Order Code RL32218
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees:
An Overview
Updated February 12, 2008
Robert Esworthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees:
An 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, requires EPA to review and register the use of pesticide products
within the United States. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21
U.S.C. 346a) requires the establishment of maximum limits (tolerances) for pesticide
residues on food in interstate commerce. Although U.S. Treasury revenues cover
most costs for administering these acts, fees paid by pesticide manufacturers and
other registrants have supplemented EPA appropriations for many years.
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act, or PRIA 2 (P.L. 110-94),
enacted October 9, 2007, reauthorizes and revises fee provisions enacted on January
23, 2004. The authority to collect pesticide fees under the Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act (PRIA 1), included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
FY2004 (P.L. 108-199, Title V of Division G), would have expired at the end of
FY2008. The 2004 PRIA amended FIFRA and modified the framework for collecting
fees to enhance and accelerate the agency’s pesticide licensing (registration)
activities. In March 2007, EPA reported the completion of 2,663 decisions subject
to PRIA since its enactment in 2004, including 1,347 decisions during FY2006. EPA
also reported completing 9,637 (99.1%) of the 9,721 tolerance reassessments required
by statute to be completed by August 2006. For FY2006, EPA reported expending
$10.8 million of the $20.3 million received in the form of new registration fees in
FY2006 ($13.9 million) and carried forward from FY2005 ($9.2 million). The
balance of $12.3 million was carried forward to FY2007.
Authority for collecting pesticide fees dates back to the 1954 FFDCA
amendments (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 help accelerate the
reregistration process (i.e., a reevaluation of pesticides registered prior to 1984).
EPA was authorized to collect a one-time reregistration 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 use of the fees to reevaluate
“old” tolerances (tolerance reassessment). The authority to collect the maintenance
fees expired in FY2001. Congress extended this authority annually through
appropriations legislation until the enactment of PRIA.
Congress has prohibited EPA proposals to significantly increase revenues for
these activities by modifying the fee structure and to include increased fee revenues
in EPA budget proposals annually from FY1998 through FY2004. Since PRIA 1, the
President’s FY2005 through FY2008 budget requests also have included proposals
to further increase pesticide fees, which also have been rejected by Congress.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Key Provisions of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act
as Enacted in 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Reauthorization of Pesticide Registrant Maintenance Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Registration Services Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Pesticide Registration Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Prohibition of “Tolerance Fees” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Prohibition of Other Pesticide Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Reregistration and Expedited Process Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Reporting Progress Under PRIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
An Overview of Pesticide Fee Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
FIFRA and FFDCA Pesticide Fee Collection Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Other Pesticide Fee Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Proposed Pesticide Fee Authority Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Pesticide Program Fee Revenues and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Revenues from Pesticide Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Pesticide Program Appropriated Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Pesticide Registration and Reregistration Activities Since the Enactment
of PRIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Registration Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Reregistration/Tolerance Reassessment Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
List of Figures
Figure 1. EPA Pesticide Program Fee Revenues, FY1985-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Timeline of Key Legislation and Regulation Regarding
Pesticide Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 2. EPA Appropriations for Pesticide Program Activities,
FY2003-FY2007 Enacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

---

Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees:
An Overview
Introduction
The collection of fees to support U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
pesticide program activities has been a complex issue for more than 20 years.
Authorities to collect fees in addition to appropriated funds have been provided over
the years in part to accelerate the agency’s review efforts and to fund its increasing
statutory responsibilities. Current and past Administration proposals to modify and
significantly increase pesticide fees have been at odds with the views of a range of
stakeholders and controversial in Congress. Congress acted to address the issues of
concern through pesticide fee provisions included in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of FY2004, enacted on January 23, 2004 (P.L. 108-199). This authority for
collection of pesticide fees would have expired at the end of FY2008. Enacted
October 9, 2007, P.L. 110-94 — the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal
Act (referred to as PRIA 2),1 revises and reauthorizes the pesticide fee collection
provisions through FY2012. .PRIA 2 passed in both houses of the Congress by
unanimous consent.
General U.S. Treasury revenues are used to cover most of the administrative
costs of EPA’s pesticide program, which implements requirements 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.
However, fees also have been imposed on those who manufacture and distribute
pesticides in U.S. commerce (i.e., registrants2) to supplement EPA appropriations.
Provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of FY2004, which became known
as the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA or PRIA 1), modified
existing pesticide fee authority to support specified activities and process
improvements in an effort to achieve more timely completion of EPA’s statutory
obligations under the authority of FIFRA and FFDCA. PRIA 2 (P.L. 110-94) renews
this authority with some technical revisions, primarily modifications to the fee
payment process and an expansion of the range of categories of pesticide registration
(licensing) activities subject to fees.
1 S. 1983 was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on August 2, 2007, and by
unanimous consent in the House on September 24, 2007.
2 A registrant is defined as a person who has registered any pesticide pursuant to the
provisions of FIFRA.

---

CRS-2
In March 2007, EPA reported, as required,3 its FY2006 progress implementing
PRIA. Implementing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act — Fiscal Year
2006 (hereafter referred to as EPA’s FY2006 PRIA implementation report) provides
information about the registration process, including the status of its registration and
reregistration activities, as well as EPA’s efforts to improve the processes. EPA
reported the completion of 1,347 decisions subject to PRIA in FY2006, compared
with 1,098 at the end of FY2005 and 208 decisions completed during FY2004. A
FY2007 progress report is anticipated for March 2008.
The following sections of this report provide a historical overview of federal
authority regarding pesticide fees, including the amount of fee revenues collected
over time, and summarizes the key elements of PRIA and the revisions reflected in
PRIA 2. For a more complete overview of the federal pesticide laws, refer to CRS
Report RL31921, Pesticide Law: A Summary of Statutes, by Linda-Jo Schierow.
Background
FIFRA is a licensing statute that requires 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. Before a registration can be granted for a “food use” pesticide, FFDCA4
requires that a tolerance (the maximum amount of pesticide residue permitted in or
on food and feed) or tolerance exemption be in place.
Under the standards introduced by the 1996 amendments to FIFRA and FFDCA
(the Food Quality Protection Act or FQPA; P.L. 104-170), EPA establishes
tolerances through rulemaking based on risk assessments and human health criteria
to ensure a “reasonable certainty of no harm.” For pesticides that are not used on
food, FIFRA requires EPA to determine whether and under what conditions the
proposed pesticide use would present an unreasonable risk to human health or the
environment. EPA is also required to reevaluate older, registered pesticides (i.e.,
reregistration)5 and to reassess existing tolerances (i.e., tolerance reassessment)6 to
ensure they meet current safety standards. Congress has amended FFDCA and
FIFRA over time to authorize the collection of fees to supplement appropriated funds
for these pesticide review activities.
3 Under § 33(k) of PRIA, EPA was required to publish an annual report describing actions
taken under this section and is directed to include several elements. EPA released its
inaugural progress report covering the period January 23, 2004, through September 30,
2004, in March 2005, and its second report covering FY2005 in March 2006. The FY2004,
FY2005, and FY2006 reports are available at [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/].
4 FFDCA §§ 408 and 409.
5 The 1988 amendments to FIFRA (P.L. 100-532) define “re-registration” as re-evaluation
of pesticides registered prior to 1984.
6 FIFRA and FFDCA as amended in 1996 (FQPA; P.L. 104-170), “tolerance reassessments”
are defined as those tolerances in existence as of August 1996.

---

CRS-3
The 1954 amendments to FFDCA7 authorized the collection of fees to provide
adequate service for establishing maximum allowable residue levels (tolerances) for
pesticides on food, and they remain the basis for current “tolerance fee” authority.
Congress amended FIFRA in 1988 (P.L. 100-532), authorizing the collection of a
one-time “reregistration fee” and, through FY1997, annual “maintenance fees” in an
effort to accelerate reregistration (review of pesticides registered before 1984).
In the 1996 amendments to FIFRA and FFDCA (FQPA; P.L. 104-170),
Congress, concerned with the continued pace of reregistration, 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 collected revenues to be used to
support the reevaluation of “old” existing tolerances (tolerance reassessment). These
pesticide maintenance fees, along with tolerance fees based solely on petitions for
establishing new tolerances, were the only pesticide fees collected by EPA during the
eight years (FY1996-FY2003) prior to the enactment of PRIA. (A more detailed
overview of fee authorities and revenues collected is presented in the section “An
Overview of Pesticide Fee Authorities” later in this report).
The current (and previous) Administration has proposed 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. Proposals generally focused on finalizing a 1999 EPA
proposed rule8 to substantially revise tolerance fees and on a recommendation that
Congress discontinue the legislative prohibition on pesticide registration fee
authority9 promulgated in 1988.
Shortly after its promulgation, the final 1988 pesticide registration fee regulation
was challenged in court by the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers’ Association,10
which questioned the appropriateness of the statutory authority cited. Collection of
these registration fees, as promulgated, was temporarily suspended through FY1997
by the 1988 amendments to FIFRA (Section 4[i][6]). Collecting registration fees as
promulgated in 1988 continued to be prohibited subsequently by the 1996
FIFRA/FFDCA amendments (FQPA) and in provisions of annual appropriations
bills, including the PRIA provisions in the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations.
7 Section 408(o), as amended, the Pesticide Residue Amendment of 1954 (P.L. No. 518, 21
U.S.C. §46(a)). The current authority resides in FFDCA § 408(m), per the 1996 amendments
to FFDCA (FQPA).
8 U.S. EPA, 64 Federal Register 31039-31050, June 9, 1999.
9 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.
10 Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (now the Consumer Specialty Products
Association) v. EPA, No. 88-1525. D.D.C., July 25, 1988.

---

CRS-4
The Administration’s proposed 1999 regulation to restructure the collection of
tolerance fees met with similar resistance. Industry groups questioned the authority
to expand fee collection under FFDCA11 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, requiring
retroactive fee payments, and imposing fees for inert ingredients.12 Congress initially
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 from FY2001 to FY2004 were prohibited through appropriations legislation.
PRIA as enacted in 2004 specifically prohibits collection of any tolerance fees,
and temporarily replaces (essentially prohibits) other fee authority through FY2008.
Despite this prohibition, the Administration proposed similar additional tolerance fee
and other pesticide fee revenues in the FY2005, FY2006, and FY2007 EPA
President’s budget requests. Language contained in the FY2005 supplemental
appropriations for military funding enacted May 11, 2005 (P.L. 109-13 § 6033)
banned EPA from going forward with rulemaking for collecting pesticide tolerance
fees. The Administration’s FY2008 budget again proposed to modify the fee
structure. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act or PRIA 2 (P.L. 110-
94) enacted October 9, 2007, continues the prohibition of other fee authority through
FY2012.
The following section summarizes the key provisions of PRIA 2 as enacted.
Key Provisions of the Pesticide Registration
Improvement Renewal Act as Enacted in 2007
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (P.L. 110-94) or PRIA
2 — effective retroactively to October 1, 200713 — amends and reauthorizes
provisions of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-199),14
or PRIA 1. PRIA 1 amended FIFRA and modified the framework for collecting fees
to enhance and accelerate EPA review of pesticide registration and reregistration
applications, temporarily superseding the 1988 registration fee authority15 and
11 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.)
12 Inert ingredients can be solvents or surfactants and often compose the bulk of the pesticide
product. Some inerts are known to be toxic; others are known to be harmless. EPA lists
most in the category “non-food inert ingredients.” See [http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/
inerts/lists.html].
13 Relevant registration applications received between March 23, 2004, and September 30,
2007, are processed under PRIA 1 fees, decision review periods, and procedures.
14 Enacted as Title V of Division G of the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
15 PRIA 1 (P.L. 108-199) removed the prohibition on “other fees” by amending FIFRA
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
suspending tolerance fee authority under FFDCA through FY2008. As enacted in
2004, PRIA 1 seemed to address many of the issues associated with previously
proposed modifications, and received the support of a large cross section of
stakeholders, including organizations representing manufacturers and formulators,
agricultural producers, and environmental and public interests.16 These groups jointly
favored the acceleration of EPA’s decision process, the simplification of the fee
authority, and the detailed schedule of activities determining the allocation of fees
collected. The changes reflected in PRIA 2 have generally continued to receive
similar support from these groups.17
PRIA 2 amends certain PRIA 1 provisions under FIFRA, most notably the
addition of 40 new registration application categories and clarification to existing
categories, and changes to small business fee waiver options. PRIA 2 also extends
the baseline budget protection for the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP); if
Congressional appropriations fall below the amount allocated to OPP in FY2002 by
more than 3%, authority to assess fees is suspended. In addition , PRIA 2
! extends existing authority to collect maintenance fees through
FY2012;
! renews authority for EPA to collect “registration services fees,”
which would be phased out at the end of FY2014;
! continues the prohibition on the collection of any tolerance fees
through FY2012;
! amends the authority for use of funds in the Reregistration and
Expedited Processing Fund to include use for registration review;
! requires pesticide registrations to be reviewed every 15 years;18 and
! requires EPA to identify reforms to the pesticide registration process
to substantially reduce the decision review period.
The following is a brief overview of these key PRIA 2 provisions.
15 (...continued)
§4(i)(6), replacing §§33 and 34 (7 U.S.C. §36x and 136y) through 2010. Thus the
legislation temporarily replaces registration fee authority codified in 1988 (Subpart U of
CFR part 152), through 2010.
16 September 12, 2003, letter addressed to President George W. Bush, from a coalition of 30
organizations representing industry and public interests.
17 See CropLife America’s press release, October 11, 2007, at [http://www.croplifeamerica.
org/design_06/viewer.asp?pageid=220]; see also Consumer Specialty Products (CSPA) and
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) joint press release, October 10, 2007, at
[http://www.cspa.org/].
18 PRIA 1 extended the statutory deadline for completing reregistrations for active
ingredients that do not require tolerances to October 3, 2008; reregistration of active
ingredients that require (food) tolerances or exemptions from tolerances were required to
be completed by August 3, 2006, as mandated under FQPA (P.L. 104-170, Title IV, § 405).

---

CRS-6
Reauthorization of Pesticide Registrant Maintenance Fees
Under PRIA 2, the annual maximum maintenance fees per registrant, and in
aggregate, remain constant for each of the fiscal years FY2008 through FY2012,
simplifying the formulae under PRIA 1.19 The annual statutory aggregate limit is
$22.0 million for each of the fiscal years FY2008 through FY2012.20 PRIA 2
amended FIFRA, changing the annual maximum fee for registrants with less than 50
pesticide registrations to $71,000 for each of the fiscal years FY2008 through
FY2012; or $50,000 if a registrant is a small business (as redefined in PRIA 2). The
annual maximum each fiscal year FY2008 through FY2012 for registrants with more
than 50 registrations is changed to $123,000; $86,000 if a registrant is a small
business. Waivers continue to be available for public health pesticides.
Maintenance fees continue to be assessed on existing pesticide registrations to
fund reregistration and tolerance reassessment. 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 (§ 201(q)(1)), but not FIFRA.
Therefore, EPA must make a determination regarding the establishment of tolerances
for inert ingredients. PRIA 2 extends the authority to collect maintenance fees so as
to explicitly designate the use of a portion (between 1/8 and 1/7) of the annual
aggregate maintenance fees collected for
! the expedited processing of proposed new products that are “similar”
or identical to existing products,21
! proposed label amendments that require no review of scientific data,
! proposed registrations of public health pesticide uses; and
! the review and evaluation of new “inert” ingredients.22
Registration Services Fees
PRIA 1 established registration “services” fees that apply only to new pesticide
applications (submitted on or after the effective date of PRIA), with transitional
allowances for pending applications. PRIA 2 extends this authority in a new FIFRA
Section 33. These fees are expected to cover a portion of the cost for review and
19 Under PRIA 1, annual maximum maintenance fees per registrant, and in aggregate,
increased each year above the FY2003 levels for the first three years and declined in the
final two years (P.L. 108-199, Division G, Title V, §501(c)(1)(D) and (E)).
20 Under 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. The annual aggregate authorized under PRIA
1 increased from $21.5 million for FY2003 to $26 million for FY2004 and $27 million for
FY2005 and FY2006; it declined to $21 million for FY2007 and $15 million for FY2008.
21 Referred to as “Me-too” pesticides; see FIFRA §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 ...”
22 Ibid., footnote 12.

---

CRS-7
decision making associated with a registration application, including associated
tolerance determinations. As defined initially under PRIA 1, these costs include EPA
staff, contractors, and advisory committees engaged in relevant activities for pesticide
applications, associated tolerances, and corresponding risk and benefits information
and assessment. Authority to collect service fees ends at the end of FY2012, with
phase-out authority at reduced levels through FY2014.
The category or type of application, the amount of the pesticide registration
service fee, and the corresponding decision review timeframe in which the agency is
to make a decision are prescribed in the act. The EPA Administrator is directed to
publish a detailed schedule of covered pesticide applications and corresponding
registration service fees, as reported in the July 31, 2007, Congressional Record
(S10409 through S10411).23 The amount of the fees varies depending on the specific
“service” required. PRIA 2 includes mandatory adjustments of the registration
service fees — a 5% increase beginning with registration applications received
October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2010, and an additional 5% increase of the
service fee in effect as of September 30, 2010.
PRIA 2 modifies the existing authorizations for waivers or reductions of
registration service fees for minor uses or small businesses under Section 33(b)(7)F
of FIFRA, and for partial fee refunds when applications are withdrawn or at the
Administrator’s discretion.24
Pesticide Registration Fund
As established under PRIA 1, PRIA 2 retains the Pesticide Registration Fund
(“the fund”) in the U.S. Treasury, to be made available to EPA for purposes defined
in the act, without fiscal year limitation.25 PRIA 2 amended certain provisions
regarding the fund, including a requirement that approximately 1/17 of the amount
in the fund, but not less than $1 million of the total amount in the fund, be used to
23 Under PRIA 1, the registration fees schedule was per the September 17, 2003,
Congressional Record (S11631 through S11633). EPA published the schedule of covered
applications and registration service fees on March 17, 2004 (69 Federal Register 12771).
In June 2005, EPA published a revised fee schedule (70 Federal Register 32327) based on
a 5% increase in pesticide registration service fees, as authorized by PRIA (P.L. 108-199,
Title V of Division G, §33(b)(6)(B)). EPA began implementing the new schedule for
pesticide registration applications received on or after October 1, 2005.
24 7 U.S.C. §136w-8(b)(7)(F). During FY2004, EPA developed guidance for applying for
waivers of the registration service fee under PRIA 1 and provided relevant information on
a dedicated website. EPA also established formulae for reducing certain registration service
fees. Guidance for registration service fee waivers and reductions is available at
[http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/questions/waivers.htm]; information regarding the fee
reduction formula is available at [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/fee_reduction.htm]
The agency reported granting 336 of 379 waivers requested, at a reduction of $5.8 million
in registration service fees by the end of FY2006 (see EPA’s FY2006 PRIA implementation
accomplishments report, available at [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/2006annual_
report/pria_annual_report_2006.htm]).
25 7 U.S.C. §136w-8(c).

---

CRS-8
enhance scientific and regulatory activities for worker protection for FY2008 through
FY2012. The PRIA 1 had required a range of $750,000 to $1 million for worker
protection activities. Additionally, a new provision in PRIA 2 requires $750,000 for
each of the years FY2008 and 2009, and $500,000 for each of the years FY2010
through 2012 is to be used for “Partnership Grants,” for projects supporting pesticide
risk reduction. Another $500,000 for each of the years 2008 through 2012 is to be
used to carry out a “pesticide safety education program.”
To ensure that the appropriated funds are not reduced in lieu of fee revenues,
PRIA 2 extends the prohibition on authorizing registration services fees unless the
amount of Congressional appropriations for specified functions conducted by the
EPA Office of Pesticide Programs remains no less than 3% below the corresponding
FY2002 appropriation.26 Further, PRIA 2 continues to stipulate that the authorization
to collect and obligate registration fees must be provided in advance in appropriations
acts.27 EPA appropriations for FY2004 through FY2008 have met these
requirements.28

Prohibition of “Tolerance Fees”
PRIA 2 continues to prohibit EPA from collecting “any” tolerance fees under
the authority of section 408(m)(l) of FFDCA.29 Authority for collecting tolerance
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.
(See more detailed discussion below under the heading “An Overview of Pesticide
Fee Authorities”). Under PRIA 2, fee revenues to support tolerance assessments are
allocated from maintenance fees (for tolerance reassessments) and registration
service fees (for new and amended tolerances), through FY2012.
Prohibition of Other Pesticide Fees
PRIA continues to prohibit “other fees” by amending FIFRA Section 4(i)(6) and
by replacing 2010 with 2014.30 Specifically, the collection of fees under the
registration fee authority codified in 1988 (Subpart U of CFR part 152) is temporarily
replaced and essentially prohibited by this provision.
26 FIFRA §33(d)(2) Assessment of Fees (7 U.S.C. §136w-8(d)(2)).
27 FIFRA § 33(c)(4) Collections and Appropriations (7 U.S.C. §136w-8(c)(4)).
28 FY2004 (P.L. 108-199), FY2005 (P.L. 108-447), FY2006 (P.L. 109-54), FY2007 (P.L.
110-5), and FY2008 (P.L. 110-161).
29 21 U.S.C. §346a(m)(l). PRIA 1 prohibited collection of tolerance fees through FY2008;
EPA published a notice suspending the collection of tolerance fees (69 Federal Register
12542, March 17, 2004).
30 7 U.S.C. §136-1(i)(6).

---

CRS-9
Reregistration and Expedited Process Fund
PRIA 2 amends FIFRA and expands the authorization of the use of moneys
collected and deposited in the previously established Reregistration and Expedited
Process Fund.31 The use of this fund has been expanded to include offsetting costs
of “registration reviews under section 3(g).” Prior to this amendment, money in the
fund was only to be used to offset the cost of reregistration and for the expedited
review of inert ingredients.
Reporting Progress Under PRIA
PRIA 2 extends the requirement that EPA publish an annual report describing
relevant actions taken during each fiscal year, through March 1, 2014. PRIA 2 also
retains, with some technical modifications, specific elements to be included in the
report. Examples of these reporting elements include progress made in carrying out
its obligations under the act, a description of the staffing and resources related to the
costs associated with the review and decision making pertaining to applications, and
the progress in meeting the reregistration and tolerance reassessment timeline
requirements. A key provision of PRIA 1 in conjunction with the increased fee
revenues was the requirement for EPA to identify reforms32 to the agency’s pesticide
registration process with the intent of reducing the current decision review period.
EPA released reports in March 2005 and March 2006, and its third report,
Implementing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act — Fiscal Year 2006, was
released March 2007.33 These reports summarized improvements and
accomplishments for each of the fiscal years (see more detailed discussion under the
heading “Pesticide Registration and Reregistration Activities Since the Enactment
of PRIA”). The next report is expected to be published in March 2008.
An Overview of Pesticide Fee Authorities
Various changes and proposed changes to pesticide fee authority led up to the
2004 enactment of PRIA 1. Fees collected by EPA over time to support the pesticide
program have included tolerance fees, registration fees, reregistration fees, and
maintenance fees. Between 1996 and 2004, EPA collected tolerance fees, primarily
for the establishment of pesticide residue limits (tolerances) on food, and
maintenance fees, primarily for reregistration reviews and reassessment of existing
tolerances. Table 1 below provides a timeline of key pesticide fee authorities and
implementation regulations; the following sections provide a brief description of
these actions.
31 7 U.S.C. §136a-1(k)(1).
32 Ibid. See also EPA’s FY2005 PRIA implementation accomplishments report, available
at [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/2005annual_report/pria_annual_report_2005.htm],
Sections 33(e), Reforms to reduce Decision Time Periods, and (f), Decision Review Time
Periods.
33 Each of the reports are available at [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/].

---

CRS-10
Table 1. Timeline of Key Legislation and Regulation
Regarding Pesticide Fees
Year
Legislation/Regulation
Pesticide Fee Authority/Action
1952
Independent Appropriations Act of
Authorizes the head of each agency to prescribe
1952 (IOAA; 31 U.S.C. §9701)
regulations establishing a charge for a service or
thing of value provided by the agency.
1954
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic
Authorizes fees to accompany initial or modified
Act, amended (FFDCA; P.L. No.
petitions for establishing tolerances under
518, 21 U.S.C. §346 [a])
FFDCA § 408 (o).
1986
EPA Registration Fee Regulation:
Proposed a schedule of fees to accompany
Proposed (51 Federal Register
pesticide registration and experimental use
42974, Nov. 26, 1986)
permit applications, citing the authority of
IOAA.
1988
EPA Registration Fee: Final
Establishes fees to accompany pesticide
Regulation (40 CFR 152[u] and 40
registration and experimental use permit
CFR 172)
applications; authority suspended by the FIFRA
amendments passed later that same year (1988).
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Authorizes reregistration and expedited
Rodenticide Act, amended
processing fund: a one-time “reregistration” fee
(FIFRA; P.L. 100-532)
and 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)
Extends authorization for maintenance fees
(P.L. 104-170): FIFRA and FFDCA,
through FY2001. FFDCA authority (§408[m])
amended
amended to cover costs of all tolerance activities
and directs EPA to deposit funds collected as
maintenance fees to be used for reassessing
existing tolerances as needed. Prohibits
collection of registration fees as defined in 40
CFR 152(u) and 40 CFR 172) through FY2001.
1999
EPA Tolerance Fee Rule: Proposed
Proposed establishment of a tenfold increase in
(64 Federal Register 31039-31050,
existing tolerance fees and new “tolerance
June 9, 1999)
reassessment” fees, including fee for reviewing
tolerances for inert ingredients. Fees, to be
collected retroactively from 1996, would
supplement authorized maintenance fees.
FY2000 EPA Appropriations
Prohibited promulgation of a final tolerance fee
(P.L. 106-377)
rule based on EPA’s 1999 proposal.
2000
FY2001 EPA Appropriations
Continued prohibition on promulgation of a final
(P.L. 106-74)
tolerance fee rule as proposed in 1999.
2001
FY2002 EPA Appropriations
Continued the prohibition on promulgation of a
(P.L. 107-73)
final tolerance fee rule based on the 1999
proposal and on collection of registration fees as
codified in 1988. Maintenance fees reauthorized
and aggregate limit increased.

---

CRS-11
Year
Legislation/Regulation
Pesticide Fee Authority/Action
2002
Farm Security Act (P.L. 107-171)
Senate-proposed pesticide fee authorities
considered and deleted in Conference.
Conferees questioned the legal basis for EPA’s
June 9, 1999, proposed rule (64 FR 31039) to
collect tolerance fees retroactively and
encouraged EPA to withdraw the proposal.
(H.Rept. 107-424).
200
EPA Appropriations: FY2003 (P.L.
Prohibited promulgation of a final tolerance fee
2-
108-10) and FY2004 Continuing
rule based on the 1999 proposal. Continued
2003
Resolution
prohibition of the collection of registration fees
(P.L. 108- 135; through Jan. 31,
as codified in 1988. Maintenance fees
2004)
reauthorized; maximum aggregate levels
increased.
S. 1664 and H.R. 3188, proposed; the
Would have authorized new a registration
basis for PRIA 1 provisions later
service fee, reauthorized maintenance fees,
included in the FY2004 Consolidated
required pesticide regulation process reforms,
Appropriations Bill (P.L. 108-199)
and prohibited collection of tolerance fees.
2004
FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations
Authorized new registration “service” fee,
Act (P.L. 108-199; Division G, Title
reauthorizes maintenance fees, requires pesticide
V), enacted Jan. 23, 2004
regulation process reforms, and prohibits the
collection of tolerance fees.
FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations
Provided continued authorization for the
Act (P.L. 108-447), enacted Dec. 8,
collection of pesticide fees pursuant to P.L.
2004
108-199.
2005
FY2005 supplemental appropriations
Banned EPA from going forward with
for military funding (P.L. 109-13,
rulemaking for collecting pesticide tolerance
§6033) enacted May 11, 2005
fees as prohibited by PRIA.
2006
Interior, Environment, and Related
Provided continued authorization for the
Agencies Appropriationsa Act for
collection of pesticide fees pursuant to P.L.
FY2006 (P.L. 109-54), enacted
108-199.
August 25, 2005
2007
Revised Continuing Appropriations
Provided continued authorization for the
Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5,
collection of pesticide fees pursuant to P.L.
H.J.Res. 20), enacted Feb. 15, 2007
108-199, by providing funding under the
authority, conditions, and limitations provided in
the applicable appropriations Act for FY2006
(P.L. 109-54).
S. 1983 introduced August 2, 2007,
Reauthorizes, with some modification, PRIA 1
basis for PRIA 2 became P.L. 110-94,
as enacted Jan. 23, 2004, in the FY2004
enacted Oct. 9, 2007
Consolidated Appropriations Bill (P.L. 108-199;
Div. G, Title V).
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations
Provided continued authorization for the
Act (P.L. 110-161; Division F, Title
collection of pesticide fees pursuant to P.L.
II), enacted Dec. 26, 2007
110-94.
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service from the relevant laws and Federal Register
notices.
a. During the first session of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
reorganized their subcommittees, including placing EPA’s appropriation under the Interior
subcommittee after eliminating the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies subcommittee.

---

CRS-12
FIFRA and FFDCA Pesticide Fee Collection Authority
Authority for the collection of pesticide fees dates back as far as the 1954
amendments to FFDCA.34 At the time, § 408(o)35 required the collection of fees to
cover the costs of establishing maximum residue levels (“tolerances”) for pesticides
on food. Until 1988, 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 nine-year schedule to accelerate the
process of reregistration. To help defray the costs of the accelerated process, EPA
was authorized to collect a one-time reregistration 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 amounts 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
reevaluating “old” tolerances (tolerance reassessment). FQPA requires EPA to
ensure “reasonable certainty” of “no harm,” to analyze aggregate and cumulative
effects of pesticides, and to apply safety factors for children. The new requirements
introduced a host of responsibilities for EPA, particularly when establishing new
tolerances and reassessing old tolerances.36 After its expiration September 30, 2001,
the statutory authority for maintenance fees was extended in annual EPA
appropriations bills prior to the enactment of the PRIA provisions.37
Other Pesticide Fee Authority
In May 1988, prior to the 1988 FIFRA amendments, EPA promulgated a final
pesticide registration fee regulation,38 citing the authority of the Independent Offices
Appropriation Act (IOAA) of 1952 (31 U.S.C. §9701). Intended to defray increasing
administrative costs of pesticide registration reviews, the final rule included a
prescribed schedule of fees to be submitted with each application for registration,
amended registration, or experimental use permit. Registration fees were to be
deposited in the U.S. Treasury and not directly available to EPA. The regulation was
34 Pesticide Residue Amendment of 1954, P.L. No. 518, 21 U.S.C. §346(a).
35 This authority currently resides in FFDCA § 408(m) (1996 FQPA).
36 See CRS Report 96-759, Pesticide Legislation: Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-170), by Linda-Jo Schierow.
37 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 to $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.J.Res. 69, §118).
38 40 CFR 152(u) and 40 CFR 172.

---

CRS-13
challenged in court by the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers’ Association,39 and
the collection of registration fees under this authority was temporarily suspended
through FY1997 by the 1988 amendments to FIFRA (§ 4(i)(6)). Collecting
registration fees under this authority continued to be prohibited through FY2001 by
the 1996 FIFRA/FFDCA amendments (FQPA) and, subsequently, by annual
appropriations bills from FY2002 through the FY2004 Continuing Resolution.40
Proposed Pesticide Fee Authority Modifications
In June 1999, EPA proposed a rule restructuring tolerance fees41 in an effort to
cover the cost of establishing initial tolerances and tolerance reassessments, including
tolerance activities for “other” ingredients (namely, inert ingredients42). EPA
proposed as much as a tenfold increase and the retroactive payment of fees 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 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, the imposition
of fees retroactively, and the potential effects of imposing fees for inert ingredients.43
The 106th Congress prohibited promulgation of the tolerance fee rule in EPA’s
FY2000 appropriations (P.L. 106-74, §432). The 107th Congress considered
approaches to revise the overall fees structure for pesticide programs and
incorporated one approach in a manager’s amendment to the Senate version of the
2002 farm bill (S. 1731). The conference substitute deleted the fee provisions and
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.Rept. 107-424, p.
666), the managers “strongly encouraged” EPA to withdraw its proposed tolerance
fee rule and to instead work with the appropriate committees for a solution. Similar
proposals to increase tolerance fees, included in EPA’s annual budget requests for
FY2001 through FY2004, have been prohibited each year by Congress in
appropriations acts.44 As discussed earlier in this report, the PRIA 1 provisions
39 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.
40 Appropriations bills for VA-HUD and Independent Agencies passed by the 107th Congress
(P.L. 107-73) and the 108th Congress (P.L. 108-7; P.L. 108-135, Continuing Resolution for
FY2004, expired January 31, 2004) contained similar prohibitive language.
41 64 Federal Register 31039-31050, June 9, 1999.
42 The 1996 FQPA clarified that “inert” ingredients are covered by the definition of a
pesticide chemical under FFDCA § 201(q)(1).
43 EPA Docket # OPPT-301151 and OPPT-301151B.
44 Appropriations bills for VA-HUD and Independent Agencies passed by the 106th Congress
(P.L. 106-377), the 107th Congress (P.L. 107-73), and the 108th Congress (P.L. 108-7, P.L.
108-135, FY2004 continuing resolution) contained similar prohibitive language.

---

CRS-14
enacted in 2004 prohibited the collection of any tolerance fees through FY2008, and
PRIA 2 continues this prohibition through 2012.
Despite the PRIA prohibitions on additional pesticide fees, the Administration
proposed increased fees above those provided under PRIA in the FY2005, FY2006,
FY2007, and FY2008 budget requests for EPA. The 108th Congress rejected the
President’s FY2005 budget proposal to reinstate pesticide fees in the conference
report on the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (H.Rept. 108-792, p.
1597). In the first session of the 109th Congress, language contained in the FY2005
supplemental appropriations for military funding enacted May 11, 2005 (P.L. 109-13,
Sec. 6033), banned EPA from going forward with rulemaking for collecting pesticide
tolerance fees as prohibited by PRIA.
The President’s FY2006 budget request included $46.0 million, and the FY2007
request included $56 million, in the form of “anticipated” revenues (offsetting
receipts) to be derived from changes to fees for pesticide registrations.45 The
pesticide fees proposed by the Administration for FY2006 and FY2007 would have
been in addition to those currently authorized under PRIA. The FY2006
appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (P.L. 109-54,
H.Rept.109-188), which includes EPA and was enacted August 2, 2005, and the
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5, H.J.Res.
20), enacted on February 15, 2007, did not reflect the Administration’s additional
anticipated pesticide fee revenues. The proposed fee changes in the Administration’s
requests would have required congressional approval through the enactment of
legislation. In its report on the FY2006 appropriations, the House Appropriations
Committee noted that no relevant legislation had been proposed and commented that
EPA should not continue to spend time and resources proposing such actions in
conflict with current authority (H.Rept. 109-80, p. 105-106).
The President’s FY2008 budget submitted to Congress in February 2007
proposed modifications to the current pesticide fees structure to collect $66 million
in anticipated revenues,46 which included increases for registration service fees,
reinstatement of tolerance fees, and additional fees to offset the cost of implementing
the EPA’s recently initiated Registration Review Program.47 The Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) enacted December 26, 2007, which
included EPA’s FY2008 appropriations in Title II of Division F, did not reflect the
Administration’s additional anticipated pesticide fee revenues.
45 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Major Savings and
Reforms in the President’s 2006 Budget, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/budget/fy2006].
46 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Major Savings and
Reforms in the President’s 2008 Budget, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
fy2008]. See also U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2008 Justification of
Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, available at [http://www.epa.
gov/ocfo/budget/].
47 See [http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/index.htm] for more information
regarding EPA’s Registration Review Program.

---

CRS-15
Pesticide Program Fee Revenues and
Appropriations
Historical appropriated funding and fee revenues for the pesticide program
activities provide context for the discussion of fees imposed on pesticide registrants
to supplement EPA-appropriated revenues. The two sections that follow provide
more detailed information regarding pesticide fee revenues over time and funds
appropriated for EPA pesticide program activities in recent years.
Revenues from Pesticide Fees
Registration applications received on or after March 23, 2004, were subject to
the new service fees under PRIA 1. In its Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
(PRIA) Implementation: 2004 Annual Report, EPA indicated that it collected $14.7
million in new registration “service,” and spent roughly $5.0 million, during FY2004.
The remaining balance of $9.7 million was carried forward to FY2005. EPA
reported collecting $10.6 million in FY2005 in its second annual report. The agency
spent approximately $11.1 million of the total $20.3 million available in FY2005,
carrying the remaining balance of $9.2 million forward to FY2006.
According to EPA’s FY2006 PRIA progress report, the agency received a net
total of $13.9 million in new “registration service” fees in FY2006. The net total
reflects subtracting $0.73 in the form of refunds for overpayments and withdrawals
of applications. EPA reported expending $10.8 million of the $23.1 million available
during the fiscal year, which included $9.2 million carried forward from FY2005.
Again, the remaining balance of $12.3 million is being carried forward to FY2007.
Although the majority (54%) of the fee revenues expended in FY2006 were for
payroll, the FY2006 payroll amount of $5.8 million was less than the FY2005 level
of $7.9 million (71%). Contract expenditures, on the other hand, have increased
from $2.2 million (20% of fees expended) in FY2005 to $4.0 million (37%) in
FY2006.

Prior to the enactment of PRIA, the FY2003 appropriations were supplemented
by an estimated $23.0 million in authorized fees, including $21.5 million in
maintenance fees and $1.5 million in tolerance fees, primarily for establishing new
tolerances. The annual tolerance fee collected from each applicant is based on the
specific actions required to process a submitted application and varies depending on
the number and type of petitions received by the agency in a given year. The
amounts have been adjusted over time, based on an inflation calculation defined in
statute.48 For the 20 years prior to the enactment of PRIA, annual tolerance fees
collected by EPA averaged about $1.8 million. The amount of pesticides fees
collected over the years varied, depending on the statutory authority at the time.
48 Tolerance fees could 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-16
Reregistration fees varied considerably and were based, among other things, on
whether the pesticide was an active ingredient registered for a major food or feed use
or whether it was registered only for nonfood or nonfeed uses. The one-time active
ingredient fee for reregistration ranged from $0 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 reregistration
fees had been collected, resulting in an estimated total of $31.64 million.
Figure 1 below provides a graphic illustration of the amount of tolerance fees,
registration fees (only collected for a short period during FY1998), reregistration
fees, maintenance fees, and registration service fees collected during FY1985 through
FY2006, before and after the enactment of PRIA 1 in January 2004. The highest
combined amount collected from the three fees for one year prior to the enactment
of PRIA was an estimated $39.1 million in 1990, the peak year for collection of the
one-time reregistration fees.
Figure 1. EPA Pesticide Program Fee Revenues,
FY1985-FY2006
Source: Prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS) with information from the U.S. EPA
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.
*
Tolerance fees for FY1985-FY1988 are based on the average number of petitions per year
(8-12) and the average fee per petition ($150,000).

---

CRS-17
**
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. PRIA capped maintenance fees at $26 million for
FY2004 and $27 million for FY2005 and FY2006.
EPA reported collection of $25.9 million in maintenance fees in FY2004, $27.9
million in FY2005, and $25.8 million in FY2006. EPA initiated collection of
maintenance fees at the beginning of FY2004 under preexisting authority, prior to the
reauthorization provisions included in PRIA. The annual maintenance fee amount
collected per registration 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
(P.L. 100-532) for maintenance fees set the annual aggregate at $14.0 million for the
nine-year period from FY1989 to 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 was reauthorized in annual appropriations. Prior to PRIA, the annual aggregate
limit was increased to $17 million in FY2002 (P.L. 107-73) and to $21.5 million in
FY2003 (P.L. 108-7) and FY2004 (continuing resolution P.L. 108-135, through
January 31, 2004).
As discussed earlier in this report, PRIA 1 extended the existing authority to
collect maintenance fees through FY2008 at initially increasing, then declining,
levels. PRIA set the annual statutory aggregate limit at $26 million for FY2004, $27
million for FY2005 and FY2006, $21 million for FY2007, and $15 million for
FY2008. PRIA 2 extended the authority and set the annual statutory aggregate limit
for maintenance fees at $22.0 million for each of the fiscal years FY2008 through
FY2012. Figure 1 above indicates that EPA generally collected the maximum
aggregate limit as set by the statute in a given year.
Pesticide Program Appropriated Funds
Pesticide fee revenues are supplemental to appropriated funds provided for
EPA’s pesticide program activities. PRIA 1 and PRIA 2, in fact, included provisions
to ensure that the fee revenues would not be offset by potential decreases in
appropriations. As a condition of the statutes, authorization to assess registration
services fees is suspended if Congressional appropriations for specified functions
conducted by the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs fall below a minimum amount
relative to corresponding FY2002 Congressional appropriations.49 This condition has
been met for each of the subsequent fiscal years through FY2008.
In recent fiscal years, appropriated funding for EPA’s pesticide program
activities was allocated within three of the eight EPA appropriations accounts:
Science and Technology (S&T), Environmental Programs and Management (EPM),
49 FIFRA §33(d) Assessment of Fees (7 U.S.C. §136w-8(d)(2)). Under PRIA 2, if
Congressional appropriations for a fiscal year fall below the amount allocated to OPP in
FY2002 by more than 3%, authority to assess fees is suspended.

---

CRS-18
and State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). Table 2 shows enacted
appropriations for FY2003 through FY2007.50 The line item program activities
within the three appropriations accounts presented in the table are as reported in
Appropriations Committee reports and EPA fiscal year congressional budget
justifications.
Table 2. EPA Appropriations for Pesticide Program Activities,
FY2003-FY2007 Enacted
(dollars in millions)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted Enacted Enacted
Enacted
Pesticide Program Activities by
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
EPA Appropriations Account
108-7
108-199
108-447
109-54
110-5
110-161
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM)
Registration
$40.4
$40.8
$39.2
$41.6
$40.4
NR
Reregistration
$48.5
$51.7
$51.3
$57.5
$52.6
NR
Field Programs
$21.1
$25.2
$24.4
$24.5
NR
NR
Science Policy & Biotechnology
$0.9
$1.7
$1.6
$1.7
NR
NR
EPM Subtotal
$110.9
$119.4
$116.5
$125.3
$119.5
$116.3
Science & Technology (S&T)
Registration
$2.1
$2.3
$2.5
$2.4
NR
NR
Reregistration
$2.4
$2.4
$2.5
$2.5
NR
NR
S&T Subtotal
$4.5
$4.7
$5.0
$4.9
$5.7
$5.8
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Implementation Grants
$13.2
$13.0
$12.9
$12.9
$12.9
$12.8
Enforcement Grants
$20.3
$19.8
$19.3
$18.6
$18.6
$18.4
STAG Subtotal
$33.5
$32.8
$32.2
$31.5
$31.5
$31.2
Total $148.9
$156.9
$153.7
$161.7
$156.7
$153.3
Sources: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on information from House and
Senate Appropriations Committees, conference reports and explanatory statements accompanying
appropriations, and EPA’s Congressional Budget Justification.
Note: NR indicates that a separate line item amount was not reported for that particular activity in a
given fiscal year.
50 The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5, H.J.Res. 20),
enacted on February 15, 2007, provides FY2007 appropriations for EPA and numerous other
federal agencies at the same level as provided under the authority and conditions stipulated
in the applicable appropriations Acts for FY2006, unless otherwise specified in P.L. 110-5.
P.L. 110-5 included no such specifications for EPA’s pesticide program activities.

---

CRS-19
Pesticide Registration and Reregistration Activities
Since the Enactment of PRIA
EPA uses registration service fees to supplement appropriations to develop
improved registration review processes, hire new staff, and process registration
applications under the deadlines identified in PRIA. The agency uses the
maintenance fees to supplement appropriations primarily for reregistration and
tolerance review activities. By statute, tolerance reviews and reregistrations for food-
use pesticides were to be completed by August 3, 2006, and all other reregistrations
are to be completed by October 3, 2008.
PRIA 1 modified FIFRA with regard to completion deadlines for
reregistration.51 All reregistrations, other than those requiring tolerances for use on
food, must be completed no later than October 3, 2008. Reregistration of active
ingredients that require tolerances or exemptions from tolerances were to be
completed by August 3, 2006, as required by FFDCA (Section 408[q][1][C]) for
tolerance reassessment. On August 3, 2006, EPA announced that it had completed
9,637 (99.1%) of the 9,721 required tolerance reassessments. EPA reported that it
continued its efforts to complete the remaining 84 tolerance reassessment decisions
during FY2007.
A key provision of PRIA 1, in conjunction with the increased fee revenues, was
the requirement for EPA to identify reforms52 to its pesticide registration process with
the intent of reducing the current decision review period. EPA has reported
implementation of a number of process improvements to monitor workload and
ensure that PRIA due dates are met. In its three PRIA implementation annual reports,
released in March 2005, March 2006, and March 2007, EPA described these process
improvements and its other efforts and accomplishments for each of the fiscal years
FY2004 through FY2006. EPA released its inaugural report in March 2005
summarizing its first nine months of progress implementing the provisions of the
PRIA from January 23, 2004, through September 30, 2004.53 The agency’s second
PRIA progress report covering the entire FY2005 was released in March 2006, and
its third report, Implementing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act — Fiscal
Year 2006, was released March 2007.54
51 7 U.S.C. §36a-1(g)(2)(A).
52 Ibid. See also EPA’s FY2005 PRIA implementation accomplishments report, available
at [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/2005annual_report/pria_annual_report_2005.htm],
subsections 33(e), Reforms to Reduce Decision Time Periods, and (f), Decision Review
Time Periods.
53 EPA, First Annual Report on EPA Actions Implementing the Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act — Fiscal Year 2004, March 1, 2005, available at [http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/fees/2004annual_report/pria_annual_report_2004.htm].
54 The reports are available at [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/].

---

CRS-20
Registration Activities
As discussed earlier in this report, EPA reported the completion of 2,663
decisions subject to PRIA between March 2004 (the effective date for PRIA
implementation) and the end of FY2006. In addition, during the past three fiscal
years (FY2004-FY2006), EPA completed decisions (either registration decisions or
publications of import tolerances) for 82 new active ingredients, including 32
conventional (seven conventional reduced risk), 41 biopesticides, and 10
antimicrobials. During that same period, the agency approved more than 605 new
uses of previously registered active ingredients.55
EPA also reported the expenditure of $750,100 in fees collected for the worker
protection program activities in FY2006, similar to the FY2005 level. Activities
included continued interaction with stakeholder groups, enhancement of safe
practices and pesticide risk recognition training for workers and health-care
providers, and expansion of occupational illness and injury surveillance. PRIA 1
authorized the use of 1/17 of the registration fund (not less than $750,000 but not
more than $1 million) for enhancing worker protection scientific and regulatory
activities. PRIA 2 retained the same proportional distribution for work protection but
increased the minimum to not less than $1 million.56
Among its efforts to enhance the registration process, EPA reported that
recommendations from several intra-agency workgroups led to the development of
pesticide registration procedures for front-end processing and screening, waivers and
refunds, funds management, improved intra- and interagency coordination, and
enhancements to the internal registration tracking system. EPA also created a
“Process Improvement” workgroup under the auspices of the Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee (an advisory group) to evaluate recommended process
improvements in the registration program. The workgroup, which was further
expanded in FY2005, comprises representatives from individual registrant
companies, pesticide trade associations, public interest groups, and agency staff, and
it continues to address process improvement questions. Based in part on
recommendations from the Committee, the agency continued to develop new process
improvements during FY2006 and FY2007, and to refine those initiated during
FY2004 and FY2005. Slightly less than 100% of the registration and tolerance
decisions were completed within the statutorily mandated decision review times,
according to EPA.
Reregistration/Tolerance Reassessment Activities
EPA has integrated reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes in an
effort to effectively meet its statutory obligations. When it completes a review of a
55 The number of new registrations and new uses were compiled by CRS with data from
EPA ProgramUpdate-Registration, presented to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee
(PPDC) for FY2004 on October 21, 2004, for FY2005 on October 20, 2005, and for FY2006
(see [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/]), as well as data provided by EPA’s Office of
Pesticide Programs in a written communication to CRS on November 28, 2006.
56 7 U.S.C. 138w-8(c)(3)(B).

---

CRS-21
pesticide for reregistration or tolerance reassessment, EPA issues one of the
following risk management decision documents: a Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED), an Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED), or a Tolerance
Reassessment Progress and [Interim] Risk Management Decision (TRED).57
EPA reported58 that by the end of FY2006, it made reregistration decisions for
559 of the original 613 pesticide “cases,”59 including 330 REDs and 229 canceled
cases. The agency must complete 54 more REDs to meet complete reregistration by
the end of FY2008. On August 3, 2006 (the statutory deadline),60 EPA announced
it had completed reassessment of 9,637 (99.1%) of the 9,721 preexisting tolerances.61
According to EPA, the reassessments resulted in the revocation of 3,200 food
tolerances, the modification of 1,200 tolerances, and the retention of the remaining
5,237 tolerances. The remaining 84 tolerance reassessment decisions are for five
carbamate pesticides: aldicarb, oxamly, carbaryl, formetanate and carbofuran. With
the exception of aldicarb (23 tolerance decisions), individual tolerance reviews have
been completed for the other four pesticides (61 tolerance decisions combined). A
cumulative tolerance assessment of all five pesticides is required but cannot be
conducted until individual tolerances for aldicarb have been completed.
Conclusion
Although there has been some progress in recent years, EPA’s timely
completion of the statutory registration, reregistration, and tolerance assessment
requirements for pesticides remains a concern for some Members of Congress, EPA,
industry, and public interest groups. Historically, attempts to defray the increased
costs of administering the pesticide program by modifying existing pesticide fee
requirements through regulation and legislation have not been entirely successful.
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act, or PRIA 2 (P.L. 110-94),
enacted October 9, 2007, reauthorizes and revises fee provisions enacted January 23,
2004 (P.L. 108-199, PRIA 1). PRIA 2 continues to address some of the key issues
and concerns regarding EPA’s pesticide registration reviews. Most notably, the
provisions requiring specific decision process and schedule reforms, in conjunction
with increasing fee revenues, have led to more timely completion of certain
registration applications and reregistration reviews. Reforming the overall process
has led to accelerated implementation of stricter FQPA standards and associated
57 For more detailed explanation of these decision documents, see [http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/reregistration/index.htm].
58 See [http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/reregistration_facts.htm].
59 Related pesticide active ingredients are grouped into cases; the 613 cases encompass
approximately 1,150 pesticide active ingredients.
60 The 1996 amendments to FIFRA and FFDCA included a schedule for completion of
tolerance reviews: 33% by August 3, 1999; 66% by August 3, 2002; and 100% by August
3, 2006 (FQPA P.L. 104-170, Title IV, § 405).
61 EPA, Accomplishments under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), August 3, 2006,
at [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/fqpa_accomplishments.htm].

---

CRS-22
improvements in the safety of pesticides in the market. It has also contributed to the
availability of new products, potentially safer and more effective, into the market
sooner.
The prescriptive detailed schedules for the service fees included in PRIA 1 and
PRIA 2, have been more commensurate with the specific EPA actions required than
previous legislative provisions related to registration and tolerance fees, which were
more generic. The implementation of these schedules have improved the efficiency
in the overall process. The pesticide fee provisions included in PRIA 1 and retained
in PRIA 2, also provide stability for resource planning purposes; stability had been
lacking previously because of annual reauthorizations of maintenance fees and
Administration budget proposals to modify fee authority.
EPA reported progress in developing process improvements and meeting
shortened registration review deadlines during the PRIA 1 (PRIA became effective
March 23, 2004) and continued to report improvements through the end of FY2007.
Further improvement in the efficiency of the EPA’s decision-making process under
PRIA 2 is dependent largely on the agency’s ability to continue to establish and
effectively implement reforms while maintaining the protection of human health and
the environment required by the statutes. To meet stricter statutory standards62 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.63 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 the acceleration of the pesticide review
process.
62 Stricter standards primarily refer to requirements introduced by FQPA in 1996 to perform
more comprehensive risk assessment of pesticides, and consider aggregate exposure,
cumulative effects from pesticides sharing a common mechanism of toxicity, possible
increased susceptibility of vulnerable populations (particularly infants and children), and
possible endocrine or estrogenic effects. (See CRS Report 96-759, Pesticide Legislation:
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-170).
63 Examples of EPA advisory workgroups and committees for pesticide science and
procedural issues are available at [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/committees.htm].

---