Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
This bill amends Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to require closer coordination between the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of Agriculture (through the Office of Pest Management Policy) on pesticide registration, registration review, and related actions. It requires the Administrator to develop required risk mitigation measures in coordination with USDA and to conduct and publish an economic analysis of the costs to growers, State lead agencies, and other affected entities.
Weight given to economic impacts vs. primacy of EPA’s public-health and environmental mandates — liberals emphasize protective standards, conservatives emphasize cost/feasibility.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted administrative/operational amendment to FIFRA that prescribes specific coordination duties, docket publication requirements, and economic-analysis obligations while integrating explicitly with existing statutory frameworks (FFDCA and ESA).
This bill amends Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to require closer coordination between the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of Agriculture (through the Office of Pest Management Policy) on pesticide registration, registration review, and related actions.
It requires the Administrator to develop required risk mitigation measures in coordination with USDA and to conduct and publish an economic analysis of the costs to growers, State lead agencies, and other affected entities.
The bill directs EPA to coordinate with USDA to obtain agronomic use data (from USDA and industry) and information about the availability and economic viability of alternatives, and to publish how USDA-provided data were used or why they were not used.
On content alone, the bill is a modest, administratively focused statute that is sympathetic to agricultural stakeholders and emphasizes transparency — factors that can facilitate passage. Countervailing factors include its effect on EPA regulatory discretion and ESA-related processes, which can mobilize opposition and complicate Senate floor consideration. Absence of direct spending and the presence of a waiver mechanism improve prospects, but moderate controversy lowers the overall probability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted administrative/operational amendment to FIFRA that prescribes specific coordination duties, docket publication requirements, and economic-analysis obligations while integrating explicitly with existing statutory frameworks (FFDCA and ESA).
Weight given to economic impacts vs. primacy of EPA’s public-health and environmental mandates — liberals emphasize protective standards, conservatives emphasize cost/feasibility.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Weight given to economic impacts vs. primacy of EPA’s public-health and environmental mandates — liberals emphasize protective standards, conservatives emphasize cost/feasibility.
A mainstream liberal would view this bill cautiously or negatively.
They would acknowledge that coordination with USDA and publication of economic analyses could inform practical impacts on growers, but would be concerned that the provisions elevate agricultural economic interests and industry data in ways that could delay or weaken health- and environment-focused EPA decisions.
They would worry about potential politicization of science (including FFDCA tolerance decisions and ESA-related measures) and about the waiver that permits registrant agreement to alter coordination.
A mainstream centrist would see practical value in better interagency coordination and in publishing economic analyses of mitigation measures, while also flagging procedural risks.
They would appreciate efforts to consider grower impacts and alternatives, but would want safeguards to avoid undermining EPA’s statutory responsibilities or creating routine delays.
Overall, a centrist would view the bill as a mixed-proposal that could be improved with clearer timelines, standards for data use, and protections for scientific independence.
A mainstream conservative would be broadly supportive, seeing the bill as a corrective to what they view as EPA’s occasional regulatory overreach by ensuring agricultural stakeholders and USDA are consulted and that costs to growers are considered.
They would welcome required economic analyses and USDA involvement to protect farming interests and avoid unintended burdens from mitigation measures.
Some conservatives might still want guardrails to ensure the process is streamlined, but overall this bill aligns with priorities of reducing regulatory harm to agriculture and increasing interagency collaboration.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill is a modest, administratively focused statute that is sympathetic to agricultural stakeholders and emphasizes transparency — factors that can facilitate passage. Countervailing factors include its effect on EPA regulatory discretion and ESA-related processes, which can mobilize opposition and complicate Senate floor consideration. Absence of direct spending and the presence of a waiver mechanism improve prospects, but moderate controversy lowers the overall probability.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Weight given to economic impacts vs. primacy of EPA’s public-health and environmental mandates — liberals emphasize protective standards, c…
On content alone, the bill is a modest, administratively focused statute that is sympathetic to agricultural stakeholders and emphasizes tr…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted administrative/operational amendment to FIFRA that prescribes specific coordination duties, docket publication requirements, and economic-analysis oblig…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.