- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
115th Congress } { Rept. 115-131
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { Part 1
======================================================================
REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2017
_______
May 18, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Conaway, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 953]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 953) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the
use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
Brief Explanation
The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017, H.R. 953,
amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify
Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of
pesticides in or near navigable waters.
Purpose and Need for Legislation
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) is a regulatory statute that governs the sale and use
of pesticides in the United States through the registration and
labeling of such products. Its objective is to protect human
health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of
pesticides, taking into account the costs and benefits of
various product uses. Pesticides regulated under FIFRA include
insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, and other
designated substances. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) reviews scientific data submitted by chemical
manufacturers on toxicity and behavior in the environment to
evaluate risks and exposure associated with a product's use.
FIFRA prohibits the sale of any pesticide unless it is
registered and labeled indicating approved uses and
restrictions. It is a violation of federal law to use such a
chemical in a manner that is inconsistent with the label
instructions. If a registration is granted, EPA makes a finding
that the chemical ``when used in accordance with widespread and
commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' (7 U.S.C.
136a(c)(5)(D).) EPA then specifies the approved uses and
conditions of use of the pesticide, and this is required to be
explained on the product label.
The Clean Water Act
The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(commonly known as the Clean Water Act or the CWA) is to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters. The primary mechanism for
achieving this objective is the CWA's prohibition on the
discharge of any pollutant without a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. EPA has the
authority to regulate the discharge of pollutants either
through general permits or through individual permits. NPDES
permits specify limits on what pollutants may be discharged
from point sources and in what amounts. Under the CWA, 46
states have been authorized to implement NPDES permits and
enforce permits. EPA manages the Clean Water Act program in the
remaining states.
NPDES permits are the basic regulatory tool of the CWA. EPA
or an authorized state may issue compliance orders or file
civil suits against those who violate the terms of a permit. In
addition, in the absence of federal or state action,
individuals may bring a citizen suit in United States District
Court against those who violate the terms of an NPDES permit,
or against those who discharge without a valid permit.
Litigation
In over 30 years of administering the CWA, EPA had never
required an NPDES permit for the application of a pesticide,
when the pesticide is applied in a manner consistent with FIFRA
and its regulations. While the CWA contains a provision
granting citizen suits against those who violate permit
conditions or those who discharge without an NPDES permit,
FIFRA has no citizen suit provision. As a result, beginning in
the late 1990s, a series of citizen lawsuits were filed by
parties, contending that an NPDES permit is necessary when
applying a FIFRA-regulated product over, into, or near
waterbodies. These cases generated several Court of Appeals
decisions that created confusion and concern among pesticide
users regarding the applicability of the CWA with regard to
pesticide use.
As the litigation continued, concern and confusion grew
among farmers, forest landowners, and public health officials,
prompting EPA to issue interim, and later final, interpretive
guidance in August 2003 and January 2005, and then to undertake
a rulemaking to clarify and formalize the Agency's
interpretation of the CWA as it applied to pesticide use. The
EPA rule was finalized in November 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 68483
(Nov. 27, 2006)), and was the culmination of a three year
participatory rulemaking process that began with the interim
interpretive statement in 2003 and involved two rounds of
public comment.
The 2006 EPA rule codified EPA's long-standing
interpretation that the application of chemical and biological
pesticides for their intended purpose and in compliance with
pesticide label restrictions is not a discharge of a
``pollutant'' under the CWA, and therefore, that an NPDES
permit is not required. The rule clearly defined specific
circumstances in which the use of pesticides in accordance with
all relevant requirements under FIFRA is not a CWA ``discharge
of a pollutant,'' explaining in detail the rationale for the
Agency's interpretation.
When the rule was finalized, environmental groups, as well
as farm and pesticide industry groups, filed petitions for
review of the rule in several federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.
The petitions were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth
Circuit ultimately vacated the rule on January 7, 2009, in
National Cotton Council v. EPA (553 F.3d 927; hereinafter,
National Cotton Council), concluding that the final rule was
not a reasonable interpretation of the CWA's permitting
requirements. The Court rejected EPA's contention that, when
pesticides are applied over, into, or near waterbodies to
control pests, they are not considered pollutants as long as
they comply with FIFRA, and held that NPDES permits are
required for all pesticide applications that may leave a
residue in water.
In vacating the rule and requiring NPDES permits for
pesticide applications, the Sixth Circuit substituted its own
interpretation of how federal laws apply to the use of
pesticides for EPA's longstanding interpretation of the laws,
and overlaid a new permitting process that is duplicative of
FIFRA's longstanding regulatory objectives. In the process, the
Court undermined the traditional understanding of how the CWA
interacts with other environmental statutes, particularly
FIFRA, and judicially expanded the scope of CWA regulation
further into areas and activities not originally envisioned or
intended by Congress.
As a result of the Court's decision, EPA was required to
develop and implement a new and expanded NPDES permitting
process under the CWA to cover pesticide use. EPA estimated
that the ruling would affect approximately 365,000 pesticide
applicators that perform some 5.6 million pesticide
applications annually. (U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet for 2010 Public
Notice of: Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Pesticides General Permit (PGP) for Discharges
from the Application of Pesticides to or over, including near
Waters of the U.S., at 14, available at http://www.epa.gov/
npdes/pubs/proposed_pgp_fs.pdf; hereinafter, EPA Fact Sheet.)
This virtually doubles the number of entities subject to NPDES
permitting.
The court's decision, which would apply nationally, was to
be effective seven days after the deadline for rehearing
expired or seven days after a denial of any petition for
rehearing. Parties had until April 9, 2009 to seek rehearing.
On April 9, 2009, the federal government chose not to seek
rehearing in the National Cotton Council case. The government
instead filed a motion to stay issuance of the Court's mandate
for two years to provide EPA time to develop an entirely new
NPDES permitting process to cover pesticide use. As part of
this, EPA needed to propose and issue a final NPDES general
permit for pesticide applications, for states to develop
permits, and for EPA to provide outreach and education to the
regulated community. Industry groups filed a petition seeking
en banc review, asking the full Sixth Circuit to reconsider the
decision from the three-judge panel.
On June 8, 2009, the Sixth Circuit granted EPA a two-year
stay of the Court's mandate, in response to their earlier
request. The Sixth Circuit denied the industry groups' petition
for rehearing in August 2009. The court-ordered deadline for
EPA to promulgate a new permitting process for pesticides under
the CWA was April 9, 2011. On March 3, 2011, EPA filed another
request for an extension with the court. On March 28, 2011, the
Sixth Circuit granted an extension through October 31, 2011.
Two petitions were filed with the Supreme Court in December
2009 by representatives of the agriculture community and the
pesticide industry, requesting that the Supreme Court review
the National Cotton Council case. A number of parties,
including numerous Members of Congress, filed amicus briefs
with the Supreme Court, in support of the petitions. Other
parties filed amicus briefs in opposition to the petitions. On
February 22, 2010, the Supreme Court denied the petitioners'
request without comment.
EPA Development of a New Permitting Process to Cover Pesticide Use
With a two-year stay of the Sixth Circuit's mandate in
place, EPA moved ahead with developing a new NPDES permitting
process to cover pesticide use. The permit covers four
pesticide uses: (1) mosquito and other flying insect pest
control; (2) aquatic weed and algae control; (3) aquatic
nuisance animal control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. It
is not intended to cover terrestrial applications to control
pests on agricultural crops or forest floors, and does not
cover activities exempt from permitting under the CWA
(irrigation return flow, agricultural stormwater runoff) and
discharges that will require coverage under an individual
permit, such as discharges of pesticides to waterbodies that
are considered impaired under CWA section 303(d) for that
discharged pesticide. The permitting process imposes
administrative requirements on prospective pesticide users,
including filing a notice of intent, other reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and in some cases monitoring and
other requirements.
Implications
The Committee has received testimony and other information
on the implications of the Sixth Circuit's holding in the
National Cotton Council case, and the new permitting process
that EPA has had to develop under the CWA as a result of that
holding, on state and local agencies, mosquito control
districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, agriculture,
forest managers, and other stakeholders. On February 16, 2011,
the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a
joint hearing with the Nutrition and Horticulture Subcommittee
of the House Committee on Agriculture to consider means for
reducing the regulatory burdens posed by the case, National
Cotton Council v. EPA (6th Cir. 2009), and to consider related
draft legislation.
Despite being limited to four categories of pesticide uses,
EPA's new general permit for covered pesticides is the single
greatest expansion of the permitting process in the history of
the NPDES program. As already noted, EPA has estimated that
approximately 5.6 million covered pesticide applications per
year by approximately 365,000 applicators are affected by the
Court's ruling, virtually doubling the number of entities that
have been subject to NPDES permitting. (EPA Fact Sheet.)
With this expansion come real and tangible requirements for
EPA, the states that have to issue the permits, those whose
livelihoods depend on the use of pesticides, and even everyday
citizens going about their daily lives.
EPA has had to establish a new permitting process to
conform its NPDES permit program to meet the Sixth Circuit's
mandate. Even so, much of the responsibility of developing and
issuing general permits has fallen on the states. Forty-six
states face increased financial and administrative burdens in
order to comply with the new permitting process. Some states
have estimated that creating a new NPDES permitting scheme for
pesticide use in their state has cost their state hundreds of
thousands of dollars. In a time when many states have to make
difficult budgetary cuts, the Nation cannot afford more
financial burdens.
The expanded permitting process also imposes significant
new requirements on pesticide users, who encompass a wide range
of individuals from state agencies, city and county
municipalities, mosquito control districts, water districts,
pesticide applicators, farmers, ranchers, forest managers,
scientists, and others. Now that the permitting requirements
are in effect, federal and state agencies are expending vital
funds to initiate and maintain NPDES programs governing
mosquito control, silvicultural, and other pesticide
applications.
The new permitting process has increased both the
administrative difficulty and costs for pesticide applicators
to come into compliance with the law. Compliance no longer
means simply following instructions on a pesticide label.
Instead, applicators have to navigate a complex process of
identifying the relevant permit, filing with the regulatory
authority a valid notice of intent to comply with the permit,
and having a familiarity with all of the permit's conditions
and restrictions. Some pesticide applicators also face
significant monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping costs
complying with their permits.
Along with increased administrative burdens comes an
increased monetary burden. Estimates are that the cost
associated with the EPA permit scheme to small businesses and
some local governments could be as high as $50,000 each, or
more, annually.
In addition to the costs of coming into compliance,
pesticide users are subject to an increased risk of litigation
and large fines. Pesticide applicators not in compliance face
fines of up to $37,500 per day per violation, not including
attorney's fees. Given the fact that a large number of
applicators have never been subject to NPDES and its permitting
process, even a good faith effort to be in compliance could
fall short. Moreover, the CWA allows for private actions
against individuals who may or may not have committed a
violation. Thus, while EPA may exercise its judgment and
refrain from prosecuting certain applicators, the applicators
remain vulnerable to citizen suits. Unless Congress acts,
hundreds of thousands of farmers, foresters, and public health
pesticide users will continue to operate under threat of
lawsuits.
It is not only pesticide regulators and applicators who are
being affected by the new permitting requirements. Rather, the
Sixth Circuit's decision affects every day citizens, who rely
on the benefits provided by pesticides and their responsible
application. Pesticide use is an essential part of agriculture.
Imposing a duplicative and burdensome permitting process on our
Nation's farmers threatens their ability to continue to provide
the country with a safe and reliable food supply. Many family
farmers and small applicators lack the resources to ensure
compliance with a cumbersome and detailed permit scheme.
Moreover, for those farmers who are able to comply, delays that
are inherent in permitting schemes are ill-suited for prompt
pest control actions necessary in agriculture. Failure to apply
a pesticide soon after a pest is first detected could result in
recurring and greater pest damage in subsequent years if a
prolific insect were to become established in plant hosts. The
Secretary of Agriculture, Hon. Thomas J. Vilsack, has said that
a permitting system under the CWA for pesticide use ``is ill-
suited to the demands of agricultural production.'' (Letter,
Hon. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, to Hon. Lisa
P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
Subject: The National Cotton Council of America, et al., v.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (Mar. 6, 2009)).
Forest landowners also are impacted under the new permit
scheme. The permitting requirements apply to and are an
inhibition to the use of forest pest control as a forest
management tool, with the result of accelerated tree mortality
and a general decline in overall forest health. It erects
barriers for the control of pests, such as gypsy moth and
forest tent caterpillar. This may be resulting in a higher
incidence of preventable tree kills and defoliated landscapes.
Moreover, the Sixth Circuit's holding has significant
implications for public health. The National Centers for
Disease Control officially recognizes the following as a
partial list of mosquito-borne diseases--Eastern Equine
Encephalitis, Japanese Encephalitis, La Crosse Encephalitis,
St. Louis Encephalitis, West Nile Virus, Western Equine
Encephalitis, Dengue Fever, Malaria, Rift Valley Fever, and
Yellow Fever. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/list_mosquitoborne.htm.)
EPA's permit program poses the risk of critical delays in
emergency responses to insect and disease outbreaks and is
diverting resources from controlling environmental pests to
administrative requirements, monitoring, and litigation.
Mosquito control districts have reported that NPDES
compliance costs are forcing many mosquito control programs,
both large and small, to redirect control resources to comply
with the regulatory requirements. Many districts have reduced
operations because of administrative and monitoring costs and
fears of increased liability and potentially ruinous litigation
under the CWA associated with complying with the new, court-
mandated NPDES requirements. In some states, preventive
mosquito control strategies such as comprehensive larviciding
are being curtailed in order to redirect resources toward
increased administrative and water monitoring costs. Commercial
applicators historically serving rural communities and small
municipalities are increasingly opting to cancel their programs
out of fear of increased liability under the CWA. These reduced
mosquito control operations have resulted in increased risk of
vector-borne disease such as West Nile Virus.
In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reported record-breaking outbreaks of mosquito-borne illnesses,
such as West Nile Virus and Eastern Equine Encephalitis, around
the Nation. In response to the outbreaks, numerous communities
had to declare public health emergencies and undertook
comprehensive mosquito spraying efforts. Some have suggested
that the record-breaking outbreaks of mosquito-borne illnesses
were at least in part the result of the new NPDES permit
requirements and the resultant curtailment of preventive
mosquito control measures. When the outbreaks occurred,
emergency reactive control measures had to be implemented.
Development of Legislation in Response to the Sixth Circuit Decision
As a result of concerns raised by federal, state, local,
and private stakeholders regarding the interrelationship
between FIFRA and the CWA and the concerns posed by the new and
duplicative permitting process under the CWA, the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and House
Committee on Agriculture sought technical assistance from EPA
to draft very narrow legislation targeted only at responding to
the Sixth Circuit's holding in National Cotton Council and
return the state of pesticide regulation to the status quo,
before the courts got involved. H.R. 935 is based on the
technical assistance that EPA provided to the Committees, and
is intended to be consistent with EPA's final rule from
November 2006. The bill amends FIFRA and the CWA to eliminate
the requirement of an NPDES permit for applications of
pesticides authorized for sale, distribution, or use under
FIFRA.
Section-by-Section Analysis of Legislation
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 of the bill designates the title of the bill as
the ``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017.''
Section 2. Use of authorized pesticides
Section 2 of the bill amends section 3(f) of FIFRA (7
U.S.C. 136a(f)) by adding at the end a new paragraph (5).
Paragraph (5) provides that, except as provided in section
402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA), the
Administrator or a state may not require a permit under the CWA
for a discharge from a point source into navigable waters of a
pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under
FIFRA, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from the
application of such pesticide. The exceptions provided in
section 402(s) of the CWA are provided in new subsection
(s)(2), discussed further below.
The net effect of this provision is to exempt, from the
CWA's NPDES permitting process, a discharge from a point source
into navigable waters of a pesticide authorized for sale,
distribution, or use under FIFRA, or the residue of such a
pesticide, resulting from the application of the pesticide,
where the pesticide is used for its intended purpose and the
use is in compliance with pesticide label requirements.
The Committee received testimony in the 112th Congress on
how EPA uses its full regulatory authority under FIFRA to
ensure that pesticides do not cause unreasonable adverse
effects on human health and the environment, including our
Nation's water resources. The regulatory restrictions placed by
EPA under FIFRA directly control the amount of pesticide
available for transport to navigable waters, either by reducing
the absolute amount of pesticide applied, or by changing
application conditions to minimize transport and make transport
of applied pesticide less likely.
Therefore, as long as a pesticide is authorized for sale,
distribution, or use under FIFRA, the pesticide is used for its
intended purpose, and the use is in compliance with pesticide
label requirements, then the Committee sees no need to require
the user of the pesticide to apply for and obtain an NPDES
permit for that use. The Committee believes that requiring an
NPDES permit in such circumstances is unnecessary and imposes
duplicative and wasteful regulatory requirements on EPA and
state permitting agencies and on pesticide users.
It is the intent of the Committee that, regarding
biological pesticides, including those produced by plants, H.R.
953 shall not apply to plants because they are not a point
source. The exemption requires a discharge from a point source.
Moreover, section 402 of the CWA only requires an NPDES permit
for a point source discharge of a pollutant.
Section 3. Discharges of pesticides
Section 3 of the bill amends section 402 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) by adding at the
end a new subsection (s).
New subsection (s)(1) provides that, except as provided in
paragraph (2) of subsection (s), the Administrator or a State
shall not require a permit under the CWA for a discharge from a
point source into navigable waters of a pesticide authorized
for sale, distribution, or use under FIFRA, or the residue of
such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such
pesticide. This provision is aimed at mirroring the provision
added to FIFRA under section 2 of the bill.
This provision, like that in section 2 of the bill, is
intended to exempt from the CWA's NPDES permitting process,
subject to the exceptions in paragraph (2), a discharge from a
point source into navigable waters of a pesticide authorized
for sale, distribution, or use under FIFRA, or the residue of
such a pesticide, resulting from the application of the
pesticide, where the pesticide is used for its intended purpose
and the use is in compliance with pesticide label requirements.
As noted earlier, as long as a pesticide is authorized for
sale, distribution, or use under FIFRA, the pesticide is used
for its intended purpose, and the use is in compliance with
pesticide label requirements, then the Committee sees no need
to require the user of the pesticide to apply for and obtain an
NPDES permit for that use. The Committee believes that
requiring an NPDES permit in such circumstances is unnecessary
and imposes duplicative and wasteful regulatory requirements on
EPA, state permitting agencies, and pesticide users.
Paragraph (2) of new subsection (s) provides certain
exceptions to the exemption from NPDES permitting provided in
paragraph (1). The categories of discharges listed in
paragraphs (2)(A) and (B) are not exempted and therefore
require an NPDES permit if those discharges contain a pesticide
or a residue of a pesticide as a component in those discharges.
None of the exceptions in paragraph (2) are intended to expand
the permitting authority of EPA or a state to require a permit
under the CWA, or to provide a backdoor way to narrow or negate
the exemption in paragraph (1) from the CWA's NPDES permitting
process of a discharge from a point source into navigable
waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use
under FIFRA, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from
the application of the pesticide, where the pesticide is used
for its intended purpose and the use is in compliance with
pesticide label requirements.
The exception in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) applies
to circumstances where there has been an application of a
pesticide in violation of a provision of FIFRA relevant to
protecting water quality, and as a result of that application
of the pesticide in violation of FIFRA, there has been a
discharge of a pesticide or residue of a pesticide that either
would not have occurred but for the violation of FIFRA, or the
amount of pesticide or residue of a pesticide contained in the
discharge is greater than would have occurred without the
violation of FIFRA. A violation of FIFRA is considered to be
relevant to protecting water quality only if that violation
results in the occurrence of a discharge of a pesticide or
residue of a pesticide from an application of the pesticide,
and that discharge either would not have occurred but for the
violation, or the amount of pesticide or residue of a pesticide
contained in the discharge is greater than would have occurred
without the violation.
Hence, a violation of FIFRA not involving or affecting a
discharge into navigable waters of a pesticide or residue of a
pesticide from an application of the pesticide (e.g., a
violation of a FIFRA requirement that a person mixing a
pesticide must wear protective clothing) does not trigger
permitting requirements under the CWA and is not a violation of
the CWA. Similarly, a violation of FIFRA, where a discharge of
a pesticide or residue of a pesticide did not occur even with
the FIFRA violation, or the amount of pesticide or residue of a
pesticide contained in the discharge is not increased as
compared to what would have occurred without the FIFRA
violation, does not trigger permitting requirements under the
CWA and is not a violation of the CWA. Enforcement under the
CWA under the circumstances presented in paragraph (2)(A)(i) or
(ii) would require proof of both a CWA violation and a FIFRA
violation.
It is the intent of the Committee that, regarding
biological pesticides, including those produced by plants, H.R.
953 shall not apply to plants because they are not a point
source. The exemption requires a discharge from a point source.
Moreover, section 402 of the CWA only requires an NPDES permit
for a point source discharge of a pollutant.
The bill is not intended to exempt from NPDES permitting
under CWA section 402 certain discharges of waste streams
merely because they may contain a pesticide or residue of a
pesticide as a component in them. Therefore, the exceptions in
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) identify those types
of discharges that remain subject to NPDES permitting under CWA
section 402, even if those discharges may contain in them a
pesticide or residue of a pesticide as a component. The
categories of discharges described in subparagraphs (B) and (C)
are intended to encompass all of the types of discharges,
which, if they do contain as a component a pesticide or residue
of a pesticide, would continue to require an NPDES permit.
The exception in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) applies
to stormwater discharges regulated under subsection (p) of CWA
section 402. Discharges regulated under subsection (p) include
stormwater discharged from certain municipal stormwater
systems, certain areas associated with industrial activity,
certain construction sites, and certain other impervious areas.
The exception in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) applies
to the following other discharges regulated under subsection
(p) of CWA section 402: manufacturing or industrial effluent;
treatment works effluent; and discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel, including a discharge resulting
from ballasting operations or vessel biofouling prevention.
``Manufacturing or industrial effluent'' under subparagraph
(C)(i) is intended to cover point source discharges of
wastewater from facilities with manufacturing or industrial
processes, where those discharges contain pollutants that are
pesticides. This may include wastewater discharges containing
pesticides from pesticide and other agricultural chemical
manufacturing and formulating facilities, and facilities,
including utilities, that use biocides to prevent fouling of
lines, mains, pipes, or cooling towers.
``Treatment works effluent'' under subparagraph (C)(ii) is
intended to cover point source discharges of wastewater from
treatment works, where those discharges contain pollutants that
are pesticides. The term ``treatment works'' is defined in
section 212 of the CWA.
``Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel, including a discharge resulting from ballasting
operations or vessel biofouling prevention'' under subparagraph
(C)(iii) is intended to cover point source discharges from
vessels that are subject to permitting under EPA's NPDES
vessels program that regulates incidental discharges from the
normal operation of vessels, where those discharges contain
pollutants that are pesticides. The vessels currently subject
to permitting under the NPDES vessels program consist of all
non-recreational, non-military vessels of 79 feet or greater in
length which discharge into navigable waters.
Recreational vessels as defined in section 502(25) of the
CWA are exempted from NPDES permitting in section 402(r) of the
CWA. It is the Committee's intent to leave undisturbed this
exemption from NPDES permitting for recreational vessels in
section 402(r). In addition, vessels of the Armed Forces, as
defined in section 312(a)(14) of the CWA, are not subject to
permitting under the NPDES vessels program. With the exception
of ballast water discharges, non-recreational vessels less than
79 feet in length, and all commercial fishing vessels,
regardless of length, currently are not subject to permitting
under the NPDES vessels program, although they may be in the
future when a moratorium from regulation established by Public
Law 112-213 ends on December 18, 2014.
The intent of the Committee is for sections 2 and 3 of the
bill to reverse the Sixth Circuit's holding in the National
Cotton Council case and return the state of pesticide
regulation to the status quo, before any courts ruled on the
applicability of the CWA to pesticide applications regulated
under FIFRA. H.R. 897 eliminates the requirement of an NPDES
permit for the application of pesticides authorized for sale,
distribution, or use under FIFRA.
Committee Consideration
I. HEARINGS
In the 112th Congress, the Subcommittee on Nutrition and
Horticulture of the Committee on Agriculture and the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the
committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a public
joint hearing on February 16, 2011 to consider reducing the
regulatory burdens posed by the case National Cotton Council v.
EPA (6th Cir. 2009) and to review related draft legislation.
Members of the Subcommittees heard testimony and considered
draft legislation targeted at addressing the 6th Circuit Court
ruling under which pesticide users would have to obtain a
duplicate permit under the Clean Water Act for the use of
pesticides. Pesticides are used by farmers, ranchers, forest
managers, mosquito control districts, and water districts.
Pesticide applications are highly regulated under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The order of the
court would require pesticide applications that are not covered
by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit to be subject to a fine of up to $37,500 per day per
violation. In addition to the costs of compliance, pesticide
users will be subject to an increased risk of litigation under
the citizen suit provision of the CWA. During the hearing,
testimony was heard from six witnesses on two panels.
II. FULL COMMITTEE
The Committee on Agriculture met, pursuant to notice, with
a quorum present, on February 16, 2017, to consider H.R. 953,
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015.
H.R. 953 was placed before the Committee for consideration.
Without objection, a first reading of the bill was waived and
it was open for amendment at any point.
Chairman Conaway, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Gibbs were
recognized for statements. There being no amendments, Mr.
Peterson was recognized to offer a motion that the bill H.R.
953 be reported favorably to the House with recommendation that
it do pass. The motion was subsequently approved by voice vote.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Chairman Conaway advised
Members that pursuant to the rules of the House of
Representatives Members had until February 21, 2017, to file
any supplemental or minority views with the Committee.
Without objection, staff was given permission to make any
necessary clerical, technical or conforming changes to reflect
the intent of the Committee. Chairman Conaway thanked all the
Members and adjourned the meeting.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, H.R. 953 was reported by voice vote with a
majority quorum present. There was no request for a recorded
vote.
Committee Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture's
oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the
body of this report.
Budget Act Compliance (Sections 308, 402, and 423)
The provisions of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new
budget authority, new spending authority, new credit authority,
or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not
considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to
be prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and sections 402 and 423 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 submitted to the Committee prior to the
filing of this report are as follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 24, 2017.
Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 953, the Reducing
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jon Sperl.
Sincerely,
Mark P. Hadley
(For Keith Hall, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 953--Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017
H.R. 953 would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and states authorized to issue permits under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from requiring a
permit for some discharges of pesticides. Specifically, public
and private entities would no longer need to obtain an NPDES
permit for certain discharges of pesticides if their use is
authorized under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, or in cases where the discharge is regulated
as either a stormwater, municipal, or industrial discharge
under the Clean Water Act.
Based on information from the EPA, CBO estimates that
enacting this legislation would have no significant effect on
the federal budget. Any administrative savings to the EPA that
might result from issuing fewer permits would be negligible
because the EPA has delegated the authority to issue most NPDES
permits to states.
Enacting H.R. 953 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to
the bill. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 953 would not
increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 953 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jon Sperl. This
estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
H.R. 953 does not authorize funding, therefore, clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable.
Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee report incorporates the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to sections 402 and 423 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this
legislation.
Applicability to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopted as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
Earmark Statement Required by Clause 9 of Rule XXI of the Rules of
House of Representatives
H.R. 953 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House Representatives.
Duplication of Federal Programs
This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of
the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another
Federal program, a program that was included in any report from
the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee does not believe that the legislation directs
an executive branch official to conduct any specific rule
making proceedings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3. REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES.
(a) Requirement of Registration.--Except as provided by this
Act, no person in any State may distribute or sell to any
person any pesticide that is not registered under this Act. To
the extent necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment, the Administrator may by regulation limit the
distribution, sale, or use in any State of any pesticide that
is not registered under this Act and that is not the subject of
an experimental use permit under section 5 or an emergency
exemption under section 18.
(b) Exemptions.--A pesticide which is not registered with the
Administrator may be transferred if--
(1) the transfer is from one registered establishment
to another registered establishment operated by the
same producer solely for packaging at the second
establishment or for use as a constituent part of
another pesticide produced at the second establishment;
or
(2) the transfer is pursuant to and in accordance
with the requirements of an experimental use permit.
(c) Procedure for Registration.--
(1) Statement required.--Each applicant for
registration of a pesticide shall file with the
Administrator a statement which includes--
(A) the name and address of the applicant and
of any other person whose name will appear on
the labeling;
(B) the name of the pesticide;
(C) a complete copy of the labeling of the
pesticide, a statement of all claims to be made
for it, and any directions for its use;
(D) the complete formula of the pesticide;
(E) a request that the pesticide be
classified for general use or for restricted
use, or for both; and
(F) except as otherwise provided in paragraph
(2)(D), if requested by the Administrator, a
full description of the tests made and the
results thereof upon which the claims are
based, or alternatively a citation to data that
appear in the public literature or that
previously had been submitted to the
Administrator and that the Administrator may
consider in accordance with the following
provisions:
(i) With respect to pesticides
containing active ingredients that are
initially registered under this Act
after the date of enactment of the
Federal Pesticide Act of 1978, data
submitted to support the application
for the original registration of the
pesticide, or an application for an
amendment adding any new use to the
registration and that pertains solely
to such new use, shall not, without the
written permission of the original data
submitter, be considered by the
Administrator to support an application
by another person during a period of
ten years following the date the
Administrator first registers the
pesticide, except that such permission
shall not be required in the case of
defensive data.
(ii) The period of exclusive data use
provided under clause (i) shall be
extended 1 additional year for each 3
minor uses registered after the date of
enactment of this clause and within 7
years of the commencement of the
exclusive use period, up to a total of
3 additional years for all minor uses
registered by the Administrator if the
Administrator, in consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, determines
that, based on information provided by
an applicant for registration or a
registrant, that--
(I) there are insufficient
efficacious alternative
registered pesticides available
for the use;
(II) the alternatives to the
minor use pesticide pose
greater risks to the
environment or human health;
(III) the minor use pesticide
plays or will play a
significant part in managing
pest resistance; or
(IV) the minor use pesticide
plays or will play a
significant part in an
integrated pest management
program.
The registration of a pesticide for a
minor use on a crop grouping
established by the Administrator shall
be considered for purposes of this
clause 1 minor use for each
representative crop for which data are
provided in the crop grouping. Any
additional exclusive use period under
this clause shall be modified as
appropriate or terminated if the
registrant voluntarily cancels the
product or deletes from the
registration the minor uses which
formed the basis for the extension of
the additional exclusive use period or
if the Administrator determines that
the registrant is not actually
marketing the product for such minor
uses.
(iii) Except as otherwise provided in
clause (i), with respect to data
submitted after December 31, 1969, by
an applicant or registrant to support
an application for registration,
experimental use permit, or amendment
adding a new use to an existing
registration, to support or maintain in
effect an existing registration, or for
reregistration, the Administrator may,
without the permission of the original
data submitter, consider any such item
of data in support of an application by
any other person (hereinafter in this
subparagraph referred to as the
``applicant'') within the fifteen-year
period following the date the data were
originally submitted only if the
applicant has made an offer to
compensate the original data submitter
and submitted such offer to the
Administrator accompanied by evidence
of delivery to the original data
submitter of the offer. The terms and
amount of compensation may be fixed by
agreement between the original data
submitter and the applicant, or,
failing such agreement, binding
arbitration under this subparagraph.
If, at the end of ninety days after the
date of delivery to the original data
submitter of the offer to compensate,
the original data submitter and the
applicant have neither agreed on the
amount and terms of compensation nor on
a procedure for reaching an agreement
on the amount and terms of
compensation, either person may
initiate binding arbitration
proceedings by requesting the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service to
appoint an arbitrator from the roster
of arbitrators maintained by such
Service. The procedure and rules of the
Service shall be applicable to the
selection of such arbitrator and to
such arbitration proceedings, and the
findings and determination of the
arbitrator shall be final and
conclusive, and no official or court of
the United States shall have power or
jurisdiction to review any such
findings and determination, except for
fraud, misrepresentation, or other
misconduct by one of the parties to the
arbitration or the arbitrator where
there is a verified complaint with
supporting affidavits attesting to
specific instances of such fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct.
The parties to the arbitration shall
share equally in the payment of the fee
and expenses of the arbitrator. If the
Administrator determines that an
original data submitter has failed to
participate in a procedure for reaching
an agreement or in an arbitration
proceeding as required by this
subparagraph, or failed to comply with
the terms of an agreement or
arbitration decision concerning
compensation under this subparagraph,
the original data submitter shall
forfeit the right to compensation for
the use of the data in support of the
application. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, if the
Administrator determines that an
applicant has failed to participate in
a procedure for reaching an agreement
or in an arbitration proceeding as
required by this subparagraph, or
failed to comply with the terms of an
agreement or arbitration decision
concerning compensation under this
subparagraph, the Administrator shall
deny the application or cancel the
registration of the pesticide in
support of which the data were used
without further hearing. Before the
Administrator takes action under either
of the preceding two sentences, the
Administrator shall furnish to the
affected person, by certified mail,
notice of intent to take action and
allow fifteen days from the date of
delivery of the notice for the affected
person to respond. If a registration is
denied or canceled under this
subparagraph, the Administrator may
make such order as the Administrator
deems appropriate concerning the
continued sale and use of existing
stocks of such pesticide. Registration
action by the Administrator shall not
be delayed pending the fixing of
compensation.
(iv) After expiration of any period
of exclusive use and any period for
which compensation is required for the
use of an item of data under clauses
(i), (ii), and (iii), the Administrator
may consider such item of data in
support of an application by any other
applicant without the permission of the
original data submitter and without an
offer having been received to
compensate the original data submitter
for the use of such item of data.
(v) The period of exclusive use
provided under clause (ii) shall not
take effect until 1 year after
enactment of this clause, except where
an applicant or registrant is applying
for the registration of a pesticide
containing an active ingredient not
previously registered.
(vi) With respect to data submitted
after the date of enactment of this
clause by an applicant or registrant to
support an amendment adding a new use
to an existing registration that does
not retain any period of exclusive use,
if such data relates solely to a minor
use of a pesticide, such data shall
not, without the written permission of
the original data submitter, be
considered by the Administrator to
support an application for a minor use
by another person during the period of
10 years following the date of
submission of such data. The applicant
or registrant at the time the new minor
use is requested shall notify the
Administrator that to the best of their
knowledge the exclusive use period for
the pesticide has expired and that the
data pertaining solely to the minor use
of a pesticide is eligible for the
provisions of this paragraph. If the
minor use registration which is
supported by data submitted pursuant to
this subsection is voluntarily canceled
or if such data are subsequently used
to support a nonminor use, the data
shall no longer be subject to the
exclusive use provisions of this clause
but shall instead be considered by the
Administrator in accordance with the
provisions of clause (i), as
appropriate.
(G) If the applicant is requesting that the
registration or amendment to the registration
of a pesticide be expedited, an explanation of
the basis for the request must be submitted, in
accordance with paragraph (10) of this
subsection.
(2) Data in support of registration.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall
publish guidelines specifying the kinds of
information which will be required to support
the registration of a pesticide and shall
revise such guidelines from time to time. If
thereafter the Administrator requires any
additional kind of information under
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the
Administrator shall permit sufficient time for
applicants to obtain such additional
information. The Administrator, in establishing
standards for data requirements for the
registration of pesticides with respect to
minor uses, shall make such standards
commensurate with the anticipated extent of
use, pattern of use, the public health and
agricultural need for such minor use, and the
level and degree of potential beneficial or
adverse effects on man and the environment. The
Administrator shall not require a person to
submit, in relation to a registration or
reregistration of a pesticide for minor
agricultural use under this Act, any field
residue data from a geographic area where the
pesticide will not be registered for such use.
In the development of these standards, the
Administrator shall consider the economic
factors of potential national volume of use,
extent of distribution, and the impact of the
cost of meeting the requirements on the
incentives for any potential registrant to
undertake the development of the required data.
Except as provided by section 10, within 30
days after the Administrator registers a
pesticide under this Act the Administrator
shall make available to the public the data
called for in the registration statement
together with such other scientific information
as the Administrator deems relevant to the
Administrator's decision.
(B) Additional data.--(i) If the
Administrator determines that additional data
are required to maintain in effect an existing
registration of a pesticide, the Administrator
shall notify all existing registrants of the
pesticide to which the determination relates
and provide a list of such registrants to any
interested person.
(ii) Each registrant of such pesticide shall
provide evidence within ninety days after
receipt of notification that it is taking
appropriate steps to secure the additional data
that are required. Two or more registrants may
agree to develop jointly, or to share in the
cost of developing, such data if they agree and
advise the Administrator of their intent within
ninety days after notification. Any registrant
who agrees to share in the cost of producing
the data shall be entitled to examine and rely
upon such data in support of maintenance of
such registration. The Administrator shall
issue a notice of intent to suspend the
registration of a pesticide in accordance with
the procedures prescribed by clause (iv) if a
registrant fails to comply with this clause.
(iii) If, at the end of sixty days after
advising the Administrator of their agreement
to develop jointly, or share in the cost of
developing data, the registrants have not
further agreed on the terms of the data
development arrangement or on a procedure for
reaching such agreement, any of such
registrants may initiate binding arbitration
proceedings by requesting the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service to appoint an
arbitrator from the roster of arbitrators
maintained by such Service. The procedure and
rules of the Service shall be applicable to the
selection of such arbitrator and to such
arbitration proceedings, and the findings and
determination of the arbitrator shall be final
and conclusive, and no official or court of the
United States shall have power or jurisdiction
to review any such findings and determination,
except for fraud, misrepresentation, or other
misconduct by one of the parties to the
arbitration or the arbitrator where there is a
verified complaint with supporting affidavits
attesting to specific instances of such fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct. All
parties to the arbitration shall share equally
in the payment of the fee and expenses of the
arbitrator. The Administrator shall issue a
notice of intent to suspend the registration of
a pesticide in accordance with the procedures
prescribed by clause (iv) if a registrant fails
to comply with this clause.
(iv) Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, if the Administrator determines that
a registrant, within the time required by the
Administrator, has failed to take appropriate
steps to secure the data required under this
subparagraph, to participate in a procedure for
reaching agreement concerning a joint data
development arrangement under this subparagraph
or in an arbitration proceeding as required by
this subparagraph, or to comply with the terms
of an agreement or arbitration decision
concerning a joint data development arrangement
under this subparagraph, the Administrator may
issue a notice of intent to suspend such
registrant's registration of the pesticide for
which additional data is required. The
Administrator may include in the notice of
intent to suspend such provisions as the
Administrator deems appropriate concerning the
continued sale and use of existing stocks of
such pesticide. Any suspension proposed under
this subparagraph shall become final and
effective at the end of thirty days from
receipt by the registrant of the notice of
intent to suspend, unless during that time a
request for hearing is made by a person
adversely affected by the notice or the
registrant has satisfied the Administrator that
the registrant has complied fully with the
requirements that served as a basis for the
notice of intent to suspend. If a hearing is
requested, a hearing shall be conducted under
section 6(d) of this Act. The only matters for
resolution at that hearing shall be whether the
registrant has failed to take the action that
served as the basis for the notice of intent to
suspend the registration of the pesticide for
which additional data is required, and whether
the Administrator's determination with respect
to the disposition of existing stocks is
consistent with this Act. If a hearing is held,
a decision after completion of such hearing
shall be final. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, a hearing shall be held
and a determination made within seventy-five
days after receipt of a request for such
hearing. Any registration suspended under this
subparagraph shall be reinstated by the
Administrator if the Administrator determines
that the registrant has complied fully with the
requirements that served as a basis for the
suspension of the registration.
(v) Any data submitted under this
subparagraph shall be subject to the provisions
of paragraph (1)(D). Whenever such data are
submitted jointly by two or more registrants,
an agent shall be agreed on at the time of the
joint submission to handle any subsequent data
compensation matters for the joint submitters
of such data.
(vi) Upon the request of a registrant the
Administrator shall, in the case of a minor
use, extend the deadline for the production of
residue chemistry data under this subparagraph
for data required solely to support that minor
use until the final deadline for submission of
data under section 4 for the other uses of the
pesticide established as of the date of
enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996, if--
(I) the data to support other uses of
the pesticide on a food are being
provided;
(II) the registrant, in submitting a
request for such an extension, provides
a schedule, including interim dates to
measure progress, to assure that the
data production will be completed
before the expiration of the extension
period;
(III) the Administrator has
determined that such extension will not
significantly delay the Administrator's
schedule for issuing a reregistration
eligibility determination required
under section 4; and
(IV) the Administrator has determined
that based on existing data, such
extension would not significantly
increase the risk of any unreasonable
adverse effect on the environment. If
the Administrator grants an extension
under this clause, the Administrator
shall monitor the development of the
data and shall ensure that the
registrant is meeting the schedule for
the production of the data. If the
Administrator determines that the
registrant is not meeting or has not
met the schedule for the production of
such data, the Administrator may
proceed in accordance with clause (iv)
regarding the continued registration of
the affected products with the minor
use and shall inform the public of such
action. Notwithstanding the provisions
of this clause, the Administrator may
take action to modify or revoke the
extension under this clause if the
Administrator determines that the
extension for the minor use may cause
an unreasonable adverse effect on the
environment. In such circumstance, the
Administrator shall provide, in writing
to the registrant, a notice revoking
the extension of time for submission of
data. Such data shall instead be due in
accordance with the date established by
the Administrator for the submission of
the data.
(vii) If the registrant does not commit to
support a specific minor use of the pesticide,
but is supporting and providing data in a
timely and adequate fashion to support uses of
the pesticide on a food, or if all uses of the
pesticide are nonfood uses and the registrant
does not commit to support a specific minor use
of the pesticide but is supporting and
providing data in a timely and adequate fashion
to support other nonfood uses of the pesticide,
the Administrator, at the written request of
the registrant, shall not take any action
pursuant to this clause in regard to such
unsupported minor use until the final deadline
established as of the date of enactment of the
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, for the
submission of data under section 4 for the
supported uses identified pursuant to this
clause unless the Administrator determines that
the absence of the data is significant enough
to cause human health or environmental
concerns. On the basis of such determination,
the Administrator may refuse the request for
extension by the registrant. Upon receipt of
the request from the registrant, the
Administrator shall publish in the Federal
Register a notice of the receipt of the request
and the effective date upon which the uses not
being supported will be voluntarily deleted
from the registration pursuant to section
6(f)(1). If the Administrator grants an
extension under this clause, the Administrator
shall monitor the development of the data for
the uses being supported and shall ensure that
the registrant is meeting the schedule for the
production of such data. If the Administrator
determines that the registrant is not meeting
or has not met the schedule for the production
of such data, the Administrator may proceed in
accordance with clause (iv) of this
subparagraph regarding the continued
registration of the affected products with the
minor and other uses and shall inform the
public of such action in accordance with
section 6(f)(2). Notwithstanding the provisions
of this clause, the Administrator may deny,
modify, or revoke the temporary extension under
this subparagraph if the Administrator
determines that the continuation of the minor
use may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on
the environment. In the event of modification
or revocation, the Administrator shall provide,
in writing, to the registrant a notice revoking
the temporary extension and establish a new
effective date by which the minor use shall be
deleted from the registration.
(viii)(I) If data required to support
registration of a pesticide under subparagraph
(A) is requested by a Federal or State
regulatory authority, the Administrator shall,
to the extent practicable, coordinate data
requirements, test protocols, timetables, and
standards of review and reduce burdens and
redundancy caused to the registrant by multiple
requirements on the registrant.
(II) The Administrator may enter into a
cooperative agreement with a State to carry out
subclause (I).
(III) Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this clause, the Administrator
shall develop a process to identify and assist
in alleviating future disparities between
Federal and State data requirements.
(C) Simplified procedures.--Within nine
months after the date of enactment of this
subparagraph, the Administrator shall, by
regulation, prescribe simplified procedures for
the registration of pesticides, which shall
include the provisions of subparagraph (D) of
this paragraph.
(D) Exemption.--No applicant for registration
of a pesticide who proposes to purchase a
registered pesticide from another producer in
order to formulate such purchased pesticide
into the pesticide that is the subject of the
application shall be required to--
(i) submit or cite data pertaining to
such purchased product; or
(ii) offer to pay reasonable
compensation otherwise required by
paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection for
the use of any such data.
(E) Minor use waiver.--In handling the
registration of a pesticide for a minor use,
the Administrator may waive otherwise
applicable data requirements if the
Administrator determines that the absence of
such data will not prevent the Administrator
from determining--
(i) the incremental risk presented by
the minor use of the pesticide; and
(ii) that such risk, if any, would
not be an unreasonable adverse effect
on the environment.
(3) Time for acting with respect to Application.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall
review the data after receipt of the
application and shall, as expeditiously as
possible, either register the pesticide in
accordance with paragraph (5), or notify the
applicant of the Administrator's determination
that it does not comply with the provisions of
the Act in accordance with paragraph (6).
(B) Identical or substantially similar.--(i)
The Administrator shall, as expeditiously as
possible, review and act on any application
received by the Administrator that--
(I) proposes the initial or amended
registration of an end-use pesticide
that, if registered as proposed, would
be identical or substantially similar
in composition and labeling to a
currently-registered pesticide
identified in the application, or that
would differ in composition and
labeling from such currently-registered
pesticide only in ways that would not
significantly increase the risk of
unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment; or
(II) proposes an amendment to the
registration of a registered pesticide
that does not require scientific review
of data.
(ii) In expediting the review of an
application for an action described in clause
(i), the Administrator shall--
(I) review the application in
accordance with section 33(f)(4)(B)
and, if the application is found to be
incomplete, reject the application;
(II) not later than the applicable
decision review time established
pursuant to section 33(f)(4)(B), or, if
no review time is established, not
later than 90 days after receiving a
complete application, notify the
registrant if the application has been
granted or denied; and
(III) if the application is denied,
notify the registrant in writing of the
specific reasons for the denial of the
application.
(C) Minor use registration.--
(i) The Administrator shall, as
expeditiously as possible, review and
act on any complete application--
(I) that proposes the initial
registration of a new pesticide
active ingredient if the active
ingredient is proposed to be
registered solely for minor
uses, or proposes a
registration amendment solely
for minor uses to an existing
registration; or
(II) for a registration or a
registration amendment that
proposes significant minor
uses.
(ii) For the purposes of clause (i)--
(I) the term ``as
expeditiously as possible''
means that the Administrator
shall, to the greatest extent
practicable, complete a review
and evaluation of all data,
submitted with a complete
application, within 12 months
after the submission of the
complete application, and the
failure of the Administrator to
complete such a review and
evaluation under clause (i)
shall not be subject to
judicial review; and
(II) the term ``significant
minor uses'' means 3 or more
minor uses proposed for every
nonminor use, a minor use that
would, in the judgment of the
Administrator, serve as a
replacement for any use which
has been canceled in the 5
years preceding the receipt of
the application, or a minor use
that in the opinion of the
Administrator would avoid the
reissuance of an emergency
exemption under section 18 for
that minor use.
(D) Adequate time for submission of minor use
data.--If a registrant makes a request for a
minor use waiver, regarding data required by
the Administrator, pursuant to paragraph
(2)(E), and if the Administrator denies in
whole or in part such data waiver request, the
registrant shall have a full-time period for
providing such data. For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term ``full-time period''
means the time period originally established by
the Administrator for submission of such data,
beginning with the date of receipt by the
registrant of the Administrator's notice of
denial.
(4) Notice of application.--The Administrator shall
publish in the Federal Register, promptly after receipt
of the statement and other data required pursuant to
paragraphs (1) and (2), a notice of each application
for registration of any pesticide if it contains any
new active ingredient or if it would entail a changed
use pattern. The notice shall provide for a period of
30 days in which any Federal agency or any other
interested person may comment.
(5) Approval of registration.--The Administrator
shall register a pesticide if the Administrator
determines that, when considered with any restrictions
imposed under subsection (d)--
(A) its composition is such as to warrant the
proposed claims for it;
(B) its labeling and other material required
to be submitted comply with the requirements of
this Act;
(C) it will perform its intended function
without unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment; and
(D) when used in accordance with widespread
and commonly recognized practice it will not
generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment.
The Administrator shall not make any lack of
essentiality a criterion for denying registration of
any pesticide. Where two pesticides meet the
requirements of this paragraph, one should not be
registered in preference to the other. In considering
an application for the registration of a pesticide, the
Administrator may waive data requirements pertaining to
efficacy, in which event the Administrator may register
the pesticide without determining that the pesticide's
composition is such as to warrant proposed claims of
efficacy. If a pesticide is found to be efficacious by
any State under section 24(c) of this Act, a
presumption is established that the Administrator shall
waive data requirements pertaining to efficacy for use
of the pesticide in such State.
(6) Denial of registration.--If the Administrator
determines that the requirements of paragraph (5) for
registration are not satisfied, the Administrator shall
notify the applicant for registration of the
Administrator's determination and of the
Administrator's reasons (including the factual basis)
therefor, and that, unless the applicant corrects the
conditions and notifies the Administrator thereof
during the 30-day period beginning with the day after
the date on which the applicant receives the notice,
the Administrator may refuse to register the pesticide.
Whenever the Administrator refuses to register a
pesticide, the Administrator shall notify the applicant
of the Administrator's decision and of the
Administrator's reasons (including the factual basis)
therefor. The Administrator shall promptly publish in
the Federal Register notice of such denial of
registration and the reasons therefor. Upon such
notification, the applicant for registration or other
interested person with the concurrence of the applicant
shall have the same remedies as provided for in section
6.
(7) Registration under special circumstances.--
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (5)--
(A) The Administrator may conditionally
register or amend the registration of a
pesticide if the Administrator determines that
(i) the pesticide and proposed use are
identical or substantially similar to any
currently registered pesticide and use thereof,
or differ only in ways that would not
significantly increase the risk of unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment, and (ii)
approving the registration or amendment in the
manner proposed by the applicant would not
significantly increase the risk of any
unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
An applicant seeking conditional registration
or amended registration under this subparagraph
shall submit such data as would be required to
obtain registration of a similar pesticide
under paragraph (5). If the applicant is unable
to submit an item of data because it has not
yet been generated, the Administrator may
register or amend the registration of the
pesticide under such conditions as will require
the submission of such data not later than the
time such data are required to be submitted
with respect to similar pesticides already
registered under this Act.
(B) The Administrator may conditionally amend
the registration of a pesticide to permit
additional uses of such pesticide
notwithstanding that data concerning the
pesticide may be insufficient to support an
unconditional amendment, if the Administrator
determines that (i) the applicant has submitted
satisfactory data pertaining to the proposed
additional use, and (ii) amending the
registration in the manner proposed by the
applicant would not significantly increase the
risk of any unreasonable adverse effect on the
environment. Notwithstanding the foregoing
provisions of this subparagraph, no
registration of a pesticide may be amended to
permit an additional use of such pesticide if
the Administrator has issued a notice stating
that such pesticide, or any ingredient thereof,
meets or exceeds risk criteria associated in
whole or in part with human dietary exposure
enumerated in regulations issued under this
Act, and during the pendency of any risk-
benefit evaluation initiated by such notice, if
(I) the additional use of such pesticide
involves a major food or feed crop, or (II) the
additional use of such pesticide involves a
minor food or feed crop and the Administrator
determines, with the concurrence of the
Secretary of Agriculture, there is available an
effective alternative pesticide that does not
meet or exceed such risk criteria. An applicant
seeking amended registration under this
subparagraph shall submit such data as would be
required to obtain registration of a similar
pesticide under paragraph (5). If the applicant
is unable to submit an item of data (other than
data pertaining to the proposed additional use)
because it has not yet been generated, the
Administrator may amend the registration under
such conditions as will require the submission
of such data not later than the time such data
are required to be submitted with respect to
similar pesticides already registered under
this Act.
(C) The Administrator may conditionally
register a pesticide containing an active
ingredient not contained in any currently
registered pesticide for a period reasonably
sufficient for the generation and submission of
required data (which are lacking because a
period reasonably sufficient for generation of
the data has not elapsed since the
Administrator first imposed the data
requirement) on the condition that by the end
of such period the Administrator receives such
data and the data do not meet or exceed risk
criteria enumerated in regulations issued under
this Act, and on such other conditions as the
Administrator may prescribe. A conditional
registration under this subparagraph shall be
granted only if the Administrator determines
that use of the pesticide during such period
will not cause any unreasonable adverse effect
on the environment, and that use of the
pesticide is in the public interest.
(8) Interim administrative review.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Act, the Administrator may
not initiate a public interim administrative review
process to develop a risk-benefit evaluation of the
ingredients of a pesticide or any of its uses prior to
initiating a formal action to cancel, suspend, or deny
registration of such pesticide, required under this
Act, unless such interim administrative process is
based on a validated test or other significant evidence
raising prudent concerns of unreasonable adverse risk
to man or to the environment. Notice of the definition
of the terms ``validated test'' and ``other significant
evidence'' as used herein shall be published by the
Administrator in the Federal Register.
(9) Labeling.--
(A) Additional statements.--Subject to
subparagraphs (B) and (C), it shall not be a
violation of this Act for a registrant to
modify the labeling of an antimicrobial
pesticide product to include relevant
information on product efficacy, product
composition, container composition or design,
or other characteristics that do not relate to
any pesticidal claim or pesticidal activity.
(B) Requirements.--Proposed labeling
information under subparagraph (A) shall not be
false or misleading, shall not conflict with or
detract from any statement required by law or
the Administrator as a condition of
registration, and shall be substantiated on the
request of the Administrator.
(C) Notification and disapproval.--
(i) Notification.--A registration may
be modified under subparagraph (A) if
--
(I) the registrant notifies
the Administrator in writing
not later than 60 days prior to
distribution or sale of a
product bearing the modified
labeling; and
(II) the Administrator does
not disapprove of the
modification under clause (ii).
(ii) Disapproval.--Not later than 30
days after receipt of a notification
under clause (i), the Administrator may
disapprove the modification by sending
the registrant notification in writing
stating that the proposed language is
not acceptable and stating the reasons
why the Administrator finds the
proposed modification unacceptable.
(iii) Restriction on sale.--A
registrant may not sell or distribute a
product bearing a disapproved
modification.
(iv) Objection.--A registrant may
file an objection in writing to a
disapproval under clause (ii) not later
than 30 days after receipt of
notification of the disapproval.
(v) Final action.--A decision by the
Administrator following receipt and
consideration of an objection filed
under clause (iv) shall be considered a
final agency action.
(D) Use dilution.--The label or labeling
required under this Act for an antimicrobial
pesticide that is or may be diluted for use may
have a different statement of caution or
protective measures for use of the recommended
diluted solution of the pesticide than for use
of a concentrate of the pesticide if the
Administrator determines that --
(i) adequate data have been submitted
to support the statement proposed for
the diluted solution uses; and
(ii) the label or labeling provides
adequate protection for exposure to the
diluted solution of the pesticide.
(10) Expedited registration of pesticides.--
(A) Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator
shall, utilizing public comment, develop
procedures and guidelines, and expedite the
review of an application for registration of a
pesticide or an amendment to a registration
that satisfies such guidelines.
(B) Any application for registration or an
amendment, including biological and
conventional pesticides, will be considered for
expedited review under this paragraph. An
application for registration or an amendment
shall qualify for expedited review if use of
the pesticide proposed by the application may
reasonably be expected to accomplish 1 or more
of the following:
(i) Reduce the risks of pesticides to
human health.
(ii) Reduce the risks of pesticides
to nontarget organisms.
(iii) Reduce the potential for
contamination of groundwater, surface
water, or other valued environmental
resources.
(iv) Broaden the adoption of
integrated pest management strategies,
or make such strategies more available
or more effective.
(C) The Administrator, not later than 30 days
after receipt of an application for expedited
review, shall notify the applicant whether the
application is complete. If it is found to be
incomplete, the Administrator may either reject
the request for expedited review or ask the
applicant for additional information to satisfy
the guidelines developed under subparagraph
(A).
(d) Classification of Pesticides.--
(1) Classification for general use, restricted use,
or both.--
(A) As a part of the registration of a
pesticide the Administrator shall classify it
as being for general use or for restricted use.
If the Administrator determines that some of
the uses for which the pesticide is registered
should be for general use and that other uses
for which it is registered should be for
restricted use, the Administrator shall
classify it for both general use and restricted
use. Pesticide uses may be classified by
regulation on the initial classification and
registered pesticides may be classified prior
to reregistration. If some of the uses of the
pesticide are classified for general use and
other uses are classified for restricted use,
the directions relating to its general uses
shall be clearly separated and distinguished
from those directions relating to its
restricted uses. The Administrator may require
that its packaging and labeling for restricted
uses shall be clearly distinguishable from its
packaging and labeling for general uses.
(B) If the Administrator determines that the
pesticide, when applied in accordance with its
directions for use, warnings and cautions and
for the uses for which it is registered, or for
one or more of such uses, or in accordance with
a widespread and commonly recognized practice,
will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment, the Administrator
will classify the pesticide, or the particular
use or uses of the pesticide to which the
determination applies, for general use.
(C) If the Administrator determines that the
pesticide, when applied in accordance with its
directions for use, warnings and cautions and
for the uses for which it is registered, or for
one or more of such uses, or in accordance with
a widespread and commonly recognized practice,
may generally cause, without additional
regulatory restrictions, unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment, including injury to
the applicator, the Administrator shall
classify the pesticide, or the particular use
or uses to which the determination applies, for
restricted use:
(i) If the Administrator classifies a
pesticide, or one or more uses of such
pesticide, for restricted use because
of a determination that the acute
dermal or inhalation toxicity of the
pesticide presents a hazard to the
applicator or other persons, the
pesticide shall be applied for any use
to which the restricted classification
applies only by or under the direct
supervision of a certified applicator.
(ii) If the Administrator classifies
a pesticide, or one or more uses of
such pesticide, for restricted use
because of a determination that its use
without additional regulatory
restriction may cause unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment, the
pesticide shall be applied for any use
to which the determination applies only
by or under the direct supervision of a
certified applicator, or subject to
such other restrictions as the
Administrator may provide by
regulation. Any such regulation shall
be reviewable in the appropriate court
of appeals upon petition of a person
adversely affected filed within 60 days
of the publication of the regulation in
final form.
(2) Change in classification.--If the Administrator
determines that a change in the classification of any
use of a pesticide from general use to restricted use
is necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment, the Administrator shall notify the
registrant of such pesticide of such determination at
least forty-five days before making the change and
shall publish the proposed change in the Federal
Register. The registrant, or other interested person
with the concurrence of the registrant, may seek relief
from such determination under section 6(b).
(3) Change in classification from restricted use to
general use.--The registrant of any pesticide with one
or more uses classified for restricted use may petition
the Administrator to change any such classification
from restricted to general use. Such petition shall set
out the basis for the registrant's position that
restricted use classification is unnecessary because
classification of the pesticide for general use would
not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment. The Administrator, within sixty days after
receiving such petition, shall notify the registrant
whether the petition has been granted or denied. Any
denial shall contain an explanation therefor and any
such denial shall be subject to judicial review under
section 16 of this Act.
(e) Products With Same Formulation and Claims.--Products
which have the same formulation, are manufactured by the same
person, the labeling of which contains the same claims, and the
labels of which bear a designation identifying the product as
the same pesticide may be registered as a single pesticide; and
additional names and labels shall be added to the registration
by supplemental statements.
(f) Miscellaneous.--
(1) Effect of change of labeling or formulation.--If
the labeling or formulation for a pesticide is changed,
the registration shall be amended to reflect such
change if the Administrator determines that the change
will not violate any provision of this Act.
(2) Registration not a defense.--In no event shall
registration of an article be construed as a defense
for the commission of any offense under this Act. As
long as no cancellation proceedings are in effect
registration of a pesticide shall be prima facie
evidence that the pesticide, its labeling and packaging
comply with the registration provisions of the Act.
(3) Authority to consult other federal agencies.--In
connection with consideration of any registration or
application for registration under this section, the
Administrator may consult with any other Federal
agency.
(4) Mixtures of nitrogen stabilizers and fertilizer
products.--Any mixture or other combination of--
(A) 1 or more nitrogen stabilizers registered
under this Act; and
(B) 1 or more fertilizer products,
shall not be subject to the provisions of this section
or sections 4, 5, 7, 15, and 17(a)(2) if the mixture or
other combination is accompanied by the labeling
required under this Act for the nitrogen stabilizer
contained in the mixture or other combination, the
mixture or combination is mixed or combined in
accordance with such labeling, and the mixture or
combination does not contain any active ingredient
other than the nitrogen stabilizer.
(5) Use of authorized pesticides.--Except as provided
in section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, the Administrator or a State may not
require a permit under such Act for a discharge from a
point source into navigable waters of a pesticide
authorized for sale, distribution, or use under this
Act, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from
the application of such pesticide.
(g) Registration Review.--
(1)(A) General rule.--
(i) In general.--The registrations of
pesticides are to be periodically reviewed.
(ii) Regulations.--In accordance with this
subparagraph, the Administrator shall by
regulation establish a procedure for
accomplishing the periodic review of
registrations.
(iii) Initial registration review.--The
Administrator shall complete the registration
review of each pesticide or pesticide case,
which may be composed of 1 or more active
ingredients and the products associated with
the active ingredients, not later than the
later of--
(I) October 1, 2022; or
(II) the date that is 15 years after
the date on which the first pesticide
containing a new active ingredient is
registered.
(iv) Subsequent registration review.--Not
later than 15 years after the date on which the
initial registration review is completed under
clause (iii) and each 15 years thereafter, the
Administrator shall complete a subsequent
registration review for each pesticide or
pesticide case.
(v) Cancellation.--No registration shall be
canceled as a result of the registration review
process unless the Administrator follows the
procedures and substantive requirements of
section 6.
(B) Docketing.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii),
after meeting with 1 or more individuals that
are not government employees to discuss matters
relating to a registration review, the
Administrator shall place in the docket minutes
of the meeting, a list of attendees, and any
documents exchanged at the meeting, not later
than the earlier of--
(I) the date that is 45 days after
the meeting; or
(II) the date of issuance of the
registration review decision.
(ii) Protected information.--The
Administrator shall identify, but not include
in the docket, any confidential business
information the disclosure of which is
prohibited by section 10.
(C) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall
prohibit the Administrator from undertaking any other
review of a pesticide pursuant to this Act.
(2)(A) Data.--The Administrator shall use the
authority in subsection (c)(2)(B) to require the
submission of data when such data are necessary for a
registration review.
(B) Data submission, compensation, and exemption.--
For purposes of this subsection, the provisions of
subsections (c)(1), (c)(2)(B), and (c)(2)(D) shall be
utilized for and be applicable to any data required for
registration review.
(h) Registration Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides.--
(1) Evaluation of process.--To the maximum extent
practicable consistent with the degrees of risk
presented by an antimicrobial pesticide and the type of
review appropriate to evaluate the risks, the
Administrator shall identify and evaluate reforms to
the antimicrobial registration process that would
reduce review periods existing as of the date of
enactment of this subsection for antimicrobial
pesticide product registration applications and
applications for amended registration of antimicrobial
pesticide products, including--
(A) new antimicrobial active ingredients;
(B) new antimicrobial end-use products;
(C) substantially similar or identical
antimicrobial pesticides; and
(D) amendments to antimicrobial pesticide
registrations.
(2) Review time period reduction goal.--Each reform
identified under paragraph (1) shall be designed to
achieve the goal of reducing the review period
following submission of a complete application,
consistent with the degree of risk, to a period of not
more than--
(A) 540 days for a new antimicrobial active
ingredient pesticide registration;
(B) 270 days for a new antimicrobial use of a
registered active ingredient;
(C) 120 days for any other new antimicrobial
product;
(D) 90 days for a substantially similar or
identical antimicrobial product;
(E) 90 days for an amendment to an
antimicrobial registration that does not
require scientific review of data; and
(F) 120 days for an amendment to an
antimicrobial registration that requires
scientific review of data and that is not
otherwise described in this paragraph.
(3) Implementation.--
(A) Proposed rulemaking.--
(i) Issuance.--Not later than 270
days after the date of enactment of
this subsection, the Administrator
shall publish in the Federal Register
proposed regulations to accelerate and
improve the review of antimicrobial
pesticide products designed to
implement, to the extent practicable,
the goals set forth in paragraph (2).
(ii) Requirements.--Proposed
regulations issued under clause (i)
shall--
(I) define the various
classes of antimicrobial use
patterns, including household,
industrial, and institutional
disinfectants and sanitizing
pesticides, preservatives,
water treatment, and pulp and
paper mill additives, and other
such products intended to
disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or
mitigate growth or development
of microbiological organisms,
or protect inanimate objects,
industrial processes or
systems, surfaces, water, or
other chemical substances from
contamination, fouling, or
deterioration caused by
bacteria, viruses, fungi,
protozoa, algae, or slime;
(II) differentiate the types
of review undertaken for
antimicrobial pesticides;
(III) conform the degree and
type of review to the risks and
benefits presented by
antimicrobial pesticides and
the function of review under
this Act, considering the use
patterns of the product,
toxicity, expected exposure,
and product type;
(IV) ensure that the
registration process is
sufficient to maintain
antimicrobial pesticide
efficacy and that antimicrobial
pesticide products continue to
meet product performance
standards and effectiveness
levels for each type of label
claim made; and
(V) implement effective and
reliable deadlines for process
management.
(iii) Comments.--In developing the
proposed regulations, the Administrator
shall solicit the views from
registrants and other affected parties
to maximize the effectiveness of the
rule development process.
(B) Final regulations.--
(i) Issuance.--The Administrator
shall issue final regulations not later
than 240 days after the close of the
comment period for the proposed
regulations.
(ii) Failure to meet goal.--If a goal
described in paragraph (2) is not met
by the final regulations, the
Administrator shall identify the goal,
explain why the goal was not attained,
describe the element of the regulations
included instead, and identify future
steps to attain the goal.
(iii) Requirements.--In issuing final
regulations, the Administrator shall--
(I) consider the
establishment of a
certification process for
regulatory actions involving
risks that can be responsibly
managed, consistent with the
degree of risk, in the most
cost-efficient manner;
(II) consider the
establishment of a
certification process by
approved laboratories as an
adjunct to the review process;
(III) use all appropriate and
cost-effective review
mechanisms, including--
(aa) expanded use of
notification and non-
notification
procedures;
(bb) revised
procedures for
application review; and
(cc) allocation of
appropriate resources
to ensure streamlined
management of
antimicrobial pesticide
registrations; and
(IV) clarify criteria for
determination of the
completeness of an application.
(C) Expedited review.--This subsection does
not affect the requirements or extend the
deadlines or review periods contained in
subsection (c)(3).
(D) Alternative review periods.--If the final
regulations to carry out this paragraph are not
effective 630 days after the date of enactment
of this subsection, until the final regulations
become effective, the review period, beginning
on the date of receipt by the Agency of a
complete application, shall be--
(i) 2 years for a new antimicrobial
active ingredient pesticide
registration;
(ii) 1 year for a new antimicrobial
use of a registered active ingredient;
(iii) 180 days for any other new
antimicrobial product;
(iv) 90 days for a substantially
similar or identical antimicrobial
product;
(v) 90 days for an amendment to an
antimicrobial registration that does
not require scientific review of data;
and
(vi) 120 days for an amendment to an
antimicrobial registration that
requires scientific review of data and
that is not otherwise described in this
subparagraph.
(E) Wood preservatives.--An application for
the registration, or for an amendment to the
registration, of a wood preservative product
for which a claim of pesticidal activity listed
in section 2(mm) is made (regardless of any
other pesticidal claim that is made with
respect to the product) shall be reviewed by
the Administrator within the same period as
that established under this paragraph for an
antimicrobial pesticide product application,
consistent with the degree of risk posed by the
use of the wood preservative product, if the
application requires the applicant to satisfy
the same data requirements as are required to
support an application for a wood preservative
product that is an antimicrobial pesticide.
(F) Notification.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause
(iii), the Administrator shall notify
an applicant whether an application has
been granted or denied not later than
the final day of the appropriate review
period under this paragraph, unless the
applicant and the Administrator agree
to a later date.
(ii) Final decision.--If the
Administrator fails to notify an
applicant within the period of time
required under clause (i), the failure
shall be considered an agency action
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably
delayed for purposes of judicial review
under chapter 7 of title 5, United
States Code.
(iii) Exemption.--This subparagraph
does not apply to an application for an
antimicrobial pesticide that is filed
under subsection (c)(3)(B) prior to 90
days after the date of enactment of
this subsection
(iv) Limitation.--Notwithstanding
clause (ii), the failure of the
Administrator to notify an applicant
for an amendment to a registration for
an antimicrobial pesticide shall not be
judicially reviewable in a Federal or
State court if the amendment requires
scientific review of data within--
(I) the time period specified
in subparagraph (D)(vi), in the
absence of a final regulation
under subparagraph (B); or
(II) the time period
specified in paragraph (2)(F),
if adopted in a final
regulation under subparagraph
(B).
(4) Annual report.--
(A) Submission.--Beginning on the date of
enactment of this subsection and ending on the
date that the goals under paragraph (2) are
achieved, the Administrator shall, not later
than March 1 of each year, prepare and submit
an annual report to the Committee on
Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate.
(B) Requirements.--A report submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall include a description
of--
(i) measures taken to reduce the
backlog of pending registration
applications;
(ii) progress toward achieving
reforms under this subsection; and
(iii) recommendations to improve the
activities of the Agency pertaining to
antimicrobial registrations.
* * * * * * *
----------
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES
* * * * * * *
national pollutant discharge elimination system
Sec. 402. (a)(1) Except as provided in sections 318 and 404
of this Act, the Administrator may, after opportunity for
public hearing, issue a permit for the discharge of any
pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding
section 301(a), upon condition that such discharge will meet
either (A) all applicable requirements under sections 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, and 403 of this Act, or (B) prior to the taking
of necessary implementing actions relating to all such
requirements, such conditions as the Administrator determines
are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) The Administrator shall prescribe conditions for such
permits to assure compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(1) of this subsection, including conditions on data and
information collection, reporting, and such other requirements
as he deems appropriate.
(3) The permit program of the Administrator under paragraph
(1) of this subsection, and permits issued thereunder, shall be
subject to the same terms, conditions, and requirements as
apply to a State permit program and permits issued thereunder
under subsection (b) of this section.
(4) All permits for discharges into the navigable waters
issued pursuant to section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899,
shall be deemed to be permits issued under this title, and
permits issued under this title shall be deemed to be permits
issued under section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, and shall
continue in force and effect for their term unless revoked,
modified, or suspended in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.
(5) No permit for a discharge into the navigable waters shall
be issued under section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, after
the date of enactment of this title. Each application for a
permit under section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, pending on
the date of enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be an
application for a permit under this section. The Administrator
shall authorize a State, which he determines has the capability
of administering a permit program which will carry out the
objective of this Act, to issue permits for discharges into the
navigable waters within the jurisdiction of such State. The
Administrator may exercise the authority granted him by the
preceding sentence only during the period which begins on the
date of enactment of this Act and ends either on the ninetieth
day after the date of the first promulgation of guidelines
required by section 304(i)(2) of this Act, or the date of
approval by the Administrator of a permit program for such
State under subsection (b) of this section, whichever date
first occurs, and no such authorization to a State shall extend
beyond the last day of such period. Each such permit shall be
subject to such conditions as the Administrator determines are
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. No such
permit shall issue if the Administrator objects to such
issuance.
(b) At any time after the promulgation of the guidelines
required by subsection (i)(2) of section 304 of this Act, the
Governor of each State desiring to administer its own permit
program for discharges into navigable waters within its
jurisdiction may submit to the Administrator a full and
complete description of the program it proposes to establish
and administer under State law or under an interstate compact.
In addition, such State shall submit a statement from the
attorney general (or the attorney for those State water
pollution control agencies which have independent legal
counsel), or from the chief legal officer in the case of an
interstate agency, that the laws of such State, or the
interstate compact, as the case may be, provide adequate
authority to carry out the described program. The Administrator
shall approve each such submitted program unless he determines
that adequate authority does not exist:
(1) To issue permits which--
(A) apply, and insure compliance with, any applicable
requirements of sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403;
(B) are for fixed terms not exceeding five years; and
(C) can be terminated or modified for cause
including, but not limited to, the following:
(i) violation of any condition of the permit;
(ii) obtaining a permit by misrepresentation,
or failure to disclose fully all relevant
facts;
(iii) change in any condition that requires
either a temporary or permanent reduction or
elimination of the permitted discharge;
(D) control the disposal of pollutants into wells;
(2)(A) To issue permits which apply, and insure compliance
with, all applicable requirements of section 308 of this Act,
or
(B) To inspect, monitor, enter, and require reports to at
least the same extent as required in section 308 of this Act;
(3) To insure that the public, and any other State the waters
of which may be affected, receive notice of each application
for a permit and to provide an opportunity for public hearing
before a ruling on each such application;
(4) To insure that the Administrator receives notice of each
application (including a copy thereof) for a permit;
(5) To insure that any State (other than the permitting
State), whose waters may be affected by the issuance of a
permit may submit written recommendations to the permitting
State (and the Administrator) with respect to any permit
application and, if any part of such written recommendations
are not accepted by the permitting State, that the permitting
State will notify such affected State (and the Administrator)
in writing of its failure to so accept such recommendations
together with its reasons for so doing;
(6) To insure that no permit will be issued if, in the
judgment of the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief
of Engineers, after consultation with the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating, anchorage and
navigation of any of the navigable waters would be
substantially impaired thereby;
(7) To abate violations of the permit or the permit program,
including civil and criminal penalties and other ways and means
of enforcement;
(8) To insure that any permit for a discharge from a publicly
owned treatment works includes conditions to require the
identification in terms of character and volume of pollutants
of any significant source introducing pollutants subject to
pretreatment standards under section 307(b) of this Act into
such works and a program to assure compliance with such
pretreatment standards by each such source, in addition to
adequate notice to the permitting agency of (A) new
introductions into such works of pollutants from any source
which would be a new source as defined in section 306 if such
source were discharging pollutants, (B) new introductions of
pollutants into such works from a source which would be subject
to section 301 if it were discharging such pollutants, or (C) a
substantial change in volume or character of pollutants being
introduced into such works by a source introducing pollutants
into such works at the time of issuance of the permit. Such
notice shall include information on the quality and quantity of
effluent to be introduced into such treatment works and any
anticipated impact of such change in the quantity or quality of
effluent to be discharged from such publicly owned treatment
works; and
(9) To insure that any industrial user of any publicly owned
treatment works will comply with sections 204(b), 307, and 308.
(c)(1) Not later than ninety days after the date on which a
State has submitted a program (or revision thereof) pursuant to
subsection (b) of this section, the Administrator shall suspend
the issuance of permits under subsection (a) of this section as
to those discharges subject to such program unless he
determines that the State permit program does not meet the
requirements of subsection (b) of this section or does not
conform to the guidelines issued under section 304(i)(2) of
this Act. If the Administrator so determines, he shall notify
the State of any revisions or modifications necessary to
conform to such requirements or guidelines.
(2) Any State permit program under this section shall at all
times be in accordance with this section and guidelines
promulgated pursuant to section 304(i)(2) of this Act.
(3) Whenever the Administrator determines after public
hearing that a State is not administering a program approved
under this section in accordance with requirements of this
section, he shall so notify the State and, if appropriate
corrective action is not taken within a reasonable time, not to
exceed ninety days, the Administrator shall withdraw approval
of such program. The Administrator shall not withdraw approval
of any such program unless he shall first have notified the
State, and made public, in writing, the reasons for such
withdrawal.
(4) Limitations on partial permit program returns and
withdrawals.--A State may return to the Administrator
administration, and the Administrator may withdraw
under paragraph (3) of this subsection approval, of--
(A) a State partial permit program approved
under subsection (n)(3) only if the entire
permit program being administered by the State
department or agency at the time is returned or
withdrawn; and
(B) a State partial permit program approved
under subsection (n)(4) only if an entire
phased component of the permit program being
administered by the State at the time is
returned or withdrawn.
(d)(1) Each State shall transmit to the Administrator a copy
of each permit application received by such State and provide
notice to the Administrator of every action related to the
consideration of such permit application, including each permit
proposed to be issued by such State.
(2) No permit shall issue (A) if the Administrator within
ninety days of the date of his notification under subsection
(b)(5) of this section objects in writing to the issuance of
such permit, or (B) if the Administrator within ninety days of
the date of transmittal of the proposed permit by the State
objects in writing to the issuance of such permit as being
outside the guidelines and requirements of this Act. Whenever
the Administrator objects to the issuance of a permit under
this paragraph such written objection shall contain a statement
of the reasons for such objection and the effluent limitations
and conditions which such permit would include if it were
issued by the Administrator.
(3) The Administrator may, as to any permit application,
waive paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(4) In any case where, after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, the Administrator, pursuant to paragraph (2) of this
subsection, objects to the issuance of a permit, on request of
the State, a public hearing shall be held by the Administrator
on such objection. If the State does not resubmit such permit
revised to meet such objection within 30 days after completion
of the hearing, or, if no hearing is requested within 90 days
after the date of such objection, the Administrator may issue
the permit pursuant to subsection (a) of this section for such
source in accordance with the guidelines and requirements of
this Act.
(e) In accordance with guidelines promulgated pursuant to
subsection (i)(2) of section 304 of this Act, the Administrator
is authorized to waive the requirements of subsection (d) of
this section at the time he approves a program pursuant to
subsection (b) of this section for any category (including any
class, type, or size within such category) of point sources
within the State submitting such program.
(f) The Administrator shall promulgate regulations
establishing categories of point sources which he determines
shall not be subject to the requirements of subsection (d) of
this section in any State with a program approved pursuant to
subsection (b) of this section. The Administrator may
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within any category
of point sources.
(g) Any permit issued under this section for the discharge of
pollutants into the navigable waters from a vessel or other
floating craft shall be subject to any applicable regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of the Department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, establishing specifications for safe
transportation, handling, carriage, storage, and stowage of
pollutants.
(h) In the event any condition of a permit for discharges
from a treatment works (as defined in section 212 of this Act)
which is publicly owned is violated, a State with a program
approved under subsection (b) of this section or the
Administrator, where no State program is approved or where the
Administrator determines pursuant to section 309(a) of this Act
that a State with an approved program has not commenced
appropriate enforcement action with respect to such permit, may
proceed in a court of competent jurisdiction to restrict or
prohibit the introduction of any pollutant into such treatment
works by a source not utilizing such treatment works prior to
the finding that such condition was violated.
(i) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the
authority of the Administrator to take action pursuant to
section 309 of this Act.
(j) A copy of each permit application and each permit issued
under this section shall be available to the public. Such
permit application or permit, or portion thereof, shall further
be available on request for the purpose of reproduction.
(k) Compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this section
shall be deemed compliance, for purposes of sections 309 and
505, with sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403, except any
standard imposed under section 307 for a toxic pollutant
injurious to human health. Until December 31, 1974, in any case
where a permit for discharge has been applied for pursuant to
this section, but final administrative disposition of such
application has not been made, such discharge shall not be a
violation of (1) section 301, 306, or 402 of this Act, or (2)
section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, unless the
Administrator or other plaintiff proves that final
administrative disposition of such application has not been
made because of the failure of the applicant to furnish
information reasonably required or requested in order to
process the application. For the 180-day period beginning on
the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, in the case of any point source
discharging any pollutant or combination of pollutants
immediately prior to such date of enactment which source is not
subject to section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, the
discharge by such source shall not be a violation of this Act
if such a source applies for a permit for discharge pursuant to
this section within such 180-day period.
(l) Limitation on Permit Requirement.--
(1) Agricultural return flows.--The Administrator
shall not require a permit under this section for
discharges composed entirely of return flows from
irrigated agriculture, nor shall the Administrator
directly or indirectly, require any State to require
such a permit.
(2) Stormwater runoff from oil, gas, and mining
operations.--The Administrator shall not require a
permit under this section, nor shall the Administrator
directly or indirectly require any State to require a
permit, for discharges of stormwater runoff from mining
operations or oil and gas exploration, production,
processing, or treatment operations or transmission
facilities, composed entirely of flows which are from
conveyances or systems of conveyances (including but
not limited to pipes, conduits, ditches, and channels)
used for collecting and conveying precipitation runoff
and which are not contaminated by contact with, or do
not come into contact with, any overburden, raw
material, intermediate products, finished product,
byproduct, or waste products located on the site of
such operations.
(3) Silvicultural activities.--
(A) NPDES permit requirements for
silvicultural activities.--The Administrator
shall not require a permit under this section
nor directly or indirectly require any State to
require a permit under this section for a
discharge from runoff resulting from the
conduct of the following silviculture
activities conducted in accordance with
standard industry practice: nursery operations,
site preparation, reforestation and subsequent
cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed
burning, pest and fire control, harvesting
operations, surface drainage, or road
construction and maintenance.
(B) Other requirements.--Nothing in this
paragraph exempts a discharge from
silvicultural activity from any permitting
requirement under section 404, existing
permitting requirements under section 402, or
from any other federal law.
(C) The authorization provided in Section
505(a) does not apply to any non-permitting
program established under 402(p)(6) for the
silviculture activities listed in 402(l)(3)(A),
or to any other limitations that might be
deemed to apply to the silviculture activities
listed in 402(l)(3)(A).
(m) Additional Pretreatment of Conventional Pollutants Not
Required.--To the extent a treatment works (as defined in
section 212 of this Act) which is publicly owned is not meeting
the requirements of a permit issued under this section for such
treatment works as a result of inadequate design or operation
of such treatment works, the Administrator, in issuing a permit
under this section, shall not require pretreatment by a person
introducing conventional pollutants identified pursuant to a
section 304(a)(4) of this Act into such treatment works other
than pretreatment required to assure compliance with
pretreatment standards under subsection (b)(8) of this section
and section 307(b)(1) of this Act. Nothing in this subsection
shall affect the Administrator's authority under sections 307
and 309 of this Act, affect State and local authority under
sections 307(b)(4) and 510 of this Act, relieve such treatment
works of its obligations to meet requirements established under
this Act, or otherwise preclude such works from pursuing
whatever feasible options are available to meet its
responsibility to comply with its permit under this section.
(n) Partial Permit Program.--
(1) State submission.--The Governor of a State may
submit under subsection (b) of this section a permit
program for a portion of the discharges into the
navigable waters in such State.
(2) Minimum coverage.--A partial permit program under
this subsection shall cover, at a minimum,
administration of a major category of the discharges
into the navigable waters of the State or a major
component of the permit program required by subsection
(b).
(3) Approval of major category partial permit
programs.--The Administrator may approve a partial
permit program covering administration of a major
category of discharges under this subsection if--
(A) such program represents a complete permit
program and covers all of the discharges under
the jurisdiction of a department or agency of
the State; and
(B) the Administrator determines that the
partial program represents a significant and
identifiable part of the State program required
by subsection (b).
(4) Approval of major component partial permit
programs.--The Administrator may approve under this
subsection a partial and phased permit program covering
administration of a major component (including
discharge categories) of a State permit program
required by subsection (b) if--
(A) the Administrator determines that the
partial program represents a significant and
identifiable part of the State program required
by subsection (b); and
(B) the State submits, and the Administrator
approves, a plan for the State to assume
administration by phases of the remainder of
the State program required by subsection (b) by
a specified date not more than 5 years after
submission of the partial program under this
subsection and agrees to make all reasonable
efforts to assume such administration by such
date.
(o) Anti-Backsliding.--
(1) General prohibition.--In the case of effluent
limitations established on the basis of subsection
(a)(1)(B) of this section, a permit may not be renewed,
reissued, or modified on the basis of effluent
guidelines promulgated under section 304(b) subsequent
to the original issuance of such permit, to contain
effluent limitations which are less stringent than the
comparable effluent limitations in the previous permit.
In the case of effluent limitations established on the
basis of section 301(b)(1)(C) or section 303(d) or (e),
a permit may not be renewed, reissued, or modified to
contain effluent limitations which are less stringent
than the comparable effluent limitations in the
previous permit except in compliance with section
303(d)(4).
(2) Exceptions.--A permit with respect to which
paragraph (1) applies may be renewed, reissued, or
modified to contain a less stringent effluent
limitation applicable to a pollutant if--
(A) material and substantial alterations or
additions to the permitted facility occurred
after permit issuance which justify the
application of a less stringent effluent
limitation;
(B)(i) information is available which was not
available at the time of permit issuance (other
than revised regulations, guidance, or test
methods) and which would have justified the
application of a less stringent effluent
limitation at the time of permit issuance; or
(ii) the Administrator determines that
technical mistakes or mistaken interpretations
of law were made in issuing the permit under
subsection (a)(1)(B);
(C) a less stringent effluent limitation is
necessary because of events over which the
permittee has no control and for which there is
no reasonably available remedy;
(D) the permittee has received a permit
modification under section 301(c), 301(g),
301(h), 301(i), 301(k), 301(n), or 316(a); or
(E) the permittee has installed the treatment
facilities required to meet the effluent
limitations in the previous permit and has
properly operated and maintained the facilities
but has nevertheless been unable to achieve the
previous effluent limitations, in which case
the limitations in the reviewed, reissued, or
modified permit may reflect the level of
pollutant control actually achieved (but shall
not be less stringent than required by effluent
guidelines in effect at the time of permit
renewal, reissuance, or modification).
Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any revised waste
load allocations or any alternative grounds for
translating water quality standards into effluent
limitations, except where the cumulative effect of such
revised allocations results in a decrease in the amount
of pollutants discharged into the concerned waters, and
such revised allocations are not the result of a
discharger eliminating or substantially reducing its
discharge of pollutants due to complying with the
requirements of this Act or for reasons otherwise
unrelated to water quality.
(3) Limitations.--In no event may a permit with
respect to which paragraph (1) applies be renewed,
reissued, or modified to contain an effluent limitation
which is less stringent than required by effluent
guidelines in effect at the time the permit is renewed,
reissued, or modified. In no event may such a permit to
discharge into waters be renewed, reissued, or modified
to contain a less stringent effluent limitation if the
implementation of such limitation would result in a
violation of a water quality standard under section 303
applicable to such waters.
(p) Municipal and Industrial Stormwater Discharges.--
(1) General rule.--Prior to October 1, 1994, the
Administrator or the State (in the case of a permit
program approved under section 402 of this Act) shall
not require a permit under this section for discharges
composed entirely of stormwater.
(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with
respect to the following stormwater discharges:
(A) A discharge with respect to which a
permit has been issued under this section
before the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
(B) A discharge associated with industrial
activity.
(C) A discharge from a municipal separate
storm sewer system serving a population of
250,000 or more.
(D) A discharge from a municipal separate
storm sewer system serving a population of
100,000 or more but less than 250,000.
(E) A discharge for which the Administrator
or the State, as the case may be, determines
that the stormwater discharge contributes to a
violation of a water quality standard or is a
significant contributor of pollutants to waters
of the United States.
(3) Permit requirements.--
(A) Industrial discharges.--Permits for
discharges associated with industrial activity
shall meet all applicable provisions of this
section and section 301.
(B) Municipal discharge.--Permits for
discharges from municipal storm sewers--
(i) may be issued on a system- or
jurisdiction-wide basis;
(ii) shall include a requirement to
effectively prohibit non-stormwater
discharges into the storm sewers; and
(iii) shall require controls to
reduce the discharge of pollutants to
the maximum extent practicable,
including management practices, control
techniques and system, design and
engineering methods, and such other
provisions as the Administrator or the
State determines appropriate for the
control of such pollutants.
(4) Permit application requirements.--
(A) Industrial and large municipal
discharges.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this subsection, the
Administrator shall establish regulations
setting forth the permit application
requirements for stormwater discharges
described in paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C).
Applications for permits for such discharges
shall be filed no later than 3 years after such
date of enactment. Not later than 4 years after
such date of enactment the Administrator or the
State, as the case may be, shall issue or deny
each such permit. Any such permit shall provide
for compliance as expeditiously as practicable,
but in no event later than 3 years after the
date of issuance of such permit.
(B) Other municipal discharges.--Not later
than 4 years after the date of the enactment of
this subsection, the Administrator shall
establish regulations setting forth the permit
application requirements for stormwater
discharges described in paragraph (2)(D).
Applications for permits for such discharges
shall be filed no later than 5 years after such
date of enactment. Not later than 6 years after
such date of enactment, the Administrator or
the State, as the case may be, shall issue or
deny each such permit. Any such permit shall
provide for compliance as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than 3 years
after the date of issuance of such permit.
(5) Studies.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the States, shall conduct a study for the purposes of--
(A) identifying those stormwater discharges
or classes of stormwater discharges for which
permits are not required pursuant to paragraphs
(1) and (2) of this subsection;
(B) determining, to the maximum extent
practicable, the nature and extent of
pollutants in such discharges; and
(C) establishing procedures and methods to
control stormwater discharges to the extent
necessary to mitigate impacts on water quality.
Not later than October 1, 1988, the Administrator shall
submit to Congress a report on the results of the study
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B). Not later than
October 1, 1989, the Administrator shall submit to
Congress a report on the results of the study described
in subparagraph (C).
(6) Regulations.--Not later than October 1, 1993, the
Administrator, in consultation with State and local
officials, shall issue regulations (based on the
results of the studies conducted under paragraph (5))
which designate stormwater discharges, other than those
discharges described in paragraph (2), to be regulated
to protect water quality and shall establish a
comprehensive program to regulate such designated
sources. The program shall, at a minimum, (A) establish
priorities, (B) establish requirements for State
stormwater management programs, and (C) establish
expeditious deadlines. The program may include
performance standards, guidelines, guidance, and
management practices and treatment requirements, as
appropriate.
(q) Combined Sewer Overflows.--
(1) Requirement for permits, orders, and decrees.--
Each permit, order, or decree issued pursuant to this
Act after the date of enactment of this subsection for
a discharge from a municipal combined storm and
sanitary sewer shall conform to the Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Policy signed by the Administrator on
April 11, 1994 (in this subsection referred to as the
``CSO control policy'').
(2) Water quality and designated use review
guidance.--Not later than July 31, 2001, and after
providing notice and opportunity for public comment,
the Administrator shall issue guidance to facilitate
the conduct of water quality and designated use reviews
for municipal combined sewer overflow receiving waters.
(3) Report.--Not later than September 1, 2001, the
Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report on
the progress made by the Environmental Protection
Agency, States, and municipalities in implementing and
enforcing the CSO control policy.
(r) Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of
Recreational Vessels.--No permit shall be required under this
Act by the Administrator (or a State, in the case of a permit
program approved under subsection (b)) for the discharge of any
graywater, bilge water, cooling water, weather deck runoff, oil
water separator effluent, or effluent from properly functioning
marine engines, or any other discharge that is incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel, if the discharge is from a
recreational vessel.
(s) Discharges of Pesticides.--
(1) No permit requirement.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the
Administrator or a State under this Act for a discharge
from a point source into navigable waters of a
pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, or the residue of such a pesticide,
resulting from the application of such pesticide.
(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the
following discharges of a pesticide or pesticide
residue:
(A) A discharge resulting from the
application of a pesticide in violation of a
provision of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that is relevant
to protecting water quality, if--
(i) the discharge would not have
occurred but for the violation; or
(ii) the amount of pesticide or
pesticide residue in the discharge is
greater than would have occurred
without the violation.
(B) Stormwater discharges subject to
regulation under subsection (p).
(C) The following discharges subject to
regulation under this section:
(i) Manufacturing or industrial
effluent.
(ii) Treatment works effluent.
(iii) Discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel, including
a discharge resulting from ballasting
operations or vessel biofouling
prevention.
* * * * * * *
[all]
