FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT PROVISIONS
(FIFRA)
Issue: Periodic Review of Pesticide Registrations
Previous Law and Practice: Under amendments to FIFRA enacted in
1988, EPA is in the process of conducting reregistration reviews
for all pesticides first registered before November 1984 and
their associated tolerances, although tolerance reviews were not
specifically required by the law. This review would bring the
science base supporting registrations and tolerances up to
current standards, but on a one-time only basis. No further
periodic reviews were required.
New Legislation: In addition to requiring tolerance
reassessments, the new law requires EPA to establish a system for
periodic review of all pesticide registrations, aimed at updating
them on a 15-year cycle. If new data are needed for these
reviews, or for any other review, EPA may require them at any
time under FIFRA's "data call-in" authority in Section
3(c)(2)(B).
Implications: The goal of this requirement is to ensure that all
pesticides continue to meet up-to-date standards for safety
testing and public health and environmental protection. EPA
retains authority to require data and take action if needed in
the interim, but at a minimum registrations should be updated on
a 15 year cycle. Although other provisions of the new law
provide for continuing fees to support the reregistration effort
through 2001, additional resources may be needed to sustain
periodic review efforts beyond that date.
Issue: Emergency Suspension Authority
Previous law and practice: Under previous law, EPA could not
suspend a pesticide's registration unless a proposed notice of
intent to cancel the registration had been issued or were issued
simultaneously. This could delay suspensions when there is an
emergency, imminent threat to public health or the environment.
New Legislation: The new law allows EPA to emergency suspend a
pesticide registration immediately. A notice of intent to cancel
must be issued within 90 days, or the emergency suspension would
expire.
Implications: This change will allow EPA to move quickly in
situations that warrant immediate and decisive action to prevent
serious risks to human health and the environment, while
preserving the rights of registrants in the cancellation process.
Issue: Extension of Reregistration Fee Authority
Previous Law and Practice: EPA had authority to collect fees to
implement the ongoing reregistration program (covering pesticides
first registered before November, 1984) until September 30, 1997.
New Legislation: The new law extends fee collection authority
through September 30, 2001. It provides for the collection of $14
million/year to support the current reregistration program and
the expedited processing of applications for substantially
similar "me-too" pesticides, with an additional $2
million per year to be collected in 1998, 1999 and 2000. It also
requires a annual independent audit to ensure performance goals
are met and specifies that tolerance fees will be
available to carry out the requirements of the new law.
Implications: If fee authority had been allowed to expire in
1997, EPA would have completed only approximately one-half of its
ongoing reregistration program. Many of the pesticides for which
review would have been delayed are chemicals used on foods most
often eaten by infants and children. The extension of fee
authority will help EPA review these pesticides more
quickly and keep the current reregistration program on track.
Issue: Minor Use Pesticides, (including Public Health Uses)
Previous Law and Practice: Minor uses of pesticides are generally
defined as uses for which pesticide product sales do not justify
the costs of developing and maintaining EPA registrations. In the
aggregate, such "minor" crops are very important to a
healthy diet, and include many fruits and vegetables. Previous
law and practices included notice requirements and other efforts
to facilitate support of minor uses. For agricultural pesticides,
the Inter-regional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), administered by
USDA in cooperation with state land grant universities, has been
working to develop needed data. There was no corresponding
program for public health uses, for example, for pesticides used
to control vector-borne diseases.
New Legislation: The new law enhances incentives for the
development and maintenance of minor use registrations in a
number of ways. These special provisions do not apply, however,
if the minor use may pose unreasonable risks or the lack of data
would significantly delay EPA decisions. The legislation also
establishes a USDA revolving grant program and a program for
support of public health pesticides, analogous to the IR-4
program for agricultural uses, to be implemented jointly by the
Public Health Service and EPA.
Implications: While maintaining safeguards for public health and
environmental protection, these provisions will enhance efforts
to ensure that effective pest control products are available to
growers and for public health purposes.
Issue: Review of Antimicrobial Pesticides.
Previous Law and Practice: There were no special provisions for
antimicrobial pesticides under previous law. EPA and FDA shared
responsibilities for some products, and EPA reviewed applications
consistent with Agency priorities, resources,
and the timing of submissions.
New Legislation: The new law amends the definition of pesticide
under FIFRA to exclude liquid chemical sterilants, which are to
be regulated exclusively by FDA. It also reforms the
antimicrobial registration process, with the goal of achieving
significantly shorter EPA review times.
Implications: While the review times set out in the new law will
be difficult to achieve, EPA believes they are attainable and
will strive to develop a program to meet them. Ending dual
regulation and establishing more specific regulatory requirements
will benefit manufacturers.
Issue: Expediting Review of Safer Pesticides.
Previous Law and Practice: While there were no comparable
provisions in previous law, EPA has established policies that
give priority to applications for pesticides that appear to meet
reduced risk criteria.
New Legislation: The new law requires EPA to develop criteria for
reduced-risk pesticides, and expedite review of applications that
reasonably appear to meet the criteria.
Implications: These provisions give a statutory mandate for
expedited consideration of applications for safer pesticides,
thereby enhancing public health and environmental protection. EPA
will develop formal criteria and procedures for expedited
reviews.
Issue: Maintenance Applicator and Service Technician Training.
Previous Law and Practice: No specific comparable provisions.
New Legislation: The new law creates a category of
"Maintenance Applicators" and "Service
Technicians," to include janitors, sanitation personnel,
general maintenance personnel, and grounds maintenance personnel
who use or supervise the use of structural or lawn pest control
agents (other than restricted use pesticides). States are
authorized to establish minimum
training requirements for such individuals.
Implications: States have explicit authority to require training.
EPA is authorized only to make certain that states understand
these provisions on minimum training requirements.