	Introduction

The collection of fees to support U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide program activities in the implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. §136-136y) and related requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA; 21 U.S.C. Enacted October 9, 2007, P.L. EPA reported the completion of 1,574 registration decisions subject to PRIA during FY2012, compared with 1,544 decisions during FY2011. EPA was also required to reevaluate older, registered pesticides (i.e., reregistration) and to reassess existing tolerances (i.e., tolerance reassessment) to ensure they meet current safety standards. Under the standards introduced by the 1996 amendments to FIFRA and FFDCA (the Food Quality Protection Act, or FQPA; P.L. 104-170 ), Congress, concerned with the continued pace of reregistration, extended EPA's authority to collect the annual maintenance fees through FY2001. These proposals were not adopted by Congress for those fiscal years, and at times, prohibited. Instead the FY2013 request acknowledged the need for reauthorization of the current fees at increased levels to cover a greater portion of relevant program operating costs. 100-532 ). 110-94 ) and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA 1; P.L. PRIA 3 also added authority for the EPA Administrator to provide a percentage reduction of maintenance fees for certain small business entities, and added new provisions for the enhancement of pesticide decision information tracking systems and for conducting preliminary screening of the content of a registration applications. (The phased out schedule applies only to registration fees not maintenance fees); continued the authority for use of funds in the Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund to include use for "registration review" as stipulated initially under PRIA 2; pesticide registrations are to be reviewed every 15 years, as established under PRIA 2; continued to require EPA to identify reforms to the pesticide registration process to substantially reduce the decision review periods, and to provide annual reports summarizing activities and process improvements; and added a new requirement for EPA to provide a report analyzing the impact of maintenance fees on small businesses to the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee in Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry by October 1, 2016. EPA has initiated this process, and expects to complete product reregistration for conventional pesticides in 2014.

				Review of Inert Ingredients and Expedited Processing of "Similar/Like" Product Applications52

PRIA 3 extended the authority to collect maintenance fees so as to explicitly designate the use of a portion between 1/9 th and 1/8 th (1/8 th and 1/7 th through FY2012 in PRIA 2) of the annual aggregate maintenance fees collected for each fiscal year FY2013 through FY2017 for
the review and evaluation of inert ingredients, the expedited processing of proposed initial or amended registration of an end-use pesticide product that is "similar" or identical to existing registered products, proposed label amendments that require no scientific review of data, and proposed registrations of public health pesticide uses. 112-177 amends FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 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 (see more detailed discussion below under " A Historical Overview of Pesticide Fee Authorities "). FIFRA and FFDCA Pesticide Fee Collection Authority

Authority for the collection of pesticide fees dates back as far as the 1954 amendments to FFDCA. The 1988 amendments to FIFRA ( P.L. P.L. The President's FY2013 budget request submitted to Congress February 13, 2012, did not include any proposed additional pesticide fees but rather indicated that legislative language would be proposed to reauthorize and increase existing maintenance and registration service fees to cover a greater portion of EPA's program operating costs. EPA reported expending $13.4 million of the $20.3 million total revenues available during the FY2012, which included $4.7 million carried forward from FY2011. The initial 1988 authorization ( P.L. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2012 (PRIA 3; P.L. 112-177 ), enacted September 28, 2012, reauthorized and revised fee provisions under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2; P.L. 108-199 ), enacted January 23, 2004.
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, which was 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.