ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS
LAWS AND INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS CONTROLLING
THE RELEASE OF PESTICIDES INTO THE ENVIRONMENT
-------
PESTICIDES STUDY SERIES - 11
LAWS AND INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS CONTROLLING THE
RELEASE OF PESTICIDES INTO THE ENVIRONMENT
This study 1s the result of an interagency agreement made by OWP
as part of the Pesticides Study (Section 5(1) (2) P.L. 91-224) with
the Economic Research Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture.
The USDA project members:
Roger W. Strohbehn, Project Officer
Beatrice H. Holmes, Author
William D. Anderson, Author
For EPA:
Charles D. Reese, Project Officer
Carl ton J. Kempter, Project Member
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Programs
Water Quality and Non-Point Source Control Div,
Non-Point Source Control Branch
For rale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.0.20402- Price $1.26
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Water
Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, or
does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Acknowledgements
This report was written by Beatrice Hort Holmes and William
Dyer Anderson, general attorneys in the Environmental Economics Branch,
Natural Resources Economics Division of ERS. The authors wish to
acknowledge the assistance given them by officials of the Federal and
State Governments. Federal departments and independent agenices whose
personnel supplied information or reviewed sections of the manuscript
/
for accuracy include the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Defense,
Health, Education and Welfare, Interior, State, and Transportation;
the Council on Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Federal Trade Commission and the Working Group on Pesticides,
Dr. Rollin M. Dennistown, of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture was
especially helpful in providing the results of a survey of State pro-
cedures in restricting pesticide use.
The EPA project officer wishes to express
thanks to Mrs. Babette Baltes, Mrs. Nyla Linthicum
and Mrs. Lydia Greene for outstanding service as
secretaries in the preparation of this report.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY 1
FEDERAL LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS 8
Reorganization Plan No. 3 Q
Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 10
Survei 1 lance and Enforcement 12
Cancellation and Suspension 13
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.. 17
i
Petition for Tolerance ,. 19
Criteria for Setting the Tolerance 22
"Zero Tolerance" 23
Enforcement 25
Federal Trade Commission Act 28
Federal Aviation Act 30
Federal Water Pollution Control Act 31
Hazardous Materials Transportation Contr. Legislation 34
Transportation Standards for Poisonous Materials 34
Enforcement 35
Public Health Service Act 37
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.... 39
Pol icy Advi ce 42
Effects of Environmental Impact Statements
on Federal Pesticide Programs 44
Executive Order 11574: Administration of the Refuse
Act Permi t Programs 46
Fish and Wildlife Act 49
Pesticide Research Act 50
Executive Order 11507: Prevention Control and
Abatement of Air and Water Pollution at Federal
Faci 1 i ti es 51
STATE LAWS AND INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS 53
Distribution and Sale 53
Use and Application... • • 61
Pest Control i 68
i
-------
Page
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS 73
International Pesticide Control Activities of the U.S. Programs
of the Agency for International Development 73
Pesticide Control Activities of International Organizations 77
Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program—the Codex
Al imentari us 77
Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues and FAO/WHO Joint
Meeting of Expert Coratittees 78
FAO Guidelines for Legislation Concerning the Registration
for Sale and Marketing of Pesticides 81
International Labour Office-World Health Organization
Committee of Occupational Health 84
Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development 85
Activities of European Regional Organizations Related to
Pesticide Control 87
European & Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization 87
Counci 1 of Europe 90
The European Economi c Communi ty 89
INTERAGENCY AND INTRAAGENCY PESTICIDE CONTROL MECHANISMS 90
Interdepartmental Agreements on Registration of Pesticides,
1964-70 90
Working Group on Pesticides 94
The Secretary's Pesticide Advisory Committee of the Department
of Health, Education & Welfare 101
Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee of the Environmental
Protection Agency 105
Joint Weed Committee 107
Subcommittee on the Biological Control of Weeds 107
Ad Hoc Interagericy Committee on Use of Herbicides
i n Aquati c Si tes , 108
Interagency Ad Hoc Committee on Preventive Weed Control 109
Department of Interior's Intradepartmental Pesticides Working
Committee Ill
Armed Forces Pest Control Board 114
Footnotes 117
Appendices 131
ii
-------
INDEX OF TABLES
Page
(1) Summary of State Restricted Use Pesticides, May, 1971 56
(2) Summary of State Pesticide Use and Application Laws 62
(3) Pest Control Districts in the United States, 1967 72
iii
-------
SUMMARY
The existing legal framework for controlling the re-
lease of pesticides into the environment consists of Federal
laws and executive orders, State laws and institutional
mechanisms, international law and institutional mechanisms
and the inter- and intra-agency organizations devised by
Federal agencies for the purpose of coordinating pest con-
trol-responsibilities.
Federal laws provide indirect controls, of varying de-
grees of effectiveness, on both the use of pesticides and
the release of pesticides into the environment. The most
significant of these include:
1. Registration of pesticide products for distribu-
tion in interstate commerce.
2. Regulation of the amounts of specific pesticide
residues that will be tolerated on raw agricultural products
and processed foods, and associated research and monitoring
of the effects of pesticides residues on man.
3. State - Federal water quality standards limiting
toxic substances in interstate waters.
4. Provisions for surveillance of the environmental
-------
Impact of all Federal and Federally supported pest control
programs .
5. Provisions for research and monitoring of the
effects of pesticides on man and for training state and local
public health officials.
6. Provisions for investigations of the effects of
pesticides on fish and wildlife conservation, for the dis-
semination of the results of such investigations and for the
formulation of pesticide control policy.
However, with the exception of the Federal Aviation
Administration's regulation of "crop dusting" activities
existing Federal laws do not directly regulate the use of
pesticides. With the exception of the Refuse Act
of 1899, which provides for comprehensive regulation of in-
dustrial water pollution, and of Executive Order 11507,
which provides for control of water and air pollution at
Federal facilities, existing Federal laws do not directly
regulate the release of waste pesticides into the environ-
ment.
State pesticide laws have typically been divided into j
two categories: (1) those which regulate the distribution
and sale of pesticides, and (2) those which regulate the use
and application of pesticides.
-------
In the first category, H9 States have statutes requir-
ing the registration and labeling of pesticides as a condi-
tion for the lawful sale and distribution of these materials
in intrastate commerce. Historically, these laws have fol-
lowed substantially the comparable Federal legislation cov-
ering interstate commerce. Recently, however, a number of
States have imposed use restrictions on certain pesticides.
At least 20 States now have legislation authorizing use per-
mits for specific pesticides. In 19 States, licenses or
permits are required for pesticide dealers.
The second category of State laws, those dealing with
use and application, are not as uniform. Thirty-one States
have statutes requiring the licensing of commercial or cus-
tom pesticide applicators. At lease 19 States have legis-
lation regulating structural pest control operators, tree
surgeons, or related professions involved in pesticide ap-
plication. State pesticide use and application laws may
provide for extablishing qualifications for those persons
engaged in the pesticide application business and for reg-
ulating the methods and conditions for pesticide applica-
tion. In addition to laws controlling pesticides, many
?
States have pest control legislation. Two types of legis-
latively created pest control organizations are the inter-
state compact and the special purpose district.
The Food and Agriculture organization of the U.N.,
working together with the World Health Organization, and a
-------
number of other international organizations, including sev-
eral European regional organizations are attempting the dev-
elopment of effective international controls on pesticide
pollution. This effort is at a very earl} stage. However,
there are many indications that a comprehensive interna-
tional law limiting pesticide residues on foods is in the
process of development.
This development is strongly supported by the United
States. As a result, the U.S. Foreign Assistance Program is
now being adjusted to enable U.S. AID personnel to give
underdeveloped food exporting countries a new kind of tech-
nical assistance. The goal of this new kind of assistance
will be to enable such countries to deal adequately with
their pest control problems, and safeguard health conditions of
domestic food supplies, while insuring that their food ex-
ports will not be rejected by food importing countries be-
cause of excessive pestidice residues.
Additional pesticide control activities of interna-
tional organizations have included:
1. Sponsorship of international and regional guide-
lines for pesticide registration laws,
2. Sponsorship of regional pesticide residue tol-
erances.
-------
3. Sponsorship of international toxic substances
monitoring programs,
4. Sponsorship of standards for international limits
on airborne toxic substances in the working environment,
5. Exchange of information among members regarding
national standards concerning preventive pest control, reg-
ulation and use of pesticides (including prospective changes
in regulatory measures) and promotion of alternative methods
for pest control.
Another aspect of existing pesticide controls which
has had a very significant effect on the release of pesti-
cides into the environment, are the efforts of the Federal
Government to coordinate the policies and practices of its
own programs. A large number of Federal and Federally sup-
ported pest control and weed control programs as well as
research on pest and weed control are conducted, in addition
to the regulatory and surveillance functions mentioned pre-
viously, l
Since 1964, the Government has endeavored to coordinate
the aims of the pesticide registration program of the Feder-
al Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act with the find-
ings of Federal research and surveillance activities on the
effects of specific pesticides on foods, public health, and
fish and wildlife. Until the end of 1970, this effort was
-------
undertaken through an Interdepartmental Agreement between
the three Federal Departments (Agriculture; Health Education
and Welfare, and Interior) with responsibilities in these
areas. Reorganization Plan No, 3 of 1970 has completed this
task by bringing the units of the three Departments which
participated in these concerns together into one unit, the
Pesticides Office of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Working Group on Pesticides, a Federal interagency
coordinating body with eight member agencies and four agency
observer participants, is responsible for both policy advice1
on pesticides and the day-to-day coordination of Federal
agencies pesticide activities. The working Group co-
ordinates research on pest control and the effects of con-
trol procedures, as well as programs of monitoring the en-
vironment for pesticides residues. In addition, the Working
Group is concerned with safety in the storage, packaging and
transportation of pesticides and in disposal of containers
and wastes. The Group also conducts special investigation
of pesticide problems as they arise, coordinates its
activities with State and local governments and disseminates
public information on pest control and use of pesticides.
The Joint weed committee of the Departments of Agricul-
ture and Interior provides a forum in which Federal agencies
with land and water management responsibilities meet to-
gether to exchange information and resolve problems with
-------
agencies having responsibilities for weed control research,
farmer education, and the regulation of herbicide use. The
Joint Weed, committee' s subcommittee on Use of Herbicides in
Aquatic Sites includes representatives of EPA, the Working
Group, and a number of other agencies with public health and
water management responsibilities as well as agencies of the
Departments of Agriculture and Interior.
The Hazardous Materials Advisory committee of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency is a committee of non-govern-
ment scientific experts whose function is to provide the
Government with independent scientific advice on a variety
of issues related to the effects of toxic substances on the
environment.
Several other Departments which support pest control
programs have their own mechanisms for subjecting such pro-
grams to environmental scrutiny — most notably the Depart-
ments of Interiiovj: and Defense.
[ !
-------
FEDERAL LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Reorganization Plan No. 3
The principal Federal agency in the United States with
authority to take actions affecting the use of pesticides is
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA was created
by Reorganization Plan No, 3 of 1970, effective December 2,
1970. Its mission is to act as the central Federal
pollution abatement agency responsible for the protection of
all aspects of the environment against all types of harmful
pollution, specifically including pesticides. To perform
this mission, EPA has been authorized to take responsibility
for a variety of ongoing research, planning, and regulatory
programs that previously had been scattered among a number
of Federal departments and independent agencies.
EPA is responsible for the following ongoing programs
related to protecting the environment from pollution by pes-
ticides.
1. The pesticides registration program, formerly as-
signed to the Department of Agriculture under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) and related activities.
8
-------
2. The setting of tolerances for pesticide residues
on food and feed, formerly assigned to the De-
partment of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW)
under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and
related activities, as well as certain technical
assistance and research functions under the
Public Health Service Act.
3. The functions formerly assigned the Department of
the Interior under the Federa'l Water Pollution
Control Act.
t|. The functions formerly assigned the Department of
the Interior under the Pesticides Research Act,
and activities of the Gulf Breeze Biological
Laboratory.
EPA*s period of responsiblitiy for pesticide control
has thus been brief. It has been a period of national con-
cern focused on the hazards of pesticide pollution, and of
heightened Federal control activity exemplified by the re-
cent cancellations of pesticide registrations for DDT,
aldrin, dieldrin, and mirex. However, EPA is still operat-
ing under enabling legislation designed, at an earlier time,
for the programs of other agencies with somewhat different
agency missions.
-------
Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodeoticide Act
The FIFRA, 61 Stat. 163, as amended, 7 USC 135-135K,
was originally passed in 1947 to regulate the marketing of
"economic poisons" and "devices"; amended in 1959, 1961 and
1964.
The term "economic poison11 has the same meaning as the
more commonly used term, "pesticide." It is defined in the
Act as "any substance or mixture of substances intended for
preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects,
rodents, fungi, weeds an<* other forms of plant and animal
life viruses, except viruses on or in living man or other
animals" declared to be a pest by the Administrator and "any
substances or mixture of substances intended for use as a
plant regulator, defoliant, or dessicant."
"Devices" are mechanisms such as ant traps, sold to-
gether with pesticides for the purpose of application; or
simply mechanisms such as electronic bug-killers, designed
to destroy pests.'
Under the FIFRA, no pesticide or device may be legajLly
shipped in interstate commerce for general use until it'is
registered. Registration is granted for a period of five
years after the manufacturer or other registrant submits
10
-------
test data proving the pesticide is safe and effective when
used as directed on the proposed label. If the agency
refused registration, the applicant can appeal the refusal
under the same rules applicable to appeals from cancellation
of registration.2
As a matter of policy, registration xs not granted un-
less the registrant also demonstrates that the use directed
on the label will not result in greater pesticide residues
on food and feed than the proposed residue tolerance to be
granted under procedures of the Pood, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
The applicant is required to include in his petition an an-
alytical method for detecting such residues.'
The FIFRA prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce
of products that are not registered or are adulterated, mis-
branded, insufficiently labeled or, in the case of certain
white powder pesticides, are not colored for identification
purposes.*
Labels of registered pesticide products must contain
i
the name and address of the manufacturer or registrant, the
Federal registration number, the net contents, an accurate
ingredient statement, directions for use (including the
specific purposes for which the pesticide is permitted to be
used), and a warning or caution statement when necessary, to
prevent injury to man or vertebrate animals.5
11
-------
With respect to warning statements, the Act itself pro-
vides that the labels of pesticides containing substances
found by the Administrator to be highly toxic to man must
\
contain the skull and crossbones, the word "poison;" and the
antidote, all legible and prominently displayed. The reg-
ulations elaborate on this provision, and divide other pes-
ticides into three classes of declining toxicity with cor-
respondingly declining warning requirements.
Surveillance and Enforcement
Surveillance inspectors, working out of 10 EPA regions
in the United States, systematically inspect and sample pes-
ticides in warehouses and sales outlets. The pesticides are
inspected for registration, and adequacy of information, and
8
samples are taken for chemical analysis or biological activity.
If inspection reveals that products are being shipped,
distributed, or sold in violation of the Act, the products
may be seized and criminal action may be brought against the
shipper or, if the shipper is protected by quarantee,
against the registrant. Violation of the Act is a misde-
meanor, which may be prosecuted at the discretion of the
Administrator and is punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000,
9
imprisonment, or both. There is no provision in the Act
12
-------
for inspection of the premises of the manufacturer or pro-
cessor, or for seizure of products before they are shipped
or are on the threshold of interstate commerce.
~«he PIPRA requires that all manufacturers, distribu-
tees, dealers, and carriers of pesticides keep records and,
when requested, furnish information requesting delivery,
10
movement, or holding of pesticides. However, the Act does
not provide for mandatory recall of products found in viola-
f
tion of the Act. Instead, under established procedures, the
manufacturer is requested to recall products voluntarily-
Following this action, EPA officials may examine shipping re-
cords and make multiple seizures if such is warranted.
Theee is no provision in the FIFRA by which the administra-
tive agency can stop the sale of violative products except
by seizure of individual lots. Nir is there any provision
in the FIFRA regulating the application pf pesticides once
they are sold.
Cancellation and Suspension
All pesticide registrations are automatically cancelled
at the end of five years unless the registrant requests re-
newal. However, the Act provides that registrations may be
13
-------
cancelled (or in appropriate cases, suspended) whenever it
becomes apparent that a product or its labeling does not
conform with the Act. The EPA uses this authority to main-
tain a continuing review of previously registered products
to determine whether their safety and efficacy are still
adequate in the light of new scientific data.l2
The Administrator is authorized to cancel a registra-
tion by notifying the registrant (or all registrants, if
there are more than one for the same product) of the can-
cellation and the reason for this action. Cancellation
becomes effective 30 days after service of notice, unless
the registrant makes the necessary corrections or takes
steps to contest the cancellation.»'
If a pesticide is cancelled for some but not all uses
(as was the case, for example with DDT in 1969 and 1970), a
registrant need not take any action except to delete the
cancelled uses from the directions on the label. If, how-
ever, a registrant decides to appeal the cancellation of his
registration, the registration remains in force during the
appeal period and the registrant may continue to market his
product. The cancellation procedures may be very lengthy.
The FIFRA thus provides that within 30 days of service
of the cancellation notice the registrant may appeal, either
by petitioning that the matter be referred to an advisory
14
-------
committee of the National Academy of Science or by request-
ing a public hearing. (If the registrant obtains a scien-
tific advisory committee report, he is required to pay the
costs of the committee, unless the committee recommends in
his favor or unless the matter was referred to the committee
by the Administrator; in the latter case, he is not pre-
cluded from exercising his right to petition for an addi-
tional scientific advisory committee,) After due consider-
ation of the views of the committee and all other data
before himr the Administrator has 90 days in which to decide
whether the registration should be cancelled and to issue an
order. However, if the registrant is then dissatisfied with
the order of the Administrator, he has an additional 60 days
in which to ask for a public hearing. After the hearing,
the Administrator has 90 days in which to issue a final
order based on the record of th hearing, including the
report of the advisory committee. The final order is, of
course, subject to judicial review.1*
It has been estimated that the average time period for
completion of a fully contested cancellation is a year to a
year and one half.15 In the past, contested cancellations
were not prosecuted, or much longer periods were needed to
complete them because of smaller staff resources and
procedural inexperience.**
The Administrator may suspend the registration of a
product immediately, if he determines that such action is
15
-------
necessary to prevent "an imminent hazard to the public."
This means that the "suspended" product may not legally be
sold in interstate commerce unless and until the contesting
registrant succeeds in his appeal of the suspension order.17
The Act does not specifically define the nature, magni-
tude, or urgency of those pesticide problems considered to
"an imminent hazard to the public" but EPA has interpreted
the language to mean that the pesticide must be a threat to
public health, "so immediate that it cannot await the reso-
lution of this administrative process.1'
Section Ud of the FIFRA also provides that any person
"who will be adversely affected" by an order concerning
registration, cancellation, or suspension may have judicial
review of the validity of the order in the U.S. circuit
Court of Appeals of his residence or place of business, or
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.»»
The D.C. Court of Appeals firmly stated, in the May 1970
case of Environmental Defense Fund vs Hardin, that citizens1
organizations devoted to environmental protection have equal
standing to seek review of an order refusing cancellation or
suspension under this provision with manufacturers or
registrants economically injured by an order denying, suspen-
ing, or finally cancelling registration.z°
16
-------
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Reorganization Plan No. 3 also transferred to EPA the
function of establishing tolerances for "pesticide chemi-
cals" under specified sections of the Federal Food, Drug and
Costmetic Act (FDCA). Also transferred were some of tne
associated functions of monitoring compliance with toler-
ances and effectiveness of surveillance, rendering technical
assistance to the States, and performing'supportive
research.
Section U08 of the FDCA, the so called "Miller
Amendment," was passed in 1952.21 This amendment authorizes
the Administrator of EPA to establish residue tolerances or
exemptions from tolerance, and provides in detail the
procedure to be followed. It also provides that any raw
agricultural commodity may be condemned as adulterated if it
contains a residue of any pesticide which has not been
formally exempted as safe or which is present in excessive
amounts.
Under section 408, tolerances are established on raw
agricultural commodities, not on processed foods. If the
residues remaining in a processed food have been removed to
the extent possible in good manufacturing practices and do
not exceed the tolerance on the raw product, the processed
1.7
-------
product complies with the law. In practice, it has
generally been found that the residues in processed food are
only a fraction of the amount permitted on the raw
agricultural commodities.2* The majority of uses of
pesticide in the United States are on the raw commodities,
rather than on processed food. It is practical therefore to
remove contaminated foods from the chain of distribution at
this early point.
However, Section 409 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act, the "food additives" amendment, provides for the estab-
lishment of the conditions of use of any substance "inten-
tionally" or "incidentally" added to food, except pesticide
chemicals on raw agricultural commodities. This provision
has been interpreted to mean that Section 409 does apply to
pesticide residues intentionally or unintentionally added to
processed foods, such as residues from fumigants used in
restaurant kitchens or warehouses.23
The Delaney Clause of the Food Additives amendment
states that no "food additives" capable of causing cancer '
when ingested by animals or man may be added to food.2* The
United states Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia,
in the leading case of Environmental Defense Fund vs the i
U.S. Department of HEW, ruled that the Delaney Clause does
not apply to the use of DDT on raw agricultural products, in
the light of the plain meaning of the language of the
statute.2s
18
-------
The EPA is required to use the tolerance-setting mech-
anism for protecting the public from cancer and other in-
juries resulting from pesticide residues on food.
Petition for Tolerance
Section 408 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act states
that a tolerance for pesticide residues on food or an exemp-
tion from the necessity of a tolerance must be obtained for
every pesticide except those generally recognized by scien-
tific experts to be harmless to man or vertebrate animals.
The FDCS states that a registrant or applicant for registra-
tion under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenti-
cide Act must submit specified information to be used by the
Administrator in setting a tolerance or granting an exemp-
tion. This information is Jcept confidential until the reg-
ulation is published.
It includes:
1. The chemical identity of the compound,
2. Specified data on the results of toxicity exper-
iments with animals, including data on tumors and
abnormalities in reproduction.
19
-------
3. The amount, frequency, and time of application to
the crop or crops for which it is intended,
a. Data establishing the amount of residue after the
recommended application, and an analytical method
for detecting such residue,
5. Practicable methods for removing residue which
exceeds the proposed tolerance, and
6. The tolerance requested, with supporting data.26
In addition, the Administrator must certify that the
pesticide has been found useful for the production of the
crop or the control of the pest in question.27
Within 90 days after certification of usefulness, the
Administrator must publish a regulation establishing a
tolerance or granting an exemption for the pesticide, unless
the petition is referred to an advisory committee of the
National Academy of Sciences on request of either the
petitioner or the Administrator* If an advisory committee
is appointed, the committee has up to 90 days to report to
the Administrator. (The report of the advisory committee is
also kept confidential until publication of the regulation
setting the tolerance or granting exemption.) After
receiving the report, the Administrator has an additional 30
days in which to make his decision, on the basis of the
report and any other information before him.
20
-------
Within 30 days after publication of the regulation, any
person adversely affected may file objections with the
Administrator and request a public hearing. The report of
the advisory committee is made part of the record of the
hearing, and a member of the committee may be designated to
testify at such hearing with respect to the committee
report. The Administrator's final order of publication is
based entirely on the evidence in the record of the hearing.
When administrative review procedures have been exhausted,
i
the final order is subject to judicial review in the same
manner as orders affecting registration of pesticides under
the FIFRA."
Section U08 (e) of the FDCA has been the basis for the
agency1s continuing review of tolerance levels, in the light
of new scientific findings. Section 408 provides that the
Administrator may at any time, on his own initiative or on
the petition of "any interested person," propose the
issuance of a regulation establishing a tolerance or an
exemption. Thirty days after publication of such "proposal"
the Administrator may publish a regulation based on such
proposal, unless the registrant or applicant for
registration of the pesticide contests the regulation. The
proposal is then submitted to an advisory committee and is
subject to the same administrative and judicial review
process applicable to the petitions for tolerance of would-
be registrants under the FIFRA.2' Section 408 (e) also has
21
-------
been successfully used by conservationist organizations to
insure the responsiveness of the agency to their views.
i
In the May 1970 case of Environmental Defense Fund vs
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the United
States court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered
the Secretary of HEW, to publish the Petitioner's proposal
to establish a "zero tolerance" level for DDT residues on
raw agricultural products, thus setting in motion a process
of administrative review of tolerance levels for many uses
of DDT.'o This administrative review has not yet been
completed.
criteria for Setting the Tolerance
The determination of the safety of the tolerance has
been described as "a scientific judgment** which "cannot be
derived from any arbitrary mathematical calculation." This
judgment involves consideration of information received from
both the petition for tolerance and the agency's own
research and surveillance program. Factors considered
include the "no effects" levels demonstrated in the
experimental animals, the cumulative potential, the
metabolic data, the probability of exposure to other similar
22
-------
poisons, and the species differences applicable to
translating the animal data into effects on man.31
The tolerance is set at a level that would protect the
consumer even if all of the particular raw food crop for
which the pesticide is intended carried residues at the
tolerance level, even though surveillance and enforcement
data show that only a small percentage of the samples
actually do. However, the agency in setting a residue
tolerance for the raw commodity does take* into consideration
the usual practices of food preparation and the patterns of
consumption tJiat result in reduction of residues in food
processing.
The tolerance is intended to be the maximum (not the
average) residue permit-ted on the crop when harvested and
shipped, providing the directions for pesticide application
have been followed.3Z
"Zero Tolerance"
Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, residue toler-
ances may be set at any level necessary to protect the pub-
i *
lie, including zero. In the past, however, when a pesticide
23
-------
was registered for use on a food crop on the basis of a zero
tolerance or on a "no residue" basis, it meant that the
directed use would not leave residues on the harvested food
at levels detectable by chemical analysis. As the
techniques of chemical analysis became more sensitive, it
became apparent that small residues of pesticides remained.
It then became necessary to decide whether these newly
discovered residues were hazardous to public health.33
In 1965 the report of a committee of the National
Academy of Sciences - National Research Council recommended
that: "The concepts of 'no residue1 and 'zero tolerance1 as
employed in the registration and regulations of pesticides
are scientifically and administratively untenable and should
be abandoned.3 *
After extensive consideration of the report, the
Agricultural Research service, then responsible for the
Administration of the FIFRA, and the Food and Drug
Administration, then responsible for Section 408 of the
FDCA, agreed on a procedure for implementing the committee's
recommendations. A joint U.S. Department of Agriculture-
HEW statement for implementation of the NRC Pesticides
Residues Committee's "Report on 'No Residue* and •Zero
Tolerance'" was published in the Federal Register on April
13, 1966. It was agreed that registrations of all uses
involving reasonable expectation of small residues on food
-------
or feed at harvest, in the absence of a finite tolerance or
exemption, should be discontinued as of December 31, 1967.
An exception is made in cases where evidence has been
presented to support a finite tolerance, or to show that
enough progress has been made on the investigation to
warrant the conclusion that the registration could be
continued without undue hazard to the public health.35 For
various reasons, many registrants did not submit for
tolerance for certain crops; as a result many uses were
t
cancelled. Registration for other "zero tolerance"
pesticides was continued on the basis of pending petitions
for finite tolerances or on the basis of progress reports on
ongoing studies.36 Review of petitions to establish
tolerances for these uses has b®60 9°ing on for the past
few years. Not all of them have been completed.
Enforcement
The Food and Drug Administration.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 did not reassign to EPA the
responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
endorce pesticide residue tolerance on raw agricultural
commodities. FDA inspectors, operating out of 17 district
offices, are responsible for sampling and examining raw food
25
-------
commodities for pesticide residues along with other food
contaminants. These commodities include all food except
meat, poultry, and broken egg products.
Some shipments of food are sampled because of suspected
excess residues prior to shipment. Other, "objective,"
samples from packing-houses, trucks, railroad cars, and
ultimate consignees are regularly collected and examined,
In addition, field checks are made to see that growers are
following label directions or other authoritative advice on
pesticide use.37
If any residue in excess of tolerance is found in any
shipment, the shipment is seized and procedures are
initiated for voluntary recall of the rest of the lot. If
necessary to prevent shipment of violative lots, the FDCA
(unlike the FIFRA) provides that an injunction may be
obtained. Criminal actions may be brought against persons
or firms responsible for violation.38
The Consumer and Marketing Service.
Federal inspection for pesticide residues in meat and
poultry in interstate and foreign commerce is the respon-
sibility of the Consumer and Marketing Service (c&MS) of the
Department of Agriculture.* C&MS enforces the residue toler-
i I
ances set under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as part of
its general meat and poultry inspection programs.
* On April 2 the Consumer and Marketing Services meat and poultry
inspection programs were transferred to the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). C + MS remains responsible for admini*
stering the Egg Products Inspection Act.
26
-------
Under these programs, tissue samples are taken at the
slaughterhouse level, and products found to be "adulterated"
by excessive pesticide residues are administratively
detained pending final disposition.3' At this point,
experience has shown that packers will generally voluntarily
destroy contaminated lots and recall identifiable lots that
have been shipped. Disposition of "suspected" meat or
poultry may vary depending on degree of contamination (for
example, some products may be brought within the residue
f
tolerance by removing the fat), but no meat or poultry is
released for sale if it contains excessive pesticide
residues.*o To further protect the consumer, the producer
of a lot found to contain excessive residues is required to
prove that subsequent animals are within tolerance
requirements before slaughter is permitted.** If a
suspected product has already been shipped, an action of
seizure and condemnation may be brought in the United States
District Courts and, if necessary, remedies of injunction
and criminal penalties are also available. A final method
available to the Secretary of Agriculture, in the case of
felonious or repeated failures to destroy contaminated
products, would be withdrawal (after hearing) of Federal
inspection services, thus putting the offending packer out
of business.*2
The Federal Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 and the
Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968 provide that the
27
-------
standards of Federal inspection will soon be provided for
inspection of all slaughterhouses engaging in intrastate
commerce. This may be done by the State with Federal
cooperation or, where the States fail to act, by the Federal
Government.*' The Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970
provides a similar inspection program for broken egg
products. **
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT
Regulation of pesticides, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act, frequently means that only the label directions of a pesticide
that is dangerous or pollutive if misused are regulated. The pesticide itself
remains available for any use the consumer chooses. For this reason, public
and Governmental attention has been drawn to pesticide product advertisements
that are inconsistent with the labeling and the adverse effects of such
advertisements on Federal pesticide control efforts.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is empowered by law to act in this area.
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 USC 41-46, 47-58, the FTC is
authorized to make trade regulation rules, identifying and prohibiting unfair
methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices (in interstate
commerce) . After making such rules, the FTC has the power the enforce them by
adjudicative procedures that can culminate in orders to cease and desist. Per-
sons adversely affected by such cease and desist orders may, of course, obtain
judicial review.
The FTC has been engaged in rule making proceedings concerning pesticide
advertisements since January 1968. On three occasions, January 24, 1968,
February 6,V1969 and August 11, 1970, the FTC has solicited the views and
28
-------
comments of the public regarding three progressively more stringent proposed
, 45
rules." However, it has not yet promulgated any rule.
The Commission's most recent revision of a proposed trade regulation rule
would prohibit the dissemination of pesticide product advertisements that repre-
sent that:
(1) The product is safer than indicated in the labeling, or
(2) Fewer precautions are necessary in the preparations for use or use
of the product than indicated in the labeling, or
(3) The possible,consequences of use, such as drift, residue, soil
retention, water pollution, damage to desirable plants, etc., would be less
extensive or less deleterious than indicated in the labeling, or
(4) The effectiveness, or range of uses or applications are greater than
indicated in the labeling.
In addition the second revision of a proposed trade regulation rule would
prohibit all pesticide product advertisements that fail to clearly and con-
spicuously display the following warning statement:
•
WARNING: THIS PRODUCT CAN BE INJURIOUS TO HEALTH: READ THE 46
ENTIRE LABEL CAREFULLY AND USE ONLY AS DIRECTED."-
The FTC's power to make trade regulation rules is a discretionary power.
The Commission's rules of practice require that the Commission must provide
general notice of trade regulation rulemaking by publication in the Federal
Register and other practicable means. Such notice must include an oppor-
tunity for interested persons to participate in the proceeding by submitting
written data, views or agruments. in other respects the rule making proceeding
may consist of whatever investigations, conferences or oral hearings (with
opportunity for interested persons to testify) that the FTC considers necessary.
Following such a proceeding, the FTC's rules of practice permit it to promul-
29
-------
gate a trade regulation rule on the bases of all relevant information before
it but there is no requirement that the Commission make its decision within
a set time periodr-
THE. FEDERAL AVIATION ACT
The authority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to prescribe
controls on the aerial application of pesticides, the only example of direct
Federal regulation of the use of pesticides, is based on the 'Federal Aviation
j
Act of 1958. Section 307 of this Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportatioi
to prescribe air traffic regulations governing the flight of aircraft for
_4-8
(among other purposes) the protection of persons and property on the ground.
Under this enabling authority, the FAA has established regulations re-
quiring agricultural aircraft operators to obtain certificates when they are
engaged in the spraying of economic poisons* Certification is awarded by
the FAA only on showing by the applicant of adequate knowledge concerning:
(1) safe handling of economic poisons and proper disposal of used contain-
ers,
(2) the general effects of economic poisons on plants, animals and persons
and the consequent precautions to be used and
»
(3) the primary symptoms of poisoning, appropriate emergency measures to
Be taken and. location of poison control centers.
In addition, Section 137.39 of the regulations state that no.pilot may
. «
dispense any economic poison that is registered under the FIFRA:
* i
<1) for a use other than that for which it is registered,
(2) contrary to any safety instructions or use limitations on its laljel,
or
(3) in violation ..of any Federal law or regulation.
30
-------
An exception to the above, regulation is permitted in the case of ac-rial
, ' »
application of pesticides for experimental purposes under the supervision of a
Federal or State agency authorized to conduct such experiment by law or permit
from the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Reorganization Plan No. 3 also transferred to EPA all
the functions of the Federal Water Quality Administration of
the Department of the Interior, under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and its amendments, 33 USC 466 et seq.
These functions include: subsidy of sewage treatment plant
construction; assistance to State, local, and regional
planning; pollution monitoring; research ;and demonstration
projects; approval of state water quality standards for
interstate waters; river basin and estuarine zone planning;
abatement action through State-Federal Conferences and
through enforcement of water quality standards; and other
assignments. All these prdgrams are now administered by the
Water Quality Office of EPA.
The Water Quality Office is necessarily concerned with
pesticide pollution of waters in all its programs. For
example, the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference of 1968
made recommendations which led to an interstate pesticide
control agreement and the passage of State legislation.
31
-------
At present, however, the Water Quality Office is
particularly concerned with the problem of integrating into
its water quality standards program current scientific
information on the dangers, persistence, and traveling
propensity of pesticides in the aquatic environment.
In 1965 amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act
called on the States to establish standards for their
interstate waters which could then be approved, if suffi-
ciently stringent, as Federal standards by the Secretary of
the Interior. These standards include listings of the types
of uses to be made of specific waters, the quality of water
needed to support such uses (including specific limits on
various types of pollutants), and specific plans for
achieving quality levels.£1 The standards of all of the
States have been approved with certain aspects specifically
excepted in many cases. However, not all of the standards
approved are considered adequate by the Water Quality
Office, and there is a need to improve the knowledge of
water quality characteristics so that standards can be
upgraded. General criteria on pesticides, as well as other
toxic substances, have been written into all of the approved
water quality standards. But specific limits on pesticides
in water have not been spelled out. Nor have definitive
measures for implementing such limits been detailed. 5^
It should also be noted that present Federal law does
not require effluent standards but only sets standards for
32
-------
the receiving waters. Nor does present Federal Taw require
water quality standards for intrastate waters.
The 1970 Water Quality Improvement Act is the enabling
legislation used for this study and for the other work of
the Water Quality Office concerning standards for pesticides.
Section 5 (L) (2) of the Act of 1970 directs EPA to
develop, and issue to the State for the purpose of adopting
standards, the scientific knowledge necessary tp develop
*ater quality criteria for pesticides. Under this directive
the agency has been Involved in increased research on the
effects of pesticides and on the search for less harmful
pesticides, expanded monitoring and investigation to
identify critical areas, and closer coordination with other
Federal pesticide control programs.
Section 5 (L) (2) authorizes the Pesticide Control Study, which
includes this report. This is described as "a study and investigation of
methods to control the release of pesticides into the environment, which
study shall include examination of the persistency of pesticides in
!
the water environment and alternatives thereto," for "the purpose of
assuring effective implementation of standards adopted pursuant to
paragraph (2)."
33
-------
'HAZARDOUS MATERIALS' TRANSPORTATION
CON'TROL LEGISLATION
The Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, united
the former powers of three separate Federal agencies (The Interstate
Commerce Cc>r.«.i.insion, The Federal Aviation Agency and The Coast Guard)
to separately regulate or enforce the regulation of the interstate
shipment of hazardors Materials.
Transportation Standards for Poisonous
Materials "
The power tc wake rules governing (among other things) the con-
tainer marking, packaging, preparation for shipment and handling in
shipment of various kinds of hazardous materials is now being exercised
by the Hp.-wrdous Material Regulations Board of DOT, composed of top
level representatives of the DOT agencies responsible for the four
mades of Transportation: The Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railway Adminis-
tration?*
A number of pesticides are classified by the Hazardous Materials
Regulation Board as Class B poisons,* the catagdry of poisons that
are either known to be so toxic to man as to present a human health hazard
i
during transportation or are presumed to be toxic to man on the basis
of experiments with laboratory animals?^-' Such poisons require appro-
5fi
priate labels on the outside of the package— as well as safe packaging.
*With the exception of hydrogen cyanide, which Is sometimes used
as a fumigant, no pesticides are included in the category of Class A
poisons, the most dangerous group of poisons with the most stringent
packaging reqaircnenLs. Class C poisons, which have the least
stringent packaging requirements, are mainly tear gases.
34 "
-------
The regulations dealing with the packaging of Class B pesticides are
divided into specific packaging requirements lot specifically naned
poisons
-------
portation, penalties for violation of the regulations differ for different
modes of transportation. In the case of shipments of poisons by motor
vehicle or rail the only penalties provided by law for violations of
transportation regulations are criminal penalties. Knowing violation
of such regulations are punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprison-
»
ment for up to one year, if death or bodily injury does not result. If
an injury -does result such violation is punishable by a fine of up to
$10,000, up tc ten years imprisonment, or both. The same criminal
penalties are provided for knowing violation of hazardous materials.ship-
ment regulations in air transportation."- However in the case of air
transportation there is also provision for a civil fine of $1,000 that
is subject to compromise. Where a civil pjenalty is imposed and the
violation is attributable to the carrier, the aircraft is subject to
£8
lien for the penalty. In the case of shipment by water, the law also
•
provides a civil penalty of $2,000 for knowing violations of such
regulations if no injury results, in which case, if the violation is by
the carrier, the Government may proceed against the vessel for the
penalty. If an injury does result from the violation, a criminal
69
penalty of up to $10,000 and 10 years imprisonment is provided by law.
There is no statutory provision for seizure of a violative cargo
in any of the four nodes of transportation. However, in the case of a
water borne csrgo at a port of entry into the United State;;, customs
officials may insist that the vessel l>e detained pending compliance v/ith
hazardous materials' or other transportation regulations
before the car^o is reiaoved from the ship/
A frequent type of hazardous materials violation involving pesti-
cides has been the situation where carriers have packed pesticides that
were Class B poisons Into the saine vehicle with food cargoes. In some of
36
-------
these cases the Department of Justice has initiated criminal proceedings
against the carriers. Carriers have often been prosecuted because they
did not apply proper placards to vehicles carrying hazardous materials,
and shippers have been prosecuted for failure to properly classify ship-
ments on shipping documents furnished carriers.
THE.PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
Reorganization Plan 3 also transferred to the Environmental Protection
Agency the "enabling authorities for certain public health oriented programs
of pesticide related research, monitoring and manpower development that had
previously been administered by the Public Health Service of the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare.
Title III, Part A, of the Public Health Service Act of 1944 as amended,
authorizes in-house, cooperative and contract studies "relating to the causes,
diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental dis-
72
eases and impairments of man". Acting under this authority, the Division of
Pesticide Community Studies, Office of Pesticides Programs, EPA conducts a
series of community studies in many parts of the nation to assess the long-
term effects of pesticides on human health and the environment and provide
a clearer understanding of the benefit-versus-risk equation of pesticide use.
Permanent community studies are presently being carried on in 14 states
through contracts with State health departments and universities, and 15 addi-
tional States are being aided through smalle't pesticide projects.
These community studies are concerned with measuring the acute and chronic
exposure of people to pesticides from all sources including manufacturing, for-
mulation, and-application. They consider the movement of pesticides in the
total community environment, and attempt to learn how much of the pesticide
residue accumulated in people comes from food, water, and air.
37
-------
Through bio-chemical and clinical tests, the studies follow the same group
of people over a period of many years to determine any differences in the
health of those with high exposure to pesticides as compared with the general
*
•
population whose exposure is usually at low dosage levels.
Also under this authority, the EPA conducts a nationwide program to
determine levels of pesticide residues in the general population and to iden-
•
tify trends of change in thes.e levels. Such residue levels provide a means of
estimating the total pesticide exposure experienced by the general population
of the contiguous United States. Pesticide levels are also measured in the
air in selected areas of the country where pesticides usage varies.—
Title IIIj Part B, of the Public Health Service Act provides authority
for Federal cooperation with State and local health authorities for enforce-
ment of health regulations, comprehensive State health planning, training of
State and local health workers.and grants for.State health planning, services
and related manpower training. In addition, Part B provides authority for
Federal regulations (including pest control measures) necessary to prevent
74
interstate transmission of disease.
Proceeding under these authorities, the Division of Pesticide Community
Studies provides technical training to State and local health departments and
environmental agencies in such matters as residue testing methods and accident
reporting. Field personnel, assigned to Sta^e health or environmental depart-
ments, work with State personnel to develop and improve comprehensive State
pesticide programs for the protection of human health. Training courses.far
pesticide applicators, pesticide control officials and laboratory workers are
: ./
offered to Federal, State, local a'nd nongovernment personnel and are conducted
in cooperation with State and local health departments and environmental
agencies.JS
38
-------
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
requires that every agency of the Federal Government
incorporate a concern for the quality of the environment
into its agency mission, and establishes the council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Executive office of the
President, to promote, assist, and monitror the achievement
of this objective. This landmark statute, signed on January
1, 1970, has already had a significant effect on Federal
efforts to control the release of pesticides into the
environment.
Title I of the NEPA authorizes several environment-
oriented responsibilities that apply to all Federal
agencies. Its most important provision. Section 102 (2)
(C), provides that all Federal agencies must include a
detailed "environmental impact statement" in every
recommendation concerning legislation or "other major
actions*1 significantly affecting the quality of the
environment. This statement must include: alternatives to
the proposed action, unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the relationship between short-term and long-term
effects, and any irreversible commitment of resources.
Before filing the final environmental impact statement,
39
-------
the responsible agency must obtain the comments of Federal
agencies having pertinent jurisdiction or expertise, and of
appropriate State and local environmental agencies. The
impact statement and the comments are then made available to
the council on Environmental Quality * the President, and the
public; they also accompany the proposal through the agency
review processes.
Title II of the NEPA created the Council on
Environmental Quality and empowers it to prepare an annual
environmental quality report and to make recommendations to
the President concerning programs, policies, and
legislation. Title II also authorizes the CEQ to analyze
conditions and trends in the quality of the environment, to
appraise the effects of Federal programs and activities on
environmental quality, and to develop and recommend national
policies.
Executive Order 11514, issued by the Presdient on March
5, 1970, describes in greater detail the responsibilities,
under the National Environmental Policy Act, of all Federal
agencies and the responsibilities of the council on
Environmental Quality.
Executive Order 11514 directs all Federal agencies to
monitor, evaluate, and control their existing activities and
to develop new programs and measures to protect and enhance
the quality of the environment in consultation with other
40
-------
Federal, State, and Local agencies. The order further
directs Federal agencies to make all information relating to
environmental problems and control measures available to
Federal, State and local agencies and other appropriate
institutions. The order also directs Federal agencies to
review their enabling authority and administrative policies
and procedures to determine whether any are inconsistent
with the purposes of the NEPA. The agencies were directed
to submit reports on this review to the council on
i
Environmental Quality by September 1, 1970. The reports
were required to include the corrective actions taken or
porposed (including proposals for changes in enabling
legislation).
Section 3 of Executive Order 1151 a details the
responsibilities of the Council on Environmental Quality
under the NEPA. The CEQ is directed to seek resolution of
significant environmental issues, where appropriate, by
means of new programs and policies. It is also directed to
coordinate Federal environmental programs, recommend
priorities among Federal environmental programs, and promote
the development of environmental research and monitoring.
The Council is also directed to issue guidelines to
Federal agencies for the preparation of Section 102 (2) (C)
environmental impact statements, and to issue other
appropriate instructions to Federal agencies and requests
for reports or information. Other provisions of the
41
-------
Executive Order refer to the CEQ's role in international
cooperation and its preparation of the annual environmental
quality report.
The activities of the Council on Environmental Quality
concerning coordination of Federal pesticide activities are
carried out in cooperation with the working Group on
pesticides, an interagency committee responsible to the CEQ.
The activities of the working Group will be discussed later
in this chapter.
The other major activities of the Council relating to
pesticides are "policy advice" and supervision of the
Section 102 (2) (C) environmental impact statements.
Policy Advice
The CEQ is authorized by the NEPA to develop new
environmental policies and recommend them to the President.
As part of its policy advice function, the CEQ played a
major part in creating the Environmental Protection Agency
and in drafting Executive Order 11574 concerning
administration of the Refuse Act. 7^
Also as part of its policy advice function, the
42
-------
Council, in the summer of 1970, convened and led a
legislative task force for the purpose of drawing up new
enabling legislation for the pesticides registration
program. The task force included representatives of the
Departments of Agriculture; Health, Education and Welfare;
and the Interior; and the Offices of Science and Technology,
and of Management and Budget. The bill the task force drew
up is based on the experience of Federal agencies with the
operation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act. recommendations of official study
commissions, and the example of State pesticide regulation
programs such as the California permit system. '8
This bill was submitted by the President to Congress on
February 8, 1971, as part of a comprehensive program of
environmental legislation. It was introduced as HR 4152 and
S 272, the proposed Federal Environmental Pesticide Control
Act of 1971.
The administration bill is based on the FIFRA but
contains some important differences. Most significantly,
the bill is designed to control not only the directions for
use on the pesticide label, but the actual use of the
pesticide, under the administration bill, all pesticides
registered by SPA would be classified "for general use,"
"for restricted use," or "for use by permit only."
Pesticides designated for restricted use (such as
43
-------
nonpersistent poisons which present short term dnagers to
human beings) could be used only be trained applicators.
Pesticides designated for use by permit only (such as less
toxic but persistent poisons which build up in the food
chain) would require approval of a trained consultant for
each application. Applicators and consultants would be
licensed by the States; the Federal Government would provide
part of the funds to train them.
Other provisions of the bill include: authority to
permit experimental registration of pesticides; streamlining
the process of appeals from registration, cancellation, and
suspension decisions of EPA; and authority for the
Administrator to stop the sale of a pesticide if it violates
the Act. Registration and inspection of establishments
manufacturing or processing pesticides would be mandatory,
and the Administrator would be authorized to regulate
pesticide storage and disposal.
Effects of Environmmental Impact Statements on
Federal Pesticide Programs
Section 102 (2) (C) of the NEPA does not authorize the
44
-------
Council on Environmental Quality to change government
programs on the basis of environmental impact statements.
However, the process of preparing environmental impact
statements, which requires consideration of alternative
actions, solicitations of advice from other Federal agencies
with "expertise," and consultation with CEQ, has had an
effect on the formulation of Federal pest control programs.
The Department of Agriculture, forfexample, has made a
number of adjustments in several of its pest control
programs, in response to the requirements of the impact
statement and the criticisms of proposed statements by other
aaencies. The Agricultural Research Service's*
Fire Ant program (which is also the subject of a suit
brought by the Environmental Defense Fund) has been
adjusted to avoid application of Mirex in water areas where
juvenile fish and shell fish may be adversely affected, and
in heavily wooded areas where fire ants survive with dif-
ficulty because of natural enemies. The ARS!s Japanese
beatle "stow-away11 control program at airports has
eliminated the use of aldrin and dieldrin, limited the use
of chlordane to cargo and loading areas, and substituted the
less persistent malathion for other airport use. The Forest
Service's State-Federal cooperative gypsy moth elimination
programs have limited application of DDT to what the Forest
* On October 31, 1971, the newly formed Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service took over the Agricultural Research Service's pest control programs.
ARS Is now purely a research agency.
45
-------
Service and the cooperating State agencies consider to be
the most highly valued forests.
Executive Order1157U: Administration of the
Refuse Act Permit Program
Executive Order 1157U of December 23, 1970, initiated a
new Federal program to control water pollution from
industrial sources through use of the permit authority in
the Refuse Act of 1899. This is intended to be a quicker
and more efficient means for abatement of discharges from
industrial plants (such as the endrin discharges that caused
the 1963-64 Mississippi fish kills)75 than the enforcement
provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The Refuse Act outlaws discharges and deposits (other
than municipal sewage) into all navigable waters, whether
interstate or intrastate, except under a permit obtained
from the Army Corps of Engineers and under any conditions
80
attached by the Corps. Until recently, this statute was
interpreted to apply only to discharges obstructing the
navigability of waters and was very little used. But court
decisions in the late 1960's made it clear that the Act of
-------
1899 can be used to regulate all kinds of discharges and
that it applies equally to intentional, unintentional, and
81
accidental discharges and spills.
Knowing violation of the Refuse Act is a misdemeanor,
subject to a $2,500 fine or 6 month imprisonment. Violators
also are subject to civil suits for injunctive relief.
Executive Order 11571 makes a permit mandatory for all
i
inudstrial discharges into navigable waters of the United
States, The Secretary of the Army is responsible for
administering the permit program, but he may not issue any
permit unless the proposed action meets the requirements of
the administrator of EPA concerning water quality standards.
This stipulation means that violators of Federal-state
standards. State standards for intrastate waters, or
standards imposed by EPA (when Federal-State or State
standards do not apply or are clearly deficient) are not
eligible for permit and are liable to enforcement.
The. Corps of Engineers required all existing
dischargers to file basic information on their discharges by
July 1, 1971, with an October 1, 1971, deadline for certain
information more detailed or difficult to obtain. In order
to obtain a permit, an industrial discharger must disclose
the effluent he intends to discharge, the outlets he will
47
-------
use, the amount of effluent, and how the discharge is to be
monitored. The permittee must maintain records as to the
nature and frequency of all discharges, permit inspections,
and make periodic followup disclosures. ?2
There has been no moritoriurn on use of the Refuse Act
to enforce water quality standards while the permit program
is being initiated, and filing of a permit application does
not preclude an enforcement action against a discharger.
Indeed, since the issuance of Executive order 11574,
enforcement activity, including both criminal and civil
actions, has continued to increase.
In July of 1970, for example, the Justice Department
brought 10 civil actions against industrial concerns
releasing mercury into navigable waters. (Mercury is used
as a fungicide and as a slimicide, as well as in industrial
processes.) Interim stipulations have been entered in 9 of
the 10 cases; in the 10th case the plant was shut down. The
stipulations and plant shutdown resulted in a total
reduction in mercury discharged from these plants of from
139 to 2 pounds daily. -final disposition of these cases
awaits EPA's review of the defendantsf plans for further
reductions in mercury discharges. 83
48
-------
Fish and Wildlife Act
Until the creation of the Environmental Protection
Agency in December 1970, the Fish and Wildlife Service of
the Department of the Interior was responsible for the
protection of wildlife from the effects of pesticides. The
remaining component of the service. The Bureau of Sports
Fisheries and Wildlife still bears a large portion of this
responsibility.
Section 5 of the Fish and Wildlife coordination Act of
1946 authorizes the Service to make investigations on the
effects of polluting substances on wildlife, to distribute
the results of such investigations to Federal, State,
municipal, and private agencies, and to report and make
recommendations to congress.84
The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to "take such steps as may be
required for the development, management, conservation and
protection of" fisheries and wildlife resources. The Act of
1956 also provides for continuing investigations and
periodical reports to the public, the President, and
Congress with respect to "the availability and abundance and
the biological requirements" of the fish and wildlife
85
resources. v
During the 1950's the Service undertook research
49
-------
projects under these authorities on the effects of
pesticides on wildlife. However, concern over reports of
i
serious effects on fish and bird populations, resulting from
DDT spraying programs, led Congress to pass additional
pesticide research legislation in 1958J16
Pesticide Research Act
The Pesticide Research Act of 1958 directed the
Secretary of the Interior to "undertake comprehensive
continuing studies on the effects of insecticides,
herbicides, fungicides and pesticides, upon the fish and
wildlife resources of the United States, for the purpose of
determining the amounts, percentages, and formulations of
such chemicals that are lethal to or injurious to fish and
wildlife, and the amounts, percentages, mixtures, or
formulations that can be used safely, and thereby prevent
losses of fish and wildlife from such spraying, dusting, or
other treatment. ".^
Prior to December 1970 the Act was administered by the
Fish and wildlife Service, which made use of it to develop a
program of pesticides research at five major locations:
Patuxent, Md.; Columbia, Mo.; Denver, Colo.; Gulf Breeze,
50
-------
Fla.; and Ann Arbor, Mich,58 However, Reorganization Plan
No. 3 transferred to EPA the authority of the Secretary of
the Interior under the Pesticides Research Act, together
with the Gulf Breeze Laboratory. The specific purpose of
this transfer was to merge under one agency a program ot
testing for effects on wildlife, the pesticide registration
function, (formerly conducted by the Department of
Agriculture), and the food protection and public health
effects research and monitoring functions ,(formerly
performed by the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare).
Reorganization Plan No. 3 did not completely divest the
Department of the Interior of its authority to do research
on the effects of pesticides on fish and wildlife. (The
department still retains authority under the Fish and
Wildlife Act.) The Department of the Interior retained four
laboratories, which are still operated by the Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.89
Executive Order* 115 07: Prevention
control and Abatement of Air and
Water_Pollution at Federal Facilities
Another federal policy statement applicable to
abatement of pesticide pollution is Executive Order 11507 of
February «», 1970.
51
-------
This directive envisions a three-year program to bring
Federal installations into line with air and water quality
standards. Heads of agencies responsible for Federal
facilities are required to consult with EPA in identifying
and dealing with air and water quality problems, and to
develop and propose abatement procedures to the Office of
Management and Budget, (The primary thrust of the Executive
Order is, of course, not for control of the release of
pesticides, but for construction of sewage treatment plants
and incinerators.) As in the case of discharge permits
under the Refuse Act, the Administrator of EPA is the
authority for compliance with water (and also air) quality
standards and may impose more stringent requirements than
existing legal standards when existing standards are
inadequate or inapplicable.
Section 4 (a) (4) of the Executive Order specifically
provides that all Federal facilities shall be operated and
maintained so that the use, storage, and handling of
potentially pollutive materials, including "chemical
agents," will prevent or minimize the possibilities for
water and air pollution, where appropriate, preventive
measures are required to entrap spillage or discharge;
appropriate emergency procedures for dealing with accidental
pollution are also required.
52
-------
STATE LAWS AND INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS
State pesticide laws have typically been divided into
two categories: (1) those which regulate the distribution
and sale of pesticides, and (2) those which regulate the use
and application of pesticides (see Appendix I). Recent
legislation tends to combine these categories of regulatory
90
activity, however, the distinction holds for most States.
To better understand the points at which Control is applied,
it is useful to visualize the participants in the production,
distribution, and consumption of pesticides (see Fig. 1),
Distribution and Sale
Currently 49 States have statutues requiring the registrat
and labeling of economic poisons as a condition for the lawful
sale and distribution of these materials in intrastate commerce
i
With few exceptions the States have followed substantially the
Uniform state. Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act deve
92
oped under the auspices of the Council of State Governments.'
The Uniform Act closely follows the FIFRA.93 In the interest o
53
-------
Channels of Pesticides Distribution in the United States
BASIC PRODUCT!
OF PESTICIDE!
AND
FERTILIZERS
PESTICIDE
?ORMULATORS
AND
FERTILIZE!
ui > r
1
1C
ERS OF
2 IDES
^
BAS
PRODUCE
FERTIL
r
1C
RS OF
T7ERS
v- --,--- (
f
> S •)
I
PESTICIDE
FORMULATORS
/•
^-*
A.
t
FEKTILIZER
MIXERS
PESTICIDE
RETAILERS
CUSTOM
APPLICATOR^
CONSUMERS
FARMERS RUBAL AND URBAN HOUSEHOLDS-
INSTITUTIONS
FIGURE X.
-------
uniformity between the States and with Federal Government,
the Act authorizes the adoption of regulations in conformity
with standards prescribed under the FIFRA.94 In practice.
Federal requirements regarding ingredient statements, safety
coloring, and labeling are widely followed by the States,
In some states, products which bear the Federal registration
number and appropriate labeling are exempt from State registra-
95
tion requirements* Generally, ppoducts marketed solely
intrastate must be registered with the appropriate State
official.96
While most States follow the requirements of the
Uniform Act, an increasing number have established controls
over the distribution and sale of pesticides that go
considerably beyond the Uniform Act, particularly with
respect to those pesticides for which use restrictions have
been established. A survey by the State Department of
Agriculture in Minnesota shows that by May 1971, at least 29
States had taken some action to restrict the use of some
pesticides (See Appendix JI)
t
There is considerable variability among the States both
as to the scope of the use restrictions and the method used
to establish restrictions. A summary of the major
pesticides restricted appears in Table (page 361
The scope of use restrictions ranges from very
restrictive (for example, no use is permitted for DDT or
Endrin in Wisconsin) to restrictions of limited application.
55
-------
Table 1.~Summary of State Restricted Use Pesticides, May 1971*
Pesticide
Number of States
restricting use
DDT
ODD
Dieldrin
Endrin
Keptachlor
Lindane
Aldrin
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Thailium sulfate
Compound 1080
Phosphorus paste
Alkvl mercuries
19
16
15
12
15
15
15
9
8
9
10
5
5
* See Append!* X£, pp. 2-4. Information supplied by Dr. Rollin
M. Dennistoun, Administrative Supervisor, Minnesota Department
of Agriculture.
56
-------
In the latter category the restrictions may apply to
specific crops, — for example, DDT on tobacco in Kentucky
and dieldrin and heptachlor on hay and forage crops in Utah;
or to specific areas, — for example, all chlorinated
hydrocarbons by aerial applicators in one county in Idaho,
and the use of 2, U-D H.V. esters in all of four counties
and part of one county in
The Minnesota survey revealed that use restrictions
were imposed by legislation in 8 states* by regulation in 21
States, and by administrative order in U states. 5 8
There has been a recent trend toward amending State
pesticide laws to establish a special "restricted use
pesticide" category, for which greater restrictions are
imposed on both the sale and distribution, and the use and
application. Currently, at least 17 states have legislation
providing for such separate treatment. 99 The definition of
"restricted use pesticides" varies among the States but, in
general, includes pesticides which the regulating agency
determines are hazardous to man or other forms of life, or
to the environment other than the target pest.r*'0
57
-------
One form of control over the sale and distribution of
pesticides is the pesticide dealer license or permit. In
the Minnesota survey, 9 States restricting pesticide use
required dealer permits or licensesJ-01 More recent
legislative changes have included this requirement.
Currently an additional 10 States authorize or require such
Ino
licenses or permits. Although a few States specify that
the applicant for a license or permit may be examined to
determine his qualifications, Tnost legislation is not
specific on this point. A major argument for requiring some
demonstration of knowledge of proper pesticide use and a
familiarity with pesticide laws is based on the proposition
that a majority of users receive their information regarding
104
proper application from dealers.; As a minimum, licensing
requirements provide a record of those businesses dealing in
pesticides, may provide improved data on sales, and may
establish a mechanism for administering a system of user
permits. A few States also license pesticide
manufacturers.^^
A second form of control over the sale and distribution
of pesticides is the use permit. Since the use permit
generally poses a condition on sale and distribution, it
i
will be discussed briefly here, as well as in the subsequent
section dealing with use and application legislation. In
58
-------
the Missesota survey, 16 States reported that permits were
required for the use of some pesticides. Subsequent
legislative changes authorize use permits in at least 4
other States. While not specifically authorizing permits,
at least 5 additional States have broad statutory language
authorizing either regulations, restrictions, or conditions
on the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides generally, or
of restricted use pesticides •pacifically.,1 °8
In addition to those actions taken by the States to
restrict pesticide use, a few states have banned the use of
certain pesticides. (A ban differs from cancellation of
registration.) The Minnesota survey shown that 5 States
109
unqualifiedly "ban" the use of at least one pesticide..
The ban is imposed by legislation in 2 States, by
administrative order in 2 States, and by regulation in 1
State.110
Those States which have recently amended or enacted new
i
pesticide registration legislation have generally extended
coverage to include regulations and restrictions to assure
the safe handling, transportation, storage, display,
distribution, and disposal of pesticides and pesticide
containers.111 These activities are also frequently covered
by laws on pesticide use and application.
Historically, the administration of laws affecting the
distribution and sale of pesticides was usually under the
59
-------
State Departments of Agriculture, However, there has
an increasing trend toward establishing pesticide review or
control boards or committees by statute. These groups,
representing a broader spectrum of interests, have been
given authority with respect to public decisionmaking
112
relating to State pesticide legislation and policy.
Currently, 32 States have some organization of this type.
While these groups usually serve in an advisory capacity, in
at least 12 States they have been given some regulatory
authority. 3
To complement the pesticide law, most States have
enacted a Hazardous Substances Act, corresponding to the
114
Federal Hazardous Substances Act- requiring registration,
labeling, and antidote information for household poisons and
substances not covered within the statutory definition of
economic poisons. By 1970, 30 States had enacted statutes
of this type. 116 In addition, at least 9 States have passed
livestock remedy laws "Vhich may affect the sale and
distribution of certain pesticides; for example, systemic
insecticides given orally to livestock, and preparations
118
used in eradicating parasites in or on animals.
States have also acted to deal with the problem|of|
pesticide residues on agricultural commodities sold within
the State. At least 18 States have legislation similar to
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and usually have
provisions regarding tolerances that follow substantially
119
the Miller Amendment to the Federal Act.
-------
Use and Application
There is less uniformity among State laws affecting
pesticide use and application than is found in those dealing
with sale and distribution. These State laws have no
120
Federal counterpart. • While a Model Act was prepared by
the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials and
was published by the Council of State Governments in 1951^-21
it has not been as widely followed as the Uniform Act for
pesticide registration. The Model Act dealing with
pesticide use and application has been Substantially
revised, and a draft appears in the Council of State
122
Government's suggested State legislation in 1971..
Pesticide use and application laws generally fall into
three categories: (1) those which regulate or control the
business of applying pesticides, (2) those which regulate
professions relating to pesticide application, and (3) those
which restrict or prohibit the use of pesticides..12-* These
I
laws have been summarized in Table 2, Specific citations to
those general laws dealing with pesticide application appear
in Appendix I.
Thirty-one States have statutes requiring the licensing
of commercial or custom pesticide applicators.(Table 2).
Typically, these laws apply to those persons or businesses
engaged in agricultural pesticide application. In some
61
-------
Table 2
Summary of St.-.to IMstici It. u
• Application
•/97/
1. Alafcir«t
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. California
6. CaloraJo
7. Connecticut
3. Delaware
9. Florida
1C. Georgia
11. Hawaii
12. Idaho
13. Illinois
14. Indiana
IS. Iowa
lo. Kansas
17. Ktntucr.y
13. Louisiana
20. Maryland
21. :M
1 22.
' 23. Minnesota
24. Mississippi
2*<. Xisaouri
Genaral Pesticide Application
Law*
Licenses and/or Permits
Custom Applicators' Others*
X
X
X
X
X
X
Separate Structural
Pest Control, Tree
Surgeon, or RclatcfJ
rrofesr.ioni Lan(s')
x «/
^ **/
xV
Xb/
*y
xc/
xa/
xb/
Other Law
Affecting
Application
x y
x2/
x j/
x b/
xa/
x
x 2/
«5/
x4/
26. Montana
27. Nebraska
26. Nevada
29. New Hampshire
10. Xcw Jersey
31. Kcw "cxico
32. Hew York
33. Korth Carolina
34. North Dakota
35. Ohio
30. Ofclaliona
37. Oregon
30. Pennsylvania
39. Kiioilc Inland
-40. South Carolina
41. .<;outh Dofcota
42. Tennessee
43. Texas •
I-4.. Utah
'45. Verr-ont
4C. Vii?LnU
47. '.'ashincjton
4!). West Virginia
49. '.liscacvsin
SO. t.ycrairvj
General Pesticide Application
Low'
Licenses and/or remits
Custon Applicators Others*
Separate r;ru•
I'e^'t Contrr',
Surgeon, or ?
Profo!isicn»
X £/
X b/
X !_/
x IV
CO
• May be sufficient' . in sone States - To cover structural pest control.
+ Includes pcraits roqaircd under separate legislation, e.g., economic poisons law. "Permit" is narrowly construed to include express authority in most c^ses.
A nu.7ber of additional States establish broad authority to regulate, restrict, or condition use. See text discussion. Separate herbicide legislation appears in
a/ BroaJ coverage of these professions.
b/ Structural pest control lav.
c/ Trca surgeon law.
I/ Authorizes or requires use perrd*. for use of certain herbicides under specified conditions.
2' riir2S ptrr.it or license for uiva of pesticide in State waters.
3/ Authorizes the designation of areas where pesticide use nay be restricted or prohibited.
4/ acquires license, permit, or registration for crop dusting or aurial application.
•0-.har"
-------
cases the coverage is broad enough to cover structural pest
124
control, for example; but 10 States have separate
legislation for licensing custom applicators and structural
pest control operators. In a number of other States,
structural pest control is specifically exempted from
licensing under the customer applicator statute-125 Of those
States having no general custom applicator statute, 6 have
either a broad professional licensing statute or a
structural pest control statute.
• t
Usually, the custom applicator law applies to both
aerial and ground operations. In addition to the 31 states
having a general pesticide application or custom applicator
law, 3 States have laws requiring licenses or permits for
126
aerial applicators only. A fourth requires annual
registration of all aerial applicators and the keeping of
records regarding each application.^7
The type of materials covered under the general
pesticide application statutes is generally as broad as that
covered under the registration statutes. That is, most
statutes cover insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and
rodenticides. Herbicides have frequently been singled out
for special restrictions. Eleven states have special
statutes that either authorize or require use permits for
herbicides under certain conditions, or authorize the
designation of areas where herbicides, and in some cases
128
other pesticides, may be restricted or prohibited. Of
63
-------
those states having legislation specifically restricting
herbicides, 3 are States with no general pesticide
application statute (Table 2).
The applicant for a license to engage in the business
of applying pesticides is usually required by statute to
demonstrate that he is qualified, but the factors for
determining qualifications are usually established by the
129
administering agency.* In a number of states a written
examination is required.130 others specify minimum age,
educational, and experience requirements.131 Some provide
that the licensee may be restricted to the use of certain
types of material and equipment.* Special classifications
of licenses based on type of activity (for example, agri-
cultural as distinguished from horticultural) are authorized
in a few States.133 Licensing distinctions are also made in
some laws between employees or operators and managers.134
The Association of American" "Pesticide control
Officials1 Model Act contains an optional provision for the
licensing of "pest control consultants" as a category, in
addition to commercial pesticide operators and managers.
The consultant is a person who supplies tehcnical advice,
supervision, or recommendations regarding the use of
specific pesticides for a fee. At least 1 State currently
provides specifically for licensing these persons. 135
64
-------
Most States have a specific legislative requirement
that the applicant show proof of financial responsibility in
the form of a security bond, liability insurance, or the
deposit of money,136 Licensing fees are universally
required and are usually nominal.
In addition to its jurisdiction over licensing, the
State administering agency is generally given broad
authority to issue rules and regulation? to carry out the
purposes of the pesticide use and application act.137 Thus,
in many instances the wording of the statute may not be
particularly informative as to the action required by
licensees, or the conditions imposed on the issuance of
license. 138 The AQtfcorit? Of the agency may specifically
extend to restrict the use of pesticides, to inspect and in
some cases license equipment, and to require the keeping of
i 39
records on use.
-------
containers. With respect to transportation, intrastate
shipments of pesticides could be made subject to regulations
under the State legislation that corresponds to Federal law
dealing with the transportation of hazardous materials,
administered by Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations
141
Boards.- In the past. States have not acted under this
142
authority to deal with pesticide shipments. Some States
have amended their pesticide laws to authorize regulation of
pesticide transportation under either the registration laws
or under the use and application laws..
As states have acted to ban or substantially restrict a
number of pesticides, the problem of pesticide disposal has
become particularly acute. The revised Model Use and
Application Act makes the discarding and storing of
pesticides and pesticide containers subject to regulation
and most states have provisions either explicitly or
144
impliedly authorizing regulation of this area. The
problem has also been regualted by State law controlling
waste disposal sites..
A survey conducted by the National Association of state
Departments of Agriculture, and reported in Proceedings of
... National Working Conference on Pesticide Disposal,
indicates that very little official action had been taken by
July 1, 1970 with respect to the collection and disposal of
pesticides. 146 six states reported having taken some action to
collect unused pesticides; and 7 States indicated they
148
had official guidelines or recommendations.
66
-------
Provisions for enforcement of pesticide use and
application laws may include authority to subpoena witnesses
and records in hearings, to inspect property, and to
investigate complaints of injury or losses resulting from
149
pesticide use. Violation of the law is usually a
misdemeanor subject to fine or imprisonment, in addition to
the suspension of the permit or license.f5^ Several states
also provide injunctive relief. *51
A major weakness of pesticide use and application laws
has been that two major categories of users have generally
been exempt from control: (1) public employees, and (2)
farmers not engaged in the business of applying pesticides.152
A few States have passed legislation to specifically provide
for the licensing or qualifying of public employees, and
farm use is now being controlled by legislation requiring
use permits.
Twenty states have general legislation HUthoriling use
permits for pesticides (.TaBl^TZ) * Five states also have
specific legislation authorizing use permits for herbicides,
and at least 1 States have statutes requiring permits or
licenses for using pesticides in State waters (Table 2).
Thus, over half of the states have legislation expressly or
impliedly authorizing use permits for non-commercial users
of some pesticides.
67
-------
The conditions under which use permits are to be
required have usually been left for determination by the
t
agency administering the pesticide law. Under most
pesticide legislation the administering agency is given
broad authority to adopt rules and regulations relating to
materials and methods of pesticide application, including
authority to restrict or prohibit use in particular areas
and during specified periods of time,*55 In "permit"
States, the statute usually provides, in addition, that the
administering agency may adopt a list of pesticides for
"restricted use" for the State or for designated areas, and
may require that they be used only under permit.3-5^ A few
States require that the permit be issued only under
circumstances where no satisfactory pesticide substitute is
available. "7 Failure to demonstrate sufficient knowledge
and experience concerning proper use may be grounds for
refusal of a permit.158
Pest Control
In addition to laws controlling pesticides, a
substantial number of States have special legislation
dealing with the control of pests. While pest control
legislation generally does not deal explicitly with
68
-------
pesticide use, it may have an effect on pesticide use. For
example, legislation authorizing public action to deal
effectively with pest outbreaks may in the long run reduce
the total amount of pesticides needed to control a given
pest problem. Of course, all levels of government engage in
substantial pest control activity under their general powers
and authority. The following discussion will focus on two
special types of legislatively created State pest control
organizations: (1) the interstate compact, and (2) special
purpose districts.
A Model Enabling Act for an interstate compact for pest
control was developed and published by The council of State
Governments in 1965. The Compact attempts to provide for
the extraterritorial considerations that are necessary in
dealing with pest control among the states. For example, a
given pest in State A may not pose a substantial threat to
any agricultural crop in State A but its spread to State B
might be an agricultural catastrophe. It may be difficult
for State A to justify taking the measures necessary to
control the pest, particularly if there is no assurance that
companion measures will be taken in other States and
unilateral effort is of doubtful benefit. The Federal
Government has an emergency fund to deal with pest outbreaks
of more than local significance but the proponents of the
159
Compact considered the funding inadequate.
-------
The Compact would create a pest control insurance fund
among ratifying States, The fund would be established by
appropriation from member States and such other gifts,
grants, and donations as other public and private groups
would be willing to contribute. The contribution required
of member States would be based on an
equal sharing of one-tenth of the total budget with the
remainder snared in proportions based on the value of
agricultural and forest crops and products produced in the
party States.
Under the Compact, any party State could apply for
assistance under the insurance fund for pest control or
eradication activities it wishes to have undertaken or
accelerated in another party State and in limited
circumstances in non-party States. Upon adequate
demonstration that the pest constitutes a threat to the
applying State, tHe insurance fund would provide financial
support and require that the necessary action !>• taken in
the states where the pest is located. Party States would be
expected to maintain their normal pre-Compact pest: control
activities. All 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands are potential parties.
Currently at least 1ft States have passed legislation
reaif ying the Compact. lff°
The special purpose district is a second type of
institutional device for pest control. About half the
70
-------
States now have legislation authorizing the organization of
some type of pest control district (Table 3). Districts are
usually local entities organized under authority delegated
by a State enabling act. Functionally, districts for
mosquito control and weed control are the most prevalent.
The district may operate as a substantially autonomous
unit of local government organized specifically for some
type of pest control?-61 or pest control may be an
authorized activity of a multi-purpose .autonomous district.
Another approach is to authorize pest control districts as a method
for financing the service in a limited area by property
taxation. 16^ Such entities are subordinate agencies of the
county or other local, general purpose government, In some
164
instances separate taxing power is not authorized. In a
few instances the district may be related to a State
165
agency.
Although the special district has probably been of
limited importance in terms of total national pest control,
its status might change under some alternative strategy of
pest management. For example, a program of integrated pest
control measures would require coordinated group action and
might involve the exercise of powers available to government
but not to individuals.
71.
-------
Table 3
Pest Control Districts in United States, 1967*
I/
State Tvpe of District""
State
Type of District
Arizona Pest control districts (1)
Antinoxious weed districts
Arkansas Mosquito abatement districts (0)
California Community service districts (132)
Pest control districts (68)
Colorado Pest control districts
Florida Mosquito control districts (20)
Idaho Mosquito abatement districts
Illinois Mosquito abatement districts (19)
Kentucky County mosquito control districts (0)
Louisiana Mosquito abatement districts (1)
Minnesota Metropolitan mosquito control district
Montana Mosquito control districts
Weed control and weed-extermination districts
Nebraska Mosquito abatement districts (0)
Weed control authorities
Pest eradication districts
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
•* Prepared from Individual-State Descriptions, Governmental
Organization, 1967 Census of Governments, Vol. 1, pp. 297-456.
I/ The numbers in parentheses indicate how many districts Wyoming
of varying kinds were reported in the 1967 Census of
Governments as meeting the criteria for separate government
entities. Thost Having no numbers were considered as agencies
of some other government unit and were not enumerated for
Cansus purposes.
Mosquito abatement districts (I)
Weed control districts
County mosquito extermination COHBTli-
ssions
Grasshopper control districts
Noxious weed control districts
County mosquito-extermination commi-
ssions
Mosquito control districts (1)
County bindweed control districts
Chemicals control districts (2)
Grasshopper control districts (C)
Mosquito control districts
Special rodent control districts
Weed control districts
Noxious weed control districts (2)
Mosquito control districts
County service areas (6)
Mosquito abatement districts (9)
Predatory animal control districts
Mosquito control districts
Mosquito "control districts (3)
Agricultural pest districts
Intercounty weed districts
Weed districts
Predatory animal districts (22)
Rodent and tr.agpie control districts
Weed and pest control district.;
-------
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INSTITUTIONAL
MECHANISMS
International Pesticide Control Activities
of the United States,..- Programs of the
Agency for International Development
International development programs, such as those
supported by the U. S. Agency for International Development
(AID) or the World Bank, have primarily emphasized economic
Benefits. AID recognizes that nations subject to food
shortages or epidemics of pest-borne diseases may be more
willing to accept the ecological risk attendant on the use
of persistent or highly toxic pesticides than nations
without such problems.
However, a number of considerations have recently
caused AID to change its policies and to adopt new
guidelines for the distribution of pesticides abroad under
the u. S. Foreign Assistance Program. These considerations
include:
1. The adoption of limits for pesticide residues by
73
-------
many food importing countries and the growing
tendency toward worldwide limitation of pesticide
residues exemplified by the program of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission. (An international body
established in 1962.)
2. The findings of recent studies that in several
cases the application of nonselective, persistent
pesticides has destroyed normal biological
controls, leading to increases of other insect
populations and further use of pesticides to
destroy new pests.
For these reasons, as well as awareness of accidents
due to mishandling of pesticides and worldwide losses of
wildlife due to cumulative buildup of certain persistent
pesticides in the food chain, AID distributed new
instructions concerning "Procurement and Use of AID-Financed
Pesticides," effective February 12, 1971.*66
AID Manual Circular 1612.10.3 provides the AID Missions
must evaluate carefully every proposed use of pesticides and
consider available alternatives. Technical personnel in
Missions shall contribute to decisions on selection,
procurement, and use of pesticides and in overall planning
of pest control programs. Pesticide procurement procedures
are required to evaluate both the capability of the country
74
-------
to use the materials efficiently and safely, and the level
of awareness of country officials about potential hazards,
In addition, AID Mission personnel must make sure that,
where Codex or specific country pesticide residue limits
have been established, such limits are considered before a
given pesticide is used on a crop which is or may be
destined for export. Mission personnel may suggest to
officials of the cooperating government .£hat they establish
communications with food safety law administrators in each
market area to ascertain current pesticide regulations and
re strictions.
AID Mission officials in Health, Food and Agriculture,
and Rural Development are directed to encourage food
exporting countries to acquire technical competence in
chemical residues analysis, if they do not have it. Such
officials are directed to urge cooperating countries to
consider establishing laboratories or joining with
neighboring governments in(developing regional facilities in
which pesticide residues may be tested.
The instruction also informs AID Missions that
AID/Washington is now prepared to give them a limited amount
of assistance regarding various technical aspects of
pesticides and the economics of pesticide use. Such
assistance is available from a number of U. S. universities
75
-------
under AID contract on projects related to pesticides, and
also from the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under
an agreement between AID and USDA.
i
In addition. Mission personnel are informed that
AID/Washington will provide immediate "backstopping" and
technical assistance to Missions in pest and disease problem
identification and in the procurement and wnuqp of feticides.
The assistance contemplated includes problem-specific
surveys on pest problems, short-term training programs,
workshops, and seminars. In addition, a panel of experts on
pesticides is being established to provide advice and
guidance across the broad spectrum of pesticide problems.
The instruction states also that AID/Washington is in the
immediate process of mobilizing the resources needed for an
integrated pesticide program and alternative pest management
programs and is using a group of U. S. institutions and
individuals with outstanding scientific capability to do
this. The same panel of experts is now in the process of
updating Manual Circular 1612.10.3. In addition, AID is
preparing to publish a Pesticide Educational Manual which
will serve as a complete guide for ordering, handling,
using, monitoring and labeling of pesticides. The new manual
will include health and first aid measures, and detailed
product and container specifications for approximately 50
pesticides and formulation?
* Information supplied by Dr. W. H. Gorman and Madison Bfoadnax u
-------
Pesticide Control Activities of International Organizations
Joint FAQ/WHO Food Standards Proqram—the Codex Alimentarius
The codex Alimentarius Commission was established in
1962 by the governing bodies of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World
Health Organization (WHO). The Commission is an
international body engaged in the development of
international wholesome food standards, including pesticide
residue tolerances. The objective of the Commission is both
to safeguard consumer interests and to facilitate world
trade. At the present time, 88 countries including the
United States are participating in its work.
The actual work of collecting basic information and
drafting proposed standards is carried out through
committees and subcommittees. The committees are organized
either on a commodity basis (such as milk and milk products,
sugars, fats, and oils) or on a subject matter basis
(such as food additives, food hygiene, food labeling, and
pesticide residues).167
77
-------
Codex_Committee on Pesticide Residues_andFAQ/WHO Joint Meeting
of Expert Committees
The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues was created
in 1966.168 The responsibility of this committee, the Codex
Commission's Procedural Manual states, is "to propose
international tolerances for pesticide residues in specific
foods." A further responsibility is the preparation of a
list of priorities of those pesticide residues found in food
commodities entering international trade, for toxicological
evaluation by the WHO Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues
and examination by the PAO Working Party of Experts on
Pesticide Residues. i69
In practice, this has meant that the principal
responsibility of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residue
has been to plan and review, with an eye to world trade
needs, the work of the two international committees whose
findings are the basis of proposed international residue
tolerances.170
The FAO and WHO Expert Committees were both engaged in
studies to evaluate the hazards of pesticide residues in
food before the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues was
created. Since 1966 the Expert - Committees have fiist jointly
every year. The purpose of the joint meeting is to review
78
-------
relevant data on certain pesticides and their residues and
to establish, where possible, man's acceptable daily intake
(ADI)* of such pesticides. On the Uasis of the ADIs,
the Joint Committee makes recommendations to the Codex Committee
on Pesticides concerning residue tolerances and practical
residue limitsj* The recommended ADIs, residue tolerances,
and practical residue limits are published annually;
although they have no legal status, they command a great
deal of respectful attention from the scientific community
and from government agencies with environmental and public
172
health responsibilities.
The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues may decide to
reject the Joint Expert Committee's recommended tolerances,
and return them to the Joint Expert committee with adverse
comments or for additional information. Or the Committee
may tentatively adopt the recommended tolerances and submit
them to the members nations and associate members of FAO and
WHO for comment. After reviewing such comment and perhaps
amending the recommended tolerances, the Committee may
submit them to the Codex Commission, If adopted by the
Codex Commission, a tolerance becomes a provisional
* The ADI of a chemical is the maximum daily amount
that can be taken during an entire lifetime without
appreciable risk to health.
**.A practical residue limit is the maximum unintentional
residue allowed in a specified food for which no tolerance
has been established
79
-------
standard; it is then published in the Codex Alimantarius as
173
an international food standard.
Full acceptance of a Codex international residue
tolerance means that the country concerned must change its
own legal or administrative provisions relating to food
standards to conform with it. In the case of the United
States, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to
change its own residue tolerance set under the Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act. There also is provision for target
acceptance, in which the conntry concerned indicates its
intention to accept the standard after a stated number of
years, and also for acceptance with minor deviations.
At present the only tolerances published in the Codex
Alimentarius are for hydrogen cyanide, inorganic bromide
and malathion in raw cereals and flour. All of the above are
fully accepted by the United States. In addition, the Codex
Commission has recommended for acceptance the tolerances
for diphenyl on citrus fruit; heptachlor on a number of raw
fruits, dried fruits, and herbs; and both piperonyl butoxide
and pyrethrins on raw cereals, fruits for canning, oil seeds,
nuts, and dried fruits and vegetables.1'5
As of November 1970, the joint FAO/WHO meetings have
recommended residue tolerances and/or practical residue limits
for uses on various commodities of 57 pesticides, including
176
most of the controversial ones.
80
-------
FAQ Guidelines for Legislation Concerning the Kecristration
for Sale and Marketing of Pesticides
Another international committee of experts, the Working
Party of Experts on Official Control of Pesticides, was
established in 1963 by the Director General of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the UN. The Working Party was
directed to develop advice concerning registration and
approval schemes for official control of pesticides.
Accordingly, two sessions of the Working Party were held in
September of 1965 and in March-April of 1966. Curing these
sessions, the provisions of existing pesticide control laws
in 25 countries were reviewed. The Working Party prepared a
report which included recommendations of model provisions
for incorporation in the comprehensive pesticide legislation
of all countries.
These provisions, in the form of guidelines, were
reviewed by interested national and international
organizations and with representatives of the World Health
Organization and the International Labour Office. It was
decided that the provisions would be concerned with
regulating the safe and effective use of pesticides for
marketing and sale, and would specifically exclude
regulations concerning safety and health in the manufacture
and use of pesticides. The Guidelines were published
jointly by the FAO and WHO in 1969.*77
81
-------
Although written in language that can be adjusted to
fit different kinds of government organizations and
administrative procedures, the Guidelines constitute an
approximation of a model national or State pesticide
registration act. In providing for applications for
registration (accompanied by proofs of safety and efficacy),
labeling requirements, advisory committees, cancellation and
suspension of registration, and appeals from all decisions
of the "Registrar," the Guidelines are basically similar to
the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
There are a number of very significant differences, however.
Six significant provisions of the Guidelines are not
included in the FIFRA:
1. The Guidelines provide that the Registrar may,
after considering the evidence submitted in
support of an application for registration,
decide instead to issue a provisional permit. A
provisional permit would entail use of the
pesticide for a shorter period of time than the
registration period, and under stipulated
conditions, for the purpose of obtaining
information needed before granting a
registration. The stipulated conditions may
include safety aaft fettith fZtOAutiO&t, periods of
«•*/ •atbftds •£ •jplicatioa, tad other matters.178
82
-------
2. Administrative regulations under legislation
based on the Guidelines may contain special
provisions with respect to pesticide substances
or operations considered to present a high degree
of hazard to human health or the environment.
Such regulations may specifically include:
restriction of the sale of such substances to
insure their use by authorized organizations or
persons only, conditions for field evaluation of
experimental compounds, and provisions necessary
to safeguard third parties, the environment and
wildlife. 179
3. The Registrar has authority to regulate pesticide
packaging and labeling.
The label must contain instructions for safe
181
disposal of used containers.
The sale or distribution of a pesticide is
unlawful if the pesticide has decomposed or
deteriorated so as to be ineffective or
dangerous, or if it is packaged in containers
which have deteriorated or have been damaged so
as to be potentially dangerous in storage or
182
use.
83
-------
6. False or misleading advertising of any pesticide, or advertising
that is not justified by the conditions of registration, is
unlawful.-4—
i
The Administration's proposed bill, the Federal Environmental Pesticide
Act,—^includes provisions similar to or intended to accomplish the same
purpose as all of these provisions of the Guidelines.
International Labour Office-World Health Organization Committee of Occupational
Health
The Sixth Session of the Joint ILO-WHO Committee on Occupational Health,
which met in June 1968, undertook the task of providing international
communication among medical and scientific experts concerning control
of occupational exposure to airborne toxic substances, including pesti-
cides. The purpose of the Committee was to develop recommendations
for the guidance of all nations concerning methodology for determining
permissable limits for exposure to such substances and, where possible
185 /
to develop- definite limits for exposure to specific substances.
The Committ-te published a survey of legislation and practices concerning
maximum allowable airborne concentrations of a great number of chemicals
in the work environment (including many pesticides) in 31 countries A^- *
However, it re-.-ommended for international.adoption the maximum allowable
airborne concentrations for only 24 chemicals. Only one of these,
tetfi
parathion, is a pesticide.-**'
* The U. S. has no Federal law concerning occupational exposure to
toxic substances. However, "threshold limit values" drawn up by the
U. S. Department of Labor for Federal supply contracts under the
Walsh-Healy Public Contract Act, recommendations of the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and State standards
are .published in the Joint ILO-WHO Committee's report.
rtf
wf:
-------
The Committee has made a number of other recommendations, if adopted,
they would le- to a better understanding of the biological response
-of workers exposed to toxic substances,and greater uniformity among
nations of standards for worker protection against exposure to toxic
loo/
substances .*=•='
Organization for Economic Cooperation and. Development
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is
an economic advisory organization composed of 23 industrialized non-Communist
bloc nations including Australia, Canada, Japan, Turkey, the United States
and 18 European countries. Between 1966 and 1969, three meetings of OECD
subgroups expressed concern regarding the presence of residues of per-
sistant organochloride pesticides in the environment, and the organization
undertook throe small-scale, cooperative, international monitoring programs
involving pesticide residues in wildlife. The second study program,
and completed in .1969, also included PCB residues; the third study program
189/
(1969-71) included PCB and mercury.— -
In May 1970, OECD created an Environment Committee for the purpose
of developing governmental interest in maintaining or promoting an
acceptable human environment in the framework of government policies
for economic growth. The Environment Committee is charged to relate
environmental policies to economic growth policies, with emphasis on
the economic and trade implications of environmental policies, and to
propose concerted solutions to problems that have f^ustantial inter-
national implications^1-
The December 1970 report of the (third) Study Group on Unintended
Occurrence of Pesticides recommended to the new Environment Committee
that it establish a sector policy group on pesticides and related
85
-------
chemicals. The proposed sector group would maintain review of national approaches
to pesticides control and use, and assume responsibilitv for continuing the
wildlife sampling and analysis program set up by the three study groups.
It would be authorized to identify those chemicals that cause
environmental problems, and to propose the national work needed to make
possible a comparison of the benefits obtained versus the risks incurred in
using these compounds (including the cost' of switching to other pest
control methods). The report recommended that the proposed sector groups
would then be authorized to recommend, for the guidance of member countries,
administrative, organizational or legislative steps that would be necessary
191/
to apply the results of its studies.-'—
As a result of the above recommendations, the Sector Group on the
Unintended Occurrence of Chemicals in the Environment was created in
May of 1971. In its first year of operation, the new sector group has
concerned itself with studies of the unintended occurrence of PCS,
mercury,and cadmium.•*-** Neither PCB nor cadmium are pesticides.
Although mercury is both a .fungicide and a slimicide, its use in the
chlorakali industry is considered to be responsible for the most damaging
leakage of mercury into the environment.
The Environment Committee also developed an "early warning" procedure
regarding changes in national law controlling substances that affect the
environment in member countries. This procedure,which applies to new
measures affecting therapeutic drugs, foqd additives, arid chemical
pollutants as well as pesticides, was adopted by OECD in May of 1971
for a period of two years.
The early vrarning procedure will allow members of
OECD to receive prior notification of pending changes in protective
86
-------
measures in c?ses where measures taken in one country are likely to have
significant effects on the economy and trade of other countries. It
further provides the opportunity for a consultation and discussion
between member countries as to the technical justification for these
measures in order to advance mutual understanding, whether or not agree-
ments between member countries can be negotiated. The procedure is
.not intended to foreclose immediate action if urgently neededp-^/
Since OECD adopted the early warning system, the United States has twice given
notice of fact-finding inquiries conducted by the Environmental Protection
Agency as early warnings of possible action by the EPA to cancel the
registration of pesticide uses. The pesticides involved are chlordane,
heptachlor, arsenic, and lead compounds.2""
Activities of European Regional Organizations
Related to Pesticide Control
European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization
EPPO is a coordinating organization of the national plant protection
agencies of practically all European countries and some countries in
the Mediterranean area outside Europe. EPPO collects and disseminates
information on quarantine measures, phytosanitary regulations for import
and export of plants and plant materials, regulation and use of pesticides,
and promotion of alternative methods for pest control. It also makes
proposals for research.i*S
Council of Europe
The Council of Europe, an organization of non-Communist bloc,
European countries concerned with political (as opposed to economic)
questions, operates with a Consultative Assembly and a Committee of
Ministers. In addition, seven member countries have a special arrange-
87
-------
ment within the Council, the so called "Partial Agreement." All three
of these entities are involved in activities affecting pesticide control.
(1) The Committee of Agriculture of the Consultative Assembly
has prepared a report on the Use of Pesticides in Agriculture,
recommending the strengthening and reorganization of the
Council's expert committees so that their work can be
directed at better control of highly toxic or persistant
pesticides.
(2) The Committee of Ministers has established the European
Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources to advise it on environmental matters. An ad hoc
group ?n pesticides of this committee has recently completed
a "Comparative Study of Legislation of Member States Relating
to the Control of the Production, Marketing and Use of
Agricultural Pesticides." The Committee of Ministers has
adopted a resolution on the need for complementary legisla-
tive control of pesticides in order to protect the environment
as well as human health.
(3) Two subcommittees of Partial Agreement expert committees have
also made proposals concerning pesticide control. The Subcom-
mittee on Poisonous Substances in Agriculture, in the Public
Health Committee, has drawn up guidelines £or manufacturers on
data to be provided when.registering new pesticides and
recommendations for safety labeling and is preparing a
draft resolution on the classification of formulated pes-
88
-------
ticides. The Subcommittee on Industrial Safety and Health
publishes a "Yellowbook" containing a listing of dangerous
chemical substances (including a number of pesticides) and
proposals concerning their labeling.
The European Economic Community
The European Economic Community (EEC), more popularly known as the
Common Market, has undertaken to harmonize legislation in member countries
with respect to:
1 RegieCration and marketing of plant protection products. A
working, group of the Commission, with the assistance of
several expert committees, is drafting guidelines for con-
sideration by EEC.
2 Tolerances for pesticide residues in food and feed. Proposals
for regulations concerning the establishment of tolerances
for about 50 pesticide residue tolerances in fresh fruit and
vegetables are under discussion. Two other draft regulations
concerning residue tolerances in other groups of food stuffs
are under preparation by working groups; one group has
been given the further task of developing methods of sampling
197 /
and analysis for the purpose of detecting excess residues.-—
89
-------
INTERAGENCY AND INTRAAGENCY PESTICIDE CONTROL
MECHANISMS
Interdepartmental Agreements on
Registration of Pesticides, 19611-70
Until December of 1970, interdepartmental agreement was
the principal government device for bringing environmental
protection concerns to bear on the pesticide registration
process (apart from the policy of the USDA to withhold
registration from uses of pesticides on food crops whenever
the Food and Drug Administration refused to grant a residue
tolerance or exemption from tolerance.) The first
interdepartmental agreement had its origin in the 1963
report of the Presidents Science Advisory Committee (PSAC).
The PSAC report concluded that the provisions of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide 6 Rodenticide Act and of the Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act were more effective in insuring the
efficacy of pesticides than in their safety. The committee
recommended therefore (among other things) that "the
Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior, and Health, Education
and welfare review and define their roles in the
registration of pesticides that are not present on food, but
90
-------
that may impinge on fish and wildlife or come into intimate
contact with the public." i9a
In 1961, the three Secretaries signed an agreement
defining the respective duties of the three departments
concerning registration of pesticides and setting of
tolerances for pesticide residues. The Department of the
Interior was to be responsible for wildlife protection- The
Public Health Service of the Department of HEW was to be
responsible for protection of human health, and the Food and
Drug Administration, of the same department, was to be
responsible for pesticide residue on foods. The Department
of Agriculture was to be responsible for safe and effective
use of pesticides, including registration.
Each department agreed to keep the others informed of
developments in knowledge on this subject, resulting from
its research. The USDA agreed to furnish the other two
departments with weekly lists of all proposals affecting
registration for interdepartmental review, and the
Department of HEW agreed to furnish the other two
departments with weekly lists of all proposals affecting
residue tolerances for the same purpose.
E
The agreement provided that objections to a proposed
action concerning registration or tolerance setting should
be expressed in writing and supported by appropriate
91
-------
scientific evidence. On being notified of an objection, the
originating department was required to take initiative to
work out a basis for agreement; in the event agreement was
not reached within two weeks, the matter was to be referred
to the Secretary of the department responsible for final
actionvl99
The report of a 1965 task force of the National Academy
of Sciences and the 1969 hearings of a subcommittee of the
House Committee on Government Operations reveal that the 1st
Interdepartmental Agreement did not succeed in resolving
significant differences of opinion between the Departments
of Agriculture and HEW. By 1969, the Public Health Service
in HEW had objected on public safety grounds to the
registration and reregistration of several controversial
products, which the Agricultural Research Service (USDA) had
proceeded to register over Public Health Service objections
and without submitting any disputes for resolution to the
Secretary of Agriculture. The position of the Agricultural
Research Service was that the objections of the Public
Health Service were not supported by scientific evidence, as
reguired by the Interdepartmental Agreement, but were merely
offered as a matter of professional judgement.200
In late 1969, both the Eleventh Report of the House
Committee on Government Operations and the report of the HEW
Secretaryfs commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship
92
-------
to Environmental Health found fault with the provision that
the department's objections to registration must be
supported by scientific evidence. Both reports recommended
that the Interdepartmental Agreement should put the burden
of proof on the manufacturer of a pesticide to demonstrate
the product's harmlessness to the objecting departmental
This recommendation was embodied in the new
Interdepartmental Agreement signed in March 1970. The 1970
r
Agreement provided that the department objecting to a
registration would only be obliged to state the reasons for
its objection. The manufacturer would then be required to
submit proof of the harmlessness of his product. If the
USDA and the department which raised the objection continued
to disagree after review of the manufacturer1s data, either
department could reguest review by a specially appointed
panel of the three departments and, if still unsatisfied, by
202
the Cabinet Committee on Environmental Quality.
Since December 1970, the Interdepartmental Agreement
has been unnecessary because all of the units that
participated in the Agreement have been taken into the
Environmental Protection Agency and are working under the
supervision of the Pesticides Office. However, they are
largely the same units, operating under the same enabling
legislation.
93
-------
The Federal Environmental Pesticide Act, proposed by
the Administration, attempts to remove any remaining grounds
for disagreement over the relative standing in registration
disputes between manufacturers or others seeking
registration of a product, and public officials charged with
responsibility to protect public health or the environment.
The FIFRA only seeks to assure that pesticides be effective
and safe if used according to directions. But the proposed
Act would incorporate into the registration process, as its
most important concern, the responsibility to prevent long-
term and short-term adverse effects on public health and the
environment. *^'
The Working Group on Pesticides is composed of eight
/
member agencies: Interior; Agriculture; Health, Education
and welfare; Defense; Transportation; State; Commerce; and
the Environmental Protection Agency.• Also represented are
four observer offices: the Council on Environmental
Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, the office of
Science and Technology, and the Office of Intergovernmental
Relations.
This central interagency coordinating body, which met
for the first time in February of 1970, is the successor of
two previous iat«r*fl«mcy groups with somewhat narrower scope
of responsibility and membership—the Federal Pest Control
Review Board, 1961-64, and the Federal Committee on Pest
Control, 196*1-69.
94
-------
Activities of the Working Group and especially those of
its five panels are conducted by representatives of over 30
Federal agencies and Offices of the President, as well as
State, international, private industry and university
interests.
Many of the specific responsibilities of the Working
Group are first acted on by the five panels (largely
composed of technical specialists); they are then reviewed
and finally decided on by the Working Group itself. The
five panels are:
1. Program Review. This panel makes the initial
annual review of the proposed pesticide use
programs of all Federal agencies that have such
programs, as well as emergency reviews during the
pesticide application season.
2. Safety. This panel is concerned with storage,
packaging and transportation of pesticides and
disposal of containers and waste.
3. Research. This panel's objective is to review
and coordinate the numerous Federal efforts on
pest control and pesticide research and to
determine needed research.
4. Monitoring. This panel promotes a minimum
95
-------
national pesticide monitoring program, encourages
development and use of uniform sampling and
analytical methodology, and works toward
effective dissemination of monitoring results.
5. Information. This panel works to enhance public
awareness of pesticide benefits and hazards
through programs of public education, reviews
agency programs of information on education in
pest control; and provides a forum for prior
coordination of press information*
The charter of the Working Group provides that it shall
have two purposes: (1) To provide day-to-day coordination of
Federal agencies' pesticide activities, and (2) to develop
program and policy proposals.
The activities the working Group is directed to
coordinate include:
1. Pest control programs in which there is active
participation on the part of the Federal
Government, either in funding or in supervision;
2. Research on pests and their control, and the
effects of control procedures, whether by
chemical or other (biological) means;
96
-------
3. Monitoring of the environment for pesticides and
their residues through the National Pesticide
Monitoring Programs;
4. Establishment of teams to conduct special
investigations of pesticide problems that arise
or may be anticipated;
5. Public information on pest control and the use
of pesticides; and
6. Evaluation of economic and social values and
risks involved in the control of pests by various
204
methods.
In the area of program and policy proposals, the
Working Group has proposed a national policy and objectives
that have been accepted by the Group1s member departments
and CEQ.
The national policy statement notes that the policy is
based on a study of national monitoring data and the
overwhelming weight of concerned scientific opinion, and
declares:
97
-------
"1. The use of restricted pesticides (italics
supplied) shall be sharply controlled on an
individual basis, to retain only those uses
essential to human health or other essential uses
for which there are not satisfactory alternatives,
Current evidence indicates that there are
situations where even restricted pesticides may
be used without harm or danger of further
environmental contamination. While in other
areas, such as aquatic environments, the use of
the same pesticide should be prohibited.
"2. The use of restricted pesticides shall depend on
justification by competent authority, (italics
supplied) The justification is to include the
evidence that persistence, hazard and
effectiveness have been considered, that the
application will be made by personnel technically
trained to apply it safely and that necessary
precautions have been taken to protect man and
the environment."
The policy statement also calls for actions by the
Working Group to implement the policy. Such actions
include; classification of pesticides to be restricted;
98
-------
designation of competent authority for Federal use of
pesticides; development of training objectives and standards
for certification of advisors and applicators of restricted
use pesticide; development of government-industry standards
for pesticide containers, their reuse, and disposal; review
of Federal restricted use pesticide programs; provision of
review mechanism criteria to State and local governments
when requested; and monitoring and research to determine
where and how restricted pesticides can and cannot be
used. *<>5
The Working Group has already embarked on several of
the policy's implementing actions. It has appointed an ad
hoc task group to develop categories of restricted
pesticides. It has also appointed a national training panel
of experts to advise on the development of training
objectives and standards, in preparation for the proposal of
a comprehensive national training program.
The Working Group also cosponsored, together with the
Department of Agriculture, a national working conference on
pesticide disposal, and developed, through its panels, two
reference documents on disposal. It has made these two
documents and its Summary of Interim Guidelines for the
Disposal of Surplus or Waste Pesticides and Pesticide
9?
-------
Containers available to States, local governments, industry,
and the public.
A task group is devising an interdepartmental
coordinated system of pesticide accident investigators,
using as its core the National Multiagency Oil and Hazardous
Materials Pollution Contingency Plan.
The day-to-day- coordination activities of the Working
Group have been numerous. Among the most significant in
1970 was the review, at the request of the Secretary of the
Interior, of the Interior Department's use of sodium
monofluroacetate, a highly toxic compound used to reduce
animal predator populations. Similarly, the Department of
Helath, Education and Welfare asked for and received advice
from the working Group that formed the basis for its position
on certain aspects of pesticide levels in water. The
Council on Environmental Quality consulted the Working Group
on the problem of criteria for evaluating the adequacy of
research data in applications for the registration of
herbicides in aquatic sites.
In addition, the Working Group has also undertaken the
coordination of appropriate actions with States, Through the
Council of State Governments, representative States
100
-------
participated in the review and modification of the national
policy on pesticides. A summary of the National Pesticide
Monitoring Program was distributed to 50 States by the
Council of State Governments. The Working Group's programs
of categorization of restricted pesticides and of training
objectives and standards are receiving active participation
and input by representatives of States. 206
The Secretary*s Pesticide Advisory committee
of the
Department of Health^ Education and welfare
The Secretary's Pesticide Advisory committee (SPAC) was
established in February of 1970 in response to
Recommendation No. 6 of the December 1969, Report of the
Secretary's commission on Pesticides and their Relationship
to Environmental Health. Its purpose was to provide the
Department of HEW, and other Federal agencies on request.
101
-------
with the opinions and recommendations of independent
scientific experts on the hazards of pesticides to human
health and environmental quality, on a continuing basis.
When Reorganization Plan No. 3 became effective, the
committee was made to report to the Environmental Protection
Agency. In February of 1971, its concerns were broadened to
include all hazardous materials, and it became the EPA
-Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee. 207
The original SPAC consisted of six scientist
consultants from outside the Federal Government. In
addition, 31 short-term consultants served the Committee for
variable periods of time.
During its year of operation, the SPAC undertook a
number of important assignments;
1. Reviewed the problem of DDT in fish, and made
recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs regarding acceptable levels of DDT residues
in fish.
2. Developed a concept for a national facility to be
used for testing the long-term health effects of
102
-------
chemicals (with particular reference to
tumorgenicity).
3. Led an interdepartmental team in a thorough
review of the public health effects of mercury in
the environment and prepared a report which has
since been published in the March 1971 issue of
the international scientific jpurnajjkrivironmental Research."
4. Recommended a program for the development of
demonstration incinerators or other procedures
for the disposal of waste pesticides.
5. Suggested an in-depth review of the use and
effects of toxaphene and closely related
compounds.
6. consulted regularly with HEW representatives of
the Working Group and on the Interagency
Agreement on Registration of Pesticides.,
7. Consulted with FDA on several matters concerning
residue tolerances on food. These include:
reduction of tolerances for DDT on crops
following cancellations of corresponding
103
-------
registrations, establishment of tolerances (or
exemptions from tolerance) for polyhedral viruses
for the control of certain insect pests, and the
development of incentives to industry to expedite
actions on tolerance petitions.
SPAC also worked closely with the in-house Departmental
Pesticide Coordinating-Committee on a number of special
problems. Among the most significant projects were: review
of the National policy on Use of Pesticides, proposed by the
Working Group; review of a guideline for DDT contents of
effluents from processing plants, proposed by the ™ederal
Hater Quality Administration; review of a proposed policy on
use of selected pesticides in water and on watersheds,
proposed by HEWs Bureau of Water Hygiene; and investigation
of a system developed by California for maintaining records
on each applicaition of a pesticide. In addition, SPAC,
together with the Departmental Pesticide Coordinating
Committee, made a continuing review of progress being made
in cancellations of registrations of such pesticides as DDT,
DDD, other chlorinated hydrocarbons, DDVP vaporizers, and
mercurial seed treatments, and particularly and the
cancellation of registrations of zero tolerance
pesticides. 2°8
104
-------
Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee
of the
Environmental Protection Agency
The Hazardous Materials Advisory committee (HMAC) in
the Office of the Assistant Administrator for Research and
Monitoring is the successor body to the Pesticide Advisory
Committee of EPA and the Secretary's Pesticide Advisory
Committee of HEW.
Like its predecessors, HMAC is composed of non-
government experts in the environmental sciences, but its
charter states that concerned private individuals whose
competence is not limited solely to technical analysis may
also be included in its membership. All members are
appointed by the Administrator of EPA. The Committee itself
is scheduled to terminate in February of 1973, unless the
Administrator authorizes its extension.
The committee•s function is to provide expert,
independent advice on issues related to the use of all
hazardous materials in the environment. This advice should
105
-------
include: recommendations concenrning needed research and
monitoring activities, assessments of specific research
efforts, identification of emerging environmental problems
related to hazardous materials, advice regarding EPA
relationships to other agencies concerned with hazardous
materials, and other recommendations concerning control
policies. 209
Some of the representative current activities of HMAC
are the following:
1. Continued participation in development of
policies for the National Center for
Toxicological Research.
2. . Development of advice on EPA policy and
guidelines for pest control in food-handling
activities.
*
3. Review of the current status of the use of the
pesticide toxaphene and its environmental and
health effects.
1. Review of standards for efficacy of labels for
disinfectants and sanitizing agents.
106
-------
5. Review of the status of nitrates, nitrites and
nitrosamines in the environment.
Joint weed committee
Weed committees were formally established in the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of the
Interior, in 1950, when modern organic herbicides first came
into general use. The committees have met jointly since
their formation, for the purpose fo establishing policy and
exchanging weed control information between agencies
concerned with land and water management and those agencies
having responsibility for week control research, farmer
211
education, and regulation of herbicide use.
Much of the work of the Joint Weed committee is done
through its subcommittees:
Subcommittee on the Biological control of Weeds
This Subcommittee, formed in 1958, advises agencies of
the two Departments on matters pertaining to the
introduction of biological agents (chiefly insects or
-------
disease organisms) for control of weeds. The subcommittee
reviews the adequacy of testing done to establish the
specificity of effects of biological control agents on weeds
and their safety for other plants and animals. It makes
recommendations on whether or not the organisms should be
introduced for the control of weeds. The Subcommittee
cooperates informally with the Canadian Department of
Agriculture and several States that have biological weed
control programs Jt identifies and attempts to resolve
possible conflicts of interest that may arise over the
control of a particular weed by biological means.
Ad Hoc Interagency Committee on Use of Herbicides
in Aquatic Sites
This subcommittee was set up by the Joint weed
Committee in 1966. Its purpose was to determine how the
control of weed growth by Federal agencies responsible for
managing and developing water resources, could be reconciled
with the missions of other Federal agencies responsible for
protecting water quality, wildlife, and public health. A
special issue involved the need to insure the continued
availability of effective, safe, and properly registered
herbicides for use by Federal agencies in and around water,
The original participants in the work of the Ad Hoc
108
-------
Committee included representatives of the Agricultural
Research Service; several land and water management agencies
of the Department of the Interior including its Fish and
Wildlife Service, the former Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, and the U. S. Geological Service; the FDA;
the Public Health Service; the TVA; the Corps of Engineers;
and the Office of Science and Technology. Representatives
from the National Agricultural Chemicals Association and
from individual chemical companies occasionally
participated. Representatives from the EPA and the Working
Group on Pesticides have since become participants.
In addition to exchange of information, identification
of research needs and proposals concerning requirements for
registration of aquatic herbicides, the Ad Hoc Committee has
attempted to obtain registration of selected herbicides such
as 2,4-D and Silvex, for use by Federal agencies in water
weed control programs. The Ad Hoc Committee has also made
recommendations to EPA concerning tolerances or standards for
213
herbicide residues in drinking or other water.
*<* HQC committee on Preventitiye Weed Control
The Preventive Weed control Subcommittee was set up in
109
-------
1967 to (1) evaluate the adequacy of state and Federal legislative
authority to (a) prevent the importation of weeds and their
propagation parts, (b) regulate the domestic movements of weeds
and (c) quarantine and eradicate weed infestations; and (2)
recommend research, education, and regulatory programs and other
ways and means of increasing the effectiveness of JffitpmtiM
methods of weed control. The subcommittee identified serious weaknesses
in preventive weed control programs at the Federal and State levels
that needed to be corrected by new legislation. These
deficiencies were: inadequate State regulations on weeds and
weed control; inadequate control of noxious weeds in Federal
lands; lack of authority to regulate the importation and
interstate movement of new exotic and noxious weeds; and
need to modify the Federal Seed Act to lower quantities of
weed seeds permitted in farm seeds.
The subcommittee has advocated adoption by the States
of the Model State Noxious Weed Law and also amendment of the
Federal Seed Act to lower tbe quantities of noxious weed seeds
permitted in farm, lawn, and garden seeds. Its most important
activity has been the development of a proposed Federal Noxious
t
Weed Law that is currently under consideration in the
Department of Agriculture. 2^
The purpose of the Federal Noxious Weed Law is to
prevent the introduction and spread within the United States
of noxious weeds that are "new to or not heretofore widely
110
-------
prevalent or distributed within and throughout the United
States."
The proposed legislation would give the Secretary of
Agriculture authority to seize and dispose of new weeds
which have a potentiality of becoming a menace to
agriculture, public health, or water resources, while such
weeds are moving into or through the United States and to
take actions to promptly eradicate or control any such weeds
that do become established in the environment. The proposed
legislation would permit the use of selective herbicides for
control or eradication of newly introduced weeds. However,
it is believed that by concentrating on prevention and
prompt action on new weeds the proposed law would have the
effect of significantly reducing the volume of herbicides
that would otherwise be introduced into the environment, and
would avoid an added economic burden on farmers and others
who would have to control these new weeds once they became
21 "5
disseminated. 3
Department of Interior's Intradepartmental Pesticides
Working committee
The Department of the Interior»s Intradepartmental
Pesticides Working committee is led by the representative of
the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and wildlife (BSFW) and
includes representatives of the office of the Secretary,
•111
-------
Office of the Science Advisor, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Geological Survey, National Park Service, Office of the
Territories, and Bonneville Power Administration. Other
agencies, such as the Alaska Power Administration, the
Defense Electric Power Administration, the Southeastern
Power Administration, and the Southwestern Power
Administration, participate when matters of concern to them
are being decided.
At the beginning of every year, each agency of the
department submits its proposed pesticide use program to the
BSFVI's Chairman of the Working Committee. The Chairman,
the Working Committee's staff and the representative of the
agency concerned review each program together add make
necessary changes. The representative of the Geological
Survey 1s consulted 1f the program Involves any water pollution
problem. If the program does not Involve any matters of
concern to other land and water management agencies of the
Department, 1t is submitted to the Program review Panel of
the Interdepartmental Working Group on Pesticides. If any
program involves a problem of interest to other agencies,
the entire committee meets and resolves 1t, before sending
it on til the Working Group. 6
It should be noted that the standards of the Interior
Intradepartmental Committee are very strict. The Interior
U2
-------
Department issued Its own policy on pesticide use by the
Department ofi June 12, 1970. This policy states that the
Department considers safety and environmental quality as the
primary determinant of pesticide use, and that it will conform
with every restriction of Federal or State law. The policy
statement also contains a prohibited list of 16 pesticide
compounds* that can never be used in the Department's programs.
This list includes several pesticides that were and still are
being legally shipped in interstate commerce under the FIFRA.
The policy statement also contains a restricted Ifst of pesticides
which can be used only in programs approved by the Interdepartmental
Working Group on Pesticides.** This list is reviewed on an annual
basis and modified as needed.
The policy states that chemicals on the restricted list
can be used only when nonchemical techniques have been
considered and found inadequate and that use of such chemicals
* PROHIBITED LIST - aldrin, amitrol, arsenical compounds
(inorganic), Azodr1n,Bidrin, DDT, ODD (TDE), 2,4,5-T, dieldrin,
endrin, heptachlor, lindane, mercurial compounds, strobane,
thallium suTfate, toxaphene,.
* RESTRICTED LIST - acroleln, aldicarb (Temik), Aramite,
arsenical compounds (organic), azlnphosmethyl (Guthion) and
homologs, Benomyl, BHC (benzene hexachlorlde), captan, carbaryl
(SevlnJ, carbophenothion compounds, demeton *Systox), dicamba
(Banvel D), dinltrocresols, dloxathion (Delanav), dlquat,
dlsulfoton (Dlsyston), Dursban, Dyfonate, endosulfan (TModan),
endothall, EPN, ethion (Nialate), fenac, fenthion (Baytex),
folpet (Phaltan), Furadan, Kepone (Outdoor uses), Matacil, Meth-
Systox, methyl bromide, mevinphos (Phosdrin), Mi rex, paraquat,
phosraet (Imidan) (Prolate), phosphamidon, picloranK (Jordon),
sodium monofluoracetate (1080), TCMTB (Busan 72), TEPP (Tetron),
trichlorofon (Dylox, Diptrex), Zectran.
113
-------
I
can be restricted to small scale applications. Use of any
chemical pesticide must be aimed at a specific pest
problem, and involves minimum strength and frequency of
217
application. "
Armed Forces Pest Control Board
The Armed Forces Pest Control Board represents all
units in the Department of Defense (DOD) that are concerned
with the development of the operational, logistical, and
research policies of military pest control programs. The
Board serves as a coordinating center for the military
services on all matters of pest control, and between the
Department of Defense and other government departments and
agencies with related pest control programs. For instance,
the Board coordinates DOD quarantine Programs with those of
the Department of Agriculture and the Public Health Service.
The Board also serves as a consultant body to the three
military departments on technical aspects of the prevention
of arthropod borne diseases (malaria and typhus, for
example) and the pontrol of arthropod and rodent vectors and
114
-------
reservoirs of disease. The Board also serves as a
consultant on the prevention of damage to property and
materials by insects, rodents, birds and other pests on
military aircraft, ships, and other vehicles for which
quarantine regulations are established. It also recommends
policy relating to domestic and overseas pest control
218
activities.
For the last few years one of the major concerns of the
Board has been environmental pollution, specifically the
unwarranted or excess use of pesticides and the disposal of
excess pesticides. In line with the policies of the
interdepartmental working Group on Pesticides, which has
given its approval to all DOD programs conducted at bases
within the United States, the Board has changed many ot its
chemical recommendations for pest control, recommended
stricter controls on many pesticides, and recommended the
91 Q
deletion of several formulations from the stock catalog.**•*
An instruction prepared by the Board and issued by the
DOD in July 1970 for pest control operations at military
installations shows concern for achieving the desired level
of pest control while precluding environmental contamination
by pesticides. Instruction 1150.7 provides that all
military pest control planning and programming shall be
directed by "professional" personnel and that ccntrol
115
-------
operations shall provide for supervision, execution, and
evaluation of all measures for the safe and efficient
control of pests, including preventitive measures. All
operational pest control personnel shall be given training
in effective, environmentally protective methods of pest
control and in safe storage and handling of pesticides, and
certificates of competence shall be issued to such trained
personnel. All pest control operations shall be performed
only by or under the direct supervision of trained and
certified personnel. In addition. Instruction No, 4150.7
provides for protective clothing and gear for operational
personnel, facilities for safe storage and mixing of
pesticides and decontamination of personnel, special use
vehicles, locked storage facilities, and other appropriate
measures required to safeguard pesticides and prevent
accidental poisonings.
116
-------
FOOTNOTES
I/ 7 USC 135a
2/ 7 USC 135b (a) (b) (c)
!/ U.S. Department of Agriculture - U.S. Department of Health,
Education & Welfare, The Regulation of Pesticides in the United
States. March 1968, p. 2, 6, 7,
4/ 7 USC 135a
5_/ 21 CFR 362.6
I/ 7 USC 135 a
II 21 CFR 362.9, 116
8/ USDA - U.S. Department of HEW, op. cit. p. 23
I/ 7 USC 135 d, e, f
10/ 7 USC 135c
117 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations,
llth report of, "Deficiencies in Administration of Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act;!' 91st Cong. 1st Sess. 1969, p. 4.
12/ 7 USC 135 b, c
.137 7 USC 135c
14/ 7 USC 135c, d
15/ U.S. Senate, Subcom. on Agricultural Research & General Legislation
of the Committee on Agriculture & Forestry, "Federal Environmental
Pesticide Control Act Hearings'^ 92nd Cong'. 1st Sess. March 1971, p. 313
16/ Environmental Protection Agency, "Reasons underlying the registration
decision concerning products containing DDT; 2, 4, 5-T, aldrin and
DieldrinJ' March 18, 1971, p. 1
IT/ 7 USC 135c
18_/ Environmental Protection Agency, loc. cit. p. 1.
19/ 7 USC 135d
2Q/ Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Department of Health, Education
& Welfare, 428 F 2d 1083 (DC Cir, 1970)
117
-------
2\J 21 USC 346a
22/ U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - U.S. Dept. of H.E.W., op cit p. 7-8
23/ 21 USC 348
24/ 21 USC 348c
25/ 428 F 2d 1083 (D.C. CIr. 1970).
26/ 21 USC 346a (d)(1), U.S. Dept. of Agric. - U.S. Dept. of HEW,
op cit, p. 8-13.
2_7/ 21 USC 348a(l)
28/ 21 USC 348a(d)
29./ 21 USC 348a(e)
30/ 428 F 2d 1083 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
3JL/ U.S. Dept. of Agric. - U.S. Dept. of HEW, op cit. p. 7-8
32/ Ibid p. 14-15
33_/ National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council Pesticide
Residues Committee, Report on "No Residue" and "Zero Tolerance'.'" 1965,
p. 2-3.
34/ Ibid, p. 16.
35/ PR notices 67-10, 67-11, 68-1, 68-2, 68-9, 68-15, 70-3, 70-4, 70-29
36/ PR notices 70-29
37/ U.S. Dept. of Agric. - U.S. Dept. of HEW, op cit,p. 25, Sandra
C. Bloom & Stanley E. Degler, Pesticides and Pollution. Bureau of
National Affair's Environmental Management Series, 1969, p. 51
38/ 21 USC 331, 332, 333
39_/ 21 USC 672
40/ Interview with Dr. John E. Spaulding, APHIS
41/ Consumer and Marketing Service,-Consumer Protection Programs
CP(SI) .Instruction 917-1
42/ 21 USC 671, 672, 673, 674, 676
43/ 21 USC 661* 21 USC 454
44/ P.L. 91 - 597, 84 Stat. 1620
118
-------
33 FR 918, 34 FR 1773, 35 FR 12727
4£/ 35 FR 12727
42/ 16 CFR 1.11 et seq.
4J/ 49 USC 1348 (c)
49t 14 CFR -13 7. 39
U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and the
Environment of the Committee on Commerce, "Hearings to Consider the
Effects of Pesticides on Sports and Commercial Fisheries," 91st Cong.,
1 sess, Hay 1969. Part I, p. 35; Part II, p. 281-288, 293-296
51/ 33 USC 466g
52 / U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal,. Water Quality Administration,
"Clean Water for the 1970's: A Status Report, "June 1970, p. 21.
53/ Pub. L 91-224, April 3, 1970, 84 Stat 112
54. / U.S. Department of the Interior, FWQA, op cit. , p. 17
5V Sections (b)(c)(e), 49 USC 1655 transfer to the DOT powers
excercised by other agencies under 18 USC 831-835; 46 USC 170, and
49 USC 1421-1430, 1471," 1472(h).
56/ 49 CFR 170 et seq.
57/ 49 CFR 173, 343
58/ 49 CFR 173. 402 et seq,
5J/ 49 CFR 173. 343 et seq.
6(y Information provided by Eric Grundy, Office of Hazardous Materials,
DOT.
49 CFR 177. 841 (e)
62/ Information provided by, Lee Santraan Acting Assistant General
Council. DOT
63/ 49 CFR 171.15, 171.16; 14 CFR 103.28
64_/ IS USC 833, 834- Section 10, 46 USC 170; 49 USG 1472 fhV: 49 CFR 173,
174, 175, 176, 177; 14 USC 103
65_/ 49 CFR 171. 3 (b), 178, 14 CFR 103.11.
66/ 18 USC 834.
67/ 49 USC 1472 (h) llg
-------
!fc/ 49 USC 1471
!§/ 46 USC 170 (14)
J7JV 46 USC 170 <13)
Safety^ DOTf0™*"011 prwlltad by Isaac D« Benk*n> Office of Motor Carrier
42 USC 241
n SUppUed by ELJ Grandpierre, Office of Pesticides Programs,
74/ 42 USC 243, 246, 264
7S/" Information supplied by ELJ Grandpierre.
1£f Pub. L. 9 1-190, 83 Stat. 852
77/ U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations, 92nd Cong, 2nd Sess, Hearings on Agriculture - Environ-
mental and Consumer Protection Appropriations for 1972, p. 498, 505
78 / US Senate . Subcora. on Agricultural Research & Gen. Legis., op cit,
"~~ p. 186—187.
79/ U.S. Public Health Service, Transcript of the Conference on the Pollu-
tion of Interstate Waters (Lower Mississippi River) at New Orleans, Mar.
5-6, 1964,
80/ 33 USC 407
81/ US v. Standard Oil Co, 384 U.S. 244; U.S. v. Interlake Steel Corp.,
297 F Supp. 912, D.C. , N. D. , 111., 'March 27, 1969
82/ 33 CFR 209, 131
83y U.S. Council on Environmental Quality ,l'fenvironmentai Quality - 1971";
the second annual report, p. 11-12
84y 60 Stat. 1080
85_/ 70 Stat. 1119, 1122, 16 USC 742a, d, and f.
1958 U.S. Code Cong., and Admin. News p. 3223
72 Stat. 479, 16 USC 742d-l
887 U.S. Senate, 90th Cong, 3d Sess. Report No. 1236, 'Effects of Pesti-
cides Upon Fish and Wildlife" 1968, p. 2.
President Nixon's Message to Congress, July 9, 1970.
120
-------
(y See, e.g. , Alaska Stat. §§ 18.33.010 - .110 {Supp. 1970),
Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 487.011 - .14 (Supp. 1971), Mont. Rev. Codes
Ann. SS 27 - 213 to - 245 (Supp. 1971).
Seo Appendix I , Delaware is the only State with no pesticide
registration statute.
92/ See Rohrman, The Law of Pesticides; Present and Future ^ 17
J. Pub. L. 351, at 363, 364 (1968) [hereinafter cited as Rohrman].
The author was formerly a Legal Coordinator, Pesticides Program,
Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Protection and Environmental
Health Service, U. S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare
(1966-68) .
93/ A draft of the Uniform Act was approved by the Council of State
Governments in 1946. It became the basis for the 'Federal Act which
was passed in 1947. The Association of American- Pesticide Control
Officials has been instrumental in investigating and recommending
changes in the Uniform Act through its Model Bill and Regulation
Committee. The Uniform Act has been amended to incorporate both
the 1959 and 1964 amendments to the FIFRA. A revised Model Bill has
been drafted with the intent that it be compatible with the Associa-
tion's revised Model Use and Application Act and currently proposed
m Federal legislation,
Uniform State Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act § 5.
Rohrman, supra note 92.
96/ Id.
9 7_/ See Appendix II , pp. 2-4.
98/ id. States indicating pesticide use restrictions imposed1 by
legislation were Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Michictan,
Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,
Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, while not as
.explicit :.*n ; defining pesticides in a restricted use category,
legislation in Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, and
Wisconsin appears to have a similar effect.
121
-------
IPO/ in New York, "restricted use pesticide" has been defined as a
pesticide". . . (A) which (1) either (a) persists in the environment,
or (b) accumulates as either the pesticide per se, a pesticide metab-
olite, or a pesticide degradation product in plant or animal tissue
or product, and is not excreted or eliminated within a reasonable
period of time, and which may be transferred to other forms of life;
and (2) which by virtue of such persistence or accumulation creates
a present or future risk of harmful effects on any organism other
than the target organisms; or (B) which the commissioner finds is
so hazardous to mail or other forms of life that restrictions on its
sale, purchase, use, or possession are in the public interest."
N. Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 148.22 (McKinney Supp. 1970). For exam-
ples of other definitions, see Fla. Stat. Ann. S 487.021 (39)
(Supp. 1971) , Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 27 - 216 (34) (Supp. 1971) ,
N. M. Stat. Ann. § 45-9-2.Z. (Supp. 1971).
10y Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Washington (see Comments) .
102/ California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode island, Utah, and Vermont. In addition,
Hawaii requires the licensing of herbicide dealers.
103/ See, e.g., Cal. Agric. Code § 12106 (West Supp. 1971); Minn.
Sess. Laws, ch. 449, subd. 3. (1971), amending Minn. Stat. Ann*.
§ 24.072 (1963) as_ amended; Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 27-226 (Supp. 1971) ,
N. Y. Agric. and Mkts. Law § 149.3(6) (e) (Supp. 1970).
^•Hi/ See' £i£' » 49 N.C.L. Rev. 529 , at 534 (1971) (citing hearings
regarding proposed change in North Carolina pesticide legislation) .
1£5/ see, e.g., Cal. Agric. Code S 12811 (West 1968), S. C. Code
Ann. § 3-162.1 (Supp. 1970).
106/ Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio,
Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.
«
1£7/ Alaska, Colorado, Montana, and New Mexico.
108/ Michigan, New Jersey, North Dakota, Utah, and Virginia.
109/ Michigan (thallium sulf ate) , New Mexico. [DDT, ODD (TDE)], New York
[Bandana, BHC, ODD (TDE), DDT, Endrin, mercury compounds, s'eleriites
and salenates, sodium f luoroacetate , strobane and taxaphene] , Texas
(•thallium sulfate) , Vermont (DDT) . !
See_ Appendix H»p. 1. See also, R. I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 23-41.1-5.
(Supp. 1970) (banning a number of pesticides except under emergency
declarations by the Director of Natural Resources) .
122.
-------
§££., £iS.-/ Ca1- Sess. Laws, ch. 878 (1971), .amending Cal.
Agric. Code § 12991 (West 1968), as amended; Colo. Sess. Laws,
ch. 39 § 4 (1971). amending Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 6-12-5 (1963);
Pub. L. No. 199 § 10(2), Ind. Acts 749, .760 (1971).
112/ See, e_._2. , 111. Ann. Stat. ch. 5, S§ 271-276 (smith-Kurd
1966) ,. as amended, §§ 271-276 (Smith-Kurd Supp. 1971); Iowa Code
Ann. §§ 206A.1-.6 (Supp. 1971); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 2-2429 (Supp.
1970) .
113/ Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.
*1/ 74 stat- 372 (I960), 15 U.S.C. 1261 (1970).
11 5/ Coverage usually includes toxicants, corrosives, irritants,
strong sensitizers, flammable substances, substances which generate
pressure , and in some cases radioactive substances . See , e.^. ,
Calif. Health & Safety Code SS 28740-28790 (West 1967) £ as amended,
§§ 28740-28792 (West Supp. 1971); Mass. Ann. Laws .ch. 94B, §§ 1-10
(1967); Va. Code Ann. §§ 3.1-250 to 261 (Repl. Vol. 19616) .
116/ National Agricultural Chemicals Ass'n, NAC Law Guide, sec. I
(1969 rev.).
118/ see , e.g., Cal. Agric. Code §§ 14201-14381 (West 1968); Ohio
•Rev. Code Ann. §§ 923. 21-. 34 (Page 1968); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.
Ann. art. 192-1 (1969).
119/ Environmental Protection Agency, Introduction to Digest of State
•Pesticide Use and Application Laws (1971) [hereinafter cited as Digest]/
For a discussion of the Miller Amendment, see pp.* 17 , supra.
120/ Except to some extent FAA regulations affecting aerial appli-
cators. See Rohrraan, supra note 92 at 364.
121/ See Digest, supra note 119*
122/ The Council of State Governments, 1971 Suggested State Legislation,
p. 185. See also Hearings on H.R. 26, H.R. 1077, H.R. 1732, H.R. 4152,
H.R. 4S96. H.R. 5182. H.R. 6576 and H.R. 6761 Before the House Comm.
on Agriculture, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 92-A, at 828 (1971);
Hearings on S.232. S.272, S.660, and S.745 Before the Subcomm. on
Agricultural Research and General Legislation of the Senate Comm. on
Agriculture and Forestry, 92d Cong. , 1st Sess. , at 326 (1971) .
123
-------
123 / See generally , Digest, supra note 4?19,
12..1/ See, e.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. § 555.260(3) (1969), Oge. Rev. Stat.
88 573.001 - .260 (1969), Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-609 (Repl. Vol. 1964).
Wash. Rev. Code § 17.21.020(22), (26) (Supp. 1970).
Sge-/ e.g. , Idaho Code Ann. § 22-2218 (1968), 111. Ann. Stat. ch.
5, § 87d".12. (Smith-Kurd 1966), Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1461.1
(Supp. 1970), Md. Ann. Code art. 66C, § 110A-5. (Repl. Vol 1970).
126 / Miss. Code Ann. §§ 5011-01 to -15 (Supp. 1971), N.C. Gen. Stat.
§§ 106-65.13 -.21 (Repl. Vol. 1966), N.D. Cent. Code § 2-05-18
{Supp. 1971) .
12J/ vty0. stat. Ann. § 10-4 to -9 (1957).
Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 77-211 (Repl. Vol. 1957) ; Hawaii Rev. Stat.
151-1 to -13 (1968) ; Idaho Code Ann. i§ 22-2224 to,,- 2230 (1968) ;
111. Ann. Stat. eh. 5 §6 87a.l-a.8 (Smith-Hurd 1966); Mich. Stat.
Ami. §§ 12.366 (1967); H. Y. Agric. 6 Mkts. Law §'151-h (McKinney
Supp. 1970); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 921.06, .07,- .99 (Page 1968);
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, §§ 3-251 to -.259 (Supp. 1971);. Ore. Rev.
Stat. §§ 573.402 - .992 (1969); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, §§ 214.51 - .55
(Supp. 1970) ; Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 135b - 4 (1969) , as
amended , -4.2(£) ,.17 (a) (Supp. 1970).
12 y See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. §§ 19-300 .H(a) , (b) (1968), Md.
Ann. Code art. 66C, §§ 110A-2, -3 (Repl. Vol. 1970) , Okla, Stat. Ann.
tit. 2, § 3-82 (a), (b) .(Supp. 1971).
13 O/ see, e.g.. La. Rev. Stat. i 3:1§29 (Supp. 1971); N, M. Stat. Ann.
B 67-34-3. B. (Supp. 1971); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, § 3-272(b) (1971).
131/ see r e.g. , Ore. Rev. Stat. § 573.051 (1969); Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 43-610 (Repl. Vol. 1964).
.13 2/ see, e.g. , Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. § 19-300& (c) (1968) ; Nev. Rev.
Stat. §§ 555. 320 (4) (1969).
133/ See, e.g. , Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-610 (Repl. Vol. 1964); Wash. Rev.
Code § 17.21.065 (Supp. 1970).
see, e.g., Mont. Rev. Codes §§ 27-221, -223 (Supp. 1971); Wash.
Rev. Code SS 17. 21. 070,. 110 (Supp. 1970).
124
-------
135 / Md. Code Ann. art.SffC, §§ 110A-2.(a) (Repl. Vol. 1970). See
also Put'. L. No. 199 g 2 (24), Indiana Acts 754 (1971) providing
that "pesticides for use by prescription only" require prescription
"by a qualified pest management specialist approved by the state
chemist." (emphasis added)
!p.
2-4 infra.
\39 / See, e. g. , Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §i 6-14-4,-13,-14,-15 (Supp.
1967); Nev. Rev. Stat. i§ 555. 370,. 380,. 390 (1969); N. Ti. Rev. Stat.
Ann. §§ 149-D:6,:7 (Supp. 1.970).
14 y See, e.g. , Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 94B, § 21C. (1967); N. Y. Agric.
& Mkts. Law § 151-r, (3) (McKinney Supp. 1970) .
See Rohrman, .supra note 92, at 392, 393. The author indicates that,
by 1968, 17 States had adopted rules and regulations designed after,
or corresponding to, the Federal regulations governing dangerous
materials. Id. n. 213.
id.
14_3/ N0te lll^upra. See also. N. J. Sess Laws ch. 176 § 4 (1971) ;
R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 23-41.1-6 (Supp. 1970).
144,/ see, e.g.. ?nl». L. No. 199 § 34, Indiana Acts 767 (1971); Md.
Code Ann. art. 66C § 110A-3. (e) (Repl Vol. 1970); Mont. Rev. Codes
Ann. 27-244 (Suppt 1971) ; .Ohio Rev. Code Ann. S 921.51 (Supp. 1970) ;
Utah Code Ann. § 4-4-39 (2) .(Supp. 1971).
14JL/ See, e.g.. Oregon Laws ch. 699 (1971).
146./ Cath, Report of State Programs - Summary. Proceeding of ...
National Working Conference on Pesticide Disposal 78-84 (1970)
(conference sponsored by The Working Group, Subconm. on Pesticides,
President's Cabinet Comm. on the Environment, Beltsville, Md.,
June 30, July 1, 1970). See also pp. 54-77 for supplemental re-
ports from specific States.
147,/ Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire,
Wisconsin.
-------
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Hew Hampshire,
New Mexico, Ohio.
149./ see, e.g. , Kan. Stat. Ann. ?§ 2-2432, -2433 (Supp. 1970);
Wash. Rev. Code §§ 17.21.010 - .931 (Supp. 1970).
ISO/ see, e.g., Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 77-216, -223 (Supp. 1969);
Iowa Code Ann. §§ 206.5, -9 (1969). Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 2,
§ 3-86 (1964).
151/ See , e.g. , Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. S 6-14-19 (Supp. 1967) ; La.
Rev. Stat. § 3:1632 (Supp. 1971). ' ,
152' see, e.g. , Ark. Stat. Ann. S 77-225 (Supp. 1969) ; Mich. Stat.
Ann. § 12.353(2) (Supp. 1971).
153/ see, e.g. , Kd. Ann. Code art 66C, §§ 110A-3.(h) (Repl. Vol.
1970); Ohio Rev. Code §§ 921.45 (Pago Supp. 1970); Utah Code Ann.
,§ 4-4-17 (d) (Supp. 1971). See also Conn. Gen. Stat. Wv.
§ 19-300p. (d) (Supp. 1969).
15 V F0r an example of specific treatment of farm applicators re-
quiring an annual use permit for restricted use pesticides and a
written examination, see Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 27-228 (Supp. 1971) .
155/ see, e.g. , N. Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 151-u. (McKinney Supp.
1970);" Ohio" Rev. Code Ann. S 921. 42 (A) (Page Supp. 1970); Utah Code
Ann. § 4-4-19 (Supp. 1971) .
156/ See, e.g.. Pub. L. No. 199 § 10(1), Indiana Acts 760 (1971);
N. Y. Agric. fi Mkts. Law £§150.1(4); 149.3, .4, (McKinney Supp.
1970); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 921. 42 (B), (C) (Page Supp. 1970).
157y see, e.g., N. Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 149. 4. (1) {McKinney
Supp. 1970); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 45-9-3. D (Supp. 1971).
I58./ See, e.g., Mmt. Rev. Codes Ann. § 27-228, -230. (Supp. 1971),
N. Y. Agric. and Mkts. Law § 149.4(3)
-------
161/ Sfitfij^.., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 3-331.01 to .11 (Supp.
1971) (pest control districts) ; Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 2800 -
2910 (West 1970) (pest abatement districts) till. Ann. Stat. ch.
111% @§ 74-85a. (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1971) (mosquito abatement dis-
tricts) ; Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. "l35c (1969) (noxious weed
control districts).
See, £.&., Cal. Gov't Code §§ 61600(g) (West Supp. 1971)
(community services districts) .
, e.g.. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-5-1 to -15 (1963), as.
amended §§ 6-5-5., -11 (Supp. 1965) (pest control districts) ; 'idah.
Code Ann. §§ 39-2801 to 2809 (1961), as amended i§ 39-2810, -2811
(Supp 1969) (mosquito abatement districts) ; Mont. Rev. Codes Ann.
§§ 16-1701 to -1723 (1967), as amended §§ 16-1709.1, -1713 (Supp.
1971)_ (weed control and weed seed extermination districts) ; ,
N/M. "Stat. Ann. §§ 45-10-1 to -31 (1966) (noxious weed control
districts) .
164/ gee e.fi.. N. Y. Pub.- Health Law 8 1528 (county mosquito control
commissions) .
/ See, e.g.. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 2-1053 to -1059 (1970) (pest
eradication districts); N. M. Stat. Ann. §§ 45-8-18 (Supp. 1971)
(grasshopper and other range pest control districts) .
«
16.6/ Council on Environmental Quality, "Environmental Quality - 1970";
the first annual report, p. 140, 209, U.S. Agency for International
Development, Manual Circular 1612, 10.3, February 12, 1971, p. 1-2
16.7/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations -
World Health Organization, Codex Alimentarius Commission, "Procedural
Manual, "First edition 1968; also Report of the Eight Session, 1971;
"Setting the Standards for International Food Trade," mimeographed
material, no date
1.6.8. / FAO - WHO, Report of the First Meeting of the Codex Committee
on Pfisfrxcj.djs y_esj-dues t May 1966.
FAO - WHO, Procedural Manual p. 68.
17Q/ FAO - WHO* Report of the First Meeting etc, p. 2.
17 1/ FAO - WHO. "Agenda item 6(b) of Ad Hoc Working Group of the Codex
Committee: Outline of the Procedure Followed by the Joint FAO WHO
Meeting on Pesticide Residues", July 1971, p. 1-4..
1..72/ See FAO, Pesticide Residues in Food: Report of the 1970 Joint
FAO WHO Meeting, FAO Agricultural Studies No. 87, 1971.
173 / FAO - WHO, Codex Alimentarius Commission, op cit, p.
17 4 / ibid.
127
-------
FAO - WHO, Codex Alimentarius Comn. , Recommended International
Tolerances for Pesticide Residues. 2nd Series 1970, p. 1, 7-12.
176./ FAO," Pesticide Residues in Food:« Report etc., p. 23-37.
177/ FAO, Guidelines for Legislation Concerning the Registration for
gale and Marketing of Pesticides, p. 1-2.
1787 Ibid p. 4, 6.
179/ op cit p. 9.
•w
ISO/ op cit p. 6.
18J/ op cit p. 7.
182/,183/ op cit p. 8
184/ HR 4152 and 5272.
185/ International Labour Office, Permissible Levels of Toxic Sub-
stances in the Working Environment, p. 1.
Ibid p. 182 - 405.
1.8 ? / op cit. p. 13.
Ibid p. 11-12.
189./ A. V. Holden, "Annex II - Report of Cooperative Study Programs
1966- 7 IV in Report of the Study Group on Unintended Occurrence of
Pesticides (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)
December 1970, p. 74-76,
19.Qy Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Press
Release, Paris, Nov. 25, 1970, p. 2-3.
19JL/ OECD, Report of the Study Group on Unintended Occurrence of
Pesticides. Dec., 1970, p. 6-7.
19_2y Information supplied by Wm. Uphol,t, U.S. 'representative on the
Sector Group on the Unintended Occurrence of Chemicals in the Environ-
ment.
%
6
193J OECD, "Resolution of the Council Concerning A Procedure for
Notification and Consultation on Measures for Control of Substances
Affecting Man or his Environment;," May 25, 1971. ' /
19 4 / OECD, "Notification and Consultation on Measures for Control of
Substances Affecting Man or his Environment - Arsenic and Lead Com-
pounds in Pesticides/! October 5, 1971; "Notification and Consultation
on Measures for Control of Substances Affecting Man or his Environment
Pesticide Uses of Chlordane and Heptachlor Compounds," Nov. 8, 1971.
128
-------
1957 OECD, Report of the Study Group etc, Annex III p. 8.
196/ Ibid p. 82
19. 7 / op. cit. p. 83.
198/ Presidents Science Advisory Com., Use of Pesticides. 1963, p. 16-17, 20.
Interdepartmental Coordination of Activities Relating to Pesti-
cides by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health Educa-
tion. and Welfare, and trhg Department of the Interior. 1964, (29 FR 5808) .
200/ National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Report
of the Task Force on the Pesticides Regulation Division. Nov. 1965, p. 31 -
34, U.S. House, of Representatives, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., Hearings before
a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations on Deficiencies
in Administration of Federal Insecticide, Funigicide, and Rodenticide
Act, 1969, p. 64-75, 301-307.
201/ U.S. House of Representatives, Deficiencies in Administration^of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Eleventh
Report of the House Committee on Government Operations. Nov., 1969,
p. 5-6; U.S. Department of Health, Education and We If are," Report of
the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship to
Environmental Health, "December- 1969, p. 7.
20 2/ Interdepartmental Agreement for Protection of Public Health
and Quality of the Environment, announced March 3, 1970.
203.' 92d Cong., 1st Sess. S. 745 § l(b)j HR 4152, § l(b) .
204/ U.S. Cauinet Committee on the Environment, Subcommittee on
Pesticides, "Charter of the Working Group," FR Doc 70 - 3661; Filed
Mar. 25, 1970; U.S. Working Group on Pesticides, Annual Report:
February 1970 - February 1971 p. i, 1-5:
2Q 5/ U.S. Working Group on Pesticides; "National Policy on Pesticides,"
June 1970, p. 1-2.
206,' u.S. Working Group on Pesticides, "Annual Report" etc. p. 1.
207 u.S. Secretary's Pesitcide Advisory Committee, "Report to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare," 197Q. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Order 1385.5, Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee,
May 21, 1971.
208/ U.S. Secretary's Pesticide Advisory Committee, loc cit.
2_09/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, loc cit.
210/ Information supplied by W. Wade Talbot, Executive Officer of
HMAC
129
-------
211/ Information supplied by W. B. Ennis Jr., Chairman Department Weed
Committee, USDA
212/ USDA - USDI Joint Weed Committee, "Guidelines for the Review
and Advice on Requests for the Introduction of Foreign Organisms into
the Continental United States for the Control of Weeds" (no date) ;
Memorandum to Members of the Subcpmmittee on Biological Control of
Weeds»from W. B. Ennis, Jr. Chairman Departmental Weed Committee,
USDA and Paul Howard, Chairman, Departmental Weed Committee, USDI.
April 11, 1969.
213/ President's Cabinet Committee on the Environment, Working
Group of the Subcommittee on Pesticides. "Problems confronting tasks
of the Interagency Ad Hoc Committee on Use of Herbicides in Aquatic
Sites*" Mimeographed material 1970.
214/ Information supplied by W. B. Ennis Jr.
215/ Proposed Federal Noxious Weed Act draft A/27/70; USDA Environmental
Statement prepared in accordance with Sec 102(2) (c) of P.L. 91-190, Feb.
1, 1970, re. USDA Legislative Proposal for the Enactment of a Noxious
Weed Control Act.
2 167 U.S. Department of the Interior Memorandum from the Secretary
of the Interior to Assistant.Secretari.es, Heads of all Bureaus and
Offices; "Review of Pesticide Use Programs,," June 12, 1970; informa-
tion supplied by Walter W. Dykstra, Chairman of the USDI Intrade-
partmental Pesticides Working Committee. "
217/ U.S. Department of the Interior, "Department of the Interior
Responsibilities and Police on Pesticide'," June 12, 1970; revised
restricted pesticides list for 1972.
U»S. Department of Defense Directive No. 5154.12, Subject: The
Armed Forces Pest Control Board, August 21, 1968; U.S. Armed Forces
Pest Control Board, Annual Report - Calendar Year 1970.
219_/ U.S. Armed Forces Pest Control Board, loc cit. p. 2.
130
-------
APPENDIX I
131
-------
* Dott^J lin« indic-ito* statute extends to cover aspects
of fc-cth distri&tttioA *nd ***« and uao and application*
_SS2 Distribution ana sal. V Selected State
Xliiau. Ala. Co£« tit. 1, H337(l>-(9) (1958).
Alaska Alaska Stat. SS1S.33.010-.110 !£upp. 1970). ••
Aruo.-.a Ari=. Scv. St.it. tar.. SI3-341 to -3S7 (1956), ns amended, 13-342 {Supp. 1971).
Arkansas Ark. Stat. Am.. Ji77-201 to -211 (Repl. Vol. 1957), as. a^enocfi, i177-201 to -213 (Supp. 1S69).
California Cal. A?rin. Co£o SS12751-12C.94 (Kost 1968), c: angnflgd. IU2374-12991 (West Supp. 1971), and ch. 670, Cal. Seat. Law (1971).
Colorado Cole. Ecv. Stat. A-in. SS6-J2-1 CO -12 (1963), as cnencigd. Colo. Sets. Laws ch. 19 (1971), '.
Connecticut Conn. Goa. Stat. Rov. Ii19-300 a.-]., t. (1968).
Cclavare •
rlorica Pla. Stat. Ann. I4B7.011-.14 (Supp. 1971).
Georgia Ca. Coda -V_i. Si5-1501 to -1516 (1962).
Hawaii Havali Rev. Stat. H149-1 to -12 (1968), «s acenaea, SK9-4 (Supp. 1970).
Idaho Idaho Code Ann. . i. Ko. 199, Ind. Acts 749 (1971).
Icwa Iowa Code Ann. H20G.l-.il (1969), as aaended, il206.3-.12 (Supp. 1971).
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. i 52-2201 to -2215 (1964)'. «• *
Xeatueky Xy. Rev. Stat. Ann. ii217.S40-.640 (1963), as amended, Si217.S40-.5SB (Supp. 1971).
Louisiana La. Rev.. Stae. I!3:1601-tl609 (Supp. 1971).
KaiM Ma. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 7, SS581-S91 (1964).
Maryland Hd. Ann. Code art.
-------
Pesticide Laws
~__™ Uso and Application **
—Ariz. Fev. Stat. Ann. $13-371 to -390 (Su£p. 1971). '
Ark. Stat. Ann. U77-214 to -226 (Supp. 1969).
Cal. Agric. Coda !UK01T11940 (Waot 1968), as Mended. 1111402-12121 (Host Supp. 1971).
! H4001-U09S {Vast 1968), us, Mended. H14001-14104 (west Sup?. 1971).
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. it6-14-1 to -20 (Supp. 19&7).
Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. I !19-300k.-i., u. (1968), a? aro-nacd, SU9-300n(o), p(»|, n(d) {Swpp. 1969).
Uiwaii Sov. Stat. JS1S1-1 to -13 (196«). (herbicides)
Idaho Code Ann. i 122-2209 to -2230 (1968).
II). Ar.n. Stat. ch. 5, SS37dl.-dl7. (Smith-Kurd 1966).
Xu. Stat. Ann. 112-2413 to -2437 (Supp. 1970).
.La. »»v. Stat. f'il>1622-:1634 (Sup?. 1971).
--K». Re». Stat. Ann. tit. 22, 111451-1*65 (Supp. 1970), «• amended, ch. 377, pub. Lav. 1971.
Hd. Ann. Coda art. 66C, U110A-1 to -10 (Repl. Vol. 1970).
Mass. Ann. Lawj eh. 943, 1I21A. -22 (1957). as aatndad, «21C. (Supp. 1970).
Bich. Stat, Ana. Iil2.353(l)-(10) -(1957), as wended, H12.3S(1)-(10) (Supp. 1971).
Kinn. Stat. Ann. II16.03I-.035 (196J) , .» attended. J1S.031-.036 (Supp. 197H and ch. 4«9. Klnn. S«««. t* -. (197U.
Klu. Code Ann. if5011-01 to -IS (Supp. 1971). (aerial, applicator*)
133
-------
state Oittribution and Salt -'
KebrAata tub. K*v. Stat. I {2-2601 to -2611 (1970).
Hevaia Kav. Kov. scat. 1SSE6.010-.4SO (1967).
Haw Raapahir* N. K. Rev. St«. Ann. If438.1-. 17(1955), M mended. eh. 19. N. B. Uwi (1971).
Hew Jeraey H. J. Stat. Ann. SUiSA-l to -27 (19S9), aa ajiciided. iS4i«A-4, -B (Supp. 1971).
». J. Sen. Laws eh. 176 (1971). .—
New Mexico x. n. Stat. Ann. I.I45-9-to-12 (1953), as JJondeJ. 1145-9-1 to -3 (Supp. 1971).
New Tori: N. Y. Xgric. tat Hku. La>t IS 146 to 151-9 (McXinnoy Supp. 1970).
Kortb CuroliRa N. c. Gen. Stat. SI106-65.1 to -12 CRepl. Vol. 1966).
Morth Oakotl N. a. Cent. Coda 1119-18-01 to -11 (1960), aa_ JJinndod, IS19-18-02 to -11 (Supp. 1971).
Ohio Ohio Kev. Coda Ann. H921.ll-.20, .99 (Pisa 1968), as amended, Si921.ll-.16, .99 (Page Supp. 1970).
OUahona .Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, H3-61 to -70 (1964), M atanied, 13-63 (Supp. 1971).
Oregon Ora. RiV. Stat. 11634.211-.990 (1969), as aaanJed. ch. 699, Ormgcn Lawi 1971.
Panaiylvanla pa. Stat. Ann. tit. J, illU.l-.13 (1963).
Shod* I»land x. Z. ten. law* Ann. I12-&-1 to -28 (1956).
South Carolina S. C. Code Ann. 113-151 to -176 (1962), as anenaad, 113-160 to -177 (Sopp. 1970).
South Dakota 5. o. Coop. Laws 1(39-19-1 to -52 (1967).
Tean. Code Ann. 1143-701 to -713 (Rapl. Vol. 19S4).
Tax. Rav. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 135b-5 (1969 \ t» amended, eh. 308, Tex. Soss. Law. (1971).
Otah Utah Coda Ann. 114-4-1 to -13 (1953), a» aaandea. 114-4-2, -4 (Supp. 1971).
V«*»t Vt. St«t. Ann. tit. 6, JS911.-928. (1958), a. aBended, II9U-, 918. (Supp. 1971).
Virginia • Va. Code Ann. 113.1-189 to -249 (Repl. Vol. 196C5), aa aaanaed, 113.1-189 to -241 (Supp. 1971).
«..><-y._ Vtmh. lev. Coda II1S.57.010-.930 (1361).
Hut Virginia H. V. Coda Ann. H19-16A-1 to -13 (Repl. Vol. 1971).
•iceanain Wia. Stat. Ann. II94.67-.71 (1957), «« aa«nded, II
-------
Use and Application-^
Nev. Rov. Stat. liSSS.360-.460 (1969).
n. n. Rev. Stat. Ann. II149-D:1-:11 (Supp. 2970).
N. H. Stat. Ann. S!67-34rl to -8 {Supp. 1971).
N. IT. Agric. and Mkt». Law iilSl-a. to -w. (KcKlnnoy Supp. 1970).
B. c. Gen. Stat. S106-6S.U to .21 (Repl. Vol. 1966). {aerial applicators)
«. u. Cant. Coda S2-05-18 (Supp. 1971). (aerial applicators)
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. SS521.41-.53,'.99 (Page Supp. 1970).
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, 113-61 to -OB (1964), as amended. SS3-81 to -84 (Supp. 1971).
Ore. Sev. Stat. IH73.001-.260 (1969).
H. I. Cen. Laws Ana. U23-41-1 to -12 (1968), ac aaenoed. IS23-41-4, -41.1-1 to -25 (1970).
s. D. Cosp. Laws S136-21-1 to -13 (1967).
Tenn. Coda Ann. H43-609 to -618 (Bepl. Vol. 1964).
-Tex. Kcv. Civ. Stat. Ana. art. 13Sb-4 11969), as acandej. art. 13Sb-4. IS2.17. (Supp. 1970), and eh. 242, Tex. Se»a. Lain (1971). Qtarbieitel
Utah Coda Ann. H4-4-14 tq -28 (19S3), as Mended, SJ4-4-1S to -29 (Supp. 1971).
~ 1(4-4-30 to -40 (Supp. 1971).
Stat. Ann. tit. 6, f I11O1.-1108. (Supp. 1971).
Hash. Sav. Code Iil7.21.010-.931 (Supp. 1970).
Hyo. Stat. Ann. J110-4 to -9 U9S7). ta«ri*l
»«rao. or .cop.. S« Tabl. 2, jupr. P. for «r. .p.cific infor-atio..
135
-------
Appendix II
las:
-------
SUMMARY OP MINNESOTA PESTICIDE QUESTIONNAIRE
RELATING TO THE BANNING OR RESTRICTING THE USE OF PESTICIDES
The first basic question asked each state was: Has your state banned
(meaning completely outlawed - without any qualifications) any pesticides?
If the question was answered affirmatively, subsequent questions requested
the state to indicate how the action was taken.and to list'the pesticide
materials banned.
Five states replied affirmatively to the first basic question, and the
information obtained is. summarized as follows:
(l) Michigan - by administrative order has banned the use of Thallium
Sulfate. (See Page 3)
(2) New Mexico - by legislation has banned the use of DDT and DDD (TDE).
(See Page j)
(3) New York - by regulation has banned the use of Bandane, BHC, DDD
(TDE), DDT, Endrin, Mercury Compounds, Selcnites and
Selenates, Sodium fluoroacetatef Strobane and Toxaphene.
(See Page 3)
CO Texas - by administrative order has banned the use of Thallium
Sulfate. (See Page 4)
(5) Vermont - by legislation has banned the use of DDT. (See Page 4)
The second basic question asked each state was: Has your state restricted
the use of any pesticides? If the question was answered affirmatively,
subsequent questions requested the state to indicate how the action was
taken, to list the pesticide materials restricted, and to state whether or
not dealer or user permits are required.
The information received from each state in reply to the above questions is
summarized by states on the following pages.
(Information in this Appendix was supplied by Dr. Rollin M. Dennistoun,
Administrative Supervisor, Minnesota Department of Agriculture. This
susmaxy was prepared by Dr. Dennistoun on Hay 10, 1971.)
Al
137
-------
SUMH&RY OF DtFORHATIOy AS TO THE HESTRICTSn USB OF PJ3STICIDSS
Page A2
8t*t*
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
2S5£££~~£— .
Delaware
Florida
Georgia •
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana^^^ ••— ,
Iowa __
P<
P<
a
£
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
)Btioide Usi
latxiotions
§.
X
—
X
X
X
Legislation
—
x
X
X
•
Regulation
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
y
Administrative
Order
— »
x
Restricted Use
i
X
1C
y
x
1
x
1C
y
Dieldrin
K
Endrin
K
1C
Heptachlor
c
Lindana
Aldrin
•
X
X
Chlordana
X
Pesticide:
Toxaphena
*
X
X
Others
Thallium eulfate
X
X
Compound 1080
~
X
X
X
X
Phosphorus paste
Alkyl mercuries
X
X
i»er
Hoq
Dealer
a
3
X
x'
x'
X
£
X
X
X
X
mite
uirec
H
o
3
a
&
x
x
x!
X
X
X
0
JC<
X
X
•
Consents
-
Are considering.
Notification or minimum distance required for use of:
volatile esters of a.'f-D and 2,4,5-T; oil soluble amines
and diamines of 2,4-D and 2,^,5-T; invert 2,^-D and
2,^,5-1; and low volatile esters of S.'t-D and Picloraai
(Tordon) near susceptible crops. *Hequired for distribu-
ting 2,4-D, 2,*t,5-T and similar products in containers of
one gallon or more and/or user caso lots.
*Use permit for these materials has been required since
196*». For further information write the Department of
Agriculture.
*For sale only to agencies of state or federal government.
Restricted to recommended. uses onlv.
*For aerial -and acuatic gest control.
No such legislation gending.
*Dealers must be licensed.
* ' .
-•
•Use of all chlorinated hydrocarbons by aerial applicators
is restricted in one county.
Use of 2,^-D H.V.' esters prohibited in all of four
counties and in part of one county. .
-------
SUHMFY OP INPORM&TION AS TO gES RESTRICTED USE OP PiDSTICIDSG
Page A3
State
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
eatioide
Use
eatriotiona
i
> Q
X
:
c
c
c
c
<
K
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
g
1
X
X
i
X
Regulation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
y
Administrative
Order
X
X
X
Restricted Use
x
K
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
X
X-
X
X
X
X*
X
H
a
K
K
X
X
X
X
X*
i
X
K
X
X
X
X
Heptachlor
r
c
X
X
K
1C
c'
0
c
-
c
c
X
X
X
X
X*
X
1
3
o;
t
*
X
f
t
C
(
Chlordane
c
t*
Pesticides
8
4)
C
t
c
t
C
Others
Thallium eulfate
c
c*
t
Compound 1080
-
c
t*
Phosphorus paste
i
Alkyl mercuries
c
Permits
Requirec
Dealer
o
X
X
X
X
•g
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
o
X
X
X
•
X
Comments
Will not register Lindane vagoriaers.
Fertilizer-oesticide mixtures for tobacco.
Hormone ty_ge 2,^-D and Arsenical Acid.
'Also parathion, ghosdrin, sodium arsenite and TSPP,
Permits for dieldrin only. Other restricted materials
prohibited for out-of-doors use
(See Page l)
Restricted by Structural Pest Control Regulations.
•
-
Will not register products if USDA has not established a
finite tolerance.
Sodium arsenite.
1 (See Page l)
(See Page l) 'Contact Department of Agriculture.
*Not permitted for use around tobacco.
New Pesticide Use and Application lnw and Regulations
effective 3-1-71.
-------
I
SUMMARY OP INFORMATION AS TO TES RESTRICTED USE OF P5S1
H
£
o
A4
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
Canada "" x ^_^_-_
Pesticide Use
Re
a
sS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
istriotions
g
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
Legislation
X
X
—
Regulation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*y
Administrative
Order
X
.Restricted Use Pesticides
c
c
X
X
K
1
<
<
X
X
X
Dieldrin
1
c
*
X
X
X
Endrin
1
X
X
c
Heptachlor
11
c
.*
£
c
c
Lindano
1
c
1C
K
K
K
Aldrin
c
<
c
e
o
rH
§
t
1C
1C
C
Toxaphene
i
Others
Thallium sulfate
c
i
Compound 1080
.
i
1
a
6
o
1
o
fi
X
c
'
Alkyl mercuries
f
c
Permits
Requirec
Dealer
n
S
,0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•x
h
o
3
CT
£
X
X
X
X
&
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments
Have proposal up for restriction of some pesticides and
germit reguireraents.
Action pending.
Written authorization required to purchase and use
restricted insecticides.
All restricted same as USDA.
All restricted same as USDA and also Arsenic compounds
and 2,4,5-T.
(See Page l)
'Restricted use on hajr and forage crogG only.
(See Page l)
Labels rray include only the gernitted uses.
Pesticide dealers must be licensed. Certain restricted
gesticides can be sold only to users with. permits.
*Permit required for all uses except those published by
the Department. Department publishes no uses for DDT cr
Endrin.
Jill restricted same as USDA and also 2,^,5-T and Sodium
Arsenite.
•Federal position. Some provinces have placed further
restrictions on the listed compounds.
------- |