So, the products we are talking about are not these new, sophisticated chemicals, but disinfectants which have been used for many, many years and of which we have a long history. But, now, they must be registered, and, as you know, as a practical proposition, you cannot register them. Now, new products todaythe slightest change in an existing product, the mere changing of a color to accommodate a local distributor, would require a new registration, and this is impossible in our particular industry, because it is small. Senator LEAHY. Is this because RPAR, rebuttal presumption against registration? Mr. GRIFFIN. I think it is just that they have a backlog of something like 50,000, and you put it at the end of this 50,000 and you are looking for something that is going to take place, hopefully, 15 years from now. As I understand it, it is just a sheer backlog of work. And all of these are proven and tried products, and they have never had any adverse experience with these. Senator LUGAR. The gist of your testimony is that you believe you could find what is generally regarded as a safe list. And you are saying, in essence, that the EPA has not adopted this, because their counsel is not sure whether they can. Mr. GRIFFIN. We believe that EPA has the existing power to put these on a generally regarded as safe list. Senator LUGAR. There are some things just on the face of it, like pine oil, we can take without exception is going to be safe? Mr. GRIFFIN. And, perhaps, because of their reluctance to do this, their interpretation-and we suggested, perhaps, that this committee should remind them of the fact that they do have the authority and, perhaps, by enabling legislation, make sure that they understand that they have the authority. We would certainly eliminate about 18,000-such pending cases, and that is a whale of a lot of work that they could quickly dispose of. Mr. WHITNEY. If I might make a supplementary comment in response to your question about whether the four ISSA chemicals are on the rebuttable presumption list. Quite to the contrary, these basic four solutions are not on that list, and are, in fact, quite the opposite. There is a long, empirical trackrecord that they are generally regarded as safe. There is extensive data already on file about these well-known commodities, and what we are talking of is something like 18 percent of the existing backlog of the EPA cases that could, with one regulatory adjustment, be cleared out, and thereby, free Agency resources to get on with the much more serious evaluation that is involved in these chemicals that have been put on this list, as a rebuttable presumption against registration. And we suggest the particular method by which that could be done. It is very similar to a process that EPA used for a while, the 2-C process, which became discontinued as a result of falling afoul of these data compensation problems. Senator LEAHY. Do you have any reaction from the EPA to your suggestion, or are they aware of them? Mr. WHITNEY. We have approached them informally, Mr. Chairman, about various aspects of this, but, quite frankly, we have not filed a formal document, either on the guidelines that are pending since June of 1975, nor have we petitioned to institute a special rulemaking proceeding, simply because the Agency is at an impasse and unable to process work. Since these hearings were going on before the Congress, we felt that this was the most expeditious way to come to grips with the problem. We do intend, shortly, to file formal rulemaking comments and proposals for rules, but we thought that this, hopefully, would be an abbreviated way of doing this. Senator LEAHY. We will be raising some of these same questions ourselves when EPA testifies before the subcommittee. Senator LUGAR. I was curious-this is the other question I had: You mentioned that this tie-up of EPA registration had served as sort of a dead hand against innovations. What sort of innovation would be helpful to your industry? In other words, to what degree are you bogged down through the lack of innovation or invention, or is this really a constant problem? Mr. GRIFFIN. It is simply the fact that if you have a new product which may not be a significant change, but yet, it may offer some advantage, it is not going to be registered. So, those people who are presently in the business, the formulators cannot come up with a revised formula, however small, for their product, nor can a new formulator get into the business, so it just ties the hands. Senator LUGAR. Are you bogged down in any way in servicing customers who maintain buildings and so forth through a lack of proper cleansing materials now; are there a number readily available in the market? Mr. GRIFFIN. To be absolutely candid, there is no shortage of those that are on the market, but you are forced to deal with people-the distributors are-who, in the past, they have seen fit not to deal with and sometimes, it shifts the business within the marketplace away from individuals who cannot get resources. So, it is favoring the larger ones who were in before the gates were closed, to the exclusion of any of the others. Mr. WHITNEY. One specific example that is responsive, I think, to your question is: Frequently, the personnel who are involved in institutional work-janitors, and so forth-have literacy problems. And certain people, in improving their systems, want to have certain chemicals that are one color and others another color, so that there will not be mistaken applications; such as instead of putting floor wax on, you put a stripper on. And, so, color coding is an important efficiency factor. Yet, to change the color of an already-registered product necessitates a new registration. Senator LEAHY. Even though you use a totally inert substance to change the color. Mr. WHITNEY. Exactly. That is one example; there are others. Senator LUGAR. I would guess there is a greater criticism if someone, in superinnovation, concocts a whole new chemical arrangement, as opposed to just simply trying to color-code something as it always was to bring about better communication with janitors or cleaning people. Mr. WHITNEY. Yes. It also constricts, of course, market innovations. A lot of these formulators, distributors, want to have a unique product for competitive marketing reasons, and that, also, is not available. But, no, there is no question of a new chemical substance involved. The four basic chemicals that we are addressing are enumerated in this testimony. Senator LUGAR. Thank you. Senator LEAHY. Thank you all very much. We will recess these hearings until 8 a.m. tomorrow morning; at which time, we will try to get through what we have there. [Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene Thursday, June 9, 1977, at 8 a.m., in room 322, Russell Senate Office Building.] EXTENSION OF THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1977 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND GENERAL LEGISLATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8 a.m., in room 322, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Leahy, Lugar, and Allen. STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT Senator LEAHY. The meeting of the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation will come to order. Preparing what I would hope would be our normal time this morning, the Senate will be going into session a little later this morning on the Clean Air Acts, and I suspect that most of us will want to be on the floor. So, we will go through as expeditiously as possible. We have before us this morning Hon. Douglas M. Costle, who is the new Administrator of the EPA. Mr. Costle has a statement which, at least in reading it, appears to follow somewhat along the lines of the statement presented in the House. His prepared statement will be included in the record.* I also understand Mr. Costle has some additional comments that he would like to make in relation to the testimony here yesterday. I would ask, first, that he go ahead and make those additional statements. Then, I will have a number of questions. I will be particularly concerned about the areas where you agree with the testimony of the people yesterday, and I will be also, of course, quite interested in those areas where you take a different position. I know that Senator Allen, who has spent a great deal of time on this subject prior to the time I was in the Senate, will also have a number of questions. You may begin, Mr. Costle. If you would just give us the additional comments that you had beyond your prepared statement. *See p. 141 for the prepared statement of Mr. Costle. |