i o
_
V ^
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Financial Management
Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012
Financial Statements for the
Pesticides Reregistration
and Expedited Processing
Fund
Report No. 15-1-0180
July 10, 2015
-------
Report Contributors: Paul Curtis
Wanda Arlington
Philip Cleveland
Robert Hairston
Sheree James
Sabrina Jones
Mairim Lopez
Claire McWilliams
Guillermo Mejia
Cynthia Poteat
Myka Sparrow
Lynda Taylor
Abbreviations
CFO Chief Financial Officers Act
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FMFIA Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
FY Fiscal Year
OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
More information at www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.html.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (241OT)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oig
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
tftD STAf.
*
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
July 10,2015
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012 Financial Statements for the
Pesticides Reregi strati on and Expedited Processing Fund
Report No. 15-1-0180
FROM: Paul C. Curtis, Director f
Financial Statement Audits
TO: Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
David Bloom, Acting Chief Financial Officer
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
This is our report on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) fiscal years 2013 and 2012
financial statements for the Pesticides Reregi strati on and Expedited Processing Fund, conducted by the
EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG). This report contains findings that describe the problems the
OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the
OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this
report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
Action Required
In response to the draft report, the agency provided intended corrective actions and estimated
completion dates that addressed the recommendations. Therefore, a response to this report is not
required. The agency should track unimplemented corrective actions in the Management Audit Tracking
System.
If you submit a response, it will be posted on the OIG's public website, along with our comment on your
response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility
requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should
not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public; if your response contains such data,
you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with corresponding justification.
^£DSX
* A \
1®|
VPR0^°
We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012 Financial Statements for the
Pesticides Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund
15-1-0180
Table of C
Inspector General's Report on the Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012
Financial Statements for the Pesticides Reregistration and
Expedited Processing Fund
Report on the Financial Statements 1
Evaluation of Internal Controls 2
Tests of Compliance With Laws and Regulations 4
Management's Discussion and Analysis Section of the Financial Statements 4
Prior Audit Coverage 4
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 5
Attachments
1 Material Weakness 6
EPA Should Improve Its FIFRA Financial Statement Preparation Process 7
2 Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 10
Appendices
A Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012 FIFRA Financial Statements
B Agency's Response to Draft Report
C Distribution
-------
Inspector General's Report on the
Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012 Financial Statements
for the Pesticides Reregistration and Expedited
Processing Fund
The Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Pesticides
Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund (known as the FIFRA Fund),
which comprise the balance sheet as of September 30, 2013, and September 30,
2012, and the related statements of net cost, changes in net position, the statement
of budgetary resources for the years then ended, and the related notes to the
financial statements.
Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these
financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America. This includes the design, implementation and
maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation
of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to
fraud or error.
Auditor's Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based
upon our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards; the standards applicable to financial statements
contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General
of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No.
14-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. These standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatements.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the
amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected
depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of
material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In
making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to
15-1-0180
1
-------
the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to
design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. An audit also
includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the
reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well
as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate
to provide a basis for our audit opinion.
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements, including the accompanying notes,
present fairly, in all material respects, the assets, liabilities, net position, changes
in net position, and budgetary resources of the FIFRA Fund, as of and for the
years ending September 30, 2013 and 2012, in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Evaluation of Internal Controls
As defined by OMB, internal control is a process effected by "those charged with
governance, management, and other personnel" that is designed to provide
reasonable assurance about the achievement of the entity's objectives with regard
to the reliability of financial reporting, effectiveness and efficiency of operations,
and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Internal control over
safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition may
include controls relating to financial reporting and operations objectives.
Although most controls relevant to the audit are likely to relate to financial
reporting, not all controls that relate to financial reporting are relevant to the
audit. Consistent with the guidance set forth in OMB Circular No. A-123,
Management's Responsibility for Internal Control, and Circular A-13 6, internal
control over financial reporting is more narrowly defined and includes:
• Reliability of financial reporting—Transactions are properly recorded,
processed and summarized to permit the preparation of the basic financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,
and assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized acquisition, use
or disposition.
• Compliance with applicable laws and regulations—Transactions are
executed in accordance with laws and regulations, including laws
governing the use of budget authority, laws, regulations, and
governmentwide policies identified by OMB, and other laws and
regulations that could have a direct and material effect on the basic
financial statements.
15-1-0180
2
-------
Opinion on Internal Controls. In planning and performing our audit, we
considered the EPA's internal controls over financial reporting by obtaining an
understanding of the agency's internal controls, determining whether internal
controls had been placed in operation, assessing control risk, and performing tests
of controls. We did this as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements and to comply with
OMB audit guidance, not to express an opinion on internal control. Accordingly,
we do not express an opinion on internal control over financial reporting nor on
management's assertion on internal controls included in Management's
Discussion and Analysis. We limited our internal control testing to those controls
necessary to achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 14-02,
Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. We did not test all internal
controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) of 1982, such as those controls
relevant to ensuring efficient operations.
Material Weakness and Significant Deficiencies. Our consideration of the
internal controls over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all
matters in the internal control over financial reporting that might be significant
deficiencies. Under standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, a significant deficiency is a deficiency, or combination of
deficiencies, that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to
merit attention by those charged with governance. A material weakness is a
deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, such that there is a reasonable
possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will
not be prevented, or detected and corrected in a timely manner. Because of
inherent limitations in internal controls, misstatements, losses or noncompliance
may nevertheless occur and not be detected. We noted a matter, discussed below,
involving the internal control and its operation, that we consider to be material.
This issue is summarized below and detailed in Attachment 1.
Material Weakness
EPA Should Improve Its FIFRA Financial Statement Preparation Process.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could not initially produce
accurate, timely and complete financial statements for the FIFRA fund. The
agency was not preparing a complete set of financial statements for fiscal year
(FY) 2013 because of its view that such statements were not required. This
delayed the preparation of the first complete set of FY 2013 FIFRA financial
statements until July 2014. Material errors in those statements and subsequent
versions delayed the audit process. Without exercising quality control over the
preparation of its financial statements, the agency cannot provide reasonable
assurance that financial data provided accurately reflects the agency's financial
activities and balances. Details are in Attachment 1.
15-1-0180
3
-------
Comparison of EPA's FMFIA Report With Our Evaluation of Internal
Controls
OMB Bulletin No. 14-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements,
requires us to compare material weaknesses disclosed during the audit with those
material weaknesses reported in the agency's FMFIA report that relate to the
financial statements and identify material weaknesses disclosed by the audit that
were not reported in the agency's FMFIA report.
For financial statement audit and financial reporting purposes, OMB defines a
material weakness in internal control as a deficiency or combination of
deficiencies in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a
material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected
and corrected on a timely basis. The agency did not report any material
weaknesses for FY 2013 impacting the FIFRA Fund; however, we identified a
material weakness with the agency's financial statement preparation process.
Details concerning this material weakness are in Attachment 1.
Tests of Compliance With Laws and Regulations
As part of obtaining a reasonable assurance as to whether the agency's financial
statements are free of material misstatement, we tested compliance with those laws
and regulations that could either materially affect the FIFRA financial statements or
that we considered significant to the audit. The objective of our audit, including our
tests of compliance with applicable laws and regulations, was not to provide an
opinion on overall compliance with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion. We did not identify any noncompliances that would result
in a material misstatement to the audited financial statements.
Management's Discussion and Analysis Section of the
Financial Statements
Our audit work related to the information presented in the Management's
Discussion and Analysis of the pesticide program included comparing the
overview information with information in the EPA's principal financial
statements for consistency. We did not identify any material inconsistencies
between the information presented in the two documents.
Prior Audit Coverage
During previous financial statement audits, we reported the following significant
deficiencies:
• EPA materially overstated the expenses from other appropriations that
support the FIFRA Fund. This occurred because the agency did not have
15-1-0180
4
-------
an effective system to accurately accumulate and report costs incurred by
other appropriations in support of FIFRA Fund activities.
• EPA materially understated the FIFRA Fund payroll liabilities covered by
budgetary resources, as well as related payroll expense included in gross
costs. The agency's practice of transferring employees and expenses and
liabilities from FIFRA to the Environmental Programs and Management
Fund for cash flow reasons led to the understatement.
The agency has taken action and corrected both deficiencies by correcting the
FYs 2012 and 2011 proper expenses paid by other appropriations and the
FYs 2012 and 2011 payroll and benefits payable amounts in the FIFRA Fund
financial statements. The agency has closely monitored the payroll liability
amounts for FIFRA at year-end. The agency also gave the Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention the opportunity to review the financial statements
before submission to the OIG. In addition, the agency, in conjunction with the
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and other stakeholders,
developed an agencywide process to improve the capture of user fee program
costs.
In a memorandum dated May 13, 2015, the agency responded to our draft report.
The agency agreed with our findings and recommendations. The agency's
complete response is included as Appendix B to this report.
Paul C. Curtis
Director, Financial Statement Audits
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
July 8,2015
15-1-0180 5
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
-------
Attachment 1
Material Weakness
Table of Contents
1 - EPA Should Improve Its FIFRA Financial Statement Preparation Process 7
15-1-0180 6
-------
1 - EPA Should Improve Its FIFRA Financial Statement Preparation Process
The EPA could not initially produce accurate, timely and complete financial statements for the
Pesticides Reregi strati on and Expedited Processing Fund (known as the FIFRA fund). The
agency is required by the Chief Financial Officers Act (the "CFO Act," or Public Law 101-576)
to accurately, reliably and timely report financial information. However, the agency was not
preparing a complete set of financial statements for FY 2013 because of its view that such
statements were not required. This delayed the preparation of the first complete set of FY 2013
FIFRA financial statements until July 2014. Material errors in those statements and subsequent
versions delayed the audit process. Without exercising quality control over the preparation of its
financial statements, the agency cannot provide reasonable assurance that financial data provided
accurately reflects the agency's financial activities and balances.
The agency each year prepares financial statements that present financial information about the
EPA's progress in reregistering pesticides. Section 902(a)(3)(D)(i) of the CFO Act requires the
agency to "develop and maintain an integrated agency accounting and financial management
system, including financial reporting and internal controls, which provides for complete, reliable,
consistent, and timely information which is prepared on a uniform basis and which is responsive
to the financial information needs of agency management." The Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 mandates that the OIG conduct annual audits of the FIFRA fund's financial statements.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) encountered difficulties in preparing timely
and reliable financial statements. In OCFO's draft and initial final set of financial statements, we
found a number of errors that we believe the agency should have caught or fixed. These issues
highlight the need for the agency to strengthen its quality control processes to ensure accurate
data is available on a timely basis to prepare the financial statements and to guarantee key
financial statement preparation milestones are met.
At the start of the FY 2013 FIFRA Fund financial statement audit, the agency informed the OIG
of its plans to streamline the financial statement process by eliminating separate statements for
the FIFRA Fund and making them part of the agency's consolidated financial statement audit.
The agency disputed whether it needed to provide a separate set of financial statements complete
with footnote disclosures and supplemental information, and asserted that certain financial data
requested by OIG auditors would not be provided. After several communications with the OIG,
the agency later provided incomplete financial statements in March 2014 and again in April
2014. Subsequently, the agency informed the OIG that following its discussions with OMB
attorneys, stand-alone FIFRA Fund financial statements were required. As a result, OCFO
agreed to prepare and provide to the OIG a full set of financial statements for FIFRA. The
agency expeditiously worked to provide financial statements to the OIG in July 2014. Due to
staff limitations, the OIG agreed to scan those statements for errors and communicate such errors
to the agency, but stated that additional audit work would be postponed until completion of the
OIG's audit of the agency's Annual Consolidated Financial Statements in November 2014. The
OIG's initial review of the FY 2013 FIFRA financial statements found that OCFO had included
incorrect FY 2012 dollar amounts, and OCFO acknowledged these errors.
15-1-0180
7
-------
After completion of the Consolidated Financial Statements audit, the OIG review of the
supporting data for the revised draft FY 2013 financial statements found incorrect references
throughout the financial statements, and errors in the Management Discussion and Analysis,
payroll, and Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget. In what was to be the final
FIFRA financial statements presented in January 2015, the OIG determined considerable
Management Discussion and Analysis, Payroll, and Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to
Budget errors remained. In addition, many of the previously provided comments were not
addressed. Accordingly, the statements needed further revision.
We believe that financial statements presented to the OIG should be complete, reviewed by
agency management, and free of obvious errors such as incorrect prior-year amounts. Having to
continually revise and re-edit the statements delays completion of the mandated OIG audit. The
number of errors we found in multiple versions of the financial statements indicate that the
agency is not exercising good quality control over the preparation of financial statements or
performing a thorough review of its statements prior to submission to the OIG. Without
exercising good quality control over the preparation of its financial statements, the agency cannot
provide reasonable assurance that financial data provided accurately reflects the agency's
financial activities and balances.
The OCFO's current process for preparing financial statements needs to be improved so that the
agency can submit accurate financial statements, as required by the Food Quality Protection Act
of 1996, in a timely manner. The CFO Act requirement for audited financial statements was
enacted so that complete, reliable, timely, and consistent financial information is available for
use by the executive branch of the government and the Congress in the financing, managing and
evaluating of federal programs. When information submitted to OIG is not accurate and reliable
for the purpose of issuing an opinion on the financial statements, this is an indication that the
agency needs to make further financial management improvements to meet the intent of the CFO
Act.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer:
1. Evaluate the OCFO's process for preparing
implement the necessary improvements for
financial statements.
2. Develop a systematic method to address all
statements.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The agency agreed with our findings and recommendations and has completed corrective actions
on Recommendation 1. OCFO has developed a project plan with new controls and processes to
ensure that the financial statement preparation for FIFRA is accurately and submitted timely.
We have not validated the corrective actions.
the FIFRA financial statements and
submission of accurate, timely and complete
OIG comments on the FIFRA financial
15-1-0180
8
-------
Agency actions on Recommendation 2 are pending. OCFO will work with the OIG to develop a
more formal process for communicating corrections and changes in future FIFRA audits. The
estimated completion date for this corrective action is September 30, 2015.
We agree with the agency's proposed corrective actions and estimated completion dates. We
believe the planned action adequately address the issues raised.
The agency's complete response is included in Appendix B to this report.
15-1-0180
9
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Evaluate the OCFO's process for preparing the
FIFRA financial statements and implement the
necessary improvements for submission of
accurate, timely and complete financial statements.
Develop a systematic method to address all OIG
comments on the FIFRA financial statements.
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Financial Officer
3/31/15
9/30/15
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
1 0 = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.
C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.
U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
15-1-0180
10
-------
Appendix A
FYs 2013 and 2012 PESTICIDES REREGISTRATION
and EXPEDITED PROCESSING FUND (FIFRA)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Produced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of Financial Management
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Management's Discussion and Analysis
Principal Financial Statements
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Management's Discussion and Analysis
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of
1996, the EPA's Pesticide Program registers new pesticides and re-evaluates existing pesticides
to ensure that they can be used safely and that levels of residue in food and animal feed are safe
(there is a reasonable certainty of no harm). The agency must also conclude that, when used in
accordance with labeling and common practices, the product will not generally cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.
In accordance with FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the
pesticide program administers the Pesticides Reregi strati on and Expedited Processing Fund
(FIFRA Fund). As of 1996, fees for reregi strati on are deposited to the FIFRA account, which is
available to the EPA without further appropriation.
Under the FFDCA EPA sets "tolerances," or maximum residue levels. If a pesticide is intended
to be used in a manner that may result in residues in food or animal feed, the applicant must
petition EPA for establishment of a tolerance (or exemption from a tolerance). Tolerances are
set at levels that ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm from the potential pesticide residues in
food combined with other non-occupational exposure.
In 1996, passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) provided for additional fees to
support reregi strati on activities and required tolerances to be reassessed as part of the
reregi strati on program. Effective January 1997, all fees related to tolerance activities were
deposited in the FIFRA Fund. With passage of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
(PRIA 1) of 2003 and amendments in 2007 and 2012, no additional tolerance petition fees are to
be deposited to the FIFRA Fund through FY 2017.
The Pesticide Re-registration and Registration Review Programs
EPA is responsible for re-registering existing pesticides. Since the original pesticide legislation
of 1947, scientific analysis techniques have grown much more precise and sophisticated and
health and environmental standards have become more stringent. With the 1988 amendments to
FIFRA (FIFRA '88), Congress mandated the accelerated reregi strati on of all products registered
prior to November 1, 1984. The statute required completion of Reregi strati on Eligibility
Decisions (REDs) and tolerance reassessment for all food-use active ingredients in 2006. Non-
food-use active ingredient REDs were to be complete by October 3, 2008.
The Food Quality Protection Act introduced a new program called registration review to
replace EPA's pesticide reregi strati on and tolerance reassessment programs as those programs
were completed. Unlike earlier review programs, registration review is applies to all registered
pesticides. EPA reviews each registered pesticide every 15 years to determine whether it still
meets the FIFRA standard for registration. In this way, the Agency ensures that all registered
pesticides do not cause unreasonable risks to human health, workers, or the environment when
used as directed on product labeling.
Congress authorized the collection of maintenance fees from manufacturers to supplement
appropriated funds to support reregi strati on and registration review programs. Maintenance fees
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
were structured under PRIA 3 to collect approximately $27.8 million per year for five years
(FY' 13 - FY' 17). Maintenance fees are assessed on a product-by-product basis with caps on the
maximum number of products that fees have to be paid on for any single company, as well as fee
reductions for qualified small businesses. Registrations for minor use registrations and public
health pesticides are also eligible for waivers and/or refunds of maintenance fees. Fees are
deposited into the FIFRA Revolving Fund. By statute, excess monies in the FIFRA Fund may be
invested. Between 1/9 and 1/8 of collected maintenance fees each year are used to support inert
ingredient clearances as well as expedited processing of fast track amendments. $800,000 of
collected maintenance fees each year are used to enhance specified IT systems.
In 1996, legislation reauthorized collection of maintenance fees through 2001 to complete the
review of older pesticides to ensure they meet current standards (increasing annual fees from $14
million to $16 million per year through 2000) and required all tolerances (over 9,700) to be
reassessed by 2006. The 2002 appropriations bill extended maintenance fees to $17 million for
another year, and the 2003 appropriations extended them to $21.5 million for that year. Passage
of PRIA 1 in FY 2004 extended maintenance fees through FY 2008 (with annual fees totaling
$26 million in FY 2004; $27 million in FY 2005-2006; $21 million in FY 2007; and $15 million
in FY 2008). Passage of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2) in
October 2007 extended maintenance fees through FY 2012 ($22 million each FY). PRIA 2
provided for maintenance fees to offset the costs of registration review beginning in FY 2008.
All Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions (RED) for the active ingredients have been completed. A
"RED" is a decision by the Agency defining whether uses of a pesticide active ingredient are
eligible or ineligible for reregi strati on. Following the issuance of the RED, the registrant must
comply with the RED by submitting product specific data and new labels for each product
containing that active ingredient, or cancel the product. Based on its review of the data, if the
product has met all the requirements, the EPA then reregisters the product.
Research Program Description
EPA's Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) research program is leading the sustainable
development, use, and assessment of chemicals and materials by advancing integrated chemical
evaluation strategies and decision support tools that promote human and environmental health
and are protective of vulnerable species and populations. The research is focused on providing
integrated solutions in support of the Agency's efforts to manage chemical (including pesticides
and toxics) risks. The data, methods and tools developed will guide the prioritization and testing
process, from screening approaches through more complex testing and assessments. The
research program's major goals are: (1) to build the knowledge infrastructure to support
scientific discovery and sustainable decisions, (2) to develop and apply rapid, efficient, and
effective methods for improved chemical prioritization, screening, and testing, (3) to provide
models and tools necessary to make decisions supporting safe use across the chemical lifecycle.
Current testing and assessment approaches are resource intensive and lack data sufficient to meet
decision-making needs posed by the large and growing number of chemicals. The CSS ToxCast
Program performs cost-effective, state-of-the-art chemical screening to assess how chemicals
may affect human health. ToxCast simultaneously tests thousands of chemicals using hundreds
of high-throughput and high-content approaches. This allows the EPA to directly examine
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
environmental chemicals' role in human disease processes, cell systems, and pathway targets.
The ToxCast program has moved beyond the proof-of-concept phase focus on pesticide actives.
Results of Phase II of this program, which covers 1,860 chemicals, are available at
http ://www. epa. gov/ncct/toxcast/data.html.
In providing research on methods, models, and data to support decision-making regarding
specific individual or classes of pesticides and toxic substances that are of high priority, the
program will continue to develop:
• Predictive biomarkers, quantitative structure activity relationships, and alternative test
methods for prioritizing and screening chemicals for a number of adverse effects (e.g.,
neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity) that will lead to a reduction in and more efficient use
of whole animals in toxicity testing; and
• Approaches for applying high-throughput screening and computational models developed
under the ToxCast program to support prioritization of chemicals for further testing under
EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.
• Data and protocols on the impact of waste water treatment technologies on pesticides and
their products of transformation.
To support the development of probabilistic risk assessments to protect endangered populations
of birds, fish, other wildlife, and non-target plants from pesticides while making sure farmers and
communities have the pest control tools they need, this program has four key research
components:
• Extrapolation among wildlife species and exposure scenarios of concern;
• Population biology to improve population dynamics in spatially-explicit habitats;
• Models for assessing the relative risk of chemical and non-chemical stressors; and
• Models to define geographical regional/spatial scales for risk assessment.
Methods for characterization of population-level risks of toxic substances to aquatic life and
wildlife also are being developed as part of the Agency's long-term goal of developing
scientifically valid approaches for assessing spatially-explicit, population-level risks to wildlife
populations and non-target plants and plant communities from pesticides, toxic chemicals and
multiple stressors while advancing the development of probabilistic risk assessment.
The program anticipates that the Agency will be better positioned to perform its mission of
protecting human health and the environment as scientific information becomes digitized and
readily available, methods and models to capture the complexities of chemical exposure and
hazard in toxicity testing are developed and approaches focused on development of more
sustainable alternatives are provided to decision-makers.
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program Description
The Pesticide Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program focuses on pesticide product
and user compliance. These include problems relating to pesticide worker safety, certification
and training of applicators, ineffective antimicrobial products, food safety, adverse effects, risks
of pesticides to endangered species, pesticide containers and containment facilities, and e-
commerce and misuse. The enforcement and compliance assurance program provides
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
compliance assistance to the regulated community through its National Agriculture Compliance
Assistance Center, seminars, guidance documents, brochures, and other forms of communication
to ensure knowledge of and compliance with environmental laws.
EPA's grant support to states' and tribes' pesticide programs emphasizes its commitment to
maintaining a strong compliance and enforcement presence. Agency FIFRA Cooperative
Agreement priorities for FY2015 - FY2017 include the enforcement of worker protection
standards and pesticide applicator certification; compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities related to the pesticide container and containment rules, the revised soil fumigant
labels, compliance of supplemental distributor products, contact manufacturing and program
performance reporting. Core program activities include inspections of producing
establishments; dealers/distributors/retailers; e-commerce; imports and exports, and pesticide
misuse. Additionally, through the Cooperative Agreement resources we support inspector
training and training for state/tribal senior managers, scientists, and supervisors.
Highlights and Accomplishments
Tolerance Performance Measures
As mandated by PRIA 3, no Tolerance fees were collected and deposited to the FIFRA Fund in
FY 2013.
Measure: Tolerance re-evaluations.
Results: The tolerance reassessment program was completed in FY 2007. EPA completed
9,721 tolerance reassessment decisions, addressing 100% of the 9,721 tolerances that required
reassessment. Therefore, no further tolerance reassessment decisions were needed or completed
in FY 2013.
Reresistration (FIFRA) Financial Perspective
During FY 2013, the Agency's obligations charged against the FIFRA Fund for the cost of the
reregi strati on programs and other authorized pesticide programs were $28,852 million and 112.3
work-years. Of this amount, OPP obligated $15.9 million for PC&B.
Appropriated funds are used in addition to FIFRA revolving funds. In FY 2013, the Enacted
Operating Plan included approximately $ 33.2 million in appropriated funds for reregi strati on
program activities. The unobligated balance in the Fund at the end of FY 2013 was $7.6 million.
The Fund has two types of receipts: fee collections and interest earned on investments. Of the
$27,142 million in FY 2013 receipts, more than 99.9% were fee collections.
Reresistration Program (FIFRA) Performance Measures
The following measures support the program's strategic goals of Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems as contained in the FY 2013 President's budget.
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Measure 1: Number of Reregistration Eligibility Documents (REDs) completed.
Results: All Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) were completed by the end of FY 2008.
Of the 613 chemical cases (representing approximately 1,150 pesticide active ingredients) that
initially were subject to reregistration, 384 cases have completed REDs. An additional 229
reregistration cases were voluntarily canceled before EPA invested significant resources in
developing REDs. All 613 reregistration cases (100%) completed the reregistration eligibility
decision making process by the end of FY 2008.
Measure 2: Number of products reregistered, canceled, or amended. Over 20,000
products are or eventually will be subject to product reregistration. Many products,
however, contain more than one active ingredient. Since products are reassessed
separately for each active ingredient, EPA will conduct approximately 38,000 product
reviews.
Results: In FY 2013, 85products were reregistered; 455products were amended; 147
products were cancelled; and 2 products were suspended. Currently, a universe of24,583
products is undergoing or has completed product reregistration. The status of those products at
the end of FY 2013 was as follows: EPA had completed decisions for 18,912 products
(specifically, 5,015 products had been reregistered; 3,062 product registrations had been
amended; 10,793 products were cancelled; and 42 products were suspended); and 5,671
products had actions/decisions pending. The Agency's goal in FY 2014 is to complete 900
product reregistration actions.
Measure 3: Progress in Reducing the Number of Unreviewed, Required Reregistration
Studies.
Results: EPA completed the last REDs in 2008, so all studies necessary to make reregistration
eligibility decisions have been reviewed. At this time, the Agency does not plan to spend
additional resources examining these records.
Measure 4: Number and Type of DCIs Issued to Support Product Reregistration by Active
Ingredient.
Results: Regarding Data Call-In notices (DCIs) under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) to support
product reregistration for pesticide active ingredients included in REDs, EPA completed the last
remaining REDs and reported DCI information for those REDs in FY 2008. There is no further
activity to report for FY 2013.
Measure 5: Future Schedule for Reregistrations.
The last REDs were completed in FY 2008, therefore there are no remaining candidates for
future decisions.
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Financial Statements
Balance Sheet 10
Statement of Net Cost 11
Statement of Changes in Net Position 12
Statement of Budgetary Resources 13
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 14
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury 17
Note 3. General Property, Plant and Equipment 17
Note 4. Other Liabilities 18
Note 5. Payroll and Benefits Payable, non-Federal 18
Note 6. Income and Expenses from Other Appropriations 19
Note 7. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost 21
Note 8. Intragovernmental Costs and Revenue 21
Note 9. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget (formerly the
Statement of Financing) 22
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA
Balance Sheet
As of September 30, 2013 and 2012
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2013
FY2012
ASSETS
Intragovernmental:
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2)
$ 11,791 $
4,778
Total Intragovernmental
$ 11,791 $
4,778
Property, Plant & Equipment, Net (Note 3)
459
559
Total Assets
$ 12,250 $
5,337
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental:
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
10
52
Other (Note 4)
363
92
Total Intragovernmental
$ 373 $
144
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
407
277
Payroll & Benefits Payable (Note 5)
4,066
2,458
Other (Note 4)
14,787
9,494
Total Liabilities
$ 19,633 $
12,373
NET POSITION
Cumulative Results of Operations
(7,383)
(7,036)
Total Net Position
(7,383)
(7,036)
Total Liabilities and Net Position
$ 12,250 $
5,337
15-1-0180 EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA
Statement of Net Cost
For the Years Ended September 30, 2013 and 2012
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2013
FY2012
COSTS
Gross Costs (Note 8)
$ 22,585 $
19,824
Expenses from Other Appropriations (Note 6)
17,999
24,368
Total Costs
40,584
44,192
Less:
Earned Revenue (Note 8)
21,767
19,554
NET COST OF OPERATIONS (Note 9)
$ 18,817 $
24,638
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA
Statement of Changes in Net Position
For the Years Ended September 30, 2013 and 2012
(Dollars in Thousands)
Cumulative Results of Operations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment
Income from Other Appropriations (Note 6)
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
Imputed Financing Sources
T otal Other F inancing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations
FY 2013
FY 2012
(7,036)
(6,865)
(7,036) $
(6,865)
1
1
17,999
24,368
18,000 $
24,369
470
98
470 $
98
(18,817)
(24,638)
(347)
(171)
(7,383)
(7,036)
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA
Statement of Budgetary Resources
For the Years Ended September 30, 2013 and 2012
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2013 FY2012
BUDGETARY RES OURCES
Unobligated balance, brought forward, October 1: $ 1,703 $ 404
Unobligated Balance Brought Forward, October 1, as adjusted 1,703 404
Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations 7_ 9
Unobligated balance from prior year budget authority, net 1,710 413
Spending Authority from offsetting collection (discretionary and mandatory) 27,142 22,011
Total Budgetary Resources 28,852 22,424
S TATUS OF BUDGETARY RES OURCES
Obligations Incurred $ 21,213 $ 20,721
Unobligated Balance, end ofyear:
Apportioned 6,992 1,703
Unapportioned 647 -
Total Unobligated balance, end of period 7,639 1,703
Total Status of Budgetary Resources 28,852 22,424
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Unpaid Obligations:
Unpaid obligations, brought forward, October 1 (gross) $ 3,077 $ 3,137
Obligations incurred, net 21,213 20,721
Outlays (gross) (20,132) (20,771)
Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations (7) (9)
Obligated balance, end of period
Unpaid obligations, end of year (gross) 4,151 3,078
Obligated balance, end of period (net) 4,151 3,078
BUDGET AUTHORITY AND OUTLAYS, NET:
Budget authority, gross (discretionary and mandatory)
Actual offsetting collections (discretionary and mandatory)
Budget Authority, net (discretionary and mandatory)
Outlays, gross (discretionary and mandatory)
Actual offsetting collections (discretionary and mandatory)
Outlays, net (discretionary and mandatory)
Agency outlays, net (discretionary and mandatory
$ 27,142 $ 22,011
(27,142) (22,011)
0
20,132 20,771
(27,142) (22,011)
(7,010) (1,240)
(7,010) (1,240)
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA
Notes to Financial Statements
(Dollars in Thousands)
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
A. Reporting Entity
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) was created in 1970 by executive
reorganization from various components of other Federal agencies in order to better marshal and
coordinate Federal pollution control efforts. The Agency is generally organized around the
media and substances it regulates — air, water, land, hazardous waste, pesticides and toxic
substances.
The FIFRA Revolving Fund was authorized in 1988 by amendments to the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The 1988 amendments mandated the accelerated re-
registration of all products registered prior to November 1, 1984. Congress authorized the
collection of maintenance fees to supplement appropriations to fund re-registration and to fund
expedited processing of pesticides. Maintenance fees are assessed on registrants of pesticide
products. FIFRA also includes provisions for the registration of new pesticides (funded in part
from the PRIA or Pesticide Registration Fund), monitoring the distribution and use of pesticides,
issuing civil or criminal penalties for violations, establishing cooperative agreements with the
states, and certifying training programs for users of restricted chemicals. Appropriated funds,
with the exception of partial funding of registration from Pesticide Registration Service Fees in
the Pesticide Registration Fund, pay for these activities. The FIFRA Revolving Fund is
accounted for under Treasury symbol number 68X4310.
The FIFRA fund may charge some administrative costs directly to the fund and charge the
remainder of the administrative costs to Agency-wide appropriations. Costs funded by Agency-
wide appropriations for FYs 2013 and 2012 were $18,351 million and $24,368 million,
respectively. These amounts are included as Income from Other Appropriations on the
Statement of Changes in Net Position and as Expenses from Other Appropriations on the
Statement of Net Cost.
B. Basis of Presentation
These financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and results of
operations of the EPA for the Reregi strati on and Expedited Processing (FIFRA) Revolving Fund
as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. The reports have been prepared from
the books and records of the EPA in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-136 Financial Reporting Requirements, and the EPA's accounting policies which are
summarized in this note. These statements are therefore different from the financial reports also
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
prepared by the EPA pursuant to OMB directives that are used to monitor and control the EPA's
use of budgetary resources. The balances in these reports have been updated from the EPA
consolidated financial statements to reflect the use of FY 2013 cost factors for calculating
imputed costs for Federal civilian benefits programs. These updates impact the Balance Sheet,
Statement of Net Cost, and Statement of Changes in Net Position.
C. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
Funding of the FIFRA Revolving Fund is provided by fees collected from industry to offset costs
incurred by the EPA in carrying out these programs. Each year the EPA submits an
apportionment request to OMB based on the anticipated collections of industry fees.
D. Basis of Accounting
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for Federal entities is the standard
prescribed by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), which is the official
standard setting body for the federal government. The financial statements are prepared in
accordance with GAAP for federal entities.
Transactions are recorded on an accrual accounting basis and a budgetary basis. Under the
accrual method, revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when a
liability is incurred, without regard to receipt or payment of cash. Budgetary accounting
facilitates compliance with legal constraints and controls over the use of Federal funds. All
interfund balances and transactions have been eliminated.
E. Revenues and Other Financing Sources
The EPA's 2002 appropriations bill extended authority to collect maintenance fees by one year
in the amount of $17 million and the FY 2003 appropriations extended the authority to collect
fees again by one year in the amount of $21.5 million. Passage of the Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act (PRIA) in 2004 extended the authority to collect maintenance fees through FY
2008 (with annual fee amounts at $26 million in FY 2004; $27 million in FY 2005-2006; $21
million in FY 2007; and $15 million in FY 2008). Passage of the Pesticide Registration
Improvement Renewal Act (commonly referred to as PRIA II) in 2007 extended the authority to
collect maintenance fees through FY 2012 (with annual fee amounts set at $22 million each year
from 2008-2012). For FYs 2013 and 2012, the FIFRA Revolving Fund received funding from
maintenance fees collected on existing registered pesticide products and from interest collected
on investments in U.S. Government securities. For FYs 2013 and 2012 revenues were
recognized from fee collections to the extent that expenses are incurred during the fiscal year.
F. Funds with the Treasury
The FIFRA fund deposits receipts and processes disbursements through its operating account
maintained at the U.S. Department of Treasury. Cash funds in excess of immediate needs are
invested in U.S. Government securities.
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
G. Investments in U. S. Government Securities
Investments in U. S. Government securities are maintained by Treasury (Bureau of Public Debt)
and are reported at amortized cost net of unamortized discounts. Discounts are amortized over
the term of the investments and reported as interest income. FIFRA holds the investments to
maturity, unless needed to finance operations of the fund. No provision is made for unrealized
gains or losses on these securities because, in the majority of cases, they are held to maturity.
H. General Property, Plant and Equipment
General property, plant and equipment for FIFRA consists of software in development. All
funds (except for the Working Capital Fund) capitalize software if those investments are
considered Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) or CPIC Lite systems with the
provisions of SFFAS No. 10, "Accounting for Internal Use Software." Once software enters the
production life cycle phase, it is depreciated using the straight-line method over the specific
asset's useful life ranging from two to 10 years.
I. Accounts Receivable and Interest Receivable
FIFRA receivables are mainly for interest receivable on investments.
J. Liabilities
Liabilities represent the amount of monies or other resources that are likely than not to be paid
by the Agency as the result of an Agency transaction or event that has already occurred and can
be reasonably estimated. However, no liability can be paid by the Agency without an
appropriation or other collections. Liabilities for which an appropriation has not been enacted
are classified as unfunded liabilities, and there is no certainty that the appropriations will be
enacted. For FIFRA, liabilities are liquidated from fee receipts and interest earnings, since
FIFRA receives no appropriation. Liabilities of the Agency, arising from other than contracts
can be abrogated by the Government acting in its sovereign capacity.
K. Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Annual, sick and other leave is expensed as taken during the fiscal year. Sick leave earned but
not taken is not accrued as a liability. Annual leave earned but not taken as of the end of the
fiscal year is accrued as an unfunded liability. Accrued unfunded annual leave is included in the
Balance Sheet as a component of "Payroll and Benefits Payable."
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
L. Retirement Plan
There are two primary retirement systems for Federal employees. Employees hired prior to
January 1, 1987, may participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). On January 1,
1984, the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) went into effect, pursuant to Public
Law 99-335. Most employees hired after December 31, 1983, are automatically covered by
FERS and Social Security. Employees hired prior to January 1, 1984, elected to either join FERS
and Social Security or remain in CSRS. A primary feature of FERS is that it offers a savings plan
to which the Agency automatically contributes one percent of pay and matches any employee
contributions up to an additional four percent of pay. The Agency also contributes the
employer's matching share for Social Security.
With the issuance of SFFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government,"
accounting and reporting standards were established for liabilities relating to the federal
employee benefit programs (Retirement, Health Benefits, and Life Insurance). SFFAS No. 5
requires that the employing agencies recognize the cost of pensions and other retirement benefits
during their employees' active years of service. SFFAS No. 5 requires that the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), as administrator of the CSRS and FERS, the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program, and the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program, provide
federal agencies with the actuarial cost factors to compute the liability for each program.
M. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements requires management to make certain estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of
revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those
estimates.
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury
FY 2013 FY 2012
Revolving Funds: Entity Assets $ 11,791 $ 4,778
Note 3. General Property, Plant and Equipment
General property, plant and equipment consists of software and software in development.
As of September 30, 2013 and 2012, General Property, Plant and Equipment consist of the
following:
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
FY 2013 FY 2012
Acquisition Accumulated Net Book Acquisition Accumulated Net Book
Value Depreciation Value Value Depreciation Value
Software 1,001 (542) 459 949_ (390) 559
Total $ 1,001 (542) 459 $ 949 (390) 559
Note 4. Other Liabilities
For FYs 2012 and 2011, the Payroll and Benefits Payable, non-Federal, are presented on a
separate line of the Balance Sheet and in a separate footnote (see Note 5).
FY 2013 FY 2012
Other Intragovernmental Liabilities - Covered by
Budgetary Resources
Employer Contributions - Payroll $ 363 $ 92
Total $ 363 $ 92
Other Non-Federal Liabilities - Covered by
Budgetary Resources
Advances from Non-Federal Entities $ 14,787 $ 9,494
Not Covered by Budgetary Resources
Unfunded Annual Leave Liability
Total $ 14,787 $ 9,494
Note 5. Payroll and Benefits Payable, non-Federal
FY 2013 FY 2012
Covered by Budgetary Resources
Accrued Payroll Payable to Employees $ 1,704 $ 502
Withholdings Payable $ 212 $ 33
Thrift Savings Plan Benefits Payable _$ 79 $ 21
Total
$
1,995
$
556
$
2,071
$
1,902
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
At various periods throughout FYs 2013 and 2012, employees with their associated payroll costs
were transferred from the FIFRA fund to the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM)
appropriation. (See graph in Note 6 below showing trend of hours charged per month to the
FIFRA fund for FYs 2013 and 2012.) These employees were transferred in order to keep
FIFRA's obligations and disbursements within budgetary and cash limits. When resources
became available, the employees charging to FIFRA increased in order to utilize resources as
much as possible. The Agency expects that the practice of transferring employees when
FIFRA's resources are low, and restoring employees when funds become available, will continue
throughout FY 2013 and probably beyond that period.
This process has led to variations between the year-end liabilities for FYs 2013 and 2012. The
liabilities covered by budgetary resources (both intragovernmental and non-Federal) represent
unpaid payroll and benefits at year-end. At the end of FY 2013 and FY 2012, 53 and zero
employees were charging their salary and benefits to FIFRA, respectively. As of September 30,
2013 these liabilities were $363 thousand and $1,995 thousand for employer contributions and
accrued funded payroll and benefits, as compared to FY 2012's balances of $92 thousand and
$556 thousand, respectively.
In contrast, the unfunded annual leave liability is a longer term liability than the funded
liabilities. At various periods throughout FYs 2013 and 2012, approximately 223 and 255
employees, respectively, in total have been under FIFRA's accountability. During the 25th pay
period of FY 2013, the liability was computed based on 53 employees charging to FIFRA in the
last pay periods. Both the September 30, 2013 and 2012 liability balances for unfunded annual
leave were accrued to cover the employees charged to FIFRA close to the end of the fiscal year
for a total of $2,071 thousand and $1,902 thousand, respectively.
Note 6. Income and Expenses from Other Appropriations
The Statement of Net Cost reports program costs that include the full costs of the program
outputs and consist of the direct costs and all other costs that can be directly traced, assigned on a
cause and effect basis, or reasonably allocated to program outputs.
During FYs 2013 and 2012, the EPA had two appropriations which funded a variety of
programmatic and non-programmatic activities across the Agency, subject to statutory
requirements. The EPM appropriation was created to fund personnel compensation and benefits,
travel, procurement, and contract activities. Transfers of employees from FIFRA to EPM at
various times during these years (see Note 5 above) resulted in a decrease in payroll expenses in
EPM, and these costs financed by EPM are reflected as an increase in the Expenses from Other
Appropriations on the Statement of Net Cost. The increased financing from EPM is reported on
the Statement of Changes in Net Position as Income from Other Appropriations.
In terms of hours charged to FIFRA each month, the transfers of employees and their associated
costs, during FYs 2013 and 2012 are shown below. Note that a decrease in hours charged to
FIFRA normally signifies an increase in EPM's payroll costs, and vice versa. In addition,
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Pesticide registration was separated from FIFRA starting with FY 2004 and Pesticide has its own
set of financial statements.
FIFRA - Total Employee Hours by Month
2013 Base Hours
2012 Base Hours
EPM costs related to FIFRA are allocated based on specific EPM program codes which have
been designated for Pesticide activities. As illustrated below, there is no impact on FIFRA's
Statement of Changes in Net Position.
Income from Other Expenses from Other
Net Effect
Appropriations Appropriations
FY 2013 $ 17,999 $ 17,999 $ -
FY 2012 $ 24,368 $ 24,368 $
15-1-0180 EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Note 7. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
For FYs 2013 and 2012, the exchange revenues reported on the Statement of Net Cost include
both Federal and non-Federal amounts.
Note 8. Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue
COSTS: FY 2013 FY 2012
Intragovernmental $ 5,104 $ 3,839
With the Public $ 17,480 $ 15,985
Expenses from Other Appropriations $ 17,999 $ 24,368
Total Costs
REVENUE
With the Public
Total Revenue
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
$
40,583
$
44,192
$
21,766
$
19,554
$
21,766
$
19,554
$
18,817
$
24,638
Intragovernmental costs relate to the source of the goods or services not the classification of the
related revenue.
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Note 9. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget (formerly the Statement of
Financing)
RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES:
FY2013
FY2012
Budgetary Resources Obligated
Obligations Incurred
$ 21,213 J
! 20,721
Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries
(27,149)
(22,020)
Obligations, Net of Offsetting Collections
$ (5,936) J
; (1,299)
Less: Offsetting Receipts
(3)
3
Net Obligations
$ (5,939) J
> (1,296)
Other Resources
Imputed Financing Sources
471
98
Income from Other Appropriations
17,999
24,368
Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities
$ 18,470 J
! 24,466
Total Resources Used To Finance Activities
$ 12,531 J
! 23,170
RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ITEMS
NOT PART OF THE NET COST OF OPERATIONS:
Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated
$ 6,073 J
! 1,292
Offsetting Receipts Not Affecting Net Cost
3
(3)
Resources that Finance Asset Acquistion
(52)
(45)
Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations
$ 6,024 J
! 1,244
Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations
$ 18,555 J
; 24,414
Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods:
Increase in Annual Leave Liability
$ 169 J
; 77
Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivables
(58)
3
Other
-
1
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Require or
Generate Resources in Future Periods
$ 111 J
; 8i
Components Not Requiring/Generating Resources:
Depreciation and Amortization
$ 151 J
; 143
Total Components of Net Cost that Will Not Require or Generate Resources
$ 151 J
; 143
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Not Require or
Generate Resources in the Current Period
$ 262 J
; 224
Net Cost of Operations
$ 18,817 $
; 24,638
15-1-0180
EPA's FY 2013 Annual FIFRA Financial Statements
-------
Appendix B
Agency's Response to Draft Report
May 13, 2015
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OA-FY14-0125
"Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012 Financial Statements for the Pesticides
Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund, " dated April 29, 2015
FROM: David A. Bloom /Signed/
Acting Chief Financial Officer
TO: Paul Curtis, Director
Financial Statement Audits
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject draft
audit report. Following is a summary of the agency's position on each of the report
recommendations, including high-level intended corrective actions and estimated completion
dates.
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
The agency concurs with the two draft report recommendations.
Agreements
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated Completion by
Quarter and FY
1
Evaluate the OCFO's
process for preparing the
FIFRA financial statements
and implement the
necessary improvements for
submission of accurate,
timely and complete
financial statements.
OCFO has developed a project
plan with new controls and
processes to ensure that the
financial statement preparation
for FIFRA is accurate and
timely submitted.
3/31/2015 (complete)
15-1-0180
-------
Develop a systematic
OCFO will work with the OIG
9/30/2015
2
method to address all OIG
to develop a more formal
comments on the FIFRA
process for communicating
financial statements.
and addressing corrections and
changes in future FIFRA
audits.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Stefan Silzer of the Office of
Financial Management on (202) 564-4905.
cc: Stefan Silzer
Meshell Jones-Peeler
Steven Bradbury
Marty Monell
Kevin Christensen
Richard Eyermann
John O'Connor
Istanbul Yusuf
Dale Miller
Peter Caulkins
Maria Sorrell
Michael Hardy
Vickie Richardson
John Street
Wanda Arlington
Margaret Hiatt
Robert L. Smith
Art Budelier
Sheila May
Janet Weiner
Lorna Washington
15-1-0180
-------
Appendix C
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Chief Financial Officer
Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Deputy Chief Financial Officer
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intragovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Deputy Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Senior Advisor, FIFRA Implementation, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Director, Office of Human Resources, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Director, Office of Policy and Resource Management, Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Director, Office of Financial Management, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Reporting and Analysis Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Financial Policy and Planning Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Research Triangle Park Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Cincinnati Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Las Vegas Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Payroll Management and Outreach Staff, Office of Financial Services, Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Staff Director, Accountability and Control Staff, Office of Financial Services, Office of the Chief
Financial Officer
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management
FIFRA Audit Coordinator, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
15-1-0180
------- |