PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 25, 2003
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to revise registration and maintenance fee requirements for pesticides. (Fees collected are used to help defray the administrative costs of pesticide regulation.)
Modifies certain timing requirements as they concern the submission of product-specific data and other regulatory action.
Increases and then decreases the maximum amount of maintenance fees payable by registrants, including small businesses, through FY 2008, with the highest levels of fees occurring during FY 2005 and 2006.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Extends the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) authority to collect maintenance, but not tolerance, fees through FY 2008. (Maintenance fees are assessed on already registered or reregistered pesticides; tolerance fees are assessed on pesticides used on food or animal feed which are subject to more stringent regulatory requirements.)
Directs the Administrator of the EPA to assess and collect covered pesticide registration service fees for applications submitted from FY 2004 onward. (Registration fees would apply to new pesticide applications only.) Provides transitional requirements for pending applications.
Sets forth the Administrator's responsibilities concerning the publication and revision of the schedule of registration service fees, including a mandatory increase by FY 2006.
Permits the waiver or reduction of these fees for minor uses or small businesses. Provides for partial fee refunds when an application is withdrawn or at the Administrator's discretion.
Establishes the Pesticide Registration Fund in the Treasury to collect registration fees. Limits the use of these funds to associated regulatory costs, except for limited earmarks for worker protection and the review of new inert ingredients.
Makes these funds available only to the extent provided in advance through appropriations acts. Prohibits the assessment of registration fees in any year where the amount appropriated for the Office of Pesticide Programs of the EPA is less than the amount appropriated for that Office for FY 2002.
Addresses several issues concerning decision time review periods, including the goal of reducing existing periods, schedule publication requirements, determining their start, and how they are impacted by waiver or reduction requests.
Provides for judicial review if the Administrator fails to make a determination on an application before the expiration of the applicable decision time review period.
Terminates the registration service fee after FY 2010, with a phase out occuring during the final two years.
People & committees
Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS] · R–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1664 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1664 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1664 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1664 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.