March 28, 2005
Honorable Stephen L. Johnson
Acting Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) is writing to express our concern about the future of federal/state cooperative agreements administered under the Enforcement Grant Program of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Specifically, we are concerned that the proposed “outcome measures” will have a detrimental effect on a very successful partnership.
As you know, the state agriculture departments have long been the lead state agencies for implementing and enforcing the laws regulating the production, labeling, distribution, sale, use and disposal of pesticides. NASDA and our affiliate organization, the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO), have previously conveyed to EPA the need for improved funding of state pesticide cooperative programs.
As a result of the President’s Management Agenda, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been reviewing federal programs for their “effectiveness,” using the Program Assessment Rating Tool. One of the programs reviewed was the Pesticide Enforcement Grant Program administered by the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA). These grant funds assist states in maintaining a field pesticide enforcement program. The Pesticide Enforcement program received a rating of “ineffective” primarily due to a perceived absence of outcome measures. OECA has proposed three outcome measures for the states to use in measuring program effectiveness and has requested comments. NASDA believes that the proposed measures will not adequately measure program success, and may have unintended negative effects on small businesses, farms and other regulated entities.
OECA has proposed that the three measures used be the number of repeat violators, the number of non-complying entities that come into compliance, and the average cost per enforcement action. These proposed measures do not adequately evaluate the effectiveness of education and compliance assistance efforts in the states, nor recognize that states have achieved overwhelming compliance rates from their regulated communities. The most distressing portion of this proposal is that by definition an “effective inspection” is one that results in an enforcement action. If program success (and possibly funding) are held to this measure of success, the natural response of the states will be to perform more inspections, find more violations, and execute more enforcement actions. This will result in an enforcement program that does not seek to solve problems, effectively manage pesticide use and ensure compliance, but one that seeks only to swing its regulatory hammer. The real losers in this scenario are the regulated businesses and farms, as they spend more time and resources defending themselves in hearings, and writing checks for administrative penalties.
The Pesticide Enforcement Program has been effective for many years by blending all pesticide management activities together to form a consolidated approach that protects the environment and the public, and allows the regulated community to go about its business without undue interference from the government. The approach that OMB insists be taken by EPA in documenting program effectiveness ignores the integrated and complex nature of a program that long ago evolved beyond counting enforcement actions as an indicator of a success. NASDA’s Natural Resources and Pesticide Management Committee recently met to discuss this issue and will propose alternatives that we hope will satisfy OMB’s need for performance measures as well as providing meaningful information about states’ pesticide enforcement efforts in context with all of the states’ pesticide management activities.
NASDA strongly endorses the concept of performance measures, but encourages EPA to work with us and AAPCO in developing measures appropriate to both the state and federal government.
Sincerely,
Nathan Rudgers, NASDA President
Commissioner, New York Department of Agriculture and Markets
Don Ament, Chairman, NASDA Natural Resource & Pesticide Management Committee
Commissioner, Colorado Department of Agriculture
cc: Jon Scholl, Agricultural Counselor to the EPA Administrator
Richard Colbert, Director, Agriculture/OC/OECA
Jim Jones, Director, OPP/OPPTS