Testimony of Jim Gray
Pesticide Registration Coordinator
House Bill 1158
January 17, 2003
9:00 a.m.
House Agriculture Committee
Peace Garden Room

Chairman Nicholas and members of the committee, I am Jim Gray, Pesticide Registration Coordinator with the North Dakota Department of Agriculture. I am here to provide testimony is support of HB 1158, a bill that amends Chapter 19-18 of the North Dakota Century Code (N.D.C.C.). This is mostly a housekeeping bill to clean up language throughout the chapter, some of which was outdated and conflicted with other sections of the Century Code. For brevity, I will not discuss each specific recommended change included in this bill, but I would like to add some general comments.

Section 1 amends several definitions of terms found in N.D.C.C. 19-18-02. These changes are recommended for clarification and to eliminate conflicting language. For instance, the statement found in N.D.C.C. 19-18-02.19(7) states that a pesticide label is "misbranded" unless it contains a registration number assigned by the Agriculture Commissioner as a result of state registration. However, this directly conflicts with N.D.C.C. 19-18-02.19(2), which prohibits any statement on labeling referencing state registration under this chapter.

Section 2 of the bill amends the section of N.D.C.C. 19-18 that describes the process of pesticide registrations, including the registration period and the information required from applicants prior to the Commissioner granting a registration. This amendment will clarify the pesticide registration period. The change would establish a registration period of two years but all registrations expire on December 31st of "every odd number year". This has been the interpretation of the law by our staff for many years, but a recent request from a registrant and discussions with the assistant attorney general assigned to our office suggested that the current law is unclear. Clarification of a two year period for pesticide registration allows the department to maintain a registration process that is more cost effective and time efficient. This allows the department to coordinate registration renewals.

It is most efficient to make this biennial registration period a designated two-year period, beginning in a certain year and expiring at the end of the subsequent year. For instance, our current registrations were renewed on January 1, 2002, meaning that they will expire on December 31, 2003. In a system of designated registration periods, all registrations would expire at the same time, allowing staff to process renewals for all products at one time. This would allow for a more cost effective and simplified process of monitoring pesticide registrations. However, according to the current language in N.D.C.C. 19-18-04, "[E]ach registration covers a two-year period beginning January first and expiring December thirty-first of the following year." An example is, a company could be granted a registration for a new product in the summer of 2001, but that registration would not expire until "December thirty-first of the following year", meaning that it would expire on December 31, 2002. This would put the registration expiration one year out of synch with all the other registrations. The bill language clearly defines a designated registration period, coordinating registration renewals.

Section 3 of the bill clarifies authority for the Commissioner to request the amount of a registered pesticide sold or offered for sale in the state. This information is sometimes useful when it is needed to assess how much of a product is being used in the state. For instance, it is sometimes necessary to place use restrictions on certain pesticides to reduce the risk of adverse effects to endangered species or groundwater. To perform an accurate risk assessment to determine whether use restrictions are needed, it is necessary to quantify pesticide exposure, and exposure is directly linked to use. Under the current language, the Commissioner can request this information from registrants, but there is no penalty for non-compliance, and mandatory timelines for reporting are vague. The suggested changes correct this.

Section 4 of the bill amends N.D.C.C. 19-18-07, the section of the chapter that describes exemptions to pesticide registrations. The most important change to this section is the addition of an exemption to persons distributing, selling, or offering for sale unregistered pesticides allowed under Section 18 exemptions. For background, Section 18 exemptions are unregistered pesticide uses granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address emergency pest problems. North Dakota leads the region in the number of emergency exemptions requested and granted every year, and they are critically important for our growers and ranchers. Some of the pesticides used under these emergency exemptions are not EPA registered products. For example, a Section 18 exemption has been granted in recent years to allow sugarbeet growers to use Eminent® fungicide to control Cercospora. This product is an unregistered pesticide, but the EPA allowed its use due to the severity of the disease problem. Without the Section 18 exemption, sugarbeet growers would have suffered devastating losses. However, unless a change is made to N.D.C.C. 19-18-07, sale or use of unregistered pesticides allowed under Section 18 exemptions would be illegal in North Dakota.

Thank you for your consideration of HB 1158. I would be happy to answer any questions.