Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees:
An Overview
Robert Esworthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
August 11, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32218
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
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. 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. EPA was also required to reevaluate older, registered pesticides (i.e.,
“reregistration” for pesticides registered prior to 1984, and more recently, registration review) and
to reassess existing tolerances (i.e., tolerance reassessment) to ensure they meet current safety
standards. 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 as a means of increasing the pace of the agency’s activities under FIFRA and
FFDCA.
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA 1), included in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199, Title V of Division G), enacted on January 23, 2004,
amended FIFRA and modified the framework for collecting fees to enhance and accelerate the
agency’s pesticide licensing (registration) activities. The amendments included reauthorization of
maintenance fees primarily to support activities related to existing registrations, and established
registration service fees to be submitted with applications for new registrations. The Pesticide
Registration Improvement Renewal Act, or PRIA 2 (P.L. 110-94), enacted October 9, 2007,
reauthorized and revised these fee provisions, which would have expired at the end of FY2008. In
February 2010, EPA reported the completion of 1,570 registration and reregistration decisions
subject to PRIA during FY2009, for a total of 7,530 since the enactment of PRIA 1 in 2004. For
FY2009, EPA reported expending $18.5 million of the $25.5 million received in the form of new
registration fees collected in FY2009 ($16.1 million in net receipts) and carried forward from
FY2008 ($9.4 million).
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). The 1996
amendments to FIFRA and FFDCA, or the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (P.L. 104-170),
extended EPA’s authority to collect certain fees through FY2001. Congress extended this
authority annually through appropriations legislation prior to the enactment of PRIA in 2004.
The FY1998-FY2004 President’s budget requests included proposals to modify existing fee
structures to further increase revenues for pesticide activities. These proposals were not adopted
in legislation and in some cases specifically prohibited by Congress. In each fiscal year budget
request since PRIA was enacted in 2004, EPA has included proposals to further increase pesticide
fees beyond those authorized. These proposals were not adopted by Congress in each year
through FY2010. The FY2011 President’s budget request included similar proposals to provide
for the collection of additional pesticide fees.
Congressional Research Service
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
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..................................................... 5
Registration Services Fees..................................................................................................... 6
Pesticide Registration Fund................................................................................................... 7
Prohibition of “Tolerance Fees”............................................................................................. 8
Prohibition of Other Pesticide Fees ....................................................................................... 8
Reregistration and Expedited Process Fund ........................................................................... 8
Reporting Progress Under PRIA............................................................................................ 9
A Historical 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
Registration Service Fees (PRIA) .................................................................................. 17
Maintenance Fees ......................................................................................................... 18
Tolerance Fees .............................................................................................................. 18
Reregistration and One-time Registration Fees .............................................................. 18
EPA Pesticide Program Appropriated Funds ........................................................................ 19
Pesticide Registration and Reregistration Activities Since the Enactment of PRIA ..................... 20
Registration Activities ......................................................................................................... 21
Reregistration/Tolerance Reassessment Activities................................................................ 23
Registration Review............................................................................................................ 24
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 25
Figures
Figure 1. EPA Pesticide Program Fee Revenues (Net Receipts), FY1985-FY2009 ..................... 16
Tables
Table 1. Timeline of Key Legislation and Regulation Regarding Pesticide Fees ........................ 10
Table 2. EPA Expenditures from the Pesticide Registration Fund by Program Activity:
FY2004-FY2009.................................................................................................................... 17
Table 3. EPA Enacted Appropriations for Pesticide Program Activities, FY2004-FY2010 .......... 20
Congressional Research Service
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 26
Congressional Research Service
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 (with phase-out authority at reduced levels for
FY2009 and FY2010). Enacted October 9, 2007, P.L. 110-94—the Pesticide Registration
Improvement Renewal Act (referred to as PRIA 2)1—revised and reauthorized the pesticide fee
collection provisions effective retroactively to the beginning of FY2008 through FY2012. PRIA 2
passed in both houses of 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.
Congress has granted EPA authority to collect fee revenues as a means of accelerating the pace of
the agency’s activities to meet its statutory obligations required under FIFRA and FFDCA. These
activities include review of the science when evaluating new pesticide registrations, and the
establishment of the maximum residue allowance (a “tolerance”) as necessary. Also included is
EPA’s reevaluation of older pesticide registration and existing tolerances (i.e., tolerance
reassessment) to ensure they meet current standards for protecting human health and the
environment (see more detailed discussion in the following section of this report).
In February 2010, EPA released its annual PRIA progress report.3 Implementing the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) - Fiscal Year 2009 (or EPA’s FY2009 PRIA implementation
report) provides information about the registration process, including the status of its registration
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.
3 Under § 33(k) of PRIA, EPA is required to publish an annual report describing actions taken under this section, and
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 released subsequent fiscal reports on an annual basis thereafter. The
EPA PRIA implementation report for FY2009 and previous annual reports for FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, FY2007,
and FY2008 are available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/.
Congressional Research Service
1
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
and reregistration4 activities, as well as EPA’s efforts to improve the processes. EPA reported the
completion of 1,570 decisions subject to PRIA in FY2009, compared with 1,677 at the end of
FY2008, 1,620 during FY2007, 1,347 during FY2006, 1,098 during FY2005, and 208 decisions
completed during FY2004.
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 the 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, FFDCA5 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 was also required to reevaluate older, registered pesticides (i.e.,
reregistration) 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.
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,
4 The 1988 amendments to FIFRA (P.L. 100-532) define “reregistration” as reevaluation of pesticides registered prior
to 1984. The use of the term reregistration throughout this CRS report is as defined by the 1988 amendments.
5 FFDCA §§ 408 and 409.
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.
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).
Congressional Research Service
2
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
maintenance fee authority was expanded to allow a portion of the collected revenue 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 “A Historical Overview of Pesticide Fee Authorities,” later in
this report.)
In the annual fiscal year budget requests, the previous two Administrations 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. The current
Administration’s requests have included similar proposals to allow for the collection of pesticide
tolerance fees, as well as proposals for a new fee schedule for registration service fees to increase
the overall amount of fee revenue collected, and proposals to raise the current limit for the
amount of maintenance fees that can be collected annually.
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.
A 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 (PRIA 1) specifically prohibited collection of any tolerance fees, and
temporarily replaced (essentially prohibited) other fee authority through FY2008. Despite this
prohibition, similar proposals to authorize collection of additional tolerance fees and other
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.
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.
Congressional Research Service
3
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
pesticide fee revenue increases were included in the FY2005, FY2006, FY2007, FY2008,
FY2009, and FY2010 budget requests. These proposals were not adopted by Congress for those
fiscal years. Language contained in the FY2005 supplemental appropriations for military funding
enacted May 11, 2005 (P.L. 109-13 § 6033), specifically banned EPA from going forward with
rulemaking for collecting pesticide tolerance fees. PRIA 2 (P.L. 110-94), enacted October 9, 2007,
continued the prohibition of other fee authority through FY2012. The FY2011 President’s budget
request includes similar proposals to expand the collection of pesticide fees.13
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, 200714—amended and reauthorized provisions of the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-199),15 or PRIA 1. PRIA 1 had 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
authority16 and 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 of pesticide fees, and received the support of a large cross section of
stakeholders, including organizations representing manufacturers and formulators, agricultural
producers, and environmental and public interests.17 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 various groups.18
PRIA 2 amended 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 extended 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
13 EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, and other related agency budget
documents are available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget. Also see the multi-volume set of the President’s Budget of
the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/.
14 Relevant registration applications received between March 23, 2004, and September 30, 2007, were processed under
PRIA 1 fees, decision review periods, and procedures.
15 Enacted as Title V of Division G of the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
16 PRIA 1 (P.L. 108-199) removed the prohibition on “other fees” by amending FIFRA § 4(i)(6), replacing §§ 33 and
34 (7 U.S.C. § 36x and 136y) through 2010, and thus temporarily replacing registration fee authority codified in 1988
(Subpart U of CFR part 152).
17 September 12, 2003, letter addressed to President George W. Bush, from a coalition of 30 organizations representing
industry and public interests.
18 See CropLife America’s press release, October 11, 2007, at http://www.croplifeamerica.org/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/.
Congressional Research Service
4
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
• extended authority to collect maintenance fees through FY2012;
• renewed authority for EPA to collect “registration services fees,” which would be
phased out at the end of FY2014;
• continued the prohibition on the collection of any tolerance fees through
FY2012;
• amended the authority for use of funds in the Reregistration and Expedited
Processing Fund to include use for registration review;
• required pesticide registrations to be reviewed every 15 years;19 and
• required EPA to identify reforms to the pesticide registration process to
substantially reduce the decision review period.
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 1.20 The annual statutory aggregate limit is $22.0 million for each of the fiscal years
FY2008 through FY2012.21 PRIA 2 amended FIFRA, increasing 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 registration
reviews 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 extended 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
19 PRIA 1 had 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).
20 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)).
21 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.
Congressional Research Service
5
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
• the expedited processing of proposed new products that are “similar” or identical
to existing products,22
• 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.23
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 extended this authority in a new FIFRA Section 33 (7 U.S.C. § 136w-8).
These fees are expected to cover a portion of the cost for review and 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. Under PRIA 2 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 time frame in which the agency is to make a decision are
prescribed in the act. Under PRIA 2, the EPA Administrator was 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).24 EPA published a revised
pesticide service fee schedule October 30, 2007.25 The amount of the fees varies depending on the
specific “service” required. PRIA 2 included 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, 2010.26 EPA provides a website, including a “decision tree” for determining fee amounts, to
assist applicants in identifying the category of their application and the amount of the required fee
prior to submission of their application for a pesticide registration or certain tolerance action.27
During FY2009, EPA revised the fee category interpretations and developed additional guidance
22 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.”
23 See footnote 12, which defines the term “inert.”
24 Under PRIA 1, the registration fees schedule was per the September 17, 2003, Congressional Record (S11631
through S11633). EPA published the initial 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)), for applications received on or after October 1, 2005.
25 72 Federal Register 61465-61477, October 30, 2007.
26 Under PRIA 2 (P.L. 110-94, § (b)(6)), fees were increased 5% effective October 1, 2008, 73 Federal Register
45438-45450, August 5, 2008; effective October 1, 2010, fees will increase 5% from those published in the August 5,
2008, Federal Register, 75 Federal Register 48672-48683, August 11, 2010.
27 U.S. EPA, “Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2) Fee Determination Decision Tree,” at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/tool/index.htm.
Congressional Research Service
6
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
on the type of application that fell into each specific fee category.28 Following stakeholder review,
EPA posted the fee category interpretations on the agency’s PRIA 2 website.
PRIA 2 modified 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.29 PRIA 2 amended the
small business waiver provisions such that a 100% waiver is no longer authorized; a qualified
small business is eligible for a partial waiver of 50% or, in some cases, 75% of the registration
service fee available under the new provisions. According to its FY2009 PRIA Implementation
Report,30 EPA granted 306 fee waivers/exemptions and denied 6 of the 320 requests reviewed
during FY2009 (review was pending for the 8 remaining requests at the end of the fiscal year).
The waivers granted included 189 for 75% small business waivers (6 denied) and 76 for 50%
waivers. Comparatively, during FY2008, EPA granted 293 of 303 waiver applications reviewed;
176 for 75% small business waivers, 64 for 50% waivers, and 9 for 100% small business waivers
that had been received prior to the PRIA 2 effective date.31 During FY2007, 258 of the total 374
waivers granted were 100% small business waivers. The total of $6.9 million in fees waived or
exempted in FY2009 was a decrease from the $8.2 million in fees waived in FY2008 and $11.4
million in FY2007.32
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.33 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 enhance scientific and regulatory activities for worker protection for FY2008
through FY2012. 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 extended the
prohibition on authorizing registration services fees unless the amount of congressional
appropriations for specified functions conducted by the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs
28 U.S. EPA, Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2) Fee Category Interpretations, July 9, 2009,
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/PRIA2-Interpretation-table.pdf.
29 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. This guidance for registration service fee waivers and reductions, including
recent updates, 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.
30 U.S. EPA, Implementing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) - Fiscal Year 2009, February 26, 2010,
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/.
31 See previous fiscal years PRIA Implementation annual reports at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/.
32 See footnote 30.
33 7 U.S.C. § 136w-8(c).
Congressional Research Service
7
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
remains no less than 3% below the corresponding FY2002 appropriation.34 PRIA 2 also continued
to stipulate that the authorization to collect and obligate fees must be provided in advance in
appropriations acts.35 These requirements have been met in EPA appropriations for FY2004
through FY2010.36
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.37 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 “A Historical
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 2014.38 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.
Reregistration and Expedited Process Fund
PRIA 2 amended FIFRA and expanded the authorization of the use of moneys collected and
deposited in the previously established Reregistration and Expedited Process Fund.39 The use of
this fund was expanded to include offsetting costs of “registration reviews under section 3(g).”40
Prior to this amendment, money in the fund was only to be used to offset the cost of
reregistration41 and for the expedited review of inert ingredients. PRIA 2 established a deadline of
October 1, 2022, for EPA to complete registration review decisions for all pesticides registered as
of October 1, 2007.42
34 FIFRA § 33(d)(2) Assessment of Fees (7 U.S.C. § 136w-8(d)(2)).
35 FIFRA § 33(c)(4) Collections and Appropriations (7 U.S.C. § 136w-8(c)(4)).
36 FY2004 (P.L. 108-199), FY2005 (P.L. 108-447), FY2006 (P.L. 109-54), FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), FY2008 (P.L. 110-
161), FY2009 (P.L. 111-8), and FY2010 (P.L. 111-88).
37 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).
38 7 U.S.C. § 136-1(i)(6).
39 7 U.S.C. § 136a-1(k)(1).
40 The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amended FIFRA to add section 3(g), “Registration Review,” with
the goal of reviewing a pesticide’s registration every 15 years.
41 The revaluation of pesticides registered prior to 1984 as defined by the 1988 amendments to FIFRA (P.L. 100-532).
42 The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amended FIFRA to add section 3(g), “Registration Review,” with
the goal of reviewing a pesticide’s registration every 15 years.
Congressional Research Service
8
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
EPA completed the reregistration of active ingredients that require (food) tolerances or
exemptions from tolerances, required to be completed by August 3, 2006, as mandated under
FQPA (P.L. 104-170, Title IV, § 405). PRIA 1 had extended the statutory deadline for completing
reregistrations for active ingredients that do not require tolerances to October 3, 2008. EPA
completed its review at the end of September 2008. EPA’s final rule for the registration review
program as published in the August 9, 2006, Federal Register, replaced the agency’s pesticide
reregistration and tolerance reassessment programs as they approached completion.43 The agency
began implementing the registration review program at the start of FY2007. (See more detailed
discussion later in this report “Registration Review”).
Reporting Progress Under PRIA
PRIA 2 extended the requirement that EPA publish an annual report describing relevant actions
taken during each fiscal year, through March 1, 2014. PRIA 2 also retained, 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 goals for registration review and
reregistration timeline requirements. A key provision of PRIA 1 in conjunction with the increased
fee revenues was the requirement for EPA to identify reforms44 to the agency’s pesticide
registration process with the intent of reducing the current decision review period. EPA released
reports in March 2005, March 2006, March 2007, March 2008, and March 2009, and its most
recent report, Implementing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) - Fiscal Year
2009, was published February 26, 2010.45 These reports summarize improvements and
accomplishments for each of the fiscal years. (See discussion under “Pesticide Registration and
Reregistration Activities Since the Enactment of PRIA”).
A Historical 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.
43 71 Federal Register 45719.
44 Sections 33(e), Reforms to reduce Decision Time Periods, and (f), Decision Review Time Periods.
45 Each of the annual reports is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/.
Congressional Research Service
9
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
Table 1. Timeline of Key Legislation and Regulation
Regarding Pesticide Fees
Year Legislation/Regulation
Pesticide Fee Authority/Action
1952
Independent Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA;
Authorizes the head of each agency to prescribe
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 Act, amended
Authorizes fees to accompany initial or modified petitions
(FFDCA; P.L. No. 518, 21 U.S.C. § 346 [a])
for establishing tolerances under FFDCA § 408 (o).
1986
EPA Registration Fee Regulation: Proposed (51
Proposed a schedule of fees to accompany pesticide
Federal Register 42974, Nov. 26, 1986)
registration and experimental use permit applications,
citing the authority of IOAA.
1988
EPA Registration Fee: Final Regulation (40 CFR
Establishes fees to accompany pesticide registration and
152[u] and 40 CFR 172)
experimental use permit applications; authority
suspended by the FIFRA amendments passed later that
same year (1988).
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, Authorizes reregistration and expedited processing fund:
amended
a one-time “reregistration” fee and annual “maintenance”
(FIFRA; P.L. 100-532)
fees through FY1997. Prohibited col ection 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-
Extends authorization for maintenance fees through
170): FIFRA and FFDCA, amended
FY2001. FFDCA authority (§ 408[m]) amended to cover
costs of al tolerance activities and directs EPA to deposit
funds col ected as maintenance fees to be used for
reassessing existing tolerances as needed. Prohibits
col ection of registration fees as defined in 40 CFR 152(u)
and 40 CFR 172 through FY2001.
1999
EPA Tolerance Fee Rule: Proposed (64 Federal
Proposed establishment of a tenfold increase in existing
Register 31039-31050, June 9, 1999)
tolerance fees and new “tolerance 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 rule based
on EPA’s 1999 proposal.
(P.L. 106-377)
2000 FY2001
EPA
Appropriations
Continued prohibition on promulgation of a final
tolerance fee rule as proposed in 1999.
(P.L. 106-74)
2001 FY2002
EPA
Appropriations
Continued the prohibition on promulgation of a final
tolerance fee rule based on the 1999 proposal and on
(P.L. 107-73)
collection of registration fees as codified in 1988.
Maintenance fees reauthorized and aggregate limit
increased.
2002
Farm Security Act
Senate-proposed pesticide fee authorities considered and
deleted in Conference. Conferees questioned the legal
(P.L. 107-171)
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).
Congressional Research Service
10
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
Year Legislation/Regulation
Pesticide Fee Authority/Action
2002-
EPA Appropriations: FY2003 (P.L. 108-10) and
Prohibited promulgation of a final tolerance fee rule based
2003
FY2004 Continuing Resolution
on the 1999 proposal. Continued prohibition of the
collection of registration fees as codified in 1988.
(P.L. 108-135; through Jan. 31, 2004)
Maintenance fees reauthorized; maximum aggregate levels
increased.
S. 1664 and H.R. 3188, proposed; the basis for
Would have authorized new a registration service fee,
PRIA 1 provisions later included in the FY2004
reauthorized maintenance fees, required pesticide
Consolidated Appropriations Bill (P.L. 108-199)
regulation process reforms, and prohibited collection of
tolerance fees.
2004
FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L.
Authorized new registration “service” fee, reauthorizes
108-199; Division G, Title V), enacted Jan. 23,
maintenance fees, requires pesticide regulation process
2004
reforms, and prohibits the collection of tolerance fees.
FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L.
Provided continued authorization for the collection of
108-447), enacted Dec. 8, 2004
pesticide fees during FY2005 pursuant to P.L. 108-199.
2005 FY2005
supplemental
appropriations for military
Banned EPA from going forward with rulemaking for
funding (P.L. 109-13, § 6033) enacted May 11, 2005 collecting pesticide tolerance fees as prohibited by PRIA.
2006
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Provided continued authorization for the collection of
Appropriationsa Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-54),
pesticide fees during FY2006 pursuant to P.L. 108-199.
enacted August 25, 2005
2007
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for
Provided continued authorization for the collection of
FY2007 (P.L. 110-5, H.J.Res. 20), enacted Feb. 15,
pesticide fees during FY2007 pursuant to P.L. 108-199, by
2007a
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, basis for PRIA
Reauthorizes, with some modification, PRIA 1 as enacted
2 became P.L. 110-94, enacted Oct. 9, 2007
Jan. 23, 2004, in the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations
Bill (P.L. 108-199; Div. G, Title V).
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L.
Provided continued authorization for the collection of
110-161; Division F, Title II), enacted Dec. 26,
pesticide fees during FY2008 pursuant to P.L. 110-94.
2007
2008
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
General y extended funding for accounts in the Interior,
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill at
329), Division A, Continuing Appropriations
the amounts provided in the FY2008 regular
Resolution, 2009, enacted September 30, 2008
appropriations law. Funds are available under the terms
and conditions provided in that FY2008 law, except
where otherwise specified.
2009
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8;
Provided continued authorization for the collection of
Division E, Title II), enacted March 11, 2009
pesticide fees during FY2009 pursuant to P.L. 110-94.
Interior Department and Furthering Continuing
Provided continued authorization for the collection of
Appropriations for 2010 (P.L. 111-88; Division A is pesticide fees during FY2010 pursuant to P.L. 110-94.
the Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010),
enacted October 30, 2009.
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.
Congressional Research Service
11
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
FIFRA and FFDCA Pesticide Fee Collection Authority
Authority for the collection of pesticide fees dates back as far as the 1954 amendments to
FFDCA.46 At the time, § 408(o)47 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.48 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.49
Other Pesticide Fee Authority
In May 1988, prior to the 1988 FIFRA amendments, EPA promulgated a final pesticide
registration fee regulation,50 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 challenged in court by the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers’ Association,51 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)
46 Pesticide Residue Amendment of 1954, P.L. No. 518, 21 U.S.C. § 346(a).
47 This authority currently resides in FFDCA § 408(m) (1996 FQPA).
48 See CRS Report 96-759, Pesticide Legislation: Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-170), by Linda-Jo
Schierow.
49 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 fees as authorized in FY2003 (see H.J.Res. 69, § 118).
50 40 CFR 152(u) and 40 CFR 172.
51 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.
Congressional Research Service
12
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
and, subsequently, by annual appropriations bills from FY2002 through the FY2004 Continuing
Resolution.52
Proposed Pesticide Fee Authority Modifications
In June 1999, EPA proposed a rule restructuring tolerance fees53 in an effort to cover the cost of
establishing initial tolerances and tolerance reassessments, including tolerance activities for
“other” ingredients (namely, inert ingredients54). 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.55
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.56 As discussed earlier in this report, the
PRIA 1 provisions enacted in 2003 prohibited the collection of any tolerance fees beginning in
FY2004 through FY2008, and PRIA 2 continues this prohibition through 2012.
Despite the PRIA prohibitions on additional pesticide fees beginning in FY2004, the current and
previous two Administrations proposed increased pesticide fees above those provided under PRIA
in the FY2005, FY2006, FY2007, FY2008, FY2009, and FY2010 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.
52 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.
53 64 Federal Register 31039-31050, June 9, 1999.
54 The 1996 FQPA clarified that “inert” ingredients are covered by the definition of a pesticide chemical under FFDCA
§ 201(q)(1).
55 EPA Docket # OPPT-301151 and OPPT-301151B.
56 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.
Congressional Research Service
13
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
The President’s FY2006 budget request included collecting $46.0 million in pesticide fees in
addition to those authorized under PRIA by proposing to again finalize the tolerance fee rule and
to eliminate the prohibition on collecting registration fees originally codified in 1988.57 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, 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 FY2007 request included an additional $56 million in the form of “anticipated”
revenues (offsetting receipts) to be derived from changes to fees for pesticide registrations.
Proposed changes included a new “Registration Review” fee, elimination of the prohibition on
collecting tolerance fees, a new schedule and restructuring of the registration service fee program,
and increasing the authorized limit on the annual amount of maintenance fees to be collected. The
110th Congress did not adopt the Administration’s proposed additional pesticide fee revenues. The
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5, H.J.Res. 20), enacted on
February 15, 2007, provided 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 (P.L. 109-54), unless otherwise specified in P.L. 110-5.
P.L. 110-5 included no such specifications for EPA’s pesticide program activities.
The FY2008 budget proposed modifications to the current pesticide fees structure to collect $66
million in anticipated revenues,58 which included a new fee program to offset the cost of
implementing EPA’s recently initiated Registration Review Program, restructuring of existing
registration service fees, reinstatement of tolerance fees, and increasing the annual limit on the
amount of maintenance fees to be collected.59 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.
However, PRIA 2, enacted October 6, 2007, amended the authority for use of funds in the
Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund to include use for Registration Review, and
included mandatory adjustments of the registration service fees—a 5% increase beginning with
registration applications received October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2010.
The FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011 budgets contained similar proposed modifications and
increases for pesticide fees, to allow for the collection of an additional $51 million, $48 million,
and $42 million in fees for each fiscal year, respectively. The budgets proposed restructuring of
existing registration service fees, reinstatement of tolerance fees, and an increase in the annual
limit on the amount of maintenance fees to be collected. The FY2009 proposals were not
57 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Major Savings and Reforms in the President’s
2006 Budget, available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html.
58 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Major Savings and Reforms in the President’s
2008 Budget, available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html. 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/.
59 See http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/index.htm for more information regarding EPA’s Registration
Review Program.
Congressional Research Service
14
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
reflected in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8; Division E, Title II), enacted
March 11, 2009, and the FY2010 proposals were not included in the Interior Department and
Furthering Continuing Appropriations for FY2010 (P.L. 111-88; Division A is the Department of
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010), enacted October 30,
2009. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees had not reported their respective bills
for the FY2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations, which fund EPA’s
programs and activities, at the time this CRS report was updated.
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.
Revenues from Pesticide Fees
The amount of pesticides fees collected over the years has varied, depending on the statutory
authority at the time. Figure 1 below provides a graphic illustration of the amount of tolerance
fees, registration fees (only collected for a short period during FY1988), reregistration fees,
maintenance fees, and registration service fees collected during FY1985 through FY2009, before
and after the enactment of PRIA 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
FY1990, the peak year for collection of the one-time reregistration fees. The highest combined
total amount of registration service fees and maintenance fees collected after enactment of PRIA
was an estimated $41.6 million in FY2004.
Congressional Research Service
15
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
Figure 1. EPA Pesticide Program Fee Revenues (Net Receipts),
FY1985-FY2009
Source: Prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS) with information from the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs.
* 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).
** Maintenance fees have been 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 1 capped maintenance fees 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 FY2008 through FY2012.
CRS-16
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
Registration Service Fees (PRIA)
Registration applications received on or after March 23, 2004, were subject to the new service
fees under PRIA 1. In its FY2009 PRIA implementation report,60 EPA reported receiving a net
total of $16.1 million in new “registration service” fees during FY2009. The net total reflects
subtracting $1.0 million in the form of refunds for overpayments and withdrawals of applications.
EPA reported expending $18.5 million of the $25.5 million available during the fiscal year, which
included $9.4 million carried forward from FY2008. The remaining FY2009 balance of $7.0
million is being carried forward to FY2010.
The total FY2009 expenditure was a 9% increase above the FY2008 total expenditure of $17.2
million. The majority (51%) of the fee revenues expended in FY2009 was for payroll. The
FY2009 payroll amount of $9.4 million (51% of total expenditures for that fiscal year) was a
significant increase above the payroll amounts for FY2008 ($7.6 million; 44%), FY2007 ($7.1
million; 41%), FY2006 ($5.8 million; 54%), and FY2005 ($7.9 million; 71%). At $6.7 million
(36% of fees expended), the proportion of fees used for contract expenditures in FY2009 was
down slightly from the previous two fiscal years. The proportion of fees used for contract
expenditures had been steadily increasing since FY2005: ($2.2 million (20%) in FY2005; $4.0
million (37%) in FY2006; $7.0 million (46%) in FY2007; and $7.2 million (42%) in FY2008.61
During FY2004, the initial year of collecting fees under PRIA, EPA indicated that it collected
$14.7 million in new “registration service” and spent roughly $5.0 million. The remaining
FY2004 balance of $9.7 million was carried forward to FY2005. Table 2 below presents EPA’s
reported expenditures of fees collected during each fiscal year FY2004-FY2009, including the
distribution of expenditures by pesticide program activity.
Table 2. EPA Expenditures from the Pesticide Registration Fund by
Program Activity: FY2004-FY2009
(dollars in thousands)
Program
Activity FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Payroll
$2,535.3 $7,898.2 $5,819.8 $7,111.6 $7,556.4 $9,401.6
Contracts
$1,591.3 $2,228.8 $4,013.1 $6,979.5 $7,168.1 $6,733.3
Worker
Protection $430.0 $750.1 $750.0 $750.0
$2,250.0 $2,250.0
Other
Expenses
$455.8 $274.3 $221.6 $302.7 $205.8 $140.6
Total
Expenditures
$5,012.4 $11,151.4 $10,804.5 $15,143.8 $17,180.3 $18,525.5
Source: U.S. EPA, Implementing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) - Fiscal Year 2009, February 26,
2010, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/.
60 See EPA’s Implementing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) - Fiscal Year 2009, February 26, 2010,
at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/; previous annual reports for FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, FY2007, and
FY2008 are also available.
61 See footnote 60.
Congressional Research Service
17
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
Maintenance Fees
Annual maintenance fee amounts collected per registration are 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 extended by Congress annually through
appropriations legislation for FY2002, FY2003, and a portion of FY2004 to the enactment of
PRIA. The annual aggregate limit was $17 million for FY2002 (P.L. 107-73), $21.5 million for
FY2003 (P.L. 108-7), and $21.5 million for a portion of FY2004 through January 31, 2004, by
Continuing Resolution P.L. 108-135.
PRIA 1, included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of FY2004 (P.L. 108-199), 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. In the fiscal
years following the enactment of PRIA, EPA collected $25.9 million in maintenance fees in
FY2004 (EPA initiated collection of maintenance fees at the beginning of FY2004 under
preexisting authority, prior to the reauthorization provisions included in PRIA 1), $27.9 million in
FY2005, $25.8 million in FY2006, $21.4 million in FY2007, $22.0 million in FY2008, and $21.8
million in FY2009.
Tolerance Fees
Historically, the annual tolerance fee collected from each applicant was based on the specific
actions required to process a submitted application and varied depending on the number and type
of petitions received by the agency in a given year. The amounts were adjusted over time based
on an inflation calculation defined in statute.62 For the 20 years prior to the enactment of PRIA,
annual tolerance fees collected by EPA averaged about $1.8 million.
Reregistration and One-time Registration Fees
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
62 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).
Congressional Research Service
18
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
authorized one-time reregistration fees had been collected, resulting in an estimated combined
total of $31.64 million.
As discussed earlier, prior to the 1988 FIFRA amendments, EPA promulgated a final pesticide
registration fee regulation,63 under the authority of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act
(IOAA) of 1952 (31 U.S.C. § 9701). EPA collected an estimated $300,000 in fees until the
collection of registration fees under this authority was temporarily suspended through FY1997 by
the 1988 amendments to FIFRA (§ 4(i)(6)). Collection of these fees was suspended in subsequent
years under the 1996 FIFRA/FFDCA amendments (FQPA) and later, annual appropriations (see
discussion in “Other Pesticide Fee Authority”).
EPA 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.64 The
minimum appropriations level has been met and the fee collection authority maintained for each
of the subsequent fiscal years through FY2010.
In recent fiscal years, appropriated funding for EPA’s pesticide program activities has been
allocated within three of the eight EPA appropriations accounts: Science and Technology (S&T),
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM), and State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG). Table 3 shows enacted appropriations for FY2004 through FY2010.
63 40 CFR 152(u) and 40 CFR 172.
64 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.
Congressional Research Service
19
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
Table 3. EPA Enacted Appropriations for Pesticide Program Activities,
FY2004-FY2010
(dollars in millions)
Pesticide Program
Activities by
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriations Account P.L. 108-199 P.L. 108-447
P.L. 109-54
P.L. 110-5 P.L. 110-161 P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-88
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM)
Registration $40.8
$39.2
$41.6
$40.4
NR
NR
NR
Reregistration $51.7
$51.3
$57.5
$52.6
NR
NR
NR
Field
Programs
$25.2
$24.4
$24.5 NR NR NR NR
Science Policy & Biotech.
$1.7
$1.6
$1.7
NR
NR
NR
NR
EPM
Subtotal
$119.4 $116.5 $125.3 $119.5 $116.3 $116.1 $123.3
Science & Technology (S&T)
Registration $2.3
$2.5
$2.4
NR
NR
NR
NR
Reregistration $2.4
$2.5
$2.5
NR
NR
NR
NR
S&T Subtotal
$4.7
$5.0
$4.9
$5.7
$5.8
$5.7
$6.6
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Implementation
Grants $13.0 $12.9 $12.9 $12.9 $12.8 $13.0 $13.5
Enforcement
Grants
$19.8 $19.3 $18.6 $18.6 $18.4 $18.7 $18.7
STAG
Subtotal
$32.8 $32.2 $31.5 $31.5 $31.2 $31.7 $32.2
Total
$156.9 $153.7 $161.7 $156.7 $153.3 $153.4 $162.1
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
Justifications for each of the fiscal years. Totals do not add due to rounding.
Note: NR indicates that a separate line item amount was not reported for that particular activity in a given fiscal year.
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 has used the maintenance fees to supplement appropriations
primarily for reregistration (i.e., a reevaluation of pesticides registered prior to 1984) and
tolerance review activities.
PRIA 1 had modified FIFRA with regard to completion deadlines for reregistration.65 All
reregistrations, other than those requiring tolerances for use on food, were to 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
65 7 U.S.C. § 36a-1(g)(2)(A).
Congressional Research Service
20
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
(Section 408[q][1][C]) for tolerance reassessment. In anticipation of completing the pesticide
reregistration and tolerance reassessment programs, EPA published a final rule for the
“registration review” program in the Federal Register on August 9, 2006.66 Through this
registration review program, EPA plans to review pesticides registered as of October 2007
approximately every 15 years, consistent with FIFRA as amended. The agency began
implementing the registration review program at the start of FY2007.
A key provision of PRIA 1 and PRIA 2, in conjunction with the increased fee revenues, is the
requirement for EPA to identify reforms to its pesticide registration and registration review
processes with the intent of reducing the agency’s decision review times. EPA has reported
implementation of a number of process improvements to monitor workload and ensure that PRIA
due dates are being met. As required under PRIA, EPA released annual PRIA implementation
reports describing these process improvements and other efforts and accomplishments. 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,
and four subsequent reports were released in March 2006, March 2007, March 2008, March 2009,
and February 2010.67
As discussed earlier in this report, EPA reported the completion of 7,530 decisions subject to
PRIA between March 2004 (the effective date for PRIA implementation) and the end of FY2009.
Among the 1,570 decisions completed during FY2009, 1,104 (70.3%) were for conventional
pesticides, 342 (21.8%) for antimicrobials, and 124 (7.9%) for biopesticides.68
Registration Activities
At the end of FY2009 EPA reported that it had completed registration decisions (includes
publications of import tolerances) for 19 new active ingredients, including 3 conventional
pesticides (includes reduced risk pesticides), 15 biopesticides, and 1 antimicrobial.69 EPA also
reported that it approved 205 new uses of previously registered active ingredients by the end of
FY2009. During the past six fiscal years (FY2004-FY2009), EPA completed decisions (either
registration decisions or publications of import tolerances) for 141 new active ingredients,
including 55 conventional pesticides (including reduced risk), 76 biopesticides, and 20
antimicrobials. During that same five-year period, the agency approved 1,374 new uses.70
66 71 Federal Register 45719.
67 The PRIA implementation annual reports are available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/.
68 EPA’s Implementing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) - Fiscal Year 2009, February 26, 2010, p. 9,
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/.
69 EPA’s Program Update-Registration, presented to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) on October
7-8, 2008 (see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/).
70 The number of new registrations and new uses were compiled by CRS with data from EPA’s “Registration Activities
In The Office of Pesticide Programs,” October 15, 2009, http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/workplan/
fy09finaldecisions.pdf; “New Biopesticide Active Ingredients - 2009,” http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/
product_lists/new_ai_2009.html; and “Antimicrobials Division 2009 Work Plan for FY2009,” February 17, 2009,
http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/pdf_files/adworkplan2009.pdf; as well as data provided by EPA’s Office of Pesticide
Programs in a written communication to CRS on May 19, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
21
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
EPA also reported the expenditure of $1.0 million in fees collected for worker protection program
activities in FY2009, the same as FY2008 but an increase above the $750,000 during each fiscal
year for FY2005, FY2006, and FY2007. 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 worker
protection, but increased the minimum to not less than $1 million.71 Activities included continued
interaction with stakeholder groups through the agency’s Pesticide Program Dialogue
Committee’s Federal Advisory Committee, enhancement of safe practices and pesticide risk
recognition training for workers and health-care providers to improve prevention and response,
and expansion of poisoning recognition and occupational illness and injury surveillance.72
Also, as required under PRIA 2, $50,000 in fees was used for the Pesticide Safety Education
Program, and $750,000 for partnerships grants during FY2009. Augmenting the allocated fee
revenues with appropriated funds, EPA awarded $950,000 in partnerships grants to support joint
public-private stewardship efforts to use and demonstrate the effectiveness of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) practices and technologies to reduce risks associated with the use
pesticides.73
Among its efforts to enhance the registration process, has 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, 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 FY2009, and to refine those initiated during previous fiscal years. During
FY2009, EPA concentrated outreach activities on communicating the difference between PRIA 1
and PRIA 2. EPA continues to focus on several areas identified by the stakeholder groups,
including labeling consistency, communication of schedules, clarifications of certain application
requirements and improved guidance materials, and electronic submissions.74
71 7 U.S.C. 138w-8(c)(3)(B).
72 See Table I. “PRIA Funded Pesticide Safety Education and Worker Protection Activities in FY 2009,” Implementing
the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) - Fiscal Year 2009, February 26, 2010, pp. 30-35,
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/. See also EPA’s PRIA Funded Pesticide Safety Education and Worker Protection
Activities in FY 2008, February 2009, for more detailed description of activities funded, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
fees/2008annual_report/pria-tbl-worker-prot-2-09.pdf.
73 See “PRIA and Partnership Grants” in EPA’s Implementing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) -
Fiscal Year 2009, February 26, 2010, pp. 8-9, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/. See also U.S. EPA, PRIA 2
Partnership Grants at http://www.epa.gov/pesp/pria2/index.html.
74 See “Progress in Meeting Decision Times,” pp. 9-14, and “Process Improvements in the Registration Program,” pp.
15-25, in EPA’s Implementing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) - Fiscal Year 2009, February 26,
2010, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/.
Congressional Research Service
22
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
Reregistration/Tolerance Reassessment Activities
When it completes a review of a 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).75 Increased resources, and the
adoption of integrated reregistration and tolerance reassessment process improvements under
PRIA 1 have contributed to EPA more effectively meeting its statutory obligations.
By August 12, 2008, EPA completed reregistration decisions for 605 of the original 613 pesticide
“cases,”76 including 376 REDs and 229 canceled cases.77 The eight remaining REDs were
completed at the end of September 2008, meeting the reregistration statutory deadline. EPA
reported78 that it completed reassessment of 9,637 (99.1%) of the 9,721 preexisting tolerances by
August 3, 2006 (the statutory deadline79). 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 for five
carbamate pesticides—aldicarb, oxamyl, carbaryl, formetanate and carbofuran—were completed
in September 2007 as part of EPA’s cumulative risk assessment for N-methyl carbamates
pesticides.80
As a final step in the reregistration process, following the completion of an RED for a pesticide
active ingredient, EPA must reregister the individual end-use products that contain a pesticide
ingredient that has been declared eligible for reregistration. As of April 2009, EPA reported that it
had completed decisions for 11,263 of the 22,122 pesticide end-use products subject to
reregistration. Decisions are pending for 10,860 products. EPA completed 1,769 product
reregistration decisions during FY2009, compared to 1,196 in FY2008 and 978 in FY2007. EPA’s
goal for FY2010 is 1,500 decisions, and the agency expects to complete the last decisions in
2014.81 EPA also reported that by the end of FY2009 it had completed product reregistration for
214 of the total 384 REDs, including 27 of the 31 organophosphates.
75 For more detailed explanation of these decision documents, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/
index.htm.
76 Related pesticide active ingredients are grouped into cases; the 613 cases encompass approximately 1,150 pesticide
active ingredients.
77 EPA, http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/reregistration_facts.htm.
78 EPA, Accomplishments under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), August 3, 2006, at http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/fqpa_accomplishments.htm.
79 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).
80 The Food Quality Protection Act requires EPA to assess the cumulative risks of pesticides that share a common
mechanism of toxicity, or act the same way in the body. For more information on EPA’s cumulative risk assessments,
see http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/cumulative/index.htm.
81 EPA, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/product-reregistration.htm.
Congressional Research Service
23
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
Registration Review82
The 1996 amendments to FIFRA (FQPA) included, among other things, a provision for the
periodic review of pesticide registrations. Under section 3(g)(1)(A), Registration Review, “... The
Administrator shall by regulation establish a procedure for accomplishing the periodic review of
registrations. The goal of these regulations shall be a review of a pesticide’s registration every 15
years.” Such periodic review is necessary to determine if all registered pesticides continue to
meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects, taking into account changes in
scientific capabilities for assessing risk, as well as changes in policies and pesticide use practices
over time. As published in August 2006, EPA’s registration review final rule replaces the agency’s
reregistration and tolerance reassessment programs, which are nearly completed.
According to EPA, there are 721 registration review cases, comprising 1,135 active ingredients.83
The majority of these review cases are conventional pesticides (473 cases and 630 active
ingredients), but also include antimicrobial pesticides, biochemical pesticides, and microbial
pesticides. To meet its goal of reviewing each registered pesticide every 15 years, EPA anticipates
it will require decisions on at least 45 cases (more than 70 pesticide active ingredients) annually.
EPA initiated implementation of registration review in early FY2007, opening 25 registration
review case dockets by the end of the fiscal year. Consistent with its published planned
registration review schedule for FY2008 through FY2011, EPA opened 45 dockets in FY2008 and
70 dockets in FY2009.84 The agency anticipates that it will continue at this annual pace (70 new
dockets each fiscal year) through FY2017, so that most of the currently registered pesticides will
have dockets opened by the end of that fiscal year, with the exception of certain biopesticide
dockets, which are expected in FY2018 through FY2020.85 In the June 16, 2010, Federal Register
EPA announced its updated schedule for the registration review program that provides the
timeline for opening dockets for the next four years, FY2010-FY2013, and summarizes updated
information regarding the dockets opened FY2007-FY2009.86 Among the changes identified in
the June 2010 schedule update is the agency’s decision to review all pesticides in two additional
groups—triazines and soil fumigants—within the same time frame. The registration review of the
soil fumigants group was moved forward from 2017 to 2013. EPA will update the registration
review schedule at least once a year and possibly more frequently based on the agency’s
consideration of issues raised by the public, registrants, and other stakeholders.
82 For a more detailed overview of EPA’s registration review process, see http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/
registration_review/reg_review_process.htm.
83 For updated information on EPA’s schedule for opening dockets to begin pesticide registration reviews, see
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/explanation.htm.
84 EPA, “Registration Review: Schedule for Beginning Reviews - 2009 to 2012,” http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/
registration_review/schedule.htm.
85 See “Status of Registration Review,” pp. 27-28, in EPA’s Implementing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
(PRIA) - Fiscal Year 2009, February 26, 2010, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/.
86 75 Federal Register 34115-34117, June 16, 2010. See also EPA’s “Registration Review: Schedule for Beginning
Reviews - 2010 to 2013,” at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm.
Congressional Research Service
24
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
Conclusion
EPA’s timely completion of the statutory registration, reregistration, and tolerance assessment
requirements for pesticides has been 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, reauthorized and revised fee provisions enacted January 23, 2004 (P.L. 108-199,
PRIA 1). PRIA 2 continued 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 increased fee revenues, have led to more timely
completion of certain registration applications and the completion of the reregistration reviews.
Reforming the overall process has led to accelerated implementation of stricter FQPA standards
and associated 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 the PRIA 1 schedules improved the efficiency in the overall process, leading to
the completion of reregistration reviews and the reevaluation of older tolerances. PRIA 2’s more
prescriptive fee schedule, including increasing the number of fee categories from 90 to 140, is
expected to result in further efficiencies of the processing of registration applications. Other PRIA
1 pesticide fee provisions retained in PRIA 2 also provided 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 refinements and improvements through the end of FY2009. 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 standards87 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.88 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 further acceleration of the pesticide review process.
87 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), by Linda-Jo Schierow).
88 Examples of EPA advisory workgroups and committees for pesticide science and procedural issues are available at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/committees.htm.
Congressional Research Service
25
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview
Author Contact Information
Robert Esworthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
resworthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7236
Congressional Research Service
26