Pesticide Regulation

GCSAA believes that all pesticide uses should be under the legal primacy of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). GCSAA supports the goals of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). GCSAA supports the use of real data and sound scientific methodology to assess pesticides for risk. GCSAA and its members have and will continue to provide accurate and usable data to the regulatory and scientific communities for use in Registration Review implementation decisions. The continued availability of safe, effective and economically viable pesticide products is a top priority for GCSAA and its members.

GCSAA supports uniformity in pesticide packaging by reaffirming that EPA is the primary federal authority under FIFRA for making pesticide findings and decisions. GCSAA recommends that the federal legislation or the Farm Bill reinforce and strengthen federal preemption regarding human health and other risk assessments under FIFRA on federal pesticide packaging. As co-regulators of pesticides, states have every right to build on the federal government’s baseline regulations but should not require additional packaging requirements that directly contradict the scientific conclusions of the EPA.

GCSAA supports a long-term reauthorization by Congress of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) to create a more predictable and timely pesticide registration and registration review evaluation process of active ingredients used on golf courses. GCSAA supports EPA collecting PRIA fees to register new and innovative pest control products in a timely manner.

GCSAA supports standalone legislation pending in Congress that would remove the NPDES Clean Water Act permit and restore FIFRA supremacy.

The 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) fundamentally changed the way EPA regulates pesticides. FQPA mandated a single, health-based standard for all pesticides in all foods; provided special protection for infants and children; expedited approval of safer pesticides; and required periodic re-evaluation of pesticide registrations and tolerances to ensure that the scientific data supporting pesticide registrations will remain up to date in the future. Under FQPA, EPA was required to reevaluate, within 10 years, all food tolerances that were in place as of August 1996. The agency completed over 99% of the required tolerance reassessments on Aug. 3, 2006. This review resulted in changes to how golf course chemicals are regulated including elimination of certain uses and changes in labeling for others. In August 2006, EPA issued a final rule, which implemented a new Registration Review process. Starting in 2007, every pesticide active ingredient must be reviewed at least once every 15 years. The review of organophosphates began in 2008, and the review of the carbamates class started in 2009.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 established a new system for registering pesticides, called the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, or PRIA. Under PRIA, the pesticide industry pays over $40 million in pesticide registration and maintenance fees, which supplement federal appropriations, to provide timely resources for EPA’s registration and registration review efforts. About 1 of every 4 dollars available to the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs is derived from PRIA fees.

National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA was a court case in which the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2009 that the EPA's 2006 Aquatics Pesticides rule was not a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The court vacated the rule and required CWA permits for all chemical and biological pesticide applications that leave a residue in water. Effective Oct. 31, 2011, pesticide applications made in, over or near a “water of the U.S.” or WOTUS require a CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Prior to this, the federal government had not required a NPDES permit for chemical spraying activities for control of such pests as mosquitoes, algae and invasive aquatic weeds. Congress omitted pesticides in 1972 when it enacted the CWA, and despite major rewrites since, never looked beyond FIFRA for the regulation of pesticides. Unnecessary permitting places an economic burden on golf facilities, and states may spend significant resources in implementing and enforcing a permit that most regulators believe does little if anything to further protect water quality. Citizen action lawsuits can disrupt operations and jeopardize businesses. Future expansion of the permit is of concern.