State Regulator's Perspective

[John R. Lake <jlake@state.pa.us>]

Good Afternoon to the Beltway Insiders, Local Officials, and All other Participants from the Private and Public Sectors:

Well I have been monitoring this discussion since last Tuesday, waiting for today to offer my perspective as a state regulatory official, involved in pesticide programs, on the subject of this dialog.

Clearly, EPA is faced with two major challenges in fulfilling the objectives of the proposed "Public Participation Policies."

Number One: was described by a commentator yesterday as follows: 

"The model is skewed toward literate, articulate people who catch on quickly when presented with information."  

How do you reach those who do not have the financial or intellectual resources to impact decisions that affect them?

Number Two: How can the Agency conduct business in a timely fashion and still consider a large volume of public comments in developing final decisions?

It is interesting to me that as controversial as pesticide issues have become that no one from the U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs is participating in this discussion, nor have I noted any of my colleagues in other State Lead Agencies (SLAs)for pesticides participating in today's session.  Perhaps its' still too early for California.

For the benefit of those who are not familiar with what this policy describes as the relationship between the EPA and the SLAs as "co-regulators" I would like to touch on several issues that illustrate how poorly EPA has interacted with the States in reaching final decisions related to the use of pesticides.  

Five years ago Congress unanimously passed and the President signed into Law the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).  This Law was enacted to address the need to update an out of date provision in the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) known as the "Delaney Clause."  However, the FQPA changed a great deal more than the limited corrections needed at the time.  The FQPA included provisions that required a major overhaul of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  In preparation for the additional workload the FQPA would impose on the Agency, EPA implemented rulemaking to exempt 31 pesticide active ingredients from regulation under FIFRA (40 CFR 152.25 (g)).  The majority of the SLAs opposed this action at the time, and most have maintained their opposition to this action, yet the Agency still remains deaf and blind to the SLAs on this issue.

In November of 1996 the SLAs were invited to participate in a meeting to address FQPA changes to the process by which EPA approves the Emergency use of a pesticide for a purpose for which it is not currently approved (FIFRA Sec. 18).  An SLA Task Force was formed which proposed a number of changes to allow SLAs and EPA to better manage this program.  To date none of the recommendations have been adopted.

EPA has recently negotiated several major pesticide cancellations, registrations, and risk reduction actions (e.g. Chlorpryifos, Diazinon, Phosphine gas, etc.) without considering input from the SLAs.  So, much for being co-regulators.  

Therefore, regarding issue one I believe that EPA will have to deal with identification and communication with stakeholders on a case by case basis.  The Agency's Office of the Inspector General and Office of General Council must ensure that Environmental Justice is considered in all actions for all, not just the wealthy or politically powerful!  On issue number two the Agency must, as previously suggested encourage citizen action groups to funnel input in a manageable format.  EPA also should consider all input in the implementation of final actions, even from their regulatory partners. (where's the EJ for the SLAs?) 

Mr. John R. Lake
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION 
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Plant Industry 
2301 North Cameron Street 
Harrisburg PA 17110-9408
Phone: (717) 772-5211 
FAX: (717) 783-3275 
e-mail:  jlake@state.pa.us