indian 
        tribe can and will exercise adequate controls. Prior to 
        any such suspension, the Administrator shall advise the 
        State or Indian tribe of the Administrator's intention 
        to suspend and the reasons therefor and provide the 
        State or Indian tribe time to respond.
  (d) Local Regulation.--Subject to subsection (e), a local 
government shall not impose or continue in effect any 
requirement or regulation regarding pesticides or devices.
  (e) Locally Specific State Regulation.--Nothing in this 
section shall prohibit a State from enforcing laws, enacting 
laws, or implementing regulations applicable to local 
governments regarding the sale or use of any federally 
registered pesticide or device.

SEC. 25. AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATOR.

  (a) In General.--
          (1) Regulations.--The Administrator is authorized in 
        accordance with the procedure described in paragraph 
        (2), to prescribe regulations to carry out the 
        provisions of this Act. Such regulations shall take 
        into account the difference in concept and usage 
        between various classes of pesticides, including public 
        health pesticides, and differences in environmental 
        risk and the appropriate data for evaluating such risk 
        between agricultural [and nonagricultural pesticides], 
        nonagricultural, and public health pesticides.
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Scientific Advisory Panel.--[The Administrator shall]
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall submit to an 
        advisory panel for comment as to the impact on health 
        and the environment of the action proposed in notices 
        of intent issued under section 6(b) and of the proposed 
        and final form of regulations issued under section 
        25(a) within the same time periods as provided for the 
        comments of the Secretary of Agriculture under such 
        sections. The time requirements for notices of intent 
        and proposed and final forms of regulation may not be 
        modified or waived unless in addition to meeting the 
        requirements of section 6(b) or 25(a), as applicable, 
        the advisory panel has failed to comment on the 
        proposed action within the prescribed time period or 
        has agreed to the modification or waiver. The 
        Administrator shall also solicit from the advisory 
        panel comments, evaluations, and recommendations for 
        operating guidelines to improve the effectiveness and 
        quality of scientific analyses made by personnel of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency that lead to decisions 
        by the Administrator in carrying out the provisions of 
        this Act. The comments, evaluations, and 
        recommendations of the advisory panel submitted under 
        this subsection and the response of the Administrator 
        shall be published in the Federal Register in the same 
        manner as provided for publication of the comments of 
        the Secretary of Agriculture under such sections. The 
        chairman of the advisory panel, after consultation with 
        the Administrator, may create temporary subpanels on 
        specific projects to assist the full advisory panel in 
        expediting and preparing its evaluations, comments, and 
        recommendations. The subpanels may be composed of 
        scientists other than members of the advisory panel, as 
        deemed necessary for the purpose of evaluating 
        scientific studies relied upon by the Administrator 
        with respect to proposed action. Such additional 
        scientists shall be selected by the advisory panel. The 
        panel referred to in this subsection shall consist of 7 
        members appointed by the Administrator from a list of 
        12 nominees, 6 nominated by the National Institutes of 
        Health and 6 by the National Science Foundation, 
        utilizing a system of staggered terms of appointment. 
        Members of the panel shall be selected on the basis of 
        their professional qualifications to assess the effects 
        of the impact of pesticides on health and the 
        environment. To the extent feasible to insure 
        multidisciplinary representation, the panel membership 
        shall include representation from the disciplines of 
        toxicology, pathology, environmental biology, and 
        related sciences. If a vacancy occurs on the panel due 
        to expiration of a term, resignation, or any other 
        reason, each replacement shall be selected by the 
        Administrator from a group of 4 nominees, 2 submitted 
        by each of the nominating entities named in this 
        subsection. The Administrator may extend the term of a 
        panel member until the new member is appointed to fill 
        the vacancy. If a vacancy occurs due to resignation, or 
        reason other than expiration of a term, the 
        Administrator shall appoint a member to serve during 
        the unexpired term utilizing the nomination process set 
        forth in this subsection. Should the list of nominees 
        provided under this subsection be unsatisfactory, the 
        Administrator may request an additional set of nominees 
        from the nominating entities. The Administrator may 
        require such information from the nominees to the 
        advisory panel as the Administrator deems necessary, 
        and the Administrator shall publish in the Federal 
        Register the name, address, and professional 
        affiliations of each nominee. Each member of the panel 
        shall receive per diem compensation at a rate not in 
        excess of that fixed for GS-18 of the General Schedule 
        as may be determined by the Administrator, except that 
        any such member who holds another office or position 
        under the Federal Government the compensation for which 
        exceeds such rate may elect to receive compensation at 
        the rate provided for such other office or position in 
        lieu of the compensation provided by this subsection. 
        In order to assure the objectivity of the advisory 
        panel, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations 
        regarding conflicts of interest with respect to the 
        members of the panel. The advisory panel established 
        under this section shall be permanent. In performing 
        the functions assigned by this Act, the panel shall 
        consult and coordinate its activities with the Science 
        Advisory Board established under the Environmental 
        Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization 
        Act of 1978. Whenever the Administrator exercises 
        authority under section 6(c) of this Act to immediately 
        suspend the registration of any pesticide to prevent an 
        imminent hazard, the Administrator shall promptly 
        submit to the advisory panel for comment, as to the 
        impact on health and the environment, the action taken 
        to suspend the registration of such pesticide.
          (2) Science review board.--There is established a 
        Science Review Board to consist of 60 scientists who 
        shall be available to the Scientific Advisory Panel to 
        assist in reviews conducted by the Panel. Members of 
        the Board shall be selected in the same manner as 
        members of temporary subpanels created under paragraph 
        (1). Members of the Board shall be compensated in the 
        same manner as members of the Panel.
  (e) Peer Review.--The Administrator shall, by written 
procedures, provide for peer review with respect to the design, 
protocols, and conduct of major scientific studies conducted 
under this Act by the Environmental Protection Agency or by any 
other Federal agency, any State [or political subdivision 
thereof], or any institution or individual under grant, 
contract, or cooperative agreement from or with the 
Environmental Protection Agency. In such procedures, the 
Administrator shall also provide for peer review, using the 
advisory panel established under subsection (d) of this section 
or appropriate experts appointed by the Administrator from a 
current list of nominees maintained by such panel, with respect 
to the results of any such scientific studies relied upon by 
the Administrator with respect to actions the Administrator may 
take relating to the change in classification, suspension, or 
cancellation of a pesticide. Whenever the Administrator 
determines that circumstances do not permit the peer review of 
the results of any such scientific study prior to the 
Administrator's exercising authority under section 6(c) of this 
Act to immediately suspend the registration of any pesticide to 
prevent an imminent hazard, the Administrator shall promptly 
thereafter provide for the conduct of peer review as provided 
in this sentence. The evaluations and relevant documentation 
constituting the peer review that relate to the proposed 
scientific studies and the results of the completed scientific 
studies shall be included in the submission for comment 
forwarded by the Administrator to the advisory panel as 
provided in subsection (d). As used in this subsection, the 
term ``peer review'' shall mean an independent evaluation by 
scientific experts, either within or outside the Environmental 
Protection Agency, in the appropriate disciplines.

SEC. 26. STATE AND INDIAN TRIBE PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY.

  (a) In General.--For the purposes of this Act, a State or 
Indian tribe shall have primary enforcement responsibility for 
pesticide use violations and an Indian tribe with respect to 
violations which occur within the boundaries of a Federal 
Indian reservation for such tribe, but only if at least 50 
percent of the lands in such reservation are owned by members 
of the tribe or the tribe during any period for which the 
Administrator determines that such State or Indian tribe--
          (1) has adopted adequate pesticide use laws and 
        regulations, except that the Administrator may not 
        require a State or Indian tribe to have pesticide use 
        laws that are more stringent than this Act;
          (2) has adopted and is implementing adequate 
        procedures for the enforcement of such State or Indian 
        tribe laws and regulations; and
          (3) will keep such records and make such reports 
        showing compliance with paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 
        subsection as the Administrator may require by 
        regulation.
  (b) Special Rules.--Notwithstanding the provisions of 
subsection (a) of this section, any State or Indian tribe that 
enters into a cooperative agreement with the Administrator 
under section 23 of this Act for the enforcement of pesticide 
use restrictions shall have the primary enforcement 
responsibility for pesticide use violations. Any State that has 
a plan approved by the Administrator in accordance with the 
requirements of section 11 of this Act that the Administrator 
determines meets the criteria set out in subsection (a) of this 
section shall have the primary enforcement responsibility for 
pesticide use violations. The Administrator shall make such 
determinations with respect to State plans under section 11 of 
this Act in effect on the date of enactment of the Federal 
Pesticide Act of 1978 not later than six months after that 
date.
  (c) Administrator.--The Administrator shall have primary 
enforcement responsibility for those States or Indian tribes 
that do not have primary enforcement responsibility under this 
Act. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2(e)(1) of this 
Act, during any period when the Administrator has such 
enforcement responsibility, section 8(b) of this Act shall 
apply to the books and records of commercial applicators and to 
any applicator who holds or applies pesticides, or uses 
dilutions of pesticides, only to provide a service of 
controlling pests without delivering any unapplied pesticide to 
any person so served, and section 9(a) of this Act shall apply 
to the establishment or other place where pesticides or devices 
are held for application by such persons with respect to 
pesticides or devices held for such application.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 28. IDENTIFICATION OF PESTS; COOPERATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF 
                    AGRICULTURE'S PROGRAM.

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Public Health Pests.--The Administrator, in coordination 
with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services, shall identify pests of significant public 
health importance and, in coordination with the Public Health 
Service, develop and implement programs to improve and 
facilitate the safe and necessary use of chemical, biological, 
and other methods to combat and control such pests of public 
health importance.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 30. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAINING OF MAINTENANCE APPLICATORS 
                    AND SERVICE TECHNICIANS.

  Each State may establish minimum requirements for training of 
maintenance applicators and service technicians. Such training 
may include instruction in the safe and effective handling and 
use of pesticides in accordance with the Environmental 
Protection Agency approved labeling, and instruction in 
integrated pest management techniques. The authority of the 
Administrator with respect to minimum requirements for training 
of maintenance applicators and service technicians shall be 
limited to ensuring that each State understands the provisions 
of this section.

SEC. 31. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MINOR USE PROGRAM.

  (a) The Administrator shall assure coordination of minor use 
issues through the establishment of a minor use program within 
the Office of Pesticide Programs. Such office shall be 
responsible for coordinating the development of minor use 
programs and policies and consulting with growers regarding 
minor use issues and registrations and amendments which are 
submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency.
  (b) The Office of Pesticide Programs shall prepare a public 
report concerning the progress made on the registration of 
minor uses, including implementation of the exclusive use as an 
incentive for registering new minor uses, within 3 years of the 
passage of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.

SEC. 32. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MINOR USE PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter in 
this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall assure the 
coordination of the responsibilities of the Department of 
Agriculture related to minor uses of pesticides, including--
          (1) carrying out the Inter-Regional Project Number 4 
        (IR-4) as described in section 2 of Public Law 89-106 
        (7 U.S.C. 450i(e)) and the national pesticide 
        resistance monitoring program established under section 
        1651 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
        Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5882);
          (2) supporting integrated pest management research;
          (3) consulting with growers to develop data for minor 
        uses; and
          (4) providing assistance for minor use registrations, 
        tolerances, and reregistrations with the Environmental 
        Protection Agency.
  (b)(1) Minor Use Pesticide Data.--
          (A) Grant authority.--The Secretary, in consultation 
        with the Administrator, shall establish a program to 
        make grants for the development of data to support 
        minor use pesticide registrations and reregistrations. 
        The amount of any such grant shall not exceed \1/2\ of 
        the cost of the project for which the grant is made.
          (B) Applicants.--Any person who wants to develop data 
        to support minor use pesticide registrations and 
        reregistrations may apply for a grant under 
        subparagraph (A). Priority shall be given to an 
        applicant for such a grant who does not directly 
        receive funds from the sale of pesticides registered 
        for minor uses.
          (C) Data ownership.--Any data that is developed under 
        a grant under subparagraph (A) shall be jointly owned 
        by the Department of Agriculture and the person who 
        received the grant. Such a person shall enter into an 
        agreement with the Secretary under which such person 
        shall share any fee paid to such person under section 
        3(c)(1)(F).
  (2) Minor use pesticide data revolving fund.--
          (A) Establishment.--There is established in the 
        Treasury of the United States a revolving fund to be 
        known as the Minor Use Pesticide Data Revolving Fund. 
        The Fund shall be available without fiscal year 
        limitation to carry out the authorized purposes of this 
        subsection.
          (B) Contents of the fund.--There shall be deposited 
        in the Fund--
                  (i) such amounts as may be appropriated to 
                support the purposes of this subsection; and
                  (ii) fees collected by the Secretary for any 
                data developed under a grant under paragraph 
                (1)(A).
          (C) Authorizations of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year to 
        carry out the purposes of this subsection $10,000,000 
        to remain available until expended.

SEC. [30.] 33. SEVERABILITY.

  If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to 
any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity 
shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Act 
which can be given effect without regard to the invalid 
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of 
this Act are severable.

SEC. [31.] 34. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.

  There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act 
(other than section 23(a))--
          (1) $83,000,000 for fiscal year 1989, of which not 
        more than $13,735,500 shall be available for research 
        under this Act;
          (2) $95,000,000 for fiscal year 1990, of which not 
        more than $14,343,600 shall be available for research 
        under this Act; and
          (3) $95,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, of which not 
        more than $14,978,200 shall be available for research 
        under this Act.
                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. JOHN BALDACCI

    The Food Quality Protection Act of 1995 ensures that the 
system of pesticide regulation will undergo needed reforms. The 
Titles reported by the House Agriculture Committee not only 
continue to protect human health and safety, they create 
sensible laws for America's farmers.
    I am especially pleased with reforms contained in Title II, 
Subtitle A--Minor Use Crop Protection. The streamlined 
procedures contained in the legislation will benefit the 
thousands of farmers engaged in the production of fruits and 
vegetables. The benefits of a diet rich in these foods are 
undeniable.
    However, I remain troubled by Title I, Section 106, 
Authority of States. This Section would create a federal 
preemption of the rights of local governments to impose or 
continue in effect any pesticide regulations.
    The thrust of many of the reforms considered by the 104th 
Congress has been to give authority to states and local units 
of governments. The change embodied in this legislation runs 
counter to those efforts. This change would impede the ability 
of communities to craft local solutions to local problems.
    With Section 106, Congress imposes itself into decisions 
that are best left to state and local governments. While many 
states already have passed laws preempting local authority over 
pesticides, 10 have not. The local preemption contained in H.R. 
1627 seems to be little more than a solution in search of a 
problem.

                                                     John Baldacci.
             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

    Consideration of H.R. 1627, the Food Quality Protection 
Act, has become a tradition of this Committee. I have wrestled 
with many of the issues addressed by this legislation since I 
first became a member of the House Agriculture Committee 24 
years ago. The portions of the bill amending FIFRA, as 
reported, represent an improvement over the original bill. 
However, I continue to have a number of reservations about this 
legislation.
    One of these reservations pertains to the issue of 
pesticide reregistration and the authorization of fees to 
support this activity. First, a bit of history. In 1972, 
Congress passed the first comprehensive FIFRA law and mandated 
that all of the pesticides registered at that time be brought 
up to the new registration standards for health and safety by 
1976. In 1976, the deadline was moved to 1978. In 1978, the 
deadline was done away with and the EPA was told to review all 
of the pesticides, giving top priority to food and agriculture 
chemicals, as soon as they could.
    During the 1980's there were a series of pesticides crises 
due to the discovery of adverse health effects from pesticides 
undergoing the EPA process of review. Ethylene dibromide and 
alar are two memorable ``surprises'' caused by this ad hoc 
review process.
    In 1988, this Committee made a promise to the American 
people that we would accelerate the review of pesticides on the 
market at the time. The Committee felt that since most of the 
``surprises'' had been coming from chemicals grandfathered in 
under increasingly stringent requirements, the best use of 
limited resources would be to work on the backlog of chemicals 
to insure that they met current health and safety standards.
    Back in 1988, the General Accounting Office estimated that 
EPA would take until 2005 to finish the job. The Committee 
wanted the job done faster and was willing to allow EPA to 
impose fees on the chemical industry to pay for the additional 
financial burden that an accelerated reregistration would 
entail.
    Yet here we are today, having broken another promise with 
the American people. In 1997 when the latest reregistration 
deadline lapses, on the 25th anniversary of the passage of the 
1972 FIFRA law when we first promised to bring all registered 
pesticides up to current standards, we will have failed again.
    Who are the losers? Farmers and ranchers lose because they 
cannot defend themselves against critics who claim adverse 
health and safety effects from the pesticides they use. 
Consumers lose because they cannot be confident that EPA is 
protecting them against health risks. Processors lose as they 
await another pesticide scare, perhaps blown out of proportion 
in the absence of definitive health and safety data.
    I am pleased that we have included a reauthorization for 
the collection of reregistration fees in this bill. However, I 
am concerned that the level of the authorization is too low and 
that the duration of the authorization is too short to enable 
EPA to complete the reregistration. As time goes on, 
recommendations made by the scientific community are increasing 
the number and complexity of the health and safety tests for 
pesticides. The 1993 National Academy of Sciences report, 
``Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children'' is a recent 
example of increased complexity. These additional evaluations 
require more time and more money to complete, not less. The 
current fee reauthorization does not sufficiently take these 
factors into account.
    There are several other issues within the FIFRA portion of 
the bill which should be addressed when the bill comes before 
the House. Section 106: Authority of States was included in 
response to the 1991 Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Public 
Intervenor v. Mortier which stated that local governments are 
not pre-empted by FIFRA from regulating the sale and use of 
pesticides.
    In my view, this provision of the bill is unnecessary and 
attempts to address a problem that does not exist. Forty states 
have already enacted their own statutes to clarify the role of 
State and local government in regard to the regulation of 
pesticides. The remaining ten States where local governments 
maintain the authority to regulate in this area have the 
ability to enact a law to deal with any problems that might 
arise from over-regulation of pesticides by local communities.
    Furthermore, there is some ambiguity about exactly which 
laws would be affected by this section. I asked the American 
Law Division of the Congressional Research Service to examine 
Section 106 of the bill and to provide me with an analysis. I 
have also seen an analysis of the same Section requested from 
the State of Wisconsin's Attorney General's office. The 
analyses are somewhat different, but raise similar questions 
and illustrate the lack of clarity in the language of this 
section.
    According to the American Law Division's analysis there are 
two possible interpretations of the addition to FIFRA; new 
section 24(e). This section could be interpreted to allow 
States to grant their local jurisdictions authority to regulate 
pesticides independently of any State scheme, or it could be 
interpreted to mean that only states can initiate pesticide 
requirements. Under the latter interpretation, local 
governments would never be permitted to enact pesticide 
requirements that differed from those of the state even if a 
state decided they could do so.
    It is also unclear whether only laws explicitly dealing 
with pesticide sale and use will be subject to Section 106 or 
whether laws involving regulation of pesticide use by local 
governments in the context of water quality protection, such as 
the Safe Drinking Water Act groundwater protection provisions, 
would be affected. Enactment of Section 106 may result in 
state-local water quality plans in a number of states falling 
victim to the law of unintended consequences. The American Law 
Division's analysis indicated this might be a problem if the 
language were interpreted broadly by judicial review, but not 
if it were interpreted narrowly. While the American Law 
Division felt the narrow interpretation would be more likely, 
the Wisconsin Attorney General's office suggested the broader 
interpretation was more likely, and their analysis indicated 
that water quality protection laws might be jeopardized by this 
provision.
    In either case, it appears this Section may introduce a 
number of problems while solving nothing. There has never been 
any evidence presented to show that local communities have run 
amok enacting excessive pesticide laws. In the case of Section 
106 of H.R. 1627, it would be best if we followed the old 
adage: if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
    During the Committee markup I offered, and subsequently 
withdrew, an amendment to require EPA to develop a data 
standard for hormonally active pesticides under existing 
authorities in Sections 3 and 4 of FIFRA. These substances, 
commonly referred to as endocrine disrupters, are believed to 
interfere with fundamental biological functions such as 
reproduction and development in humans and other organisms. A 
link to some types of breast cancer has also been suggested. 
The Chairman was gracious enough to offer me the opportunity to 
include language addressing this subject in the report 
accompanying the bill. However, I continue to believe we need 
statutory language to move this process along. As I indicated 
during the markup, I plan to offer my amendment again when the 
bill comes before the House.
    My greatest reservations about H.R. 1627 concern Title IV: 
the amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(FFDCA).
    Of particular concern to me as a Californian is the 
provision in this Title that would override California's state 
law: Proposition 65. California has exercised its option to 
adopt a law that is more stringent than Federal law in some 
areas of food safety. Under the right-to-know provisions of 
Proposition 65 food products containing chemical residues known 
to cause cancer or adverse reproductive effects are required to 
bear a label informing the consumer about the presence of these 
residues.
    Although aspects of this law are not popular with some in 
the agribusiness industry, there is no evidence that it has had 
any negative impact an agricultural production in California. 
Our state produces a wide variety of the finest agricultural 
products in the world. Our strong food safety laws facilitate, 
not hinder, the export of our agricultural products--products 
which we can confidently claim are the safest, highest quality 
agricultural products in the world. If reforming FIFRA and 
FFDCA comes at the expense of California's state law, the price 
is too high. Inclusion of this provision to override 
California's law is likely to draw vigorous opposition from 
other members of the California delegation. This is another 
provision of H.R. 1627 that is a solution in search of a 
problem.
    The FFDCA amendments of H.R. 1627 also attempt to elevate 
the international standards set by the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission to a position of preeminence over our own national 
standards. The U.S. EPA should not have to provide an elaborate 
explanation in order to establish a standard stricter than one 
set by an international organization. The U.S. has many 
environmental and public health standards that exceed 
international ones. We should be looking for ways to encourage 
the international community to adopt stricter standards. Our 
citizens have nothing to gain if our government is encouraged 
to participate in a race to the bottom where health and safety 
standards are concerned.
    We face a difficult task in reforming the tolerance-setting 
provisions of FFDCA if we are to follow the recommendations in 
the 1987 National Academy of Sciences Report on the Delaney 
clause because we will be moving from zero risk to some risk 
with respect to carcinogens. In the process of developing this 
reform package we should not lose sight of the primary purpose 
of this law: to ensure the safety of the food supply.
    Neither the 1987 NAS Report or the 1993 NAS Report on 
Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children declared our 
pesticide laws to be excessive in the area of public health 
protection. The scientific shortcomings of the Delaney clause 
relate as much to health effects as they do to the problem of 
detecting infinitesimal, and perhaps insignificant quantities 
of pesticide residues. The Delaney clause has also resulted in 
too great an emphasis on carcinogenic effects of pesticides, 
while other toxic effects may have received less attention than 
were warranted. The NAS recommendations regarding infants and 
children should be incorporated with the same enthusiasm we 
have for correcting flaws related to the Delaney clause.
    If we are to succeed in our efforts, we are going to have 
to develop a standard-setting process the public believes will 
protect them from potential health hazards resulting from 
pesticides residues in food. A scheme which includes broadly 
defined considerations of the benefits of pesticide use will 
not accomplish this. Whether it is right or wrong, scientific 
or unscientific, consumers are interested in one thing only: 
the safety of the food they are eating. If the public feels 
that we are replacing current law with one designed primarily 
to maintain pesticide sales and current agricultural practices 
rather than to protect public health, we will be unsuccessful 
in our efforts to achieve reform. The proposed revisions to 
Section 408 of FFDCA in H.R. 1627 now suffer from this 
appearance.
    I have worked for many years to reasonably reform our 
pesticide laws so they would reflect an appropriate balance 
between the need for farmers and ranchers to utilize cost-
effective tools to produce the food and fiber we all depend on, 
and the need for comprehensive, scientifically-based laws to 
ensure the safety of our food supply and the health of the 
public and our environment. I hope we will be able to work 
together to realize this goal during the 104th Congress. This 
bill needs to garner the type of broad-based support that was 
achieved with the Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
While H.R. 1627 has considerable support with the agribusiness 
community, it appears we still have a way to go before it will 
also have the support of consumer and environmental advocates.

                                               George E. Brown, Jr.
                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 1627

                    (title vi--indian reservations)

    There are concerns that have been expressed by a number of 
groups in regard to the constitutionality of the provisions in 
Title VI dealing with the ability of Indian tribes to regulate 
the sale and use of pesticides utilizing Federal statutes. This 
includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of 
Agriculture and a number of tribes and organizations 
representing Native Americans. We have included several letters 
along with our views which articulate the concerns surrounding 
these provisions.
    The restrictions on the authority of tribes to regulate the 
use of pesticides on their own reservations could result in the 
Federal Government being required to enforce pesticide use 
violations on a significant number of Indian tribes. It appears 
to us that this compromise language would be even more 
unworkable than the provision previously adopted by the full 
Committee.
    In addition to the potential for a dramatically increased 
workload on the agency, the provision provides for an arbitrary 
cut-off for trying to determine which reservations will be able 
to carry out their own pesticide programs. This would treat a 
portion of Indian reservations in this country differently from 
another portion only because of the application of allotment 
policy and other policies which have resulted in a combination 
of trust and fee lands within reservations in certain parts of 
the country. By targeting only those reservations which were 
subject to these policies, we are reversing long-standing 
policies within the Federal Government, upheld by the Supreme 
Court, which recognize the sovereignty of tribal governments 
and their treatment as States for the administration of Federal 
policy.
    It is our hope that the Members who have an interest in 
this issue will continue to discuss the provisions in Title VI 
as H.R. 1627 proceeds to the floor. We have supported this 
legislation and hope that the inclusion of these provisions do 
not jeopardize the future progress of the legislation.

                                   Tim Johnson.
                                   Charlie Rose.
                                   Eva M. Clayton.
                                   Collin C. Peterson.
                                   Earl Pomeroy.
                                   Bennie G. Thompson.

                                                     June 28, 1996.
Hon. Pat Roberts,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to the June 19, 1996, mark-
up of H.R. 1627, the Administration reiterates its opposition 
to the Title VI language which would limit Tribal regulatory 
authority. Title VI would amend sections 24 and 26 of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to 
limit explicitly Indian tribal authority to regulate and 
enforce pesticide usage on Federal Indian Reservations to those 
instances in which the Tribe or Tribal members own at least 
fifty percent of the lands within the Reservation.
    The Administration continues to strongly support Tribal 
authority to regulate pesticide use on lands within Tribal 
jurisdiction. These amendments would limit the authority of 
Indian Tribes to protect their economic security, health and 
welfare. The amendment is inconsistent with policies supported 
by every President of the United States for the past 30 years.
    The Clinton Administration maintains a government-to-
government relationship between Indian Tribes and the Federal 
Government and encourages Tribal self-governance. The U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of the Interior 
recognize the sovereign status of Tribal governments and 
recognize the rights of the Tribes to govern themselves and 
manage their resources. The provisions in H.R. 1627 undermine 
the government-to-government relationship with Tribes by 
diminishing Tribal authority without prior consultation. The 
changes to this amendment made at full Committee could result 
in the Federal Government being required to enforce pesticide 
use violations on a significant number of Federal Indian 
Reservations. This level of direct Federal activity is 
inconsistent with the general trend to allow more local control 
to strengthen environmental protection. Since Federal resources 
generally are not available to implement pesticides programs at 
the local level, significant gaps may be created in 
environmental protection on reservations. This could leave 
reservations and their populace (both Indian and non-Indian) 
less protected than the rest of the Nation and, in certain 
situations, might abrogate Federal obligations to Tribes.
    The Administration is opposed to the Title VI Indian-
specific language. Since 1984, the EPA has recognized Tribal 
governments as the appropriate parties to regulate Tribal 
environments, wherever Tribes can demonstrate the ability to do 
so. The USDA Native American policy also recognizes the 
sovereign status of Tribal governments as well as the rights of 
Tribes to manage Tribal resources. For years, a number of 
Tribes have regulated pesticide use on reservation lands 
through cooperative agreements with EPA. The record is one of 
sensible environmental protection, respect, cooperation, and a 
few, well-justified enforcement actions. We look forward to 
working with you to strengthen our pesticide and food safety 
laws.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection to the presentation of these views from the 
standpoint of the President's Program.
            Sincerely,
                                   Carol M. Browner,
                                           Administrator, Environmental 
                                               Protection Agency.
                                   Dan Glickman,
                                           Secretary, Department of 
                                               Agriculture.
                                   Bruce Babbitt,
                                           Secretary, Department of the 
                                               Interior.
                                ------                                

                           Intertribal Agriculture Council,
                                       Billings, MT, June 20, 1996.
Hon. Pat Roberts,
House Agriculture Committee,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Congressman Roberts: Please accept this correspondence 
as comment on H.R. 1627 which amends the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Food and Drug Act. The 
added Bereuter Amendment restricts administration of FIFRA to 
only those Indian Reservations in which the Tribe or members of 
that Tribe own greater than 50 percent of the land within the 
external boundaries of that respective Reservation.
    This amendment will unfairly affect those Indian 
Reservations which were subject to the Allotment Acts. Beyond 
focusing on allotted Reservations, this amendment is a complete 
reversal of long established application of federal law, not 
state law, on Indian Reservations. The Bereuter Amendment flies 
in the face of the government-to-government relationship by 
stating that this relationship is only recognized if you own 
land.
    The Bereuter Amendment puts FIFRA regulatory authority in 
the hands of state governments which is in direct conflict with 
present U.S. and Environmental Protection Agency policy. EPA 
policy states ``EPA recognizes Tribal Governments as sovereign 
entities with primary authority and responsibility for the 
reservation populace. Accordingly, EPA will work directly with 
Tribal Governments as the independent authority for reservation 
affairs and not as political subdivisions of States or other 
governmental units.''
    Please assist this organization in preventing this 
amendment to H.R. 1627 from abrogating 150 years of federal 
Indian policy and assist us in assuring that Tribal 
Governments, working with EPA, can continue their stewardship 
of the earth.
            Sincerely,
                                  Greg Smitman, Executive Director.
                                ------                                

                     National Congress of American Indians,
                                     Washington, DC, July 10, 1995.
Re H.R. 1627--FIFRA Amendment and Indian Tribes.

Hon. Pat Roberts,
Chairman, Agriculture Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Roberts: On behalf of the National Congress 
of American Indians (NCAI), the oldest, largest, and most 
representative advocacy organization in the nation, I am 
writing on behalf of our Tribes in opposition to language 
concerning Indian Tribes that has been added to H.R. 1627, 
amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA''). This language, offered by Rep. 
Bereuter, provides that ``an Indian Tribe could regulate the 
sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device 
within the boundaries of a Federal Indian reservation for such 
tribe, except lands in such reservation owned in whole or in 
part by a non-member of the tribe'' (emphasis added), and goes 
on to say that Tribal governments would not have enforcement 
authority for FIFRA violations occurring on reservation lands 
owned in whole or in part by a non-member of the tribe.
    Such as amendment flies in the face of well-established 
Supreme Court precedent holding that the authority of Tribal 
governments is not limited to authority over Tribal citizens on 
lands that are held in trust by the U.S., but may be exercised 
to control the conduct of non-members and non-Indians within 
reservation boundaries when that conduct may affect the Tribe's 
political integrity, economic security, or health and welfare, 
See Montana v United States, 450 U.S. 544, 656-66 (1981).
    If inappropriately regulated the chemicals FIFRA regulates 
obviously ``may affect'' the health and welfare of those 
residing on reservation, and if left unregulated could threaten 
the long-term political integrity and economic viability of the 
reservation. There are many Indian Tribes that are now managing 
EPA-approved FIFRA programs, and the Bereuter amendment would 
create inconsistent application of FIFRA and result in a 
regulatory and jurisdictional void within the boundaries of 
Indian reservations. We therefore urge you, as Chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, to delete the language contained in the 
Bereuter amendment before reporting HR 1627 to the full House 
of Representatives. If you have any questions, or need 
additional information, please contact me or Paul Moorehead of 
our staff at (202) 466-7767.
            Sincerely.
                                JoAnn K. Chase, Executive Director.
                                ------                                

                           Ducheneaux, Taylor & Associates,
                                     Washington, DC, June 18, 1996.
Re H.R. 1627--Bereuter amendments to FIFRA.

Hon. Pat Roberts,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Roberts: As currently written, H.R. 1627 
contains a provision to amend two sections of Title 7, U.S.C., 
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 
in a way which is highly objectionable to Indian tribes. This 
provision was incorporated in the bill at the request of Rep. 
Bereuter of Nebraska when the House Agriculture Committee acted 
on the bill last year.
    This amendment would limit the authority of tribes to 
administer this program to lands that are wholly owned by the 
tribe or tribal members. Because of the land ownership on most 
Indian reservations, this will effectively strip tribes of the 
authority EPA has recognized that tribes possess under the 
existing law.
    About 54 million acres of land are held for Indians by the 
United States in trust or restricted status in the contiguous 
48 states. Approximately 15 million of these acres are located 
on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. The 
remaining 39 million acres of trust or restricted lands are 
located in 29 states--mostly in the west. Most of these 
reservations have highly ``checker-board'' land ownership 
patterns with intermingling of Indian and non-Indian ownership 
of individual tracts. Many thousands of acres of allotted lands 
are held in multiple-ownership with fractional interests in 
individual parcels owned by non-member Indians or non-Indians.
    We understand that over 30 tribes throughout the country 
currently operate FIFRA programs. A list of 20 such tribes is 
attached to this memorandum. If the Bereuter amendment remains 
in the bill most if not all of these programs will close. We 
urge that the Bereuter amendments be deleted from this bill.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Peter S. Taylor.

                LIST OF TRIBES OPERATING FIFRA PROGRAMS

Region 5

    White Earth Band of Chippewa

Region 6

    Jicarilla Apache Tribe

Region 7

    Santee Sioux Tribe
    Omaha Tribe
    Winnebago

Region 8

    Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
    Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
    Rosebud Sioux Tribe
    Oglala Sioux Tribe

Region 9

    Ak Chin Tribe
    Coccopath Tribe
    Colorado River Indian Tribes
    Fort Mohave Tribe
    Gila River Indian Community
    Navajo Tribe
    Quechan Tribe
    Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community

Region 10

    Couer d'Alene Tribe
    Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.
                                ------                                

                  Mni-Sose Intertribal Water Rights
                                           Coalition, Inc.,
                                     Rapid City, SD, June 21, 1996.
Re H.R. 1627.

Hon. Tim Johnson,
Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Congressman Johnson: Please find enclosed a Mni Sose 
Intertribal Water Rights Coalition Resolution 96-14, An 
intertribal resolution in opposition to H.R. 1627, an amendment 
to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
    The Twenty-four (24) member Tribes of the Coalition, 
representing over 100,000 tribal people, strongly oppose the 
limitations imposed on the Tribal ability to protect and 
preserve safe, sanitary environments for Indian families and 
communities. The Bereuter Amendment as proposed would limit and 
restrict tribal leadership's ability to manage and control 
toxic substances on their lands. Although the amendment cites 
certain conditions that would be necessary to evoke the effects 
of the Bureuter Amendment, the tribal leaders perceive that an 
limitation within federal laws and regulations that ignores or 
reduces the tribe's sovereignty and ability to protect their 
tribal member from harm is unacceptable.
    The effects of the Bereuter Amendment will result an 
increase in pollution in Indian communities and unregulated use 
of toxic substances on tribal lands.
    On behalf of the Board of Directors, I request your support 
and assistance in the deletion of the Bereuter Amendment from 
future action on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
            Sincerely,
                          Richard Bad Moccasin, Executive Director.

  a resolution of the mni sose intertribal water rights coalition to 
 oppose h.r. 1627, a bill to amend the federal insecticide, fungicide, 
and rodenticide act, to limit tribal authority to lands wholly owned by 
                         a tribe or its members

    Whereas, Mni Sose Intertribal Water Rights Coalition, Inc., 
(herein after called Mni Sose) is a non-profit corporation 
dedicated to the preservation, enhancement, and protection of 
water rights of Indian Tribes in the Missouri River Basin; and
    Whereas, the Missouri River Basin Tribes, by virtue of 
inherent Tribal sovereignty and the acknowledgment by Congress 
of Tribal authority in the area of environmental protection, 
are the appropriate sovereigns to protect the environment on or 
near Indian Reservations; and
    Whereas, Mni Sose is composed of twenty-four Indian Tribes 
located in the Missouri River Basin with vested interests in 
water rights; and
    Whereas, Mni Sose Coalition Member Tribes have collectively 
identified its' long range goals as: strengthening Tribal 
capabilities so member Tribes can appropriately manage control, 
and to protect water resources pursuant to individual Tribal 
goals and values as defined by Tribal laws; and
    Whereas, the House Agriculture Committee has provided 
action on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act, identified at H.R. 1627, and
    Whereas, H.R. 1627 is amended to limit tribal authority to 
operate FIFRA programs on specific lands, and
    Whereas, H.R. 1627 contains an amendment, commonly known as 
the Bereuter Amendment, to limit tribal authority to operate 
FIFRA programs on lands only if at least 50 percent of such 
lands on such reservations are owned by members of the tribe or 
the tribe; and
    Whereas, the proposed amendment to H.R. 1627, would 
severely impact the tribal authority to develop environmental 
protection strategies on traditional homelands; and
    Whereas, the proposed amendment to H.R. 1627, ignores or 
aborigates sovereignty of the tribes and ignores Executive 
Orders and other appropriate laws; now
    Therefore be it resolved, the House Agriculture Committee 
and the United States House of Representatives recognize the 
sovereignty of the Tribes and limit H.R. 1627 amendments to 
respect tribal sovereignty.
    Be it further resolved, that the Bereuter Amendment be 
removed from the language of the amendments to H.R. 1627.
                                ------                                

                                  Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas,
                                         Horton, KS, June 19, 1996.
Hon. Pat Roberts,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Honorable Roberts: The Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas 
opposes the Bereuter Bill (H.R. 1627) which proposes to amend 
the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 
of 1947, and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1958. The bill 
will change 24 U.S.C. 136v, subsection (a) to read as follows:

    Section 136v, Authority of States.
          (a) In General.--A State may regulate the sale or use 
        of any federally registered pesticide or device in the 
        State and an Indian tribe may regulate the sale or use 
        of any federal registered pesticide or device within 
        the boundaries of a Federal Indian reservations for 
        such tribe, except lands in such reservation owned in 
        whole or in part by a nonmember of the tribe, but only 
        if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any 
        sale or use prohibited by the subchapter.

    This amendment effectively limits the authority of Indian 
Tribe to administer the FIFRA program to lands wholly owned by 
tribes or tribal members. Because land ownership on most 
reservations is fractionated, this language strips tribes of 
authority that EPA has recognized, they possess under existing 
law.
    Your support in defeating H.R. 1627 will be greatly 
appreciated.
            Sincerely,
                                             Fred Thomas, Chairman.