On Feb. 14, in the House of Representatives, Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) introduced H.R. 1029, the Pesticide Registration Enhancement Act of 2017, which reauthorizes the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA).
H.R. 1029 was immediately referred to the Agriculture Committee and to the Energy and Commerce Committee; it was passed by the Agriculture Committee on Feb. 16. Per Agriculture Committee chair Michael Conaway’s opening statement at the business meeting markup of H.R. 1029, changes to PRIA include “reasonable increases in registration fees, funding for Good Laboratory Practices, and a seven-year reauthorization as opposed to the five-year reauthorizations of the past.”
H.R. 1029 would allow the EPA to collect up to $31 million in registration fees (up from $27.8 million) per year from fiscal years 2017 through 2023. It also includes the following registration increases for 2017 through 2023:
- The maximum annual fee for registrants holding 50 pesticide registrations or less would be $129,400 (up from $115,500);
- The maximum annual fee for registrants holding over 50 pesticide registrations would be $207,000 (up from $184,800);
- The maximum annual fee payable for a small business registrant holding 50 pesticide registrations or less would be $79,100 (up from $70,600); and
- The maximum annual fee payable for a small business registrant holding over 50 pesticide registrations would be $136,800 (up from $122,100).
PRIA represents a commitment by the pesticide registrants to help with the continued resource issues of the pesticide regulatory program. Fees are seldom a popular topic but are an essential program component. Without staff and resources to approve pesticide registrations, registrants would be left with new products destined to pile up in EPA inboxes. PRIA is designed to help maintain some certainty and predictability to the review process.
Of some note is that in recent years Congress has appropriated funds at a level below the statutory minimum that originally was a line in the sand which, if breeched, would de-authorize EPA’s authority to charge application fees. The regulated community has reluctantly supported congressional action to lower this “minimum” level of funding to hold onto the programmatic progress which has been made since the first PRIA authorization. This appears to be an uneasy acceptance of the budget realities surrounding federal spending on discretionary, non-defense expenditures.
Source: National Law Review