Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: An Overview

Robert Esworthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy

The Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2012 (PRIA 3; P.L. 112-177), enacted September 28, 2012, amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to reauthorize and revise, through FY2017, the collection and use of fees to enhance and accelerate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) pesticide licensing (registration) activities. Among other provisions, P.L. 112-177 increases the amounts of certain fees, revises the schedule for fee assessment and review deadlines for reviewing specific registration decisions, modifies provisions for small business reductions of fees, adds provisions for the enhancement of pesticide decision information tracking systems and for initial content preliminary screening activities, and eliminates pre-PRIA reregistration fee (1988) authorities. PRIA 2 (P.L. 110-94), enacted October 9, 2007, and set to expire at the end of FY2012, reauthorized and revised fee collection provisions first established under PRIA 1 (P.L. 108-199), enacted January 23, 2004.

EPA is responsible for regulating the sale, use, and distribution of pesticides under the authority of two statutes. FIFRA (7 U.S.C. §136-136y), a licensing statute, requires EPA to review and register the use of pesticide products. FFDCA (21 U.S.C. §346a) requires the establishment of maximum limits (tolerances) for pesticide residues on food in interstate commerce. EPA was also required to reevaluate older, registered pesticides (i.e., “reregistration” for pesticides registered prior to 1984, and more recently, “registration review”) and to reassess existing tolerances to ensure they meet current safety standards. Although U.S. Treasury revenues cover much of the costs for administering these acts, various fees paid by pesticide manufacturers and other registrants have supplemented EPA appropriations for many years as a means intended to, in part, increase the pace of the agency’s activities under FIFRA and FFDCA.

In March 2013, EPA reported the completion of 1,574 pesticide registration-related decisions subject to PRIA 2 during FY2012, for a total of 12,165 decisions since the enactment of PRIA 1 in 2004. For FY2012, EPA reported expending $13.4 million of the $20.3 million in available revenues (composed of $15.6 million in net receipts of new registration service fees collected in FY2012 and $4.7 million carried forward from FY2011). Expenditures decreased by nearly 7% in FY2012 compared to $14.3 million in FY2011, primarily a result of a 35% reduction in expenditures for contracts.

Authority for collecting pesticide fees dates back to the 1954 FFDCA amendments (P.L. 518; July 22, 1954), which, as passed, required the collection of fees “sufficient to provide adequate service” for establishing maximum residue levels (tolerances) for pesticides on food. Authority to collect fees was expanded with the 1988 FIFRA amendments (P.L. 100-532). The 1996 amendments to FIFRA and FFDCA, or the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA; P.L. 104-170), extended EPA’s authority to collect certain fees through FY2001. Prior to the enactment of PRIA 1 (P.L. 108-199) in 2004, Congress had extended these fee authorities annually through appropriations legislation. Since 1998, Presidents’ budget requests have included proposals to modify existing fee structures to further increase revenues for pesticide activities, but were not adopted in legislation and in some cases specifically prohibited by Congress. The FY2013 President’s budget request, submitted to Congress February 13, 2012, did not include similar proposals for supplemental fees, but instead acknowledged the need for reauthorization of the current fees at increased levels to cover a greater portion of relevant program operating costs.


Date of Report: April 19, 2013
Number of Pages: 41
Order Number: RL32218
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL32218.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Air Quality Issues in Natural Gas Systems: In Brief

Richard K. Lattanzio
Analyst in Environmental Policy

Natural Gas Systems and Air Pollution 

Congressional interest in U.S. energy policy has focused in part on ways through which the United States could secure more economical and reliable fossil fuel resources both domestically and internationally. Recent expansion in natural gas production, primarily as a result of new or improved technologies (e.g., hydraulic fracturing, directional drilling) used on unconventional resources (e.g., shale, tight sands, and coal-bed methane), has made natural gas an increasingly significant component in the U.S. energy supply. This expansion, however, has prompted renewed questions about the potential impacts of natural gas systems on human health and the environment, including impacts on air quality. Unlike the debate over groundwater contamination or induced seismicity—where questions exist as to whether or not production activities contribute significantly to these impacts—there is little question that natural gas systems emit air pollutants. The concerns, instead, are the following:

• Which pollutants? 
• How much of each pollutant? 
• From which sources? 
• What are the impacts of the emissions? 
• How much is the cost of abatement? 
• What are the respective roles of federal, state, and local governments? 

Air pollutants are released by natural gas systems through the leaking, venting, and combustion of natural gas; the combustion of other fossil fuel resources; and the discharge of particulate matter during associated operations. Emission sources include pad, road, and pipeline construction; well drilling, completion, and flowback activities; and gas processing and transmission equipment such as controllers, compressors, dehydrators, pipes, and storage vessels. Pollutants include, most prominently, methane and volatile organic compounds—of which the natural gas industry is one of the highest-emitting industrial sectors in the United States—as well as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and various forms of hazardous air pollutants. 

EPA’s 2012 Air Standards 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to a consent decree issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, promulgated air standards for several source categories in the crude oil and natural gas sector on August 16, 2012. These standards—effective October 15, 2012—revised existing rules and promulgated new ones to regulate emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide, and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from many production and processing activities that had never before been covered by federal oversight. The standards control air pollution, in part, through the capture of fugitive releases of natural gas. Thus, compliance with the standards has the potential to translate into economic benefits, as producers may be able to offset abatement costs with the value of product recovered and sold. Using this assumption, EPA estimated the annual benefits of the standards to be VOC reductions of 190,000 tons, HAP reductions of 12,000 tons, methane reductions of 1.0 million tons, and a net cost savings of $11 million to $19 million after the sale of recovered product. Industry and other stakeholders have disputed these figures as both too high and too low. Moreover, the expansion of
both industry production and government regulation of natural gas has sparked discussion on a number of outstanding issues, including the following:

• defining the roles of local, state, and federal governments, 
• determining the proper coverage of pollutants and sources, 
• establishing comprehensive emissions data, 
• understanding the human health and environmental impacts of emissions, and 
• estimating the costs of pollution abatement. 

Scope and Purpose of This Report 

This report serves as a brief summary of the information provided in CRS Report R42833, Air Quality Issues in Natural Gas Systems. The report is structured similarly, providing information on the natural gas industry and the types and sources of air pollutants in the sector. It then examines the role of the federal government in regulating these emissions, including the provisions in the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the regulatory activities of EPA. It concludes with a brief discussion of the aforementioned outstanding issues. For more detail, reference information, and further citations, refer to CRS Report R42833.

Date of Report: April 16, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R42986
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42986.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Air Quality Issues in Natural Gas Systems

Richard K. Lattanzio
Analyst in Environmental Policy

Natural Gas Systems and Air Pollution 

Congressional interest in U.S. energy policy has focused in part on ways through which the United States could secure more economical and reliable fossil fuel resources both domestically and internationally. Recent expansion in natural gas production, primarily as a result of new or improved technologies (e.g., hydraulic fracturing, directional drilling) used on unconventional resources (e.g., shale, tight sands, and coal-bed methane), has made natural gas an increasingly significant component in the U.S. energy supply. This expansion, however, has prompted renewed questions about the potential impacts of natural gas systems on human health and the environment, including impacts on air quality. Unlike the debate over groundwater contamination or induced seismicity—where questions exist as to whether or not production activities contribute significantly to these impacts—there is little question that natural gas systems emit air pollutants. The concerns, instead, are the following:

• Which pollutants? 
• How much of each pollutant? 
• From which sources? 
• What are the impacts of the emissions? 
• How much is the cost of abatement? 
• What are the respective roles of federal, state, and local governments? 

Air pollutants are released by natural gas systems through the leaking, venting, and combustion of natural gas; the combustion of other fossil fuel resources; and the discharge of particulate matter during associated operations. Emission sources include pad, road, and pipeline construction; well drilling, completion, and flowback activities; and gas processing and transmission equipment such as controllers, compressors, dehydrators, pipes, and storage vessels. Pollutants include, most prominently, methane and volatile organic compounds—of which the natural gas industry is one of the highest-emitting industrial sectors in the United States—as well as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and various forms of hazardous air pollutants. 

EPA’s 2012 Air Standards 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to a consent decree issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, promulgated air standards for several source categories in the crude oil and natural gas sector on August 16, 2012. These standards—effective October 15, 2012—revised existing rules and promulgated new ones to regulate emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide, and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from many production and processing activities that had never before been covered by federal oversight. The standards control air pollution, in part, through the capture of fugitive releases of natural gas. Thus, compliance with the standards has the potential to translate into economic benefits, as producers may be able to offset abatement costs with the value of product recovered and sold. Using this assumption, EPA estimated the annual benefits of the standards to be VOC reductions of 190,000 tons, HAP reductions of 12,000 tons, methane reductions of 1.0 million tons, and a net cost savings of $11 million to $19 million after the sale of recovered product. Industry and other stakeholders have disputed these figures as both too high and too low. Moreover, the expansion of both industry production and government regulation of natural gas has sparked discussion on a number of outstanding issues, including the following:

• defining the roles of local, state, and federal governments, 
• determining the proper coverage of pollutants and sources, 
• establishing comprehensive emissions data, 
• understanding the human health and environmental impacts of emissions, and 
• estimating the costs of pollution abatement. 

Scope and Purpose of This Report 

The report begins by briefly outlining the production, processing, transmission, and distribution phases of the natural gas industry, then characterizes the types and sources of pollutants in the sector. It then turns to the role of the federal government in regulating these emissions, including the provisions in the Clean Air Act and the regulatory activities of the EPA. It concludes with an extended discussion of the aforementioned outstanding issues. For an abbreviated version of this report, see CRS Report R42986, Air Quality Issues in Natural Gas Systems: In Brief.

Date of Report: April 16, 2013
Number of Pages: 77
Order Number: R42833
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42833.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

International Climate Change Financing: The Green Climate Fund (GCF)

Richard K. Lattanzio
Analyst in Environmental Policy

Over the past several decades, the United States has delivered financial and technical assistance for climate change activities in the developing world through a variety of bilateral and multilateral programs. The United States and other industrialized countries committed to such assistance through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, Treaty Number: 102-38, 1992), the Copenhagen Accord (2009), and the UNFCCC Cancun Agreements (2010), wherein the higher-income countries pledged jointly up to $30 billion of “fast start” climate financing for lower-income countries for the period 2010-2012, and a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020. The Cancun Agreements also proposed that the pledged funds are to be new, additional to previous flows, adequate, predictable, and sustained, and are to come from a wide variety of sources, both public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.

One potential mechanism for mobilizing a share of the proposed international climate financing is the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund (GCF), proposed in the Cancun Agreements and accepted by Parties during the December 2011 conference in Durban, South Africa. The fund aims to assist developing countries in their efforts to combat climate change through the provision of grants and other concessional financing for mitigation and adaptation projects, programs, policies, and activities. The GCF is to be capitalized by contributions from donor countries and other sources, including both innovative mechanisms and the private sector. Currently, the GCF complements many of the existing multilateral climate change funds (e.g., the Global Environment Facility, the Climate Investment Funds, and the Adaptation Fund); however, as the official financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, some Parties believe that it may eventually replace or subsume the other funds. While many Parties expect capitalization and operation of the GCF to begin shortly after the November 2013 conference in Warsaw, Poland, many issues remain to be clarified, and some involve long-standing and contentious debate. They include what role the CGF would play in providing sustained finance at scale, how it would fit into the existing development assistance and climate financing architecture, how it would be capitalized, and how it would allocate and deliver assistance efficiently and effectively to developing countries.

The U.S. Congress—through its role in authorizations, appropriations, and oversight—would have significant input on U.S. participation in the GCF. Congress regularly determines and gives guidance to the allocation of foreign aid between bilateral and multilateral assistance as well as among the variety of multilateral mechanisms. In the past, Congress has raised concerns regarding the cost, purpose, direction, efficiency, and effectiveness of the UNFCCC and existing international institutions of climate financing. Potential authorizations and appropriations for the GCF would rest with several committees, including the U.S. House of Representatives Committees on Foreign Affairs (various subcommittees); Financial Services (Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade); and Appropriations (Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs); and the U.S. Senate Committees on Foreign Relations (Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection); and Appropriations (Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs). As of April 2013, the U.S. Administration—through its State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 150 account—has made no specific budget request for appropriated funds to be contributed to the GCF.


Date of Report: April 16, 2013
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: R41889
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41889.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Clean Air Issues in the 113th Congress: An Overview

James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy

Oversight of EPA regulatory actions is expected to be the main focus of interest as the 113th Congress considers air quality issues.

Air quality has improved substantially in the United States in the 40 years of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Act regulation. According to the agency’s science advisers and others, however, more needs to be done to protect public health and the environment from the effects of air pollution. Thus, the agency continues to promulgate regulations using authority given it by Congress in amendments to the Clean Air Act more than 20 years ago. Members of Congress from both parties have raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of some of these regulations and/or whether the agency has exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating them. Others in Congress have supported EPA, noting that the Clean Air Act, often affirmed in court decisions, has authorized or required the agency’s actions.

EPA’s regulatory actions on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been one focus of congressional interest. Although the Obama Administration has consistently said that it would prefer that Congress pass new legislation to address climate change, such legislation now appears unlikely. Instead, over the last four years, EPA has developed GHG emission standards using its existing Clean Air Act authority. Relying on a finding that GHGs endanger public health and welfare, the agency promulgated GHG emission standards for cars and light trucks on May 7, 2010, and again on October 15, 2012, and for larger trucks on September 15, 2011. The implementation of these standards, in turn, triggered permitting and Best Available Control Technology requirements for new major stationary sources of GHGs (power plants, manufacturing facilities, etc.).

It is the triggering of standards for stationary sources that has raised the most concern in Congress: legislation has been considered in both the House and Senate aimed at preventing EPA from implementing these requirements. The House passed several of these bills in the 112th Congress, but none of them passed the Senate.

Besides addressing climate change, EPA has taken action on a number of other air pollution regulations, generally in response to court actions remanding previous rules. Remanded rules included the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule—rules designed to control the long-range transport of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from power plants through cap-and-trade programs. Other remanded rules include hazardous air pollutant standards for boilers and cement kilns (standards referred to as “MACT” standards). EPA has addressed the court remands through new regulations, but many in Congress view these regulations as overly stringent. In the 112th Congress, the House passed four bills (H.R. 2250, H.R. 2401, H.R. 2681, and H.R. 3409) to delay or revoke the new standards and change the statutory requirements for their replacements. None of these passed the Senate, however. EPA also recently proposed a controversial rule to lower the sulfur content of gasoline, in conjunction with tighter (“Tier3”) standards for motor vehicle emissions.

In addition to these rules, EPA is also reviewing ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and other widespread air pollutants. These standards serve as EPA’s definition of clean air, and drive a range of regulatory controls. The revised NAAQS and EPA’s review process have also faced opposition in Congress. As passed by the House in the 112th Congress, H.R. 2401 and H.R. 3409 would have amended the Clean Air Act to require EPA to consider feasibility and cost in


Date of Report: April 10, 2013
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R42895
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42895.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.