Order Code RL32218
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees:
Overview
February 4, 2004
Rob Esworthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: Overview
Summary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for regulating
the sale, use, and distribution of pesticides under the authority of two statutes: the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C.136-136y), a
licensing statute requiring EPA to review and register the use of pesticide products
within the United States; and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA,
21 U.S.C. 346a), requiring the establishment of maximum limits (tolerances) for
pesticide residues on food in interstate commerce. Fees paid by pesticide
manufacturers and other registrants supplement appropriations to EPA for the
administration of specified requirements of these Acts. This report provides an
overview of the authorities for the collection of federal pesticide fees, and legislation
passed in the 108th Congress modifying existing fee authority. For a more complete
overview of the federal pesticide laws, refer to CRS Report RL31921, Pesticide Law:
A Summary of Statutes, and CRS Report RS20043, Pesticide Residue Regulation:
Analysis of Food Quality Protection Act Implementation.
The Omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 2673) passed in the House at the end of
the first session of the 108th Congress on December 8, 2003, the Senate in the second
session on January 22, 2004, and signed into law (P.L. 108-199) on January 23, 2004,
includes provisions for fees to support the activities of the EPA’s pesticide program.
Based primarily on S. 1664 and H.R. 3188, introduced in September, 2003, the
Omnibus bill’s provisions reauthorize and increase current pesticide “maintenance
fees” used primarily for reviewing “older” (pre-1984) pesticide registrations (“re-
registration”), introduce new authority for collection of annual registration service
fees, and suspend the current authority to collect fees for establishing tolerances over
the next five years. In addition, EPA is required to develop a schedule to accelerate
processing of pesticide registration applications and re-registration reviews.
Authority for collecting pesticide fees dates back as far as the 1954 amendments
to FFDCA (P.L. 518, July 22, 1954), which, as passed, required the collection of fees
“sufficient to provide adequate service” for establishing maximum residue levels
(tolerances) for pesticides on food. Authority to collect fees was expanded with the
1988 FIFRA amendments (P.L. 100-532), primarily to support acceleration of the re-
registration process (i.e., re-evaluation of pesticides registered prior to 1984). EPA
was authorized to collect a one-time re-registration fee, and through FY1997, annual
maintenance fees. The 1996 amendments to FIFRA and FFDCA, or the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA; P.L. 104-170), extended EPA’s authority to collect
the annual maintenance fees through FY2001, including the use of these fees for
purposes of re-evaluating “old” tolerances (tolerance reassessment).
Timely completion of the registration, re-registration, and tolerance assessment
requirements, continues to be an issue. Recent EPA proposals to modify the fee
structure to significantly increase revenues supporting these activities, and attempts
to include increased fee revenues annually in EPA budget proposals from FY1998
through FY2004, have been prohibited by Congress. As an interim solution,
authority for maintenance fees, that expired in FY2001, had been extended annually
through appropriations legislation. This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Key Provisions of the Pesticide Fee Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Reauthorization of Pesticide Registrant Maintenance Fees . . . . . . . . . . 4
Registration Services Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Pesticide Registration Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Prohibition of “Tolerance Fees” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Pesticide Registration Process Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Overview of Pesticide Fee Authorities and Fee Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FIFRA and FFDCA Pesticide Fee Collection Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Other Pesticide Fee Authority and Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Revenues from Pesticide Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Distribution of Pesticide Program Appropriated Funds and Fee Revenues
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
List of Figures
Figure 1. Pesticide Program Fees Collected by EPA, FY1983-FY2003
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 2. EPA FY2003 Pesticide Budget Allocations Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Timeline of Pesticide Fee Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2. EPA Appropriations and Fee Revenues for Pesticide Program Activities,
FY2001-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

---

Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees:
Overview
Introduction
General U.S. revenues are used to cover most of the administrative costs of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide program under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C.136-136y), and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a), as amended, but
fees also have been imposed on those manufacturing and distributing pesticides in
commerce in the U. S. (i.e., registrants1), to supplement EPA appropriations. The
collection of fees to support EPA pesticide program activities has been a complex
issue during the last 20 years. Recent proposals to modify and increase fees have
been at odds with the views of a range of stakeholders, and controversial in Congress.
The 108th Congress passed legislation that would modify EPA authorities to
collect fees to support specified activities of the EPA’s pesticide programs
implemented under the authority of FIFRA and FFDCA. In late November, 2003,
Congressional conferees agreed to include pesticide fees provisions in the FY2004
appropriations for EPA (H. Report 108-401). The Omnibus appropriations bill (H.R.
2673) passed in the House at the end of the first session of the 108th Congress on
December 8, 2003, the Senate on January 22, 2004, and signed into law on January
23, 2004 (P.L. 108-199), includes similar pesticide fees provisions. This report
summarizes the key elements of this legislation, and provides a brief overview of
federal pesticide fee authority, including the amount of fee revenues collected.
Background 2
FIFRA is a licensing statute, requiring EPA to register pesticide products before
they can be sold, used, and distributed within the United States. EPA evaluates
proposed pesticide registrations under a set of science-based safety standards to
ensure that they will not harm human health or the environment. Before a
registration can be granted for a “food use” pesticide, FFDCA3 requires that a
tolerance (the maximum amount of pesticide residue permitted in or on food and
feed) or tolerance exemption be in place. EPA establishes tolerances through
1 A registrant is defined as a person who has registered any pesticide pursuant to the
provisions of FIFRA.
2 For a more complete overview of the federal pesticide laws and their key provisions, refer
to CRS Report RL31921, Pesticide Law: A Summary of Statutes, and CRS Report RS20043,
Pesticide Residue Regulation: Analysis of Food Quality Protection Act Implementation.
3 FFDCA Sections 408 and 409.

---

CRS-2
rulemaking, based on risk assessments and human health criteria to ensure a
“reasonable certainty of no harm.” EPA is also required to re-evaluate older,
registered pesticides (i.e., “re-registration”),4 and to reassess existing tolerances (i.e.,
“tolerance reassessment”),5 to ensure they meet current stricter safety standards, in
particular, those standards introduced by the 1996 amendments (the Food Quality
Protection Act or FQPA; P.L. 104-170) to FIFRA and FFDCA. Congress has
amended FFDCA and FIFRA over time to authorize the collection of fees to
supplement appropriated funds for these pesticide review activities. (A more detailed
overview of pesticide fee authorities, and fee revenues collected, is presented later
in this report).
The 1954 amendments to FFDCA6 authorized the collection of fees to provide
adequate service for establishing maximum allowable residue levels (tolerances) for
pesticides on food, and remain the basis for current “tolerance fee” authority.
Congress amended FIFRA in 1988 (P.L. 100-532), authorizing the collection of a
one-time “re-registration fee,” and through FY1997, annual “maintenance fees,” in
an effort to accelerate re-registration (review of pesticides registered before 1984).
In the 1996 amendments to FIFRA and FFDCA (FQPA; P.L. 104-170), concerned
with the continued pace of re-registration, Congress extended EPA’s authority to
collect the annual maintenance fees through FY2001. In addition, in an attempt to
provide resources to address increased responsibilities of implementing new safety
standards introduced with the 1996 amendments, maintenance fee authority was
expanded to allow a portion of the revenues collected to be used to support the re-
evaluation of “old” existing tolerances (tolerance reassessment). These pesticide
maintenance fees, and tolerance fees based solely on petitions for establishing new
tolerances, were the only pesticide fees collected by EPA for the past 8 years
(FY1996-FY2003).
The current, and previous Administration, had recommended modifications to
the fee structure to significantly increase revenues, primarily to obtain supplemental
resources to support increased administrative costs associated with implementing the
requirements of FQPA. Recent proposals focused on discontinuing the legislative
prohibition on pesticide registration fee authority7 originally promulgated in 1988,
and finalizing a 1999 EPA proposal8 to substantially revise tolerance fees.
Questioning the appropriateness of the statutory authority cited, the final pesticide
registration fee regulation was challenged in court by the Chemical Specialties
4 The 1988 amendments to FIFRA (P.L. 100-532) define “re-registration” as re-evaluation
of pesticides registered prior to 1984.
5 Per the 1996 amendments to FIFRA and FFDCA (FQPA; P.L. 104-170), “tolerance
reassessments” refers to those tolerances in existence as of August 1996.
6 Section 408(o) per the Pesticide Residue Amendment of 1954 (P.L. No. 518, 21 U.S.C.
346(a)). The current authority resides in FFDCA Section 408(m), per the 1996 amendments
to FFDCA (FQPA)).
7 EPA promulgated a rule for collecting registration fees under the authority of the
Independent Offices Appropriation Act (IOAA) of 1952 (31 U.S.C. 9701). See Subpart U
of CFR part 152, at 53 Federal Register 19108, May 26, 1988.
8 U.S. EPA, 64 Federal Register 31039-31050, June 9, 1999.

---

CRS-3
Manufacturers’ Association,9 and the collection of registration fees under this
authority was temporarily suspended through FY1997 by the 1988 amendments to
FIFRA (Section 4(i)(6)). Collecting registration fees under this authority continued
to be prohibited by law, and in annual appropriations bills, including the FY2004
Continuing Resolution. EPA’s 1999 proposal to restructure the collection of
tolerance fees met with similar resistance. Industry groups questioned the authority
to expand fee collection under FFDCA10 and the lack of a clearly defined schedule
of specific Agency activities to be supported by fee revenues. These groups also
generally opposed the EPA’s justification for proposing a tenfold increase, payment
of fees retroactively, and imposing fees for inert ingredients.11 Congress prohibited
promulgation of the tolerance fee rule in EPA’s FY2000 appropriations (P.L. 106-
377). Similar proposals to increase tolerance fees in EPA’s annual budget requests
through FY2004 have been prohibited each year through appropriations legislation.
The pesticide fees legislation passed in the 108th Congress (Section V of
Division G, H.R. 2673 ), temporarily supersedes the 1988 registration fee authority,12
and suspends tolerance fee authority under FFDCA through FY2008. The
legislation, which appears to address many of the issues and concerns associated with
other recently proposed modifications, has the support of a large cross section of
stakeholders, including organizations representing manufacturers and formulators,
agricultural producers, and environmental and public interests.13 The groups jointly
favor the expected reforms and acceleration of EPA’s decision process, the
simplification of the fee authority, and the detailed schedule of activities determining
the allocation of fees collected.
Key Provisions of the Pesticide Fee Legislation
The “Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003,” originally introduced
as S. 1664 and H.R. 3188 on September 25, 2003, amends FIFRA and modifies the
framework for collecting fees to enhance and accelerate the completion of pesticide
registration applications and re-registration reviews. The pesticide fees provisions
in Title V of Division G of the FY2004 Omnibus appropriations bill will:
9 Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (now the Consumer Specialty Products
Association) v. EPA, No. 88-1525. D.D.C., July 25, 1988.
10 Several industry groups disagreed and were concerned with EPA’s interpretation that the
statute provided authority to collect 100% of the cost of tolerance reassessment using fees.
(EPA Docket # OPPT-301151 and OPPT-301151B).
11 Inert ingredients can be solvents or surfactants and often comprise the bulk of the
pesticide product. Some inerts are known to be toxic, and some are known to be harmless,
but EPA lists most in the category “inerts of unknown toxicity.”(U.S. EPA website
[http://www.epa.gov/pesticide/inert]).
12 The legislation (H.R. 2673; P.L. 108-199) removes the prohibition on “other fees” by
amending FIFRA Section 4(i)(6), replacing Sections 33 and 34 (7 U.S.C. 136x and 136y)
through 2010. Thus the legislation temporarily replaces registration fee authority codified
in 1988 (Subpart U of CFR part 152), through 2010.
13 September 12, 2003, letter addressed to President George W. Bush, from a coalition of 30
organizations representing industry and public interests.

---

CRS-4
! extend the existing authority to collect maintenance fees at
increasing, then declining levels;
! provide new authority for EPA to collect “registration services
fees,”which would be phased out at the end of FY2010;
! prohibit collection of any tolerance fees through FY2008; and
! require EPA to identify reforms to the pesticide registration process
to substantially reduce the decision review period.
Reauthorization of Pesticide Registrant Maintenance Fees. Annual
maximum maintenance fees per registrant, and in aggregate, will increase each year
above the FY2003 levels for the first three years, and decline in the final two years.14
For example, the annual maximum fee for registrants with less than 50 pesticide
registrations will increase from the current $55,000 in FY2003 to $84,000 for
FY2004, and $87,000 in FY2005 and FY2006. That fee will decline in FY2007 to
$68,000, before returning to the FY2003 level of $55,000 in FY2008. Similar
changes from FY2003 fee levels will occur for registrants with more than 50
registrations, and for small businesses (as redefined in the legislation). The ability
to obtain waivers will continue for public health pesticides. The annual statutory
aggregate limit increases from the current $21.5 million in FY2003 to $26 million in
FY2004, and $27 million for FY2005 and FY2006; then declines to $21 million for
FY2007 and $15 million for FY2008.15
Maintenance fees will continue to be assessed on existing pesticide registrations
to fund re-registration, tolerance reassessment, and expedited processing of “similar”
pesticides,16 and public health pesticides. Provisions in the bill also amend FIFRA
(7 U.S.C. 136a-l(k)(3)) to explicitly designate the use of a portion of maintenance
fees for the review of “inert” ingredients.17 The 1996 FQPA placed greater emphasis
on inert ingredients and clarified that these chemicals are covered by the definition
of a pesticide chemical under FFDCA (section 201(q)(1)). Therefore EPA must
make a determination regarding the establishment of tolerances for inert ingredients.
Registration Services Fees. Registration services fees18 apply only to new
pesticide applications (submitted on or after the effective date of the legislation), with
provisional transitional allowances for pending applications. These fees are expected
14 See H.R. 2673 (enrolled), Division G, Title V, Section 501(c)(1)(D) and (E).
15 Per the provisions of the 1988 amendments to FIFRA (P.L. 100-532), EPA calculates and
adjusts the amount of annual maintenance fees collected per registrant, based on the number
of registrants and the number of pesticide registrations, which is determined by the Agency
at the beginning of each fiscal year.
16 “Me-too” pesticides; see FIFRA section 4(k)(3)(i), “... 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...”
17 Approximately $3.3 million for FY2004 through FY2006, and between 1/8 and 1/7 of the
annual aggregate maintenance fee amount authorized for FY2007 and FY2008, can be used
for the review of inert ingredients (P.L.108-199, Division G, Title V, Section 501(e)).
18 H.R. 2673 (enrolled), Division G, Title V, Section 501(f)(2) amends FIFRA and inserts
“Sec. 33. Pesticide Registration Services Fees.”

---

CRS-5
to cover a portion of the cost for review and decision-making associated with a
registration application, including associated tolerance determinations. As defined
in the legislation, these costs include staff, contractors, and advisory committees
engaged in relevant activities for pesticide applications, associated tolerances, and
corresponding risk and benefits information and assessment.
The EPA Administrator is directed to publish a detailed schedule of covered
pesticide applications, and corresponding registration service fees as reported in the
September 17, 2003, Congressional Record (S11631 through S11633). The amount
of the fees vary depending on the specific “service” required. Authority to collect
service fees ends at the conclusion of FY2008, with phase-out authority at reduced
levels for FY2009 and FY2010.
Pesticide Registration Fund. The legislation establishes a Pesticide
Registration Fund (“the Fund”) in the U.S. Treasury, to be made available to EPA for
purposes defined in the legislation, without fiscal year limitation. The legislation
includes a mandatory adjustment (5% increase) by FY2006, and provisions requiring
the use of a portion of the amount in the Fund (not less than $750,000 and not more
than $1 million) to enhance scientific and regulatory activities for worker protection
for FY2004 through FY2008. An additional portion of the Fund (not to exceed
$500,000) is to be used for the evaluation of new inert ingredients.
Waivers or reductions of registration service fees for minor uses or small
businesses are authorized, as are partial fee refunds, when applications are withdrawn
or at the Administrator’s discretion. To assure that the appropriated funds are not
reduced in lieu of fee revenues for the first three fiscal years (FY2004-FY2006), the
legislation prohibits authorizing registration services fees unless the amount of
appropriations for specified functions conducted by the EPA Office of Pesticide
Programs in those years are no less than the corresponding FY2002 appropriation.19
Prohibition of “Tolerance Fees”. The legislation prohibits EPA from
collecting “any” tolerance fees under the authority of section 408(m)(l) of FFDCA
(21 U.S.C. 346a(m)(l)) through FY2008. Fee revenues to support tolerance review
activities will be allocated from maintenance fees (for tolerance reassessments) and
registration service fees (for new and amended tolerances) for the next 5 years.
Pesticide Registration Process Reforms. In conjunction with the
increased fee revenues, a key provision of the legislation is the requirement for EPA
to identify reforms20 to the Agency’s pesticide registration process with the intent of
reducing the current decision review period. The EPA Administrator is directed to
publish in the Federal Register a schedule of decision review periods for pesticide
registration activities covered by this legislation. The schedule is to be the same as
the applicable schedule appearing in the September 17, 2003, Congressional Record
(S11631 through S11633).
19 Ibid., see Section 33(d) Assessment of Fees, under this heading.
20 Ibid., see Sections 33(e) Reforms to reduce Decision Time Periods, and (f)Decision
Review Time Periods

---

CRS-6
Overview of Pesticide Fee Authorities and Fee Revenues
Various changes and proposed changes to pesticide fee authority led up to the
current legislation. Fees collected by EPA over time to support the pesticide program
have included tolerance fees, registration fees, re-registration fees, and maintenance
fees (see Table 1: Timeline of Pesticide Fee Authorities). Since 1996, EPA has only
collected tolerance fees, generally for the establishment of pesticide residue limits on
food, and maintenance fees, primarily for re-registration reviews and reassessment
of existing tolerances.
FIFRA and FFDCA Pesticide Fee Collection Authority. Authority for
the collection of pesticide fees dates back as far as the 1954 amendments to
FFDCA.21 At the time, Section 408(o)22 required the collection of fees to cover the
costs of establishing maximum residue levels, “tolerances,” for pesticides on food.
Until 1988, these tolerance fees were the only pesticide fees collected by EPA.
The 1988 amendments to FIFRA (P.L. 100-532) extensively expanded pesticide
fee authority. The amendments included a 9-year schedule to accelerate the process
of re-registration. To help defray the costs of the accelerated process, EPA was
authorized to collect a one-time re-registration fee from producers for their pesticide
active ingredients registered prior to 1984, and annual maintenance fees from
pesticide registrants through FY1997, for each registered pesticide product. The
amount of fees per registrant were tiered, depending on the number of registrations
per registrant, as determined by EPA each fiscal year.
Congress amended FIFRA in 1996 (FQPA; P.L. 104-70), extending EPA’s
authority to collect the annual maintenance fees through FY2001. FQPA also
expanded the authority under FFDCA to include the use of fees for purposes of re-
evaluating “old” tolerances (tolerance reassessment). The new FQPA requirements,
including “reasonable certainty” of “no harm,” and analysis of aggregate risk
assessment, cumulative effects of pesticides, and safety factors for children,
introduced a host of new responsibilities for EPA, particularly when establishing new
tolerances and the reassessment of old tolerances.23 Since its expiration September
30, 2001, the statutory authority for maintenance fees has been extended in annual
EPA appropriations bills.24
21 Pesticide Residue Amendment of 1954, P.L. No. 518, 21 U.S.C. 346(a).
22 This authority currently resides in FFDCA Section 408(m) (1996 FQPA).
23 See CRS Report RS20043, Pesticide Residue Regulation: Analysis of Food Quality
Protection Act Implementation.
24 The FY2001 statutory aggregate level of $14 million established by the 1988 FIFRA
amendments, was increased to $17 million in FY2002 (P.L. 107-73) and $21.5 million in
FY2003 (P.L. 108-10). The final Continuing Resolution for FY2004 (P.L. 108-135)
extended the maintenance fee as authorized in FY2003 (see H. Joint Res. 69 Section 118).

---

CRS-7
Table 1. Timeline of Pesticide Fee Authorities
Year
Action
Pesticide Fee Authority
1952
Independent Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA)
Authorizes Federal regulatory Agencies to recover costs of services for identifiable
recipients.
1954
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, amended
Fees to accompany initial or modified petitions for establishing tolerances under
(FFDCA; P.L. No. 518, 21 U.S.C. 346 (a))
FFDCA section 408 (o).
1986
EPA Registration Fee Regulation: Proposed (51
Proposed schedule of fees to accompany pesticide registration and experimental use
Federal Register 42974, Nov. 26, 1986)
permit applications, citing the authority of IOAA.
1988
EPA Registration Fee Regulation (40 CFR 152(u)
Fees to accompany pesticide registration and experimental use permit applications;
and 40 CFR 172)
authority suspended by the FIFRA amendments passed later that same year (1988).
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Re-registration and expedited processing fund: a one-time “re-registration” fee, and
Act, amended (FIFRA; P.L. 100-532)
annual “maintenance” fees through FY1997. Prohibited collection of other fees
(including “registration fees” as defined in 40 CFR 152(u) and 40 CFR 172).
1996
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (P.L. 104-
Maintenance fees authorization extended through FY2001. FFDCA authority (Section
170): FIFRA and FFDCA, amended
408(m)) amended to cover costs of all tolerance activities and EPA directed to deposit
funds collected as maintenance fees to be used for reassessing existing tolerances as
needed. Collection of registration fees prohibited through FY2001.
1999
EPA Tolerance Fee Rule: Proposed (64 Federal
Tenfold increase in tolerance fees; new “tolerance reassessment” fees, including fee for
Register 31039-31050, June 9, 1999)
reviewing tolerances for inert ingredients. Fees, to be collected retroactively from 1996,
would supplement authorized maintenance fees.
FY2000 EPA Appropriations (P.L. 106-377)
Prohibited promulgation of a final tolerance fee rule based on the 1999 proposal.
2000
FY2001 EPA Appropriations (P.L. 106-774)
Continued prohibition on promulgation of a final tolerance fee rule as proposed in 1999.
2001
FY2002 EPA Appropriations (P.L. 107-73)
Continued the prohibition on promulgation of a final tolerance fee rule based on the
1999 proposal, and collection of registration fees as codified in 1988 is prohibited.
Maintenance fees reauthorized and aggregate limit increased.

---

CRS-8
Year
Action
Pesticide Fee Authority
2002
Farm Security Act
Proposed pesticide fee authorities in Conference; no provisions included in final bill.
2002-
EPA Appropriations: FY2003 (P.L. 108-10), and
Prohibits promulgation of a final tolerance fee rule based on the 1999 proposal.
2003
FY2004 (P.L. 108- 135, Continuing Resolution
Continued prohibition of the collection of registration fees as codified in 1988.
through Jan. 31, 2004)
Maintenance fees reauthorized; maximum aggregate levels increased.
S. 1664, H.R. 3188, proposed;
New registration service fee, maintenance fees reauthorize, pesticide regulation process
H.R. 2673 (Omnibus Appropriations Bill; Division
reforms required, prohibits collection of tolerance fees.
G, Title V): Proposed and passed in the House
2004
H.R. 2673 (Omnibus Appropriations Bill; Division
New registration service fee, maintenance fees reauthorize, pesticide regulation process
G, Title V) Passed in the Senate and signed into
reforms required, prohibits the collection of tolerance fees.
law (P.L. 108-199)

---

CRS-9
Other Pesticide Fee Authority and Proposed Changes. Prior to the
1988 amendments, EPA promulgated a final pesticide registration fee regulation25 on
May 26, 1988, citing the authority of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act
(IOAA) of 1952 (31 U.S.C. 9701). Intended to defray increasing administration costs
of pesticide registration reviews, the final rule includes a prescribed schedule of fees
to be submitted with each application for registration, amended registration, or
experimental use permit. Registration fees would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury,
and not directly available to EPA. The regulation was challenged in court by the
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers’ Association,26 and the collection of registration
fees under this authority was temporarily suspended through FY1997 by the 1988
amendments to FIFRA (Section 4(i)(6)). Collecting registration fees under this
authority continues to be prohibited by law, through FY2001 by the 1996 FIFRA
amendments, and subsequently in annual appropriations bills FY2002 through
current FY2004 Continuing resolution.27
In June 1999, EPA published a proposed rule restructuring tolerance fees28 in
an effort to cover the cost of establishing initial tolerances, and tolerance
reassessments, including tolerance activities for “other” ingredients (namely, inert
ingredients 29). EPA proposed as much as a tenfold increase, and payment of fees
retroactively for tolerance petitions submitted and reassessments initiated after FQPA
was enacted in August 1996. Industry groups generally opposed the proposal.
According to comments submitted to the EPA, several industry groups disagreed and
were concerned with, among other issues, EPA’s interpretation that the statute
provided authority to collect 100% of the cost of tolerance reassessment using fees,
These groups also generally opposed EPA’s justification for the tenfold increase in
fees, imposing fees retroactively, and the potential impacts resulting from imposing
fees for inert ingredients.30 Congress prohibited promulgation of the tolerance fee
rule in EPA’s FY2000 appropriations (P.L. 106-377). Similar proposals to increase
tolerance fees, included in EPA’s annual budget requests through FY2004,31 have
been prohibited each year in appropriations legislation.32
25 40 CFR 152(u) and 40 CFR 172
26 Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (now the Consumer Specialty Products
Association) v. EPA, No. 88-1525. D.D.C., July 25, 1988. The lawsuit has been held in
abeyance since the passage of the 1988 FIFRA amendments.
27 Appropriations bills for VA-HUD and Independent Agencies passed by the 107th Congress
(P.L. 107-73), and the 108th Congress (P.L. 108-10; P.L. 108-135, Continuing Resolution
for FY2004, expired January 31, 2004) contained similar prohibitive language.
28 64 Federal Register 31039-31050, June 9, 1999.
29 The 1996 FQPA clarified that “inert” ingredients are covered by the definition of a
pesticide chemical under FFDCA (section 201(q)(1)).
30 EPA Docket # OPPT-301151 and OPPT-301151B.
31 See EPA Budget Proposals and Congressional Justifications for FY2001-FY2004 on
EPA’s website [http://www.epa.gov.ocfo.budget].
32 Appropriations bills for VA-HUD and Independent Agencies passed by the 106th Congress
(P.L. 106-377 and P.L. 106-774), the 107th Congress (P.L. 107-73), and the 108th Congress
(continued...)

---

CRS-10
The 107th Congress considered approaches to revise the overall fees structure
for pesticide programs, including incorporating a manager’s amendment to the Senate
version of the 2002 farm bill (S. 1731). The Conference substitute deleted the fee
provisions and it was not included in the final Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171). In the Conference Report accompanying the final bill
(H.R. 2646), the managers “strongly encouraged” the EPA to withdraw its proposed
tolerance fee rule, and instead, work with the appropriate committees.33
Revenues from Pesticide Fees. Figure 1 provides a graphic illustration
of the amount of tolerance fees, re-registration fees, and maintenance fees collected
during the period FY1983 through FY2003. The highest combined amount collected
from the three fees for one year (estimated $39.1 million) was in 1990, the peak year
for collection of the one-time re-registration fees.
The annual tolerance fee amount collected is based on the specific action
required, and varies depending on the number and type of petitions received by the
Agency in a given year. The amount has been adjusted over time, based on an
inflation calculation defined in statute.34 For the past 20 years, annual tolerance fees
collected by EPA have averaged about $1.8 million.
Re-registration fees varied considerably and were based, among other things, on
whether the pesticide is an active ingredient registered for a major food or feed use,
or is registered only for non-food or non-feed uses. The one-time active ingredient
fee for re-registration ranged from zero for a pesticide used exclusively for minor
uses and for certain antimicrobial active ingredients, to $150,000 for a major food or
feed use active ingredient. By 1994, all authorized one-time re-registration fees had
been collected, an estimated total of $31.64 million (Figure 1).
The annual amount collected per registration for maintenance fees is set in
statute, dependent on the number of registrations held by a registrant. The fee
amount is subject to adjustment by EPA, based on the annual aggregate limit, also
established by statute. The initial 1988 authorization for maintenance fees set the
annual aggregate at $14.0 million for the 9-year period, FY1989-FY1997. The 1996
FQPA authorized collection of an additional $2 million (maximum aggregate of $16
million) per year for FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000, and returned to the original
aggregate limit of $14 million in FY2001. The statutory authority for maintenance
fees expired September 30, 2001, but has been reauthorized in the annual
appropriations bills. The amount authorized was increased to $17 million in FY2002
(P.L. 107-73), and $21.5 million in FY2003 (P.L. 108-7) and FY2004 (Continuing
32 (...continued)
(P.L. 108-10 and P.L. 108-135), contained similar prohibitive language.
33 H.Rept. 107-424, May 1, 2002; p. 666.
34 Tolerance fees can be adjusted annually based on annual percentage changes in federal
salaries (40 CFR 180.33(o)). The most recent adjustment in May of 2003 was an increase
of 4.27%, based on the 2003 pay raise for General Federal Schedule (GS) employees in the
Washington DC/Baltimore MD metropolitan area (68 FR 24370, May 7, 2003).

---

CRS-11
Figure 1. Pesticide Program Fees Collected by EPA, FY1983-FY2003
40
11.3
35
30
26.5
25
21.5
20
16.4
15.9
15.4
16.5
7.3
10.7
14.5
14.6
14
14.3
14.1
13.9
14.1
15
10
7.7
3.96
0.8
0.07
5
0.3
1.26
1.35
2.5
2.7
3
1.5
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.7
2.2
1.2
1.5
2.2
2.5
1.4
1.3
1.5
0
1983* 1984* 1985* 1986*
1987* 1988*
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Fiscal Years
Maintenance Fees**
Registration Fees
Re-registration Fees
Tolerance Fees
*
Tolerance fees for FY1983-FY1988 are based on the average number of petitions per year, 8-12, and the average fee per
petition, $150,000.
**
Note: Maintenance fees are capped by legislation for each fiscal year: $14 million for FY1989-FY1997; $16 million for
FY1998-FY2000; $14 million for FY2001; $17 million for FY2002; and $21.5 million for FY2003.
Source: U.S. EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, October 2003.

---

CRS-12
Resolution P.L. 108-135,35 through January 31, 2004). Figure 1 shows that EPA
generally collected the maximum aggregate limit as set by the statute in a given year.
Distribution of Pesticide Program Appropriated Funds and
Fee Revenues
The registration, re-registration, and tolerance reassessment budgets for the past
few years provide context for the discussion of fees imposed on pesticide registrants
to supplement EPA appropriated revenues. EPA’s FY2003 allocation of
appropriated funds36 totaled $95.3 million, $42.2 million for pesticide registration,
$38.8 million for re-registration activities, and approximately $14.6 million for
tolerance reassessment. FY2003 appropriations were supplemented by an estimated
$22.8 million in authorized fees, including $21.5 million in maintenance fees, and
$1.3 million in tolerance fees primarily for establishing new tolerances. An estimated
$10.3 million of the maintenance fees were for processing tolerance reassessments.
Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of FY2003 appropriated funds and fees for the
three program activities.
Figure 2. EPA FY2003 Pesticide Budget Allocations Budget
35 See also P.L. 108-84, September 30, 2003, and H.J.Res. 69 Section 118, 108th Congress
1st Session (2003).
36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2003 Enacted Operating Plan as of December
11, 2003 (EPA website [http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/.budget])

---

CRS-13
The combined revenues of $118.4 million for FY2003 represent an increase of
roughly $4.1 million from the $114.3 million for the three programs in FY2002. The
FY2002 total included $17 million in maintenance fees and $2 million in tolerance
fees. The total for FY2001 was $108.2 million, including $14 million in
maintenance fees and roughly $1.5 million in tolerance fees.
The President’s proposed FY2004 budget for EPA37 decreased appropriated
funding for registration to $36 million, increased appropriations for re-registration
to $51.5 million (assumes $8.2 million offset based on reauthorization of
maintenance fees), and reduced appropriations for tolerance reassessment to $12.8
million. The total amount of appropriated funds budgeted for the three programs
would have increased to $100.3 million. The total proposed allocation for FY2004
includes $28.3 million in fee revenues, and assumes that a revision of the “Tolerance
Fee Rule” proposed by EPA in 1999, would be promulgated.
Revenues generated by the proposed increased tolerance fees would support
establishing new tolerances as well as the reassessment of existing (“old”) tolerances,
but no portion of the authorized maintenance fees would be used to support tolerance
reassessments, as in previous years. The proposed $8.2 million in maintenance fees
was expected to fund re-registration program activities at a level equivalent to
expenditures for these activities in prior years. The proposed FY2004 budget also
assumed the prohibition on the collection of registration fees would be rescinded,
resulting in an estimated $27 million in additional revenues. These funds would be
deposited in the U.S. Treasury, and would not directly available to EPA. Therefore,
this revenue would not be represented in EPA’s overall budget total.
An allocation of funds for the three pesticide program activities is not available
for the FY2004 Omnibus bill, but it is anticipated that the funding will be comparable
to the President’s FY2004 request of $100.3 million. The fees provisions included
in the Omnibus bill are anticipated to supplement FY2004 appropriated funds by
$26.0 million in reauthorized maintenance fees, and $19.4 million in registration
service fees.38 No revenues would be collected in the form of tolerance fees, since
the legislation prohibits collection of all tolerance fees, and the 1988 registration fee
authority is replaced by the service fee provisions, through FY2008.
Table 2 presents a summary of the distribution of enacted, and estimated,
appropriated funds and fee revenues supporting the EPA’s pesticide registration, re-
registration and tolerance programs for FY2001 through FY2004.
37 U.S. EPA Office of the Chief Financial Officer, FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and
Congressional Justification (EPA’s Proposed Budget), November 19, 2003. (EPA website
at www.epa.gov/ocfoc/budget/2004/2004cj).
38 U.S. EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances estimates (January 20,
2004).

---

CRS-14
Table 2. EPA Appropriations and Fee Revenues for Pesticide
Program Activities, FY2001-FY2004
(in millions of dollars)
Funding Source
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2004
(proposed)
Omnibus
Appropriations
$92.7
$95.3
$95.6
$100.3
Not Available
Maintenance
$14.0
$17.0
$21.5
$8.2
$26.0
Feesa
Tolerance Fees
$1.5
$2.0
$1.3
$28.3
$0
(projected)
Registration Fees
$0
$0
$0
($27.0)
$0
(U.S. Treasury)b
Registration
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19.4
Service Fees
Total
$108.2
$114.3
$118.4
$136.8
$145.7c
Sources:
Estimates are based on the EPA’s Enacted Operating Plan (Dec. 2003), the President’s
Budget Proposal for FY2004, the FY2004 Omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 2673; P.L. 108-199),
and the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.
a.
Total for each year represents the aggregate authorized by statute.
b.
Not directly available to EPA therefore not included in the total budget.
c.
Allocation of appropriated funds is not available; for purposes of comparison, the total estimate
for FY2004 Omnibus assumes an amount comparable to the President’s FY2004 budget request
of $100.3 million.
Conclusion
Although EPA has been making progress,39 timely completion of the
registration, re-registration, and tolerance assessment requirements continues to be
a concern for Congress, EPA, industry, and public interest groups. Recent attempts
to defray increased costs of administering the pesticide program by modifying
existing pesticide fee requirements through regulation and legislation have not been
successful. The pesticide fee provisions passed in the 108th Congress (H.R. 2673;
P.L. 108-199) and signed into law seems to address several of the key issues and
concerns of previous approaches.
39 At the end of FY2003, EPA had made re-registration decisions for 457 of the original 612
cases, including 226 Re-registration Eligibility Documents (REDs) completed and 231 cases
that were cancelled voluntarily (68 Federal Register 44767). The Agency has reassessed a
cumulative 68 percent (6,627) of the 9,721 tolerances required under the FQPA. In 2004,
EPA plans to complete 35 Re-registration Eligibility Decisions (REDs), 400 product re-
registrations, and 1050 tolerance reassessments. (U.S. EPA FY2004 Annual Budget Plan
and Overview, U.S. EPA website www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget).

---

CRS-15
Most notably, the new provisions requiring specific decision process and
schedule reforms, in conjunction with increasing fee revenues, is expected to lead to
more timely completion of registration applications and re-registration reviews.
Reforming the overall process implies accelerated implementation of stricter FQPA
standards, and expected associated improvements in the safety of pesticides in the
market. It also suggests the possibility of greater availability of desired products,
potentially safer and more effective, that reach the market sooner. The prescriptive
detailed schedule for the service fees is more commensurate with the specific EPA
actions required than previous registration and tolerance fee provisions, which tended
to be more generic, and is expected to further promote efficiency in the overall
process. The pesticide fee provisions passed by the 108th Congress are expected to
provide stability for purposes of resource planning, which has not been available in
recent years with annual reauthorization of maintenance fees and Administration
budget proposals to modify fee authority.
How efficient the EPA’s decision making process becomes is dependent in large
part on the Agency’s ability to establish and effectively implement the reforms while
maintaining the integrity of protection required by the statutes. To meet stricter
statutory standards40 and related “sound science” demands, EPA continues to develop
and refine its scientific protocols and guidelines with input from stakeholders and the
scientific community through various public forums.41 However, as past experience
has shown, this is a complex and time consuming undertaking, affected by
uncertainties and advances in technology that could enhance or inhibit acceleration
of the pesticide review process. EPA will utilize existing advisory committees and
workgroups, and has initiated establishing additional workgroups in anticipation of
the provisions being introduced by the legislation passed by the 108th Congress, to
develop strategies and recommendations to improve the registration and re-
registration decision making process
40 Stricter standards primarily refer to requirements introduced by FQPA in 1996 to perform
more comprehensive risk assessment of pesticides, considering: aggregate exposure,
cumulative effects from pesticides sharing a common mechanism of toxicity, possible
increase susceptibility of vulnerable populations (particularly infants and children), and
possible endocrine or estrogenic effects(see CRS Report RS20043, Pesticide Residue
Regulation: Analysis of Food Quality Protection Act Implementation).
41 Examples of existing EPA advisory workgroups for pesticide science and procedural
issues include, the Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT),
Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), FIFRA Science Advisory Panel, and
Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC). For information about these and
other related workgroups see EPA website www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/committees
Another relevant advisory workgroup is the Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation
Subcommittee (www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/index).

---