tration stopped. This the Justice Department should be concerned about.

We discussed briefly the trade secret question, 3(c) (1) (D). I won't touch on that except to bring forth what we consider to be a compromise, and that is the use of detailed summary. This we believe would resolve the issue between all these parties. There is precedent for it. The medical device legislation in 1976. It was passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives. It went into law. And it basically presents a fair balance between the public's right to know and trade secret protection.

We have one other area of concern which we have never touched on before in our testimony. It is more prevalent today than any other time and it has to do with outside contractors. Provision is required to afford trade secret protection covering outside contractors who handle sensitive data as well as the agency staff itself.

Independent contractors are not bound by existing language in FIFRA. The FDA considered this a major problem and incorporated it via regulations under its medical device legislation.

All of which I just enumerated is spelled out in detail in our statement and we have included the specific language for revision of FIFRA.

Senator LEAHY. I noticed that. It is helpful to us and those who have testified and have changes they want made that they also include the language of what they would want. With the conflicting languages that we have had some of the witnesses are going to be happy and some are going to be unhappy.

Thank you very much.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. There are three witnesses from out of town and if there is no objection, it would be the Chair's intention to call in this order: Arthur Segal, Kevin Kirk, and Mark Seetin, starting with Mr. Segal, who is the president of LiSuMa Associates, Inc. of Miami.

Mr. Segal's statement will be put in the record.* He has a subject different than anything we have been discussing so far, and that is the question of antifouling paint. Mr. Segal you raised a question saying that : One, a dual standard has been set up; and, two, you question, as I understand your statement, basically why FIFRA is even involved. Is that a fair understanding?

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR B. SEGAL, PRESIDENT, LiSuMa

ASSOCIATES, INC., MIAMI, FLA.

Mr. SEGAL. I can understand why FIFRA is involved in marine paints because there are basically, in the marine industry, about three pesticides that are used to deter animal organisms in the water; that is why FIFRA is involved and why we are regulated by FIFRA.

However, one of these pesticides, which is cuprous oxide, has been used for practically thousands of years for this application. Through Congressman Pepper and the Honorable Congressman Foley, over 1 year ago, after hearing what we had presented to them, we were able

*See p. 192 for the prepared statement of Mr. Segal.

to go back to the EPA, for a rehearing, and the EPA than published guidelines which corrected this situation on May 27th of last year, published in the Federal Register.

Subsequently, the guidelines were withdrawn so that now we are back again in the same situation; where certain large companies, who were grandfathered in by the FDA, or the USDA, or the EPA, before the EPA came into existence, using cuprous oxide. These companies were summarily granted registration.

Now, the EPA finds that all of the toxicology is not present for cuprous oxide although it has been in use for so many years. But the EPA will not register any new products until all of these other grandfathered companies are called in for reregistration, which means that a small company like ours will have to go out and get all of the toxicology for $100,000 or $200,000, which is much more than the total amount of business that we do, or we cannot get registered.

But others can sell the same thing for the same use and use pattern even though our concentrates perhaps are smaller or less harmful than are theirs. The products are the same or similar, but they can sell, we cannot. They can do it and the EPA says we cannot get in until they call the rest of them in for reregistration. When they call the rest of them in for reregistration we are willing to comply with the same terms and conditions that they will have to do and we hope that the industry will get together with cuprous oxide and get all of the toxicology needed not available now.

The Navy is using a tremendous amount of paint without EPA registrations and it is all cuprous oxide. Basically, the Navy started research in 1906 on antifouling conditions and up through World War II all of this information was restricted and classified. The Navy now says their findings and the results of this research before World War II resulted in the United States having the most advanced antifouling paints; that with the exception of radar this was the most important thing in our victory over Japan.

Take a boat that gets clobbered with barnacles and everything else. and there are a lot of boat people around, this restricts the flow of water. This holds the boat back and creates a resistance to the water requiring the use of more energy and fuel. This problem also should be considered in the light of the current energy crisis and fuel saving. The only thing that we are asking is that we be permitted to sell the same type of product that somebody else can sell that there seems to be no argument about. We are here in support of the EPA position that they would like to do this.

But, the unfortunate part is that they did it once and then it was knocked out, and we do not know why it was knocked out.

Senator LEAHY. Senator Lugar.

Senator LUGAR. I have no questions. I think it is a very legitimate request for expedition and justice.

Senator LEAHY. It appears that way to me too.

Mr. SEGAL. We would like to get some relief on it. We did once. We worked and got it once and now we are coming back again.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you.

Mr. SEGAL. I thought you might be interested in the fact that all of a sudden in all this agriculture you got into paint.

Senator LEAHY. When I was going over the statements in preparation for today's hearing I thought for a moment there was a statement out of place.

Mr. SEGAL. I thought so too.

Senator LEAHY. I am sure. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Kevin Kirk, president of Atomic Chemical Corp. in Spokane, Wash. Mr. Kirk's statement will also be placed in the record.*

I would hope that those reading the record may refer to a story about how the sampling was done from a 55-gallon drum and a suggestion I read between the lines that you thought perhaps the sampler was not the most qualified person in the world. I am concerned that laws which are for particular purposes are sometimes made ineffectual by those carrying out the laws because they have not had the training they are supposed to. In addition to which, problems are caused by the law itself. Neither situation helps the reputation of either the Agency nor those administering the law. I might just state for the record that it bothers me very much anytime I hear stories of this nature.

As I said, your statement will be placed in the record. How do you feel about the agreement being worked out within the industry?

STATEMENT OF KEVIN KIRK, PRESIDENT, ATOMIC CHEMICAL CORP., SPOKANE, WASH.

Mr. KIRK. This is, of course, one of my major concerns and I believe a concern of many of the small formulators who are present here in the audience, and I will stress small. Our business started as two people, my father and my mother, some 20 years ago. My father is 67 and I must say that I admire Mr. Segal coming in here and stating his position because I don't think it is an uncommon position among small businesses and it disturbs me greatly that the National Agricultural Chemicals Association would wait until the last minute to present their revised proposals because it has not given the small formulators here a chance to review the proposals.

Senator LEAHY. Let me ask you about that. How much advance warning were you given that they were making proposals; you, as small formulators?

Mr. KIRK. I had no knowledge whatsoever until we came in contact with Mr. Alikonis when I came to Washington. I have been here for approximately 112 weeks working on this and he has been most helpful in providing information as to what the pesticide formulators are doing and trying to accomplish here.

Senator LEAHY. Is that typical of other small formulators?

Mr. KIRK. I think it is very typical. I don't think it is an uncommon happening that we are not-we are not a strong association, as strong as we would like to be, I believe, and it is causing some undue hardship and is just leading to many tremendous abuses that could be rectified providing we had ample notice of proposals that were taking place and a means, such as this, to provide our input.

I have included in my written testimony a statement on behalf of my father and my company. Have you seen this?

*See p. 199 for the prepared statement and additional material supplied by Mr. Kirk.

Senator LEAHY. That was the one

Mr. KIRK. This is different. I did not know that I would be testifying and I drew this up for distribution to people inside the EPA and the Department of Agriculture.

Senator LEAHY. I want to make sure that we have copies because that will be made part of the record.

Mr. KIRK. This, I believe, states our opinion directly to what has been taking place in regard to reregistration and data compensation with EPA. We are running into a situation which I think has been brought up before monopolies and an oligopolistic system that, it is my opinion, could be very easily brought about by not insuring that data is available to these companies to provide and enable them to obtain reregistration.

In the case of our business, and as I have talked with others here and on the House side, they are unable to obtain these reregistrations. This has been causing severe difficulty in the capability of small formulators to perform to the best of their ability. In other words, getting the products which are needed as seasonal demands into the areas of distribution and whether or not they are going to be able to produce these chemicals without having the data available to them. I think Mr. Alikonis has been working quite hard in trying to work with NACA, but I think he has been circumvented in his capabilities to carry that out.

One particular concern to me is carbon tetrachloride, which I am sure many people in this group are familiar with. It is on the rebuttable presumption against registration list in the EPA. It is one of the basic technical ingredients in grain fumigants.

Carbon tetrachloride is probably the single most widely used chemical for use in treating stored grain in the commercial grain storage elevators. There are a few others, but it has been proven and I have a copy of some test data that is being compiled that has brought to light that these other chemicals are building resistances, or the insects are building resistance to these chemicals and it is thought at this point with only 1 percent of the total production of carbon tetrachloride going into the manufacture of grain fumigants that a significant influence by the producing industry is not taking place and it is fearful that the end users will not have a chemical to treat their stored grain.

In a very short period of time these insects multiply at a terrific rate and this grain goes into spoilage and is destroyed and cannot be used for human consumption. I am here today as a member of the Pacific Northwest Grain Dealers and there is a convention in Spokane, 4 days after I return from here. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the committee.

Senator LEAHY. I understand.

Senator Lugar?

Senator LUGAR. I have no questions. I just commend you for your testimony and for taking this initiative to play a part in your own industry and coming forth.

Mr. KIRK. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. I am concerned, and I am sure Senator Lugar is too, about the fact that the small formulators do not have more of a voice in whatever type of compromise agreements, good or bad, are worked

out. You obviously are among the groups that do not have the money and financial backing to carry on a national campaign of your own. Mr. KIRK. This is true.

Senator LEAHY. After having heard the testimony here, if within the next few days there is additional material you want submitted for the record, please feel free to do so.

Mr. KIRK. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to testify.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. We will try to send people who can open a 55-gallon drum.

The next witness will be Mark Seetin who will be here on behalf of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association. His statement will also be part of the record. You may feel free to summarize it for us, Mr. Seetin.*

STATEMENT OF MARK W. SEETIN, MINNESOTA SOYBEAN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, WINNEBAGO, MINN.

Mr. SEETIN. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee for the opportunity to speak today. The first thing I would like to say is we were not aware these hearings were being held until this Monday, so I apologize for the brevity. I am sorry we were unable to get the reports here sooner.

Senator LEAHY. I well understand and I want to emphasize that you should feel free to add further material if you want to.

Mr. SEETIN. We will keep working on it.

Senator LEAHY. Here again, I would say I think the very most we could give 1 week on additional material.

Mr. SEETIN. Thank you.

There are a couple of points that we would like to bring out to the subcommittee's attention. All counties in Iowa right now and 55 of 87 Minnesota counties are experiencing a severe infestation of cutworms in our farm crops. According to Dr. Harry Stockdale, extension entomologist from Iowa State and Dr. John Lofgren from the University of Minnesota, such infestations could have been substantially reduced had certain insecticides, recently banned by EPA, been available to us.

The economic losses that we will suffer this year will be severe amounting to many millions of dollars. However, without adequate means of control, next year's losses could be catastrophic. At a time when the whole Nation is energy conscious, wasted fuel caused by extra tillage and replanting, as well as the greatly reduced yields that we get as a result of the replanting, we can see the need for a better evaluation of the impact of banning these compounds.

I cite an example on my own farm in my written testimony. I do weed control research in cooperation with the University of Minnesota. You can see some of the impact there.

We feel, in the Soybean Growers Association, that through FIFRA, EPA should be required to consider another recently discovered aspect of certain weeds, and that is, the production of toxins by weeds themselves.

*See p. 210 for prepared statement of Mr. Seetin.