1 **Attachment D Summary of Consultations**  This attachment is available as part of the electronic **docket EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OPP -**  **2011 -**  **0 843**  and is part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement
**C om**  **panies C**  **ontacted:** A. NI SSO America 212
- 430
- 0350 info@nissoamerican.com B. Ba ye r CropSciences Bob Greenawalt Imort Operations 919
- 549
- 2263 C. Sy ngenta Mike Blithe 800
- 334
- 9481 D. TI DE International Cheryl Kinsley 949
- 679
- 3535 ckinsley @tide
- usa.com E. Norman G. Jensen 218
- 286
- 3121 gaj@ngjensen.com **Summary of Questions and R**  **esponses:** 1 . Are the instructions for submission clear?

— Please include an y comments on frequency of information collection here. A.

– yes B.

– no ..... Infiling the NOA, please clarify if the entry

date (Box 15) is the actual date allowed entry

by customs, OR the arrival date (y ou can’t fill this out if it is the actual date allowed entry

by customs, as y ou need an NOA to acquire “entry .” Provide direction on what should be done if the shipment is delay ed or there is a carrier change after the NOA has been filed and approved (and therefore the entry date or shipper is incorrect). For country of origin (box 11) do y ou wish to know the Producing facility that is on the label, OR the ACTUAL production (meaning formulation) facilit y. In the event a product is relabeled off

- shore, the country

of origin on the customs form and the NOA may differ. For Brand name of product (box 6) which brand name should be used if there are multiple? Can direction be placed on the form as to how much advance notice EPA would like a form r eceived by ?2

C.

– no..... Those blocks designated as self explanatory are not necessarily

so. Need clarification on net quantities and UOM requirements. CFR 40 156.10 (d) (2)(3)

– labels require UOM in L iters or Lbs. International trade is done in KGS and L iter s. Most of labels have both the English and Metric net quantities on the labels. There are inconsistencies between EPA regions in what is acceptable on NOA in regards to net quantity UOM. Country

of origin for EPA purposes needs clarification, often confus ed with CBP country

or origin for entry

purposes. D.

– yes E.

– ye s 2 . Would you be interested in electronic reporting of data? A.

– yes B.

– yes C.

– yes D.

– yes E.

– yes 3
. What are the tasks and associated labo r burdens (in hours) involved in filing an NOA?
**A B**  **C D**  **E** Read or hear instructions 0.25 0.1 0.25 Pla n activities 0.1 1 Create information 0.15 0.5 0.5 Gather information 0.25 0.08 0.15 0.5 1 Process, compile, and/or review information for accuracy 0.25 0.02 0.1 0.25 Complete written forms 0.25 0.08 0.25 0.5 0.35 Record, disclose, or display information 0.25 0.15 0.25 Store, file, and/or maintain information 0.1 0.25 Other (specify) 0.25 Other (specify) Total (hrs) 1.25 0.18 1.1 1.5 3.853

4 . other comments? A. none B. The NOA process, for the most part, is fine. However, the sections of greatest concern are the entry

date (box 15), Carrier (Box 13) and the CBI provisions of the NOA. Boxes 13 & 15 have already

been discussed, but in summary , we feel EPA’s expectations of the data quality

of these two fields is unrealistic, as we have been directed that the changing of an approved NOA is a potential FIFRA violation. Even if such corrections were possible, it would require resubmission of the NOA process, and due to the number of incidents in which the entry date or carrier change due to circumstances bey ond our control, this would greatly increase the cost of filing NOAs. Also of concern is that the CBI declaration is being handled inconsistently across EPA regions. Some regions, specificall y Region 2 (where the best ocean freight rates are to be had) make Bayer undergo additional legal review of their CBI claims to determine if they are justified. In the case of region 2, it has been stated to Bay er that the delay could be upwards of several weeks to a month. This amounts of a defacto prohibition of our right to declare this information as CBI if it moves through region 2 and interferes with our ab ility to do business. Furthermore, our competitors and business intelligence consultants attempt to obtain this information to gain insights into our confidential business dealings which also impacts our marketing and sales divisions. Bay er requests a cons istent and uniform CBI handling procedure that does not delay our abilit y to receive imports and deliver them to their respective destinations, and increase the cost of doing business unnecessarily. Electronic NOAs would definitely increase efficiency

and reduce cost. Finally , some regions request accompanying documentation (e.g. labels, pro
- forma invoices, copies of the customs entry

forms, etc.) to facilitate approval of the NOA. Bay er does not mind providing information requested b y the EPA, but it is be ing requested inconsistently across regions. Bay er requests that such additional information be standardized in the NOA process, and across regions. C. The greatest cost impact on our business is not in the submission of the NOA’s, but the delay in receivi ng the approval forms back from the Regional Offices in a timely manner to expedite final CBP entry and release. We import multiple shipments of the same active ingredient over the same port of entry numerous times during a production season. Currentl y non e of the EPA regional offices will grant blanket NOA’s for multiple shipments arriving in defined period of time. This creates excessive administrative on the part of our brokers, and adds uncertaint y to our supply chain in the expected release date and ar rival of the goods at the final destination. D. none. E. none.4