|
March 16, 2004
Assistant
Director for Endangered Species
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Room 420
Arlington, VA 22203
ATTN: 1018-AI95 The
National Grange is the nation's oldest general farm and rural public interest
organization. Founded in 1867, today the national Grange represents over 200,000 members affiliated with 3000 local, county and state Grange chapters. We appreciate
this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule regarding consultation among
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding the registration and environmental
assessment of pesticides, as those products may relate to the Endangered Species
Act.
The National
Grange strongly supports the approach taken in the proposed counterpart regulations.
We believe that the procedure outlined by the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), appropriately recognizes the expertise of each agency while maintaining
appropriate statutory responsibilities for each agency. The
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. 301 et seq.)
requires prospective pesticide registrants to provide considerable data to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before a product may be registered. EPA
conducts risk assessments on the possible impacts of proposed products on plant
and animal species, including listed species, as one factor in its consideration
whether and under what conditions to register a pesticide product. The
Endangered Species Act also contains a process by which the agencies charged with
administering the Act, either FWS or NOAA Fisheries, for marine species, must
consult with federal agencies proposing to undertake actions that may affect listed
species. In the course of this consultation process, FWS and NMFS conduct risk
assessments of the proposed action on listed species, very similar to the risk
assessments undertaken by EPA in the registration or re-registration of pesticides.
Risk assessments
are expensive, time-consuming and data intensive exercises. In situations where
pesticide registrations might impact listed species, current process requires
that EPA and the Services both conduct essentially the same risk assessments for
the same products on the same species. All three agencies conduct thorough and
comprehensive assessments on listed species. EPA and the Services are on parallel
tracks that duplicate the work of the other. Having two agencies repeating the
same work is redundant and inefficient. It is a waste of taxpayer money. Good
government demands that EPA and the Services get together to determine how best
to work with one another to satisfy the missions of both FIFRA and ESA through
one, joint process. Counterpart
regulations will address the problem. They provide a mechanism for "action agencies"
with expertise to cut through red tape to provide timely and efficient decision-making.
By requiring that the Services and the EPA agree on the methodology to be used
in the assessments, the Services retain their overall responsibility under the
ESA to ensure that actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed
species. The
counterpart regulations provide an innovative way for EPA and the Services to
stretch scarce resources to ensure that pesticide registrations comply with the
ESA. In addition to allowing more pesticide decisions to comply with the ESA,
the counterpart regulations will also facilitate the registration of newer and
safer pesticide products. The result is a "win-win" situation for both pesticide
users and the environment. The
National Grange urges quick enactment of the proposed rule.
Sincerely, Leroy
Watson, Legislative Director
National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry
| 
